Religion anyone?
-
@rickw said:
@tim said:
@unknownuser said:
The available evidence fits a "God created basic types with the ability to adapt and change within set parameters" theory as well as it fits a macroevolution theory.
No, it doesn't. Not even close. Evidently your claim to have studied is not very serious.
So what evidence falls outside a "God created basic types with the ability to adapt and change within set parameters" theory?
Just about all of it. Read some actual biology texts - and I don't mean the 'answers in genesis' crap. Learn some actual physics, so you don't fall prey to the moronic claims about "ooh the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics means evolution is impossible".
As an attempt to explain in a simple manner that relies on as little a priori knowledge as possible -
a) if entities reproduce in a manner that occasionally makes mistakes
b) if living entities compete for resources in order to survive and reproduce, then
c) if the results of those mistakes that are either neutral or even slightly beneficial are carried through in the reproduction process (see a)
then evolution is inevitable, inescapable and will result in compounding changes over reproductive generations. -
@tim said:
@rickw said:
So what evidence falls outside a "God created basic types with the ability to adapt and change within set parameters" theory?
Just about all of it. Read some actual biology texts - and I don't mean the 'answers in genesis' crap. Learn some actual physics, so you don't fall prey to the moronic claims about "ooh the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics means evolution is impossible".
As an attempt to explain in a simple manner that relies on as little a priori knowledge as possible -
a) if entities reproduce in a manner that occasionally makes mistakes
b) if living entities compete for resources in order to survive and reproduce, then
c) if the results of those mistakes that are either neutral or even slightly beneficial are carried through in the reproduction process (see a)
then evolution is inevitable, inescapable and will result in compounding changes over reproductive generations.I've read many articles on both sides of the issue, including some so-called "real" biology texts. I've even studied physics (gasp!), though not, admittedly, as my major field of study, just as part of it. So, if you don't mind, please dispense with the irrelevant personal remarks - I understand your disdain for my point of view just fine without them.
The first problem with that thought is the assumption that the mistakes can even be neutral or beneficial. Mistakes big enough to cause a significant change usually result in sterility, eliminating the possibility of inheriting the change. The second problem is that, assuming there was such a beneficial change that did not result in sterility, unless the same mistake happened twice (or became a dominant genetic trait), and the two recipients reproduced together, the trait would be watered down or recessive, waiting for a second recessive gene in the reproduction cycle for the change to reappear. Meanwhile, advantage lost. Third, even where observable changes have resulted among distinct populations, the groups are still identifiable as a variant of the original type - changes happen within the bounds for that type. Finally, there's still no solid evidence that this has actually resulted in other kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, or families. In fact, Christopher Schwabe wrote in 1986: "Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many, in fact, that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message."
He believed that polyphyletic evolution (many origin-of-life events) was more likely, based on the evidence, than was monophyletic evolution (universal common ancestry).
An evolutionist who doubts universal common ancestry. Interesting...
-
Selfish Gene is good place to start. It outlines a 'gene-centric' mode of Natural Selection driven evolution that appears to be wholely rational and without the need of 'intelligent - creator/creators'. People confuse evolution and Natural Selection quite often. Evolution as understood by things changing (adapt) overtime is one thing. Evolutionary theory of Natural Selection is a specific theory regarding how evolution may take place on its own (I.e. without the need of devine interference). Evolution meaning change is easily grasped by most, Natural Selection unfortunately isn't.
Whenever I talk to relgious people about evolution. I get the feeling they just didn't pay enough attention to grasp the finer points of Natural Selection.
-
How does polyphyletic evolution undermine that there is no need for intelligent creator/creators?
-
I think, evolution through natural selection makes quite some sense. just take this (a bit ridiculous
) example
I think it is obvious, that one of the animals, born with a "deformation" will be favoured in this specific environment and therefore has a bigger chance to survive - and to reproduce...
-
Interesting post bruce.
And on a lighter note:
-
Never let the facts get in the way of a good joke, as they say.
-
If the poster was accurate, it would be funnier.
@unknownuser said:
The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.
- That there is one only God, and he all perfect.
- That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
- That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.
@unknownuser said:
I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men.
@unknownuser said:
That I am not a member of any Christian church is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular....I do not think I could myself be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of, or scoffer at, religion. [July 31, 1846]
@unknownuser said:
I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.
-
@unknownuser said:
To argue that things remain static or are not capable of taking on unique characteristics over time strikes me as being very dark, cold and closed, somewhat prison like (at least as i can imagine it).
I didn't argue that, or even imply it - unless you consider "the ability to adapt and change within set parameters" to be a static condition.
As for the rest, my condolences to you that you were introduced to a "depressing" faith. Mine is quite the opposite.
remus:
I understand, it's all in good fun. I guess it wouldn't be as impressive with only 4 faces...plot-paris: I understand the image, and it makes sense - until you consider Mr. Long-neck bending down to get a drink of water: the pumping force of the heart, necessary to send blood the great distance to his brain when upright, would kill him instantly when his head went down. Mr. Short-neck would not have that problem. So, who has the advantage? The one who can eat but not drink, or the one that can drink and find a lower tree?
all: I'll repeat my earlier statement that I respect the rights of others to hold a different view.
-
remus: I understand, it's all in good fun. I guess it wouldn't be as impressive with only 4 faces...
RickW, no way to quote you
in the phrase i wanted. Sorry. 
-
@chango70 said:
How does polyphyletic evolution undermine that there is no need for intelligent creator/creators?
Polyphyletic evolution asserts many different biogenesis events that led to the different types (kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, families) with microevolution providing the variety within the families. This is more in line with creation (God created many different types that all had the capacity for variety within their kind) than is monophyletic evolution, the main difference being the origins of the initial life forms. But since neither polyphyletic nor monophyletic evolution deal with the origins of life, just what happened after life arose, there is still a need for an explanation of the origins of life - something too complex, in my view, to not have been intentional and designed.
@unknownuser said:
According to standard evolutionary theory, all organisms derive from a single ancestral species. Darwin's famous book is noted for having only one illustration — the familiar monophyletic evolutionary tree, showing all living organisms linked to a single ancestor. The structure of this tree shows diversity first increasing at low taxonomic categories, eventually building to diversity at higher taxonomic categories. Evolutionarily speaking, this pattern seems inevitable — small changes add up, eventually producing new species, then new genera, families, orders, etc. Unfortunately for the theory, this description is the opposite of the actual pattern in the rocks. The greatest morphological differences appear in the lower Phanerozoic rocks, while the rest of the fossil record consists largely of variations of familiar themes.
@unknownuser said:
Do I believe there are more than 8 notes in a scale. Yes I do. But within the set of parameters as defined by the 8 notes there seem to be endless compositions...so one could be fooled into looking/listening no further.
Being a musician, I appreciate a music analogy. Given there are 8 notes in a standard major scale, I understand how you might think that being stuck in one key would be a "static condition" despite the seemingly "endless compositions" - and yet, DNA has only 4 elements. Is that not itself, then, a static condition? And yet whole symphonies of species are written with those four elements.
There are 12 notes in a chromatic scale in western music. A major scale uses 8 of those 12 in a particular interval pattern. A natural minor scale also uses 8 of 12, but 3 are different, and there is a different interval pattern. A harmonic minor likewise uses 8 of 12, but 3 are different from the major, and one is different from the natural minor. Then there's the melodic minor scale, which has only one note different from a major scale when ascending, and is the same as the natural minor scale when descending. A chromatic scale uses all 12 notes. Then there are modal scales, but that's just too much...
The point? Good question!
The point is that (traditionally) a composer selects one key as the basis of a composition, and structures the composition based on the type of music being written and on the style (baroque, classical, romantic, etc). For example, a rondo has a different structure than a sonata or minuet. A symphony is distinct from a concerto, an opera, or a cantata. The styles (or "periods", thinking historically) are like higher orders, the composers and types are like lower orders, and the individual works are like the various species - they can be grouped by like parameters.Baroque : Bach : Concertos : Brandenburg #3 in G Major
Baroque : Bach : Toccatas & Fugues : d minor
Classical : Mozart : Symphonies : #40 in G minor
Romantic : Brahms : Symphonies : #1 in c minorGranted, it's not a perfect analogy (keys are independent of types and styles, though the 12 tones are constant throughout western music from the late Renaissance to the late 19th century), but it is fun.
Anyway, need to get back to Windowizer...
-
-
@rickw said:
@chango70 said:
How does polyphyletic evolution undermine that there is no need for intelligent creator/creators?
Polyphyletic evolution asserts many different biogenesis events that led to the different types (kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, families) with microevolution providing the variety within the families. This is more in line with creation (God created many different types that all had the capacity for variety within their kind) than is monophyletic evolution, the main difference being the origins of the initial life forms. But since neither polyphyletic nor monophyletic evolution deal with the origins of life, just what happened after life arose, there is still a need for an explanation of the origins of life - something too complex, in my view, to not have been intentional and designed.
@unknownuser said:
According to standard evolutionary theory, all organisms derive from a single ancestral species. Darwin's famous book is noted for having only one illustration — the familiar monophyletic evolutionary tree, showing all living organisms linked to a single ancestor. The structure of this tