[_ Old Earth _] A Summary of This Year's Defeats of Evolution Theory

[zeke]

I am saying that your view of the matter is based on wild assumptions, not on trying to understand the matter before rejecting it.

But I have examined evolutionism and I rightly reject it on theological and scientific grounds. I have asked you to explain what you are trying to say and thus far you have waved your hands in the air and said little. Again - what is it that you think you are trying to say? Please be specific and provide some detail/substance. Thanks.

 

[pHghost]

There are two choices - (1) special creation via a loving Creator-God or (2) cold blind chance via the randomness of naturalism that did not have man in mind. We all must choose...there is no compromise.

You are claiming that progress in naturalism is based on randomness. That is a patently false claim.

That is what I am trying to say.

 

[zeke]

You are claiming that progress in naturalism is based on randomness. That is a patently false claim.

That is what I am trying to say.

Well, don't stop there ghost - follow through with your philosophical expose - why is it 'patently false'? Be careful - you may be in way over your head here. What does the word 'purposeless' mean to you? Does your Darwinian version of evolutionism have man in mind - in the beginning?

"Although many details remain to be worked out, it's already evident that all the objective phenomenon of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic factors... Man is the result of a purposeless and naturalistic... process that did not have him in mind." -Gaylord Simpson, Darwinist/paleontologist.​

 

[zeke]

For ghost...

"... it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true of some ecological chain relationships (the famous Yucca moth case, and so forth). However, the objectors of random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence." ~ Ernst Mayr (Systematics and the Origin of Species)​

According to Darwinians are mutations random?

 

[pHghost]

Well, don't stop there ghost - follow through with your philosophical expose - why is it 'patently false'? Be careful - you may be in way over your head here. What does the word 'purposeless' mean to you? Does your Darwinian version of evolutionism have man in mind - in the beginning?

"Although many details remain to be worked out, it's already evident that all the objective phenomenon of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic factors... Man is the result of a purposeless and naturalistic... process that did not have him in mind." -Gaylord Simpson, Darwinist/paleontologist.​

First off, your assertion that it is my Darwinian version is a laughable attempt to discredit. I told you once before that for me Darwinism is not the answer. Anyway, to the point:

You seem to have a problem with understanding concepts. You quote a cartain Gaylord, who claims that man is the result of a purposeless and naturalistic process, as if that was supposed to support your previous claim.

I did not see Mr. Simpson saying that the process is random, whereas you somehow arrived at that precise, patently wrong conclusion.

Thus, it seems you don't even understand the conceptual elements of the theory you are trying to discredit. Can you provide any support that a naturalistic worldview and Darwinian evolution are random?

 

[zeke]

. Can you provide any support that a naturalistic worldview and Darwinian evolution are random?

Are mutations random according to Darwinism? What do you think Simpson meant when he famously said - "Man is the result of a purposeless and naturalistic... process that did not have him in mind"? Was he correct in you version of evolution?

 

[pHghost]

Ah, you graced us with another reply, while I was writing:

For ghost...

"... it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true of some ecological chain relationships (the famous Yucca moth case, and so forth). However, the objectors ot random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence." ~ Ernst Mayr (Systematics and the Origin of Species)​

According to Darwinians are mutations random?

They are not improved by the random mutations per se. That seems to be the point you are missing. Mutations are of course, of their nature, quite random. But a mutation does not necessarily mean a step forward, an evolutionary progression. But, a certain mutation might enable the individual with the mutation to survive easier and thus reproduce more, perhaps passing on the mutation to the next generation. If it is something generally beneficial, it can catch on, and thus the species 'evolves,' a certain element about them changes. Now, it is a good question whether this principle could lead to such varied species as we have today, in the set categories we have, and why there aren't any in-between mutants as well, why are all the species so well-defined. If only a specific trait were beneficial, for example, why do you have several types of animals in an area, not just one? Of course, now it is in an equilibrium and there is often symbiosis between the different species, but why did they start diverging so in the beginning?

There are a lot of good questions, but you first have to make sure you understand the principle.

