Evolution: Your Inner Fish

[Stargazer]

Statrgazer:

 

ID is predicated on the premise of Irreducible Complexity. The supposition that something is so complex that only God could have made it as is without evolution.  Every single example of IC that has been put forward to date has been falsified. Is it possible for even one example to be found?  I guess. IE; It is possible to falsify the Theory of Gravity. But I'm not going to jump off of a cliff without having a parachute on any time soon.

 

As said by Galileo many many moons ago: "Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle".

I watched a video where a fairly famous evolutionary biologist attempted to disprove the Irreducible Complexity related to the evolution of the flagellum. When got done, he acted like he has just slain a dragon, but I saw a crucial crack in his claim. In fact, the place where he blew it was at the most important place in his logical chain. And I've seen the video presented in copies on YouTube where each poster is triumphant over the slaying of the dragon of IC.

The thing is, just because one or more biologists say that a thing is not irreducibly complex does not make it so. The problem with all this is that evolution cannot be observed. <-- Note that I've mentioned observation previously. The only tool available to us is is deduction from rather static evidence in the form of fossils.

Ultimately it is not all that important. There is a Designer, and He designed everything while cleverly keeping it very quiet.

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

As to Galileo, your quote proves nothing. He couldn't show that the Lord was not involved in everything, for all that he thought it showed something that the Lord didn't make outlandish hummingbirds. So what?

Edited February 26, 2015 by Stargazer

[danielwoods]

OK -- If we go by that standard, then the entire library in ancient Alexandria 

would have been just as useful. After all, the Bible is but a miniature library.

 

So, if we look to the biblical writers for their observations, deductions, opinions,

etc., then we are making a mistake by limiting ourselves to examining such a

miniscule portion of the writings from antiquity.

 

Why turn to that tiny library, as furnishing us with accurate information about

the past, generally speaking, than the greater collection of preserved ancient

texts? Again, if we wish to know how many times Joshua circled the walls of

Jericho, the Hebrew Bible is the place to look. If we wish to know what the climate

of the known world was, when Joshua performed that miracle, then the Bible is

not the best place to go looking for ancient information.

 

Correct?

 

UD

 

could be. Depends what ancient texts you are referring to. I don't think all are equally reliable. 

[danielwoods]

A lot of speculation with no biblical or scientific evidence to back it up.

 

The firmament was gone and Noah and all the animals survived this?

 

I am confused as to how "warmer poles" and "more tropical" earth leads to an "ice age".  If the earth was totally covered in flood water, then the animals would have had to freeze in the flood water.  Everything would have had to be covered in water for a proper baptism of water.

 

Sorry, probably didn't articulate that well enough. 

 

With the firmament in place, the Earth on a whole, was warmer and more tropical. Which also means that the poles were more moderate than they are today. The firmament caused a green house effect, similar to (but not exactly like) what we see on Venus. The oxygen levels were higher, with more plant life than we have to day as well. 

 

According to the flood model, when the flood happened, it caused the poles to freeze, and an ice age to follow.

 

"The climate change following the Genesis Flood provides a likely catastrophic mechanism for an ice age. The Flood was a tremendous tectonic and volcanic event. Large amounts of volcanic aerosols would remain in the atmosphere following the Flood, generating a large temperature drop over land by reflecting much solar radiation back to space. Volcanic aerosols would likely be replenished in the atmosphere for hundreds of years following the Flood, due to high post-Flood volcanism, which is indicated in Pleistocene sediments. 7 The moisture would be provided by strong evaporation from a much warmer ocean, following the Flood. The warm ocean is a consequence of a warmer pre-Flood climate and the release of hot subterranean water during the eruption of "all the fountains of the great deep" (Genesis 7:11)."

 

http://www.icr.org/article/272/

[SmileyMcGee]

I watched a video where a fairly famous evolutionary biologist attempted to disprove the Irreducible Complexity related to the evolution of the flagellum. When got done, he acted like he has just slain a dragon, but I saw a crucial crack in his claim. In fact, the place where he blew it was at the most important place in his logical chain. And I've seen the video presented in copies on YouTube where each poster is triumphant over the slaying of the dragon of IC.

The thing is, just because one or more biologists say that a thing is not irreducibly complex does not make it so. The problem with all this is that evolution cannot be observed. <-- Note that I've mentioned observation previously. The only tool available to us is is deduction from rather static evidence in the form of fossils.

Ultimately it is not all that important. There is a Designer, and He designed everything while cleverly keeping it very quiet.

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

As to Galileo, your quote proves nothing. He couldn't show that the Lord was not involved in everything, for all that he thought it showed something that the Lord didn't make outlandish hummingbirds. So what?

A couple of points:

1. Fossil evidence is one small piece of the argument for evolution. Molecular bio, genetics, genomics are providing ample evidence for evolution.

2. I would recommend doing more research regarding the arguments against irreducible complexity, particularly those involving genetics.

Edited February 26, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[ERayR]

A couple of points:

1. Fossil evidence is one small piece of the argument for evolution. Molecular bio, genetics, genomics are providing ample evidence for evolution.

 

 

Combining macro-evolution and micro-evolution under the common banner of evolution is misleading.  Micro-evolution is not in question, it is observable.  Macro-evolution on the other hand but comes from extrapolations and suppositions.

Edited February 26, 2015 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

I watched a video where a fairly famous evolutionary biologist attempted to disprove the Irreducible Complexity related to the evolution of the flagellum. When got done, he acted like he has just slain a dragon, but I saw a crucial crack in his claim. In fact, the place where he blew it was at the most important place in his logical chain. And I've seen the video presented in copies on YouTube where each poster is triumphant over the slaying of the dragon of IC.

The thing is, just because one or more biologists say that a thing is not irreducibly complex does not make it so. The problem with all this is that evolution cannot be observed. <-- Note that I've mentioned observation previously. The only tool available to us is is deduction from rather static evidence in the form of fossils.

Ultimately it is not all that important. There is a Designer, and He designed everything while cleverly keeping it very quiet.

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

As to Galileo, your quote proves nothing. He couldn't show that the Lord was not involved in everything, for all that he thought it showed something that the Lord didn't make outlandish hummingbirds. So what?

 

ID is creationism.

SEE http://ncse.com/creationism/general/what-is-intelligent-design-creationism

SEE http://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document

SEE http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-dover

 

Irreducible Complexity has been debunked repeatedly

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_bodies_explicitly_rejecting_Intelligent_design

 

Evolution has been observed in nature and in the lab.

SEE http://www.nature.com/nature/supplements/insights/evolution/index.html

SEE http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=443

SEE http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.VO9A6C499lc

 

I have no problem with God, but what I, and science, can't do is put him into science. Doing so make hash of both.

SEE

SEE another quote from Galileo "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them".

[ERayR]

Evolution has been observed in nature and in the lab.

SEE http://www.nature.com/nature/supplements/insights/evolution/index.html

SEE http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=443

SEE http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.VO9A6C499lc

 

 

1)  I don't know what this says or proves - please outline it.

 

2)  Just a call to shut up opponents of macro-evolution.  If it is so well attested why the need for censorship.

 

3)  A good example of micro evolution but after all those thousands of generations and mutations they are still colonies of bacteria.

Edited February 26, 2015 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

1)  I don't know what this says or proves - please outline it.

 

2)  Just a call to shut up opponents of macro-evolution.  If it is so well attested why the need for censorship.

 

3)  A good example of micro evolution but after all those thousands of generations and mutations they are still colonies of bacteria.

 

ID is a purely religious concept, and has nothing to do with science. The Discovery Institute itself confirms it.

 

I didn't tell anyone to shut up about any objection they may have to macro-evolution. I have repeated said that science does not support your ideas about macro-evolution.

 

Kind/colonies is not a scientific definition

SEE

[pogi]

ID is a purely religious concept, and has nothing to do with science. The Discovery Institute itself confirms it.

 

I didn't tell anyone to shut up about any objection they may have to macro-evolution. I have repeated said that science does not support your ideas about macro-evolution.

 

Kind/colonies is not a scientific definition

SEE

 

How do you, thesometimesaint, reconcile the two?  You are obviously religious and believe in a creator- that we are created in the image of God.  Do you believe science that says it is not guided or religion that says it is? 

[thesometimesaint]

That discussion has been going on for many hundreds of years, and I'm not smart enough to end it one way or the other. One of the grand attributes of God is to know how to do things like Creation. I want to know too. At the expense of appearing overly simplistic for me it boils down to; I look to my religion to explain the why God did it, and to my science to explain the how he did it.

[Grudunza]

I can't speak for tss, but for me it's not a case of needing to reconcile... the science speaks for itself about the physical world, and the religion speaks to spiritual life. Our understanding of neither is perfect, but I can accept both. ETB said that truth is truth, whether labeled science or religion. Inasmuch as evolution is true (which I believe), then I adjust my understanding of theology to that, not try to force fit bad science (e.g., ID) onto my understanding of theology. We already accept much of the creation story as figurative, and represent it in many symbolic ways in the temple. To me, it's *more* powerful at that level, poetically and spiritually, rather than expecting it to be a scientific treatise. But I do believe that true science and true religion merge, just likely at a level that is hard to articulate or appreciate, at least at this time.

[ERayR]

ID is a purely religious concept, and has nothing to do with science. The Discovery Institute itself confirms it.

 

I didn't tell anyone to shut up about any objection they may have to macro-evolution. I have repeated said that science does not support your ideas about macro-evolution.

 

Kind/colonies is not a scientific definition

SEE

 

My answers had nothing to do with ID.  They covered the three links under your category "evolution".  Link #2was a brief silence the opponent piece, nothing more.

 

I did not say it was I simply pointed out that after all the generations of change the experiment subjects were still bacteria.

[thesometimesaint]

My answers had nothing to do with ID.  They covered the three links under your category "evolution".  Link #2was a brief silence the opponent piece, nothing more.

 

I did not say it was I simply pointed out that after all the generations of change the experiment subjects were still bacteria.

 

You are claiming that Intelligent Design has been verified by Michael Behe and others. It has not been verified it has been falsified, repeatedly. Again I'm not trying to silence you, or anyone else. Believe anything you want. What I have repeatedly said is that science does not support your/Behe's/ICR/Answers in Genesis/The Discovery Institute's claims.

 

That makes absolutely no sense. There are many many many different species of bacteria. Meaning they can not interbred.

 

Here is how evolution works

SEE

[ERayR]

You are claiming that Intelligent Design has been verified by Michael Behe and others. It has not been verified it has been falsified, repeatedly. Again I'm not trying to silence you, or anyone else. Believe anything you want. What I have repeatedly said is that science does not support your/Behe's/ICR/Answers in Genesis/The Discovery Institute's claims.

 

That makes absolutely no sense. There are many many many different species of bacteria. Meaning they can not interbred.

 

Here is how evolution works

SEE

 

I said nothing about ID.  Go back,  reread. I have almost as much trouble with ID as with macro-evolution.  To me ID is simply a way to make macro-evolution palatable.

 

So they are still bacteria.  They certainly are not horses.

Edited February 26, 2015 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

IIRC you are a supporter of Panspermia. Unfortunately there is even less evidence for it than ID.

SEE http://www.panspermia-theory.com/

 

Such an occurrence of bacteria giving birth to a horse would falsify evolution.

[ERayR]

IIRC you are a supporter of Panspermia. Unfortunately there is even less evidence for it than ID.

SEE http://www.panspermia-theory.com/

 

Such an occurrence of bacteria giving birth to a horse would falsify evolution.

 

No what I said (unless you are counting transplanting by God as panspermia) is that panspermia made as much sense as either of the other and that the at least had a rational argument.  That is a long way from supporting in.

Edited February 26, 2015 by ERayR

[SmileyMcGee]

Combining macro-evolution and micro-evolution under the common banner of evolution is misleading. Micro-evolution is not in question, it is observable. Macro-evolution on the other hand but comes from extrapolations and suppositions.

What is your understanding of the mechanisms for micro evolution? What is your understanding of the mechanisms (or what scientists state are the mechnisms) of macro evolution? In your opinion, how do the mechanisms differ? What observable evidence do we have for micro evolution? What specific macro evolutionary claims are just extrapolations and how do they differ from inferences in other accepted scientific theories?

[Uncle Dale]

...

What specific macro evolutionary claims are just extrapolations and how do they differ from inferences in other accepted scientific theories?

.

One claim I've seen articulated (but can't cite at the moment)

Is that lung-fish evolved from ancestor fish that could not

wade out of the tidal pools (and go ambling about on dry land,

upon their knobby fins, and there taking in atmospheric oxygen

for extended periods of time).

Then again, creation scientists will no doubt respond --

"Show me the fossil of the first fish that did not die, in

attempting such a crazy venture outside the watery

environment God created for it, its ancestors, and

all of its progeny..."

And, we'd have to answer that no such incontestable

proof has so far been dug up.

Oh well....

UD

Edited February 27, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[ERayR]

What is your understanding of the mechanisms for micro evolution? What is your understanding of the mechanisms (or what scientists state are the mechnisms) of macro evolution? In your opinion, how do the mechanisms differ? What observable evidence do we have for micro evolution? What specific macro evolutionary claims are just extrapolations and how do they differ from inferences in other accepted scientific theories?

 

Micro evolution is an observable process of variation in a specie.  Scientist claim these variations develop into new specie which has resulted in the multitude of life forms that are now and have been here on the earth having developed from simple single cell life.  Macro-evolution can not be observed so it is all extrapolation from observed micro-evolution. 

 

tss is fond of the example of the changes derived in the bacteria experiment but the fact is that after over 31,000 (i think) generations and some interesting changes they are still bacteria.

[SmileyMcGee]

Micro evolution is an observable process of variation in a specie. Scientist claim these variations develop into new specie which has resulted in the multitude of life forms that are now and have been here on the earth having developed from simple single cell life. Macro-evolution can not be observed so it is all extrapolation from observed micro-evolution.

tss is fond of the example of the changes derived in the bacteria experiment but the fact is that after over 31,000 (i think) generations and some interesting changes they are still bacteria.

I think this the study: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment. And that's a great example! I agree that if this were the only type of evidence then speciation may require some serious extrapolation and I would even agree the idea initially was purely extrapolation, as most untested theories are. But when the predictive power of the theory has been confirmed again and again, extrapolation no longer characterizes the theory appropriately. The theory can predict what types of fossils should be found and where they should be found. It predicts previously unknown relationships between species and the genetic makeup of the species. It also has incredible explanatory power: why do some snakes has small vestiges of legs? Why do whales have phalanges? And why don't sharks? Evolution can powerfully explain these questions. Edited February 27, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[pogi]

That discussion has been going on for many hundreds of years, and I'm not smart enough to end it one way or the other. One of the grand attributes of God is to know how to do things like Creation. I want to know too. At the expense of appearing overly simplistic for me it boils down to; I look to my religion to explain the why God did it, and to my science to explain the how he did it.

 

If you are looking to science for how "God did it", then you are acknowledging God's guiding hand.  This is theistic evolution.  

[Stargazer]

A couple of points:

1. Fossil evidence is one small piece of the argument for evolution. Molecular bio, genetics, genomics are providing ample evidence for evolution.

2. I would recommend doing more research regarding the arguments against irreducible complexity, particularly those involving genetics.

Thanks for the advice. As to your points:

#1 - I don't need ample evidence for evolution. I've made it clear I am a proponent of evolution. Why is that so hard to understand?

#2 - I do have an understanding of genetics. I don't see what genetics has to do with evolution. TSS has been trying to convice me that genetics is evolution, but it is not.

Evolution occurs when an organism receives a mutation via some pathway and in a place where the mutation can be passed along to a descendant organism, AND when that mutation either does not impede the survival of the descendant, or improves the survival of the descendant. If the mutation impedes survival, and if it does so before the organism can pass the new trait to a descendant, then the mutation dies off. Of course, even a beneficial mutation can be lost through accident (such as the mutated organism getting eaten before it can reproduce). If the mutation does not impede survival, then it may be passed on to a descendant. If enough beneficial mutations accumulate, such that the descendant organisms are no longer like the ancestral organism, then speciation is said to occur. Thus we have many different species in a given genus.

Now, some folks look at this and say that mutations are completely random (thru cosmic rays, chemical-induction, or copying errors). I look at this and say that mutations may be random or they may be directed by an omnipotent Designer. I'll allow both, if you want, but it should be clear that an omnipotent and omniscient Designer is perfectly in control of even random mutations -- this makes them ultimately non-random, but whatever.

You can't prove me wrong in my belief, because my belief is not falsifiable. It is impossible to prove that I am wrong. Of course it's not science, but then again I am not claiming that it is.

You may still want to cure me of my error, but you haven't a leg to stand on. And you don't NEED to prove me wrong. If you disagree with me, so what? Does my belief gore your ox? If it does, then your are quite simply a control freak.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

ID is creationism.

I don't believe it is. I do believe that those opposed to ID want to lump ID in with Creationism in order to Appeal to Ridicule.

