AgnosticWeb.com - Contingent evolution: what pushes it?

Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (reply)

dhw — Sun, 09 Nov 2014 15:07:31 +0000

Dhw: That is precisely my point: BOTH explanations are logically incoherent.-TONY: The biggest difference between the two is that theism accepts that there is a God, and that we can not know his origins unless he decides to enlighten us. Atheism makes up a story from which something comes from nothing and truly believes that it is possible for something to come from nothing.-We don't know the “First Cause”. Theism makes up a story that it is a conscious something that has either always been there or came from nothing. Atheism makes up a story that a non-conscious something has always been there or came from nothing. The only difference I can see is that theism believes (not “accepts”) in something that won't tell us where it came from, and atheism believes in something that can't tell us where it came from. TONY: LOL I am not offended. That quote was put there based on my previous assertion that naturalism, and by extension evolution, were created not because they are accurate, but because they allow their believers to escape moral accountability, in a way. DHW: Why do you persist in equating evolution with atheism? (If it comes to that, why do you persist in associating atheism with immorality? Should we judge Christianity by the actions of paedophile priests?) You appear to think that believers in the theory, from Darwin himself right through to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, and our very own David Turell, are either frauds looking to misbehave, or self-deluders unaware of the real reason for their belief. The Archbishop, the Pope and our David actively believe in God, so how will their belief in theistic evolution enable them to escape your God-linked moral accountability? In the immortal words of John McEnroe, you can't be serious.-TONY: I didn't equate Atheism with immorality, I simply pointed out Huxley, also known as Darwin's Bulldog, outright admitted why he pushed so hard for that naturalist theory.-Aldous Huxley was the grandson of T.H. Huxley, who was Darwin's Bulldog, was neither theist nor atheist, and coined the term “agnostic”.-TONY: It was never that it made sense, only that it gave him a way out of moral accountability to a higher court whose laws were not man's laws. I.E. If things are mechanical than it doesn't matter what he does so long as it can be justified because when he dies, he is simply dead. This same mode of thinking allowed for Eugenics and a host of other dehumanizing modes of thinking. -The quote concerns the philosophy of meaninglessness, which may provide a philosophical basis for immorality, but doesn't mean that people who disbelieve in God can't find meaning in life. (Aldous H. later turned to mysticism). While religion provides meaning, throughout its history one sect has persecuted others in the belief that their god(s) want(s) them to do so. This “dehumanizing mode of thinking” allowed for throwing Christians to the lions, burning heretics at the stake, and slaughtering people of all denominations. As you say later, “Humans are masters at justifying their crappy actions to themselves and others.” This has nothing to do with the truth of theism, atheism or evolution.-TONY: In short, I am not equating atheism or evolution with immorality, I am saying that the beginnings of naturalism and the push for atheism had their roots in it.-You are basing this assumption on a paragraph taken (possibly out of context) from a book written in 1937. Darwin published Origin in 1859, following decades of painstaking research, and feared that his theory might offend religious people. His contemporary Alfred Russel Wallace, an anti-materialist and the hero of many theistic evolutionists, believed that evolution was designed and purpose-driven. These two dedicated scientists provided the “roots” of evolutionary theory. How can you claim that their motives were “rooted” in a desire to justify immorality? You also persist in ignoring the fact that countless theists believe in the theory. Switching the subject from evolution to the roots of atheism simply won't wash. It is a genuine attempt to understand how life on this planet has developed from comparatively simple forms to the complexities of ourselves, and its exploitation for other purposes is no more relevant to its possible truth than the exploitation of the bible for other purposes. TONY: Not all subscribers to a theory or religion are good or bad, moral or immoral. Once that mode of thinking has taken root, it doesn't matter because it is touted as fact and people grow up believing it without knowing or caring about the origins of it, much the same way that good people fuel up their care without thinking about the wars that were fought and people that died so they could do so cheaply. People are people, and people will do whatever they think they can justify under their dominant mode of thinking. Humans are masters at justifying their crappy actions to themselves and others.-We are in complete agreement, so long as you acknowledge that these observations apply just as much to the religious as to the irreligious, and have nothing to do with the accuracy or otherwise of the theory of evolution. --

Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (reply)

Balance_Maintained — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 20:36:46 +0000

TONY: We can't explain the beginning of the big bang either, since it presupposes the existence of laws and something for those laws to act upon. Claiming that the theistic version does something that the Atheistic/Naturalistic doesn't is disingenuous. > > That is precisely my point: BOTH explanations are logically incoherent. >-The biggest difference between the two is that theism accepts that there is a God, and that we can not know his origins unless he decides to enlighten us. Atheism makes up a story from which something comes from nothing and truly believes that it is possible for something to come from nothing. > TONY: LOL I am not offended. That quote was put there based on my previous assertion that naturalism, and by extension evolution, were created not because they are accurate, but because they allow their believers to escape moral accountability, in a way. > >DHW: I couldn't understand why you had suddenly abandoned our rational discussion, ignoring the detailed responses I had given to your objections - nearly all of which are covered by theistic evolution. I'm relieved that you were not offended, but dismayed by the actual reason for your pulling out. Why do you persist in equating evolution with atheism? (If it comes to that, why do you persist in associating atheism with immorality? Should we judge Christianity by the actions of paedophile priests?) You appear to think that believers in the theory, from Darwin himself right through to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, and our very own David Turell, are either frauds looking to misbehave, or self-deluders unaware of the real reason for their belief. The Archbishop, the Pope and our David actively believe in God, so how will their belief in theistic evolution enable them to escape your God-linked moral accountability? In the immortal words of John McEnroe, you can't be serious.- I didn't equate Atheism with immorality, I simply pointed out Huxley, also known as Darwin's Bulldog, outright admitted why he pushed so hard for that naturalist theory. It was never that it made sense, only that it gave him a way out of moral accountability to a higher court whose laws were not man's laws. I.E. If things are mechanical than it doesn't matter what he does so long as it can be justified because when he dies, he is simply dead. This same mode of thinking allowed for Eugenics and a host of other dehumanizing modes of thinking. In short, I am not equating atheism or evolution with immorality, I am saying that the beginnings of naturalism and the push for atheism had their roots in it. Not all subscribers to a theory or religion are good or bad, moral or immoral. Once that mode of thinking has taken root, it doesn't matter because it is touted as fact and people grow up believing it without knowing or caring about the origins of it, much the same way that good people fuel up their care without thinking about the wars that were fought and people that died so they could do so cheaply.- People are people, and people will do whatever they think they can justify under their dominant mode of thinking. Humans are masters at justifying their crappy actions to themselves and others.

Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (reply)

dhw — Sat, 08 Nov 2014 12:24:55 +0000

TONY: http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html-DHW: I agree with much of what they say about origins, which is a major reason for my not being an atheist, but they also inadvertently pinpoint a major reason for my not being a theist. In their attack on Hawking , “Lennox explains by saying: “If I say ‘X creates X', I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent.” And to presuppose the existence of God to account for God's existence is also logically incoherent. TONY: We can't explain the beginning of the big bang either, since it presupposes the existence of laws and something for those laws to act upon. Claiming that the theistic version does something that the Atheistic/Naturalistic doesn't is disingenuous. -That is precisely my point: BOTH explanations are logically incoherent.-TONY: LOL I am not offended. That quote was put there based on my previous assertion that naturalism, and by extension evolution, were created not because they are accurate, but because they allow their believers to escape moral accountability, in a way.-I couldn't understand why you had suddenly abandoned our rational discussion, ignoring the detailed responses I had given to your objections - nearly all of which are covered by theistic evolution. I'm relieved that you were not offended, but dismayed by the actual reason for your pulling out. Why do you persist in equating evolution with atheism? (If it comes to that, why do you persist in associating atheism with immorality? Should we judge Christianity by the actions of paedophile priests?) You appear to think that believers in the theory, from Darwin himself right through to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, and our very own David Turell, are either frauds looking to misbehave, or self-deluders unaware of the real reason for their belief. The Archbishop, the Pope and our David actively believe in God, so how will their belief in theistic evolution enable them to escape your God-linked moral accountability? In the immortal words of John McEnroe, you can't be serious.

Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (reply)

Balance_Maintained — Fri, 07 Nov 2014 19:36:31 +0000

TONY: http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html > >DHW: I agree with much of what they say about origins, which is a major reason for my not being an atheist, but they also inadvertently pinpoint a major reason for my not being a theist. In their attack on Hawking , “Lennox explains by saying: “If I say ‘X creates X', I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent.” And to presuppose the existence of God to account for God's existence is also logically incoherent. > -We can't explain the beginning of the big bang either, since it presupposes the existence of laws and something for those laws to act upon. Claiming that the theistic version does something that the Atheistic/Naturalistic doesn't is disingenuous. - >DHW: This is a truly shocking “confession”, taken (out of context, according to some critics) from a book entitled Ends and Means that Huxley wrote in 1937 - he died in 1963 - but I have no idea why you've offered it as a response to a rational discussion on the possibility of theistic evolution. I would also find it shocking if you genuinely believed that everyone who doubted your version of life and its history was driven to do so by the self-interest exemplified in the above quote. However, if in the context of theistic evolution or any other subject, you find my ignorance - which I fully acknowledge, though I would vehemently reject the charge of malice or self-interest - too frustrating, we should end that particular discussion. I remain as anxious as ever not to offend, and despite my stubborn refusal to come down from my picket fence, I find our exchanges extremely interesting and valuable!-LOL I am not offended. That quote was put there based on my previous assertion that naturalism, and by extension evolution, were created not because they are accurate, but because they allow their believers to escape moral accountability, in a way.

Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (reply)

David Turell — Fri, 07 Nov 2014 16:10:52 +0000

> dhw: One of your arguments against evolution was “the lack of time. (They explain it away with punctuated equilibrium)”. I pointed out to you that p.e. explains [I should have said describes] “the apparent jumps (probably associated with changes in the environment after periods of stasis).” This has nothing to do with lack of time, and as you pointed out yourself, it actually shortens the time available for change. As I see it, the theory does fit the evidence - there are long periods with no apparent change - but yes, it's a theory, not a fact. From the standpoint of theistic evolution, however, it strengthens the case for divine planning or intervention, though I don't see how it invalidates the case for common descent.-You are quite correct, Punc-Eq is a descriptive term but an observational term, and not much of a theory. It does suggest divine planning and it doesn't deny common descent.

Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (reply)

dhw — Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:52:00 +0000

dhw: Punctuated equilibrium explains the apparent jumps (probably associated with changes in the environment after periods of stasis). -DAVID: You surprise me. Punc-eq is a term given to an observation of species appearing following stasis. It is a descriptive term. It explains nothing. -Quite right. Careless of me. I was responding to an item on Tony's list of objections to evolutionary theory: "the lack of time. (They explain it away with punctuated equilibrium)". I have made the correction in my latest response to him. Thank you.

Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (reply)

dhw — Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:44:25 +0000

TONY: Gradualism vs. Punctuated Equilibrium-Punctuated equilibrium is based on the idea that we cannot see changes in a species, so there must (this is typical language that means the evidence does not fit the theory)be very long periods of no changes of species. That is the equilibrium part of punctuated equilibrium. However, we do know that species do change (but not the extent, and no evidence of cross-species changes), so there has to be a period of time where those changes occur. Punctuated equilibrium asserts these changes over a relatively short amount of time "punctuating" the long periods of equilibrium.-One of your arguments against evolution was “the lack of time. (They explain it away with punctuated equilibrium)”. I pointed out to you that p.e. explains [I should have said describes] “the apparent jumps (probably associated with changes in the environment after periods of stasis).” This has nothing to do with lack of time, and as you pointed out yourself, it actually shortens the time available for change. As I see it, the theory does fit the evidence - there are long periods with no apparent change - but yes, it's a theory, not a fact. From the standpoint of theistic evolution, however, it strengthens the case for divine planning or intervention, though I don't see how it invalidates the case for common descent.-TONY: http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html-I agree with much of what they say about origins, which is a major reason for my not being an atheist, but they also inadvertently pinpoint a major reason for my not being a theist. In their attack on Hawking , “Lennox explains by saying: “If I say ‘X creates X', I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent.” And to presuppose the existence of God to account for God's existence is also logically incoherent. TONY (quoting Aldous Huxley): "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. "— *Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p. 19. (Grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]-I think that's enough. Believe, choose not to believe, or choose not to choose whatever you like.-This is a truly shocking “confession”, taken (out of context, according to some critics) from a book entitled Ends and Means that Huxley wrote in 1937 - he died in 1963 - but I have no idea why you've offered it as a response to a rational discussion on the possibility of theistic evolution. I would also find it shocking if you genuinely believed that everyone who doubted your version of life and its history was driven to do so by the self-interest exemplified in the above quote. However, if in the context of theistic evolution or any other subject, you find my ignorance - which I fully acknowledge, though I would vehemently reject the charge of malice or self-interest - too frustrating, we should end that particular discussion. I remain as anxious as ever not to offend, and despite my stubborn refusal to come down from my picket fence, I find our exchanges extremely interesting and valuable!

Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (reply)

Balance_Maintained — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 20:43:06 +0000

Gradualism vs. Punctuated Equilibrium-Punctuated equilibrium is based on the idea that we cannot see changes in a species, so there must (this is typical language that means the evidence does not fit the theory)be very long periods of no changes of species. That is the equilibrium part of punctuated equilibrium. However, we do know that species do change (but not the extent, and no evidence of cross-species changes), so there has to be a period of time where those changes occur. Punctuated equilibrium asserts these changes over a relatively short amount of time "punctuating" the long periods of equilibrium.-http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html- "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. "— *Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p. 19. (Grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]- I think that's enough. Believe, choose not to believe, or choose not to choose whatever you like.

Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 15:21:30 +0000

dhw: Punctuated equilibrium explains the apparent jumps (probably associated with changes in the environment after periods of stasis).-You surprise me. Punc-eq is a term given to an observation of species appearing following stasis. It is a descriptive term. It explains nothing.

Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (reply)

dhw — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 13:49:09 +0000

DHW: (I still don't understand why you refuse to consider the possibility of evolution as a process initiated and guided by God, which would remove most of your objections anyway.) TONY: Because I see no case for evolution. Why would I try and fit in a theory that I see as even more fanciful than "God did it"? -You see it as fanciful because you focus on aspects that theistic evolutionists have already rejected. As my agnostic credentials make me a poor advocate, here is a website which sets out to “present an evolutionary understanding of God's creation”. This article is purely scientific, but you will find other links that incorporate God. Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution ...-https://biologos.org/questions/cambrian-explosion-DHW: Evolution itself is in a period of stasis, so of course there has been no direct observation - there has been no direct observation of God creating new species either... Punctuated equilibrium explains the apparent jumps (probably associated with changes in the environment after periods of stasis).-TONY: Is it? Or could it be that it simply did not occur as defined. Punctuated equilibrium makes the problem worse, not better, because that would require extremely rapid evolution, instantaneous, one might say. Now, since the text book definition of evolution is 'change over time', does 'instantaneous fully formed appearance' of an organism fit that description?-Punctuated equilibrium is Gould's challenge to Darwin's gradualism, in the sense that evolution happens in fits and starts, not as a continuous, smooth progression. The Cambrian “Explosion” lasted for 10-20 million years (different sources give different figures), so rapidity is a relative term. But theists don't have a problem with rapidity. I have no idea how a non-fully-formed organism would leave behind a fossil, or what it might look like, but according to BioLogos, new fossils (they give examples) from the Cambrian and Precambrian era are “bringing more clarity to the evolutionary puzzle”, and “It is also important to realize that many of the Cambrian organisms [...] did not possess all of the defining characteristics of modern animal body plans. These defining characteristics appeared progressively over a much longer period of time." DHW: The fossil record clearly shows a progression from simpler to more complex organisms, and what David calls the patterns suggest common ancestry. TONY: I suppose that depends on what you are implying with the word "progression". If you mean a linear curve, then you would be mistaken. If, instead, you meant a stepwise series of gaps from less complex to more, then yes, that is indeed what it shows, and that is antithetical to evolution.-On the basis that all forms of life are descended from earlier forms (which underpins the whole theory), every innovation marks a change or step. Darwin's random mutations, my hypothetical inventive mechanism, and David's hypothetical 3.7-billion-year-old computer programme or divine dabblings all produce innovative steps within existing organisms. If the mutation works, you have a new, fully functioning form (no gap). If it doesn't, it won't survive. Over time, each new organism may itself be transformed by further innovations: hence the jerky (punctuated) progression from single cell to complex organisms like us humans and our fellow animals. Your alternative is that God created each one from scratch (= separate creation), so where do you draw the line between separate creation and the evolution you dismiss? If limbs did not evolve from fins, they were separately created. If wings did not evolve from limbs, they were separately created. Insect wings are different from birds' wings, so they were separately created. Insects nearly all have the same basic structure, which is why evolutionists propose common ancestry, but without common ancestry the implication would be that God created, say, bees, grasshoppers and ants separately too. Extend the separateness across the different “kinds” of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, along with all the innovations that have led to their separateness, and you have a vast collection of organisms, all seeming to spring from nowhere (no antecedents), but actually placed on Earth by the invisible hand of God. Why do you find that less “fanciful” than God creating an inventive “brain” within organisms, or preprogramming evolution, or dabbling with existing organisms?-dhw: The God theory is also a theory and not a fact, and is based on a great variety of assumptions without one shred of objectively verifiable evidence, but neither you nor I would see that as a reason to dismiss it. TONY: I would say that the evidence is acutely in favor of the God theory.-Of course you would, although I'm sure you would accept that the evidence is not objectively verifiable. Evolutionists say the evidence is acutely in favour of the theory that all forms of life descended from earlier forms, and as I keep pointing out, there is no conflict between those two theories, unless you insist on identifying evolutionary theory with its atheistic versions. According to BioLogos, "The important thing is that [...] God's sustaining presence undergirds all of life's history from the beginning to the present." But they're evolutionists. Ignorance, malice, self-interest?

Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (reply)

Balance_Maintained — Tue, 04 Nov 2014 20:47:54 +0000

DHW: (I still don't understand why you refuse to consider the possibility of evolution as a process initiated and guided by God, which would remove most of your objections anyway.)-Because I see no case for evolution. Why would I try and fit in a theory that I see as even more fanciful than "God did it"?->DHW: Evolution itself is in a period of stasis, so of course there has been no direct observation - there has been no direct observation of God creating new species either... Punctuated equilibrium explains the apparent jumps (probably associated with changes in the environment after periods of stasis).-Is it? Or could it be that it simply did not occur as defined. Punctuated equilibrium makes the problem worse, not better, because that would require extremely rapid evolution, instantaneous, one might say. Now, since the text book definition of evolution is 'change over time', does 'instantaneous fully formed appearance' of an organism fit that description?- >DHW: The fossil record clearly shows a progression from simpler to more complex organisms, and what David calls the patterns suggest common ancestry. -I suppose that depends on what you are implying with the word "progression". If you mean a linear curve, then you would be mistaken. If, instead, you meant a stepwise series of gaps from less complex to more, then yes, that is indeed what it shows, and that is antithetical to evolution.- >The God theory is also a theory and not a fact, and is based on a great variety of assumptions without one shred of objectively verifiable evidence, but neither you nor I would see that as a reason to dismiss it.-I would say that the evidence is acutely in favor of the God theory.

Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (reply)

dhw — Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:37:31 +0000

DHW: Once more you are generalizing. “Explain life” is not clear. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life (atheists plump for abiogenesis), but focuses on how the first forms of life developed into the vast variety we see today. ... No, it's not a fact, and gradualism and random mutations are highly dubious elements of the theory, but if a theistic scientist like David believes in common descent, and “the science findings strongly suggest such a mechanism”, I don't know why you can't at least keep an open mind instead of dismissing it. -TONY: I did say explain life, not the origins thereof, and that is exactly what evolution tries to do. It tries to explain (in relation to life and living organisms) why we are the way we are, and why everything else is the way it is, and how it all got to be that way. It is based on a tremendous number of assumptions, not the least of which are: • The efficacy of random chance • That the accretion of tiny mutations to create something new. • The the accretion of tiny mutations to create something useful. • That it can all be explained in mechanical terms. • That it is possible for a species to become a different species, even a member of a different phylogenic family of species. • And as a sub-premise, that all of this can happen undirected, without outside influence. And they are more than happy to discard/overlook/otherwise ignore: • A fossil record that does not support the theory(Species show up fully formed). • No direct observation of ANY organism breaking the actual species boundary(in fact some proponents often change the definition of species depending on who they are debating) • The lack of time. (The explain it away with punctuated equilibrium) • That genetics has shown (repeatedly) that the phylogenetic tree is burnt up. • That the genome FIXES itself when mutations occur, thus undercutting the prime mechanism for evolution. • That mutations are, by the vast majority, harmful instead of beneficial. • That there are tremendous number of 'chicken and egg' scenarios that make a given adaptation useless without a prior or simultaneous mutation of one or more different species. (Flowers, Bees, Humming Birds, and Beetles) Science discards a theory in part or in its entirety when it doesn't fit the data. The data doesn't fit, yet it is still held as fact. That is not science.-This is an impressive-looking list, but almost every item on it has already been covered in our past exchanges. You have quoted my point about the dubiousness of random mutations and gradualism, which some would say adds weight to the case for theistic evolution. (I still don't understand why you refuse to consider the possibility of evolution as a process initiated and guided by God, which would remove most of your objections anyway.) Evolution itself is in a period of stasis, so of course there has been no direct observation - there has been no direct observation of God creating new species either. If species are successful, their genome is bound to be fixed until something (most likely a change in conditions) triggers it to unfix itself and adapt or innovate. The fossil record clearly shows a progression from simpler to more complex organisms, and what David calls the patterns suggest common ancestry. Punctuated equilibrium explains the apparent jumps (probably associated with changes in the environment after periods of stasis). We have already agreed that the theory is a theory and not a fact. The God theory is also a theory and not a fact, and is based on a great variety of assumptions without one shred of objectively verifiable evidence, but neither you nor I would see that as a reason to dismiss it.

Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 04 Nov 2014 14:07:47 +0000

Tony: And they are more than happy to discard/overlook/otherwise ignore: > > >

A fossil record that does not support the theory(Species show up fully formed). >
No direct observation of ANY organism breaking the actual species boundary(in fact some proponents often change the definition of species depending on who they are debating) >
The lack of time. (The explain it away with punctuated equilibrium) >
That genetics has shown (repeatedly) that the phylogenetic tree is burnt up. >
That the genome FIXES itself when mutations occur, thus undercutting the prime mechanism for evolution. >
That mutations are, by the vast majority, harmful instead of beneficial. >
That there are tremendous number of 'chicken and egg' scenarios that make a given adaptation useless without a prior or simultaneous mutation of one or more different species. (Flowers, Bees, Humming Birds, and Beetles) >
> > > Science discards a theory in part or in its entirety when it doesn't fit the data. The data doesn't fit, yet it is still held as fact. That is not science.-A marvelous list that calls Darwin's now-modified evolution theory into severe question, which is why I have chosen a third way, theistic evolution. God guides all, which is why a built-in IM (if present) is under tight control.-Note the final point. It is the balance of nature, which is a requirement for life to succeed

Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (reply)

Balance_Maintained — Tue, 04 Nov 2014 00:37:04 +0000

DHW: Once more you are generalizing. “Explain life” is not clear. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life (atheists plump for abiogenesis), but focuses on how the first forms of life developed into the vast variety we see today. ... No, it's not a fact, and gradualism and random mutations are highly dubious elements of the theory, but if a theistic scientist like David believes in common descent, and “the science findings strongly suggest such a mechanism”, I don't know why you can't at least keep an open mind instead of dismissing it. > > (More tomorrow!)-I did say explain life, not the origins thereof, and that is exactly what evolution tries to do. It tries to explain (in relation to life and living organisms) why we are the way we are, and why everything else is the way it is, and how it all got to be that way. It is based on a tremendous number of assumptions, not the least of which are:-

The efficacy of random chance
That the accretion of tiny mutations to create something new.
The the accretion of tiny mutations to create something useful.
That it can all be explained in mechanical terms.
That it is possible for a species to become a different species, even a member of a different phylogenic family of species.
And as a sub-premise, that all of this can happen undirected, without outside influence.
-And they are more than happy to discard/overlook/otherwise ignore:-

A fossil record that does not support the theory(Species show up fully formed).
No direct observation of ANY organism breaking the actual species boundary(in fact some proponents often change the definition of species depending on who they are debating)
The lack of time. (The explain it away with punctuated equilibrium)
That genetics has shown (repeatedly) that the phylogenetic tree is burnt up.
That the genome FIXES itself when mutations occur, thus undercutting the prime mechanism for evolution.
That mutations are, by the vast majority, harmful instead of beneficial.
That there are tremendous number of 'chicken and egg' scenarios that make a given adaptation useless without a prior or simultaneous mutation of one or more different species. (Flowers, Bees, Humming Birds, and Beetles)
- Science discards a theory in part or in its entirety when it doesn't fit the data. The data doesn't fit, yet it is still held as fact. That is not science.

Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (reply)

dhw — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 23:32:48 +0000

TONY: I haven't dismissed evolution because of how it has been used for atheism. I dismiss it because it isn't very scientific. There is no EVIDENCE of common descent, only speculation of it. There is no EVIDENCE that random chance could create the information needed for the genome to advance, only speculation. Read virtually any article on evolution carefully and you will see lots and lots of terms and phrases that are nothing but speculation presented as fact. That is not science. What Darwin did was speculate, and his speculation appealed to the naturalist at the time. They became intoxicated with the idea that they could explain life, and have been trying to do so for the last 150 years with little more than speculation to back up their claims.-Once more you are generalizing. “Explain life” is not clear. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life (atheists plump for abiogenesis), but focuses on how the first forms of life developed into the vast variety we see today. It is based on decades of scientific research, but yes, like all theories including that of the existence of God, its conclusions are speculative because nobody knows the full story. However, it entails a progression (though not smooth - hence the theory of punctuated equilibrium) from simpler to more complex forms, which has been confirmed by the fossil record, unless you are also questioning the dating methods scientists use. Of course you can question all the scientific data we have, just as I can question the validity of ancient texts and your interpretation of them. Nothing is certain, and so we go by consensus, if there is one, and currently there is scientific consensus that some fossils are older than others, and many millions of years older than, for instance, the creationists would have us believe. What David calls the “patterns” fit in nicely with the idea that organisms have inherited basic forms and over time have branched out in all directions. How much of this, if any, was planned and directed by a god or by what atheists prefer to call natural laws is anybody's guess. No, it's not a fact, and gradualism and random mutations are highly dubious elements of the theory, but if a theistic scientist like David believes in common descent, and “the science findings strongly suggest such a mechanism”, I don't know why you can't at least keep an open mind instead of dismissing it. -(More tomorrow!)

Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 14:39:33 +0000

David To me contingent evolution means one step follows another. For Gould this meant a chance sequence. Evolution is either by chance or it is planned. There is no third way. > > Tony: Unless you are lumping this under "planned", there is a third way. That third way is variation within kinds confined by stringent limitations. It is kind of the halfway point between the two you listed. It allows for change (read evolution) and adaptation (read evolution) but only within tightly defined parameters, some of which will automagically default back to their original settings after several generations if the originating pressure that triggered the change is removed (read epigenietics).-This is my position exactly, but you have stated it better than I have in my DILEMMA discussions. You are describing what I think of as micro-evolution, adaptive changes in fully established species. And this is all an inventive mechanism can do. We cannot excape the fact that the fossil rcord repeatedly tells us all new advanced species arrive full-blown, fully functional. This is the loud and clear message from the Cambrian Explosion.-I don't view your point as a third way, but a method by which species can adapt to challenges for the time being or permanently. But, they are still the same species. Just as penicillin-resistent Staph aureus are still Staph. It is what Shapiro's research is all about.

Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (reply)

Balance_Maintained — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 05:56:03 +0000

GK: You used the word "aliens" before. Can you modify that description for me? Just a little? Can you remove the "us" and "them" and solve for ' Contingent evolution" all in one swoop? With the least amount of assumptions? > > To me contingent evolution means one step follows another. For Gould this meant a chance sequence. Evolution is either by chance or it is planned. There is no third way.-Unless you are lumping this under "planned", there is a third way. That third way is variation within kinds confined by stringent limitations. It is kind of the halfway point between the two you listed. It allows for change (read evolution) and adaptation (read evolution) but only within tightly defined parameters, some of which will automagically default back to their original settings after several generations if the originating pressure that triggered the change is removed (read epigenietics).

Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 21:10:02 +0000

> Tony: I haven't dismissed evolution because of how it has been used for atheism. I dismiss it because it isn't very scientific. There is no EVIDENCE of common descent, only speculation of it. There is no EVIDENCE that random chance could create the information needed for the genome to advance, only speculation. Read virtually any article on evolution carefully and you will see lots and lots of terms and phrases that are nothing but speculation presented as fact. That is not science. What Darwin did was speculate, and his speculation appealed to the naturalist at the time. They became intoxicated with the idea that they could explain life, and have been trying to do so for the last 150 years with little more than speculation to back up their claims.-This is why I believe in theistic evolution. All the scientific findings when added up point to it IMHO.

Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 21:05:13 +0000

GK: You used the word "aliens" before. Can you modify that description for me? Just a little? Can you remove the "us" and "them" and solve for ' Contingent evolution" all in one swoop? With the least amount of assumptions? -To me contingent evolution means one step follows another. For Gould this meant a chance sequence. Evolution is either by chance or it is planned. There is no third way.

Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (reply)

Balance_Maintained — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 20:28:24 +0000

DHW: Evolution doesn't claim anything. Evolutionists make claims, and you are right that some evolutionists - probably a very large majority - attribute the vast variety of life to chance, but as I keep pointing out to you, the theory is open to other interpretations, which is why the Church is able to accept it. Even David, who is as scathing about chance as you are, believes in theistic evolution. Perhaps it would be useful for you to hear his scientific reasons for believing in common descent as opposed to separate creation. My objection to your comments on the article about oxygen was that you were sneering at research which merely associated the Cambrian with a possible increase in oxygen. Even theistic evolution would require compatibility between organisms and the environment. You claim that the bible encourages scientific research so long as it doesn't take people away from God. You seem to have dismissed evolution because so many evolutionists misuse it as a buttress for their atheism. That is as unscientific as atheists dismissing all arguments for design because so many ID-ers use it as a buttress for their faith in God.-I haven't dismissed evolution because of how it has been used for atheism. I dismiss it because it isn't very scientific. There is no EVIDENCE of common descent, only speculation of it. There is no EVIDENCE that random chance could create the information needed for the genome to advance, only speculation. Read virtually any article on evolution carefully and you will see lots and lots of terms and phrases that are nothing but speculation presented as fact. That is not science. What Darwin did was speculate, and his speculation appealed to the naturalist at the time. They became intoxicated with the idea that they could explain life, and have been trying to do so for the last 150 years with little more than speculation to back up their claims.