 

[zeke]

Ah, you graced us with another reply, while I was writing:



They are not improved by the random mutations per se. That seems to be the point you are missing. Mutations are of course, of their nature, quite random. But a mutation does not necessarily mean a step forward, an evolutionary progression. But, a certain mutation might enable the individual with the mutation to survive easier and thus reproduce more, perhaps passing on the mutation to the next generation. If it is something generally beneficial, it can catch on, and thus the species 'evolves,' a certain element about them changes. Now, it is a good question whether this principle could lead to such varied species as we have today, in the set categories we have, and why there aren't any in-between mutants as well, why are all the species so well-defined. If only a specific trait were beneficial, for example, why do you have several types of animals in an area, not just one? Of course, now it is in an equilibrium and there is often symbiosis between the different species, but why did they start diverging so in the beginning?

Are you saying that mutations are random and that without random mutations evolution cannot "step forward"? You do know what 'random' means - yes?

 

[zeke]

There are a lot of good questions, but you first have to make sure you understand the principle.

But the question remains - do you understand the principle?

 

[pHghost]

What do you think Simpson meant when he famously said - "Man is the result of a purposeless and naturalistic... process that did not have him in mind"?

He meant exactly what he said: that man is the result of a purposeless and naturalistic process that did not have him in mind. I still see no randomness in it. Purposelessness is not randomness, though it might seem it is.

Was he correct in you version of evolution?

I've expressed my views on that several times, why do you keep repeating questions you have received answers for?

I believe man was created by God, unique and set apart from all creation, because he has been created in the image of God, as a reflection of the Holy Trinity.

So, no. Man did not come to be in a purposeless manner. He is exactly the way God had meant him to be.

 

[zeke]

So, no. Man did not come to be in a purposeless manner. He is exactly the way God had meant him to be.

Did man come to be in a random manner via mutation and natural selection or is mutation and natural selection purposeless?

 

[zeke]

I believe man was created by God, unique and set apart from all creation, because he has been created in the image of God, as a reflection of the Holy Trinity.

Do classical Darwinists who preach classical Darwinism agree with your statement?

 

[pHghost]

Are you saying that mutations are random and that without random mutations evolution cannot "step forward"? You do know what 'random' means - yes?

I am more and more doubtful about your ability to read, or perhaps to put things together and come to logical conclusions.

They are not improved by the random mutations per se. That seems to be the point you are missing.

As described, the 'evolution' happens only if a certain mutation is so overwhelmingly beneficial to the species, that the individuals carrying that mutation have a significantly higher rate of survival/reproduction than those without it, thus passing the mutation onwards. So, it is in fact the opposite of random.

The mutation might be random, the 'evolution' part far from it. Understand the concept now?

 

[pHghost]

Do classical Darwinists who preach classical Darwinism agree with your statement?

Dunno. You should ask them over a beer.

 

[zeke]

He meant exactly what he said: that man is the result of a purposeless and naturalistic process that did not have him in mind.

Why do Darwinists make that kind of statement of religion? Do they make that assumption from their examination of the ToE?

 

[pHghost]

Did man come to be in a random manner via mutation and natural selection or is mutation and natural selection purposeless?

This is a completely absurd question.

[A]Did man come to be in a random manner via mutation and natural selection
or
is mutation and natural selection purposeless?

It could be neither, or both. These are completely unrelated. Banana or polkadot?

 

[pHghost]

Why do Darwinists make that kind of statement of religion? Do they make that assumption from their examination of the ToE?

Dunno. You should ask them over a beer.

 

[zeke]

They are not improved by the random mutations per se.

But mutations are random and according to you they are required if evolution is to move forward. Are you not confused per se?

"... it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true of some ecological chain relationships (the famous Yucca moth case, and so forth). However, the objectors ot random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence." ~ Ernst Mayr (Systematics and the Origin of Species)​

Does Mayr think mutations are random in his statement above?

 

[zeke]

Dunno. You should ask them over a beer.

You do agree it was a statement of religion - yes?

 

[zeke]

This is a completely absurd question.

Which is absurd - the mechanisms of Darwinism, mutation and natural selection or the idea that mutation and natural selection are purposeless? Or both?