[_ Old Earth _] A number reasons why I find Evolution impossible to believe!

[Asyncritus]

I consider myself a man of science and a man of fossils in particular. As this thread is a few months old and the back and forths already established, I'd like to invite the OP to ask me questions about evolution in the fossil record and questions about the fossil record.

What is your opinion of the comments by Gould and Eldredge, and Koonin more recently, to the effect that there are no intermediate fossils?

And where did the zillion new organisms in the Cambrian Explosion come from?

Thanks

 

[Asyncritus]

For a Christian, Jesus was God as fully and wholly as the Father or the Holy Spirit. And you've learned a lot of science from me, over the months you've been here. Might be good to read the Bible and learn about God as well.

I have learned no science from you, your over bloated opinion to the contrary. I have carefully observed, however, your uncanny ability to bluff your way out of the mire.

Have you ever read the Bible - specifically passages such as John 10. 38?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
For a Christian, Jesus was God as fully and wholly as the Father or the Holy Spirit. And you've learned a lot of science from me, over the months you've been here. Might be good to read the Bible and learn about God as well.

I have learned no science from you,

A great deal of science. You learned how we know the phylogeny of woodpeckers and their relatives. You learned the evolution of termites, and the existence of numerous transitional forms in the fossil record and in living species. You learned a load of anatomy, and you now have at least a dim understanding of Darwin's theory.

your over bloated opinion to the contrary. I have carefully observed, however, your uncanny ability to bluff your way out of the mire.

Evidence will sway a debate. Bluffing is when you don't have evidence. If you've forgotten, go back and look at our talks. Evidence is what got you to bail out of all those threads.

Have you ever read the Bible

First time, before I was 10. And lots since. What would you like to know?

specifically passages such as John 10. 38?

Perhaps you got the verse number wrong:
John 1:[6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. [7] This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him. [8] He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light. [9] That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world. [10] He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

I highlighted the part that says Jesus made the world. That's pretty good evidence that He is God as much as the Father or the Holy Spirit.

Or do you consider the Bible to be unreliable?

 

[Asyncritus]

I have carefully observed, however, your uncanny ability to bluff your way out of the mire.

How surprising that you are doing your usual diving and weaving again, now in theology (about which I told you that you know little or nothing, and should steer clear of it).

You got the verse number wrong? Is there something wrong with the typeface or something? What did I say?

JOHN 10: 38

JOHN 10.38

JOHN 10.38

Recognise the digits?

Try again.

And no, I don't consider the Bible unreliable, as you do about Gen 1-2.

I consider you to be unreliable.

Maybe not. I can rely on you to duck, dive, dodge, weave and be economical with the truth. Time to change your ways, pal.

Do try and answer the question.

 

[Barbarian]

I'm just pointing out to you that John 1:6 says that Jesus was in the world and that the world was made by Him. Since you deny that Jesus is God, I'm not surprised you're angry and shouting. But there it is. And see, you learned another important Bible lesson from me. You're welcome.

 

[Asyncritus]

I'm not really interested in what you're pointing out.

I AM interested in hearing your understanding/explanation of, once again,


John 10:38

If you're posturing as a teacher of theology now, then you ought to be able to answer a simple question.

I say OUGHT, but you've failed so miserably so many times in the Science forum. I can't see any reason to suppose you can do better in the theology sections.

Still, while there's life....

 

[Barbarian]

I'm just pointing out to you that John 1:9 says that Jesus was in the world and that the world was made by Him.

John 1:9 That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world. [10] He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

Since you deny that Jesus is God, I'm not surprised you're angry and shouting. But there it is. And see, you learned another important Bible lesson from me. You're welcome.

I'm not really interested in what you're pointing out.

God's word, which as you just learned, says that Jesus made the world.

I AM interested in hearing your understanding/explanation of, once again,John 10:38

Well, let's take a look...

John 10:36 Do you say of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? [37] If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. [38] But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works: that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.

He says that He is the Son of God. He and the Father are One. Which is true. One God, three persons in one God. That's how it has always been. Notice that He says He does the works of His Father. And creation of the Earth was one of the works of His Father.

If you're posturing as a teacher of theology

I was asst. CCD director for my parish. But my wife was the director, so maybe there might have been some nepotism involved. Still, I showed you something you never knew before.

 

[Asyncritus]

This is going to degenerate into a trinitarian argument, and this is not the place for it.

Start a thread in the one on one forum and we can discuss it there.

Make your case first, or I will if you like.

Call the thread something like 'Is God One. or Not?' But I leave that up to you.

