cdowis Posted July 18, 2013 Author Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) What is amazing about evolutionary biology is that so much is preserved in both the fossil record as well as in living organisms today.1. Dawes says that one of the fundamental flaws of creationists is to draw conclusions regarding evolution from modern organisms. 2. It is pretty fundamental that fossils tell us little about a living organism. Give me the details of the respiratory and cardio system from a fossel :>{Take the circulatory and respiratory systems. We have animals with nothing to simple to complex systems and every step along the way.The issue is not "simple" to "complex" but the transitional forms. We need to see evolution in operation. Clearly that is not evident in modern organisms since they have already evolved a working system -- now we need to see that step by step process.Good luck on that one because we only have the fossel record... but you already know that.Evolution (speaking of micro and not macro) itself is an observable scientific fact.OK, so let' observe it working. We need to observe those intermediate steps prior to the fully functioning system. Let's see your facts, please. The evidence in our genes for common descent is very overwhelming.You are changing the subject. I am claiming that this is a test of falsibility, and evolution has failed the test. Get back on track, please.(Speaking of genetic research I am curious how the bovine and the whale evolved from each other, but that is for another thread.) After examining the evidence I can come to no other conclusion than either evolution is how God created us, or he created us in a manner that recreates the evidence of evolution for some reason that has not yet been found. (Not saying that you need to come to the same conclusion) Edited July 18, 2013 by cdowis 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) The issue is not "simple" to "complex" but the transitional forms. We need to see evolution in operation. Clearly that is not evident in modern organisms since they have already evolved a working system -- now we need to see that step by step process.Good luck on that one because we only have the fossel record... but you already know that.This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Per evolution we are all transitional forms. Each of us has a fully functioning system that works for us. The demand for the step by step process outlines a huge communication gap between us. I point out transitional forms and I just create more work for myself because for you there are no transitional forms just "modern organisms with already evolved systems." Again I say A evolved into E. You ask for transitional forms. I provide C. Now you ask for B and D. I provide examples of B and D. Next you ask for forms between A and B, B and C, C and D, D and E. Since under evolution each individual is its own "transitional form" what you are in essence asking for is a complete genealogical record to be convinced. That is fine. I will not be able to convince you. It is a pointless conversation.OK, so let' observe it working. We need to observe those intermediate steps prior to the fully functioning system. Let's see your facts, please.I am assuming you are planning on responding to my post 24 before I can further respond. Up there I have given several small intermediate steps. Once you respond to that and ask for the intermediate steps between those intermediate steps I am going to have to refer you to an evolutionary biologist who specializes in the field of the heart (maybe ask Steve Peck at BYU for a referal?) I know I can't convince you. You are changing the subject. I am claiming that this is a test of falsibility, and evolution has failed the test. Get back on track, please.Sorry for changing the subject. I wasn't directing my conversation at you in that post and meant no offence. Lets get to your test of evolution. You stated evolution is debunked because a working heart and working circulatory system couldn't suddenly co-evolve together. Because if a large organism doesn't have a working circulatory system or a heart, it can't survive? Science agrees on the latter, and the former shows a gross misunderstanding of evolution. Edited July 18, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding
ERayR Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 All of which can be duplicated in the laboratory, right?Nope, it has to be duplicated in nature without any intervention. In a word it has ti happen accidentally.
ERayR Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Are you really demanding that evolution of an entire species be able to be duplicated in a lab in order for you to think it's valid?Yup. However that would only be a start. To really be valid you will have to duplicate it without any intervention to make conditions perfect for the event.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Yup. However that would only be a start. To really be valid you will have to duplicate it without any intervention to make conditions perfect for the event.In essence to "prove" evolution you just need to be G-d, create a planet stick around for a few billion years and see what happens. Maybe we are all just some science experiment? (Tongue firmly planted in cheek).
Vance Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Are you really demanding that evolution of an entire species be able to be duplicated in a lab in order for you to think it's valid? Well, if it can't be repeated in the lab then it is just a magical theory or theory of magic, if you will. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Yup. However that would only be a start. To really be valid you will have to duplicate it without any intervention to make conditions perfect for the event.In all seriousness though, this sentiment illustrates the futility of having these kinds of conversation. IIRC you are an evolutionary agnostic and would ultimately say that since it doesn't effect salvation, it doesn't really matter (sorry if I grossly misrepresent). I can get on board with that.
Vance Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 I have addressed this elsewhere. The issue is the "first man" and the "first woman" == how did they happen to be at close proximity in time and space since they evolved independently at some point in time.The typical answer is that there was no "first", but they were unable to elaborate on exactly what that means. Perhaps someone can help with that one.Not sure what this has to do with my comment. Asexual reproduction was the standard until sexual reproduction came along. Sorry, but I don't see any way to go from asexual to sexual reproduction with the dribble.
ERayR Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Evolution (speaking of micro and not macro) itself is an observable scientific fact. The evidence in our genes for common descent is very overwhelming. After examining the evidence I can come to no other conclusion than either evolution is how God created us, or he created us in a manner that recreates the evidence of evolution for some reason that has not yet been found. (Not saying that you need to come to the same conclusion)Micro evolution I have no problem with. It has operated for a long time but does not go beyond the species level. Chicken are still chickens. It has its boundaries. In math there are functions that only work within certain bounds and if one goes beyond those bounds it is no longer valid. IMNSHO Macro evolution is one of those. Extrapolation of evolution beyond the bounds of the species level and it becomes invalid. To go beyond you have to wave the magic wand and invoke faith in supernatural events. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Well, if it can't be repeated in the lab then it is just a magical theory or theory of magic, if you will.Right. So since we can't create a star in the lab, our understanding of them must just be "magical theory."
Vance Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 What is amazing about evolutionary biology is that so much is preserved in both the fossil record as well as in living organisms today. Take the circulatory and respiratory systems. We have animals with nothing to simple to complex systems and every step along the way. ??? Just because what has been found "appears" to be steps tells us absolutely NOTHING about how (or even if) those steps occurred. I have seen people claim that these "step" are well understood. Well, . . . IF they are "well understood" then let's see them repeated in the lab.Evolution (speaking of micro and not macro) itself is an observable scientific fact. Really? Where can I go to watch the video of it being repeated in the lab. The evidence in our genes for common descent is very overwhelming. Hey, when did "evidence" become equal with "proof"? After examining the evidence I can come to no other conclusion than either evolution is how God created us, or he created us in a manner that recreates the evidence of evolution for some reason that has not yet been found. (Not saying that you need to come to the same conclusion)Without the knowledge to repeat the supposed "steps", it is all speculation that those "step" even exist.
ERayR Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 In all seriousness though, this sentiment illustrates the futility of having these kinds of conversation. IIRC you are an evolutionary agnostic and would ultimately say that since it doesn't effect salvation, it doesn't really matter (sorry if I grossly misrepresent). I can get on board with that.Some do not think it affects salvation. I have a little different mindset in this matter. I believe macro-evolution destroys the concept of the fall and when that is destroyed it takes with it the atonement. So I do think it makes a difference. At the same time I do not believe in a six day creation in the last six thousand years.
Vance Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Micro evolution I have no problem with. It has operated for a long time but does not go beyond the species level. Chicken are still chickens. It has its boundaries. In math there are functions that only work within certain bounds and if one goes beyond those bounds it is no longer valid. IMNSHO Macro evolution is one of those. Extrapolation of evolution beyond the bounds of the species level and it becomes invalid. To go beyond you have to wave the magic wand and invoke faith in supernatural events.
thesometimesaint Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 It has to get down to the individual somewhere. An evolutionary change must happen within the individual before it becomes generalized. In fact it must happen to at least two individuals, of the opposite sex, at the same time to get it fixed in the species.It is about the surviving individual living long enough to reproduce. We do this all the time in plant and animal husbandry through artificial selection(Traits that we want) and natural selection because of nonhuman interventions of selection criteria.No it doesn't have to occur in both sexes at the same time. All that necessary to occur is that the trait is in at least one individual, and that it's transferred to the next generation.SEE
Vance Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Right. So since we can't create a star in the lab, our understanding of them must just be "magical theory."Right!!! Because something that is observable and has been observed is directly comparable to something that has NOT been observed.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Micro evolution I have no problem with. It has operated for a long time but does not go beyond the species level. Chicken are still chickens. It has its boundaries. In math there are functions that only work within certain bounds and if one goes beyond those bounds it is no longer valid. IMNSHO Macro evolution is one of those. Extrapolation of evolution beyond the bounds of the species level and it becomes invalid. To go beyond you have to wave the magic wand and invoke faith in supernatural events.It is true there is some danger in extrapolating beyond what you can see. It is also true that evolution on a macro basis will never be recreated in a lab due to the time scales involved. I will also grant that there is a good deal of faith involved. That said faith is involved in everything, including faith that I am actually conversing with a person and am not connected to the matrix somewhere. At some point along the line, looking at the evidence I came to my conclusion stated above (God used evolution, or there is some compelling unknown driver that caused God to create the world using a manner that closely mimics evolution).
ERayR Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Really? Where can I go to watch the video of it being repeated in the lab. Being a farmer and rancher (in a past life) I have to agree that micro-evolution is a fact. All living organisms are changing. What can not be shown is that they are changing beyond the bounds of the species (No matter the breed a chicken is still a chicken, a pig is still a pig, etc, etc).
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Right!!! Because something that is observable and has been observed is directly comparable to something that has NOT been observed.Have you ever observed the atoms fusing in the middle of the star?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Some do not think it affects salvation. I have a little different mindset in this matter. I believe macro-evolution destroys the concept of the fall and when that is destroyed it takes with it the atonement. So I do think it makes a difference. At the same time I do not believe in a six day creation in the last six thousand years.Thank you for clarifying. Again, I don't really care that much. I don't think I'll convince anyone. Sometimes I debate for debate's sake. 1
ERayR Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 It is about the surviving individual living long enough to reproduce. We do this all the time in plant and animal husbandry through artificial selection(Traits that we want) and natural selection because of nonhuman interventions of selection criteria.No it doesn't have to occur in both sexes at the same time. All that necessary to occur is that the trait is in at least one individual, and that it's transferred to the next generation.SEE [media=] Read my post #34 above.
ERayR Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Have you ever observed the atoms fusing in the middle of the star?Yup I think. Isn't it called sunlight?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Really? Where can I go to watch the video of it being repeated in the lab. Google fruit flies and evolution for one. Or look at drug resistant bacteria. I'm not sure what you object to since you applaud ERayR's post later on when grants that micro evolution exists.Hey, when did "evidence" become equal with "proof"?I don't recall making the connection. Evidence can sway us to or from different conclusions. Ultimately nothing is provable if you want to get right down to it. Prove that I exist if you disagree.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Yup I think. Isn't it called sunlight?So you can observe its effects but not recreate it in a lab? Is that the threshold you want to stick with?
thesometimesaint Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 All of which can be duplicated in the laboratory, right?Yes, and outside it too. Just look at modern agriculture and animal husbandry. 1
ERayR Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 It is true there is some danger in extrapolating beyond what you can see. It is also true that evolution on a macro basis will never be recreated in a lab due to the time scales involved. I will also grant that there is a good deal of faith involved. That said faith is involved in everything, including faith that I am actually conversing with a person and am not connected to the matrix somewhere. At some point along the line, looking at the evidence I came to my conclusion stated above (God used evolution, or there is some compelling unknown driver that caused God to create the world using a manner that closely mimics evolution).IMNSHO the "God used evolution" is merely a way for some to keep their cognitive dissonance from overloading and blowing a fuse.
Recommended Posts