SEE http://ncse.com/creationism/general/what-is-intelligent-design-creationism

SEE http://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document

SEE http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-dover

 

Irreducible Complexity has been debunked repeatedly

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_bodies_explicitly_rejecting_Intelligent_design

 

Evolution has been observed in nature and in the lab.

SEE http://www.nature.com/nature/supplements/insights/evolution/index.html

SEE http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=443

SEE http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.VO9A6C499lc

I can just as easily find videos online that claim to debunk your videos. Most if not all of this is Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Ridicule. In both directions.

Note that your wrote: "Evolution has been observed in nature and in the lab."

That is a Straw Man. I never said it hasn't been observed. I never said it doesn't happen. All I have said is that there is a Designer behind the evolution which has brought every single extant species into being here on this earth. And that includes the species which we as humans have created. Take corn/maize, for example. It is so completely different from its ancestor, teosinte, that it is known as a separate species (they are still close enough that they can hybridize, however). Maize was domesticated from teosinte, but it wasn't until about 1100 BC that it took on its more-or-less present form. Humans, broadly speaking, designed it. Old-style.

So you and others just can't stand it that I say that God is behind Evolution. Trust me, it changes nothing.

 

I have no problem with God, but what I, and science, can't do is put him into science. Doing so make hash of both.

SEE another quote from Galileo "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them".

I don't want scientists to put God into science, for goodness sake. For example, if some scientist says that he or she cannot understand how a particular thing happens, I don't want him or her to invoke God on the matter, as a substitute for finding the actual cause. God is behind all natural law, and it must therefore go without saying that God is in everything. But saying so doesn't buy us a single solitary thing. We want to know HOW God made it so. And in finding it out it is not useful to invoke Him. So why do so?

On the other hand, let me hit you back with the same Galileo quote: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them".

Those who are involved in research intended to support the notion of an Intelligent Designer are using the same senses, reason and intellect that Galileo cites, and it is a matter of extreme hypocrisy to condemn those trying to discover the Designer using those same tools that Galileo says God gave us. You've heard of Wegener, Semmelweis and Cantor?

•  Alfred Wegener was the meteorologist who came up with the idea of Continental Drift.
• Ignaz Semmelweis was an early proponent of the Germ Theory of Disease.
• Georg Cantor was the mathematician known as the inventor of Set Theory.

All of these gentlemen were opposed bitterly by their contemporaries, and the latter two were arguably driven into mental breakdown by the treatment they received at the hands of those contemporaries. But they were vindicated in the end.

If Galileo should have any currency at all where it comes to modern science, then those seeking to find a connection to the Intelligent Designer should at least be tolerated as they seek the evidence to prove their hypotheses, not vilified, ridiculed, and suppressed. You do remember that Galileo spent the last part of his life under house arrest because of his hypotheses regarding heliocentrism? It may be that those seeking to find the Designer connection will ultimately fail to do so. I say let them try. It doesn't hurt a thing, and it's possible that they might even discover things unconnected with their quest that will be of great value.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

There are many many many different species of bacteria. Meaning they can not interbred.

That's not actually true. Bacteria are single-celled organisms and reproduce only via splitting into two and do not per-se "breed", they are however capable of interchanging genetic material with other bacteria (a process called conjugation), and conjugation is not restricted to bacteria of their own species. In fact, it isn't even restricted to conjugation with other species of bacteria! For an interesting, or scary, explanation of bacterial conjugation, see the Wikipedia article.

[Stargazer]

If you are looking to science for how "God did it", then you are acknowledging God's guiding hand.  This is theistic evolution.  

 

If I say that I believe that God is guiding evolution, where's the problem?  I fully expect that God is guiding it so well that He stays under cover, so to speak.  I don't expect that Science is suddenly going to discover God's tracks all over it.  If there grew to be a scientific consensus that Evolution was non-random, and appeared to be directed somehow, this would still not prove that God did it.

 

Humans bred dogs from wolves, and we know very well that we did this and did so intentionally.  We have evidence for it.  There's no evidence that God created the Universe.  I doubt we will ever discover any (for a start there's the problem of what to look for!).  There's another problem when it comes to Who or What is God?  I believe I have a good idea on this subject, but it's not something I can prove.

 

But I don't consider that looking for the hand of God is something that needs to be opposed, suppressed, and fought against. 

Edited February 27, 2015 by Stargazer