 

[Barbarian]

Call the thread something like 'Is God One. or Not?'

God is one. It's just that three persons in one God seems to you to be impossible for Him. But if you accept the Bible as His word, that's what it is.

 

[Barbarian]

Async's right. Let's get back to the subject:

What is your opinion of the comments by Gould and Eldredge, and Koonin more recently, to the effect that there are no intermediate fossils?

Let's take a look...

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260

That one was easy.

Koonin's theory is somewhat like Gould's, asserting that the rarity (not absence) of transitional fossils at the species level, is due to relatively rapid evolution, followed by stasis. This has the same virtue as Gould's theory; it explains why transitions between species are not commonly found, but transitions between higher taxa are extremely common. The difference is, there is abundant evidence for Gould's theory; we can even see it in action today, while Koonin's "big bang evolution" depends on mechanisms not observed in evolution. So he gets less attention from biologists.

And where did the zillion new organisms in the Cambrian Explosion come from?

Mutation and natural selection. If we pick a lineage, we can see two things working:

1. disruptive selection, leading to lineages splitting into new niches.
2. competition, in predation, protection, and resource utilization.

Would you like to learn about some of it?

 

[Vaccine]

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260

Hello! I LOVE that quote by Gould. But this one is even better because it disproves Darwin's idea about the ORIGIN of the species:

The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear;morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.-Stephen Jay Gould Harvard professor, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, historian of science, "Evolution's Erratic Pace",Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977.

Would you like to learn about some of it?

I'd like to learn about this:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. -Darwin

 

[Barbarian]

Hello! I LOVE that quote by Gould. But this one is even better because it disproves Darwin's idea about the ORIGIN of the species:

Nope. Rapid evolution has always been compatible with Darwin's theory. It's been that way from the start. Thomas Huxley, "Darwin's Bulldog", so named because of his enthusiastic support of Darwin's theory, predicted what Eldredge and Gould discovered.

The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear;morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.-Stephen Jay Gould Harvard professor, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, historian of science, "Evolution's Erratic Pace",Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977.

As you see, Gould admits that there are cases of gradual evolution, but that most evolution of new taxa is by punctuated equillibrium. BTW, Darwin discussed these issues as well; the basic idea of PE, that of a new species rapidly evolving until the population is well-fitted to the environment, and then stable thereafter, is in Darwin's book.

Would you like to learn about some of it?

I'd like to learn about this:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory." -Darwin

Ah, one of the oldest creationist scams out there. (I restored the context in red for you) As you see, it's another quote-mine special, edited to make it look like even Darwin didn't agree with evolution. Haven't seen that one in a long time. Most creationists have taken it out of their websites, because they get caught so often with it.

BTW, the evolution of complex eyes is documented in the living members of a number of phyla. Would you like to see that? It turns out that a complex eye evolves from a very simple organ by gradual steps, each one more useful than the last. Perhaps we should start a new thread for it.

 

[Vaccine]

As you see, Gould admits that there are cases of gradual evolution, but that most evolution of new taxa is by punctuated equillibrium. BTW, Darwin discussed these issues as well; the basic idea of PE, that of a new species rapidly evolving until the population is well-fitted to the environment, and then stable thereafter, is in Darwin's book.

On the one hand we have the gradual type evolution, which Gould showed doesn't happen to MOST species. On the other hand we have the Frankenstein type evolution proposed by Gould, which is no longer viable per the recent discoveries of ENCODE and Dr Perez.

Would you like to learn about some of it?

Thanks anyway but I'll pass on learning about the exceptions to the rule.

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory." -Darwin

Ah, one of the oldest creationist scams out there. (I restored the context in red for you) As you see, it's another quote-mine special, edited to make it look like even Darwin didn't agree with evolution. Haven't seen that one in a long time. Most creationists have taken it out of their websites, because they get caught so often with it.

BTW, the evolution of complex eyes is documented in the living members of a number of phyla. Would you like to see that? It turns out that a complex eye evolves from a very simple organ by gradual steps, each one more useful than the last. Perhaps we should start a new thread for it.

That doesn't change the quote BTW. Darwin said it would be absurd, unless such and such. Well such and such gradual steps to get a light sensitive cell are irreducibly complex as Behe pointed out, so yes it is absurd. I suppose you're going to tell me about Dawkin's great imagination? How he imagines a light sensitive cell adapting to a concave shape, then adapting a cover, which of course turns into a lens and so on....... I find an Intelligent Designer more believable than Dawkins story. Darwin's theory is hopeless to explain origins, just changes within species is all.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I'd like to learn about this:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. -Darwin

You can start learning by making sure you have the full quote. For instance, the next senetence plus the rest of the paragraph.


"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound." (Darwin 1872, 143-144)

 

[Milk-Drops]

That doesn't change the quote BTW.

Yes it does. It gives the very quote context, which it was removed from. Meaning, the place you took that from was being dishonest. A liar.

Darwin said it would be absurd, unless such and such.

So explaining how something works, doesn't count anymore? So this is now admission of your dishonesty.

Well such and such gradual steps to get a light sensitive cell are irreducibly complex as Behe pointed out

No one cares what Behe says considering he lied under oath and was caught in a court of law. He lost all his credibility. If you have to lie or manipulated information. You are no longer a scientist. That makes the person a con man.

 

[Vaccine]

That doesn't change the quote BTW.

Yes it does. It gives the very quote context, which it was removed from. Meaning, the place you took that from was being dishonest. A liar.

Darwin said it would be absurd, unless such and such.

So explaining how something works, doesn't count anymore? So this is now admission of your dishonesty.

Well such and such gradual steps to get a light sensitive cell are irreducibly complex as Behe pointed out

No one cares what Behe says considering he lied under oath and was caught in a court of law. He lost all his credibility. If you have to lie or manipulated information. You are no longer a scientist. That makes the person a con man.

Good afternoon Meatballsub! I wonder if you really mean that. Do you consider me a liar? Perhaps I did not check to see if my source had the whole quote. Doesn't that mistake make me misinformed? Not a liar?
At any rate Darwin's quote basically said the eye is difficult to explain. Ok? Does anyone have an answer to Behe's irreducible complexity?

 

[reba]

Whoa guys.... Lets try and be pleasant I would hate to close your threads until the regular Mods show up....

 

[Milk-Drops]

Do you consider me a liar?

I did not call you a liar. I called the source a liar and dishonest. However, my position on whether I consider you dishonest or a liar is how you present evidence now that you have been confronted with the full context of the quote.

Perhaps I did not check to see if my source had the whole quote. Doesn't that mistake make me misinformed?

The problem wasn't that you were misinformed. It was your statement that the context didn't matter when Barbarian confronted you with the quote's context. This speaks more to your integrity on the issue.

At any rate Darwin's quote basically said the eye is difficult to explain. Ok?

Actually no. In context Darwin stated the Eye would be difficult to explain, however the observed evidence states otherwise.

Does anyone have an answer to Behe's irreducible complexity?

There is no need to, considering that irreducible complexity is not a valid criticism of evolution because the question in itself could not stand scientific scrutiny. As already stated, Behe was caught lieing under oath in a court of law when defending the very concept of Irreducible Complexity.
The concept/ question has no merit.

 

[Barbarian]

That doesn't change the quote BTW.

It completely changes the meaning. I'm not blaming you; I am quite sure you had no idea that quote had been altered to remove Darwin's comments that gradual change could produce a complex eye. Someone else did the dirty work and you were guilty of no more than trusting someone who was not worthy of your trust.

Darwin said it would be absurd, unless such and such.

The "such and such" is where the details are. And Darwin's observation has since been validated. Several phyla still retain those gradual steps in living members of the phylum. I offered to show you them, but you haven't accepted the suggestion.

Well such and such gradual steps to get a light sensitive cell are irreducibly complex as Behe pointed out, so yes it is absurd.

Two errors there. First, irreducible complexity can evolve. Behe now admits that it can, he just says it's too unlikely. I can show you an example of an irreducibly complex feature evolving, if you like. Second, there are no irreducibly complex steps in the evolution of a complex eye. If you think there is, perhaps now would be the time to show us.

I suppose you're going to tell me about Dawkin's great imagination? How he imagines a light sensitive cell adapting to a concave shape, then adapting a cover, which of course turns into a lens and so on.......

All those steps still exist in living creatures. Reality is so much better than imagination. And each of them is useful to the organism.

I find an Intelligent Designer more believable than Dawkins story.

Being a Christian, I accept an omnipotent Creator, not the creationist's "maybe a space alien" designer.

Darwin's theory is hopeless to explain origins, just changes within species is all.

Surprise. Let me know if you want to learn about all those gradual changes we can find in living organisms.

 

[Vaccine]

No one cares what Behe says considering he lied under oath and was caught in a court of law. He lost all his credibility. If you have to lie or manipulated information. You are no longer a scientist. That makes the person a con man.

Good evening MBS! I wonder if you would condemn Darrow with the same vigour as Behe.

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Piltdown_man_was_presented_as_significant_evidence_in_the_Scopes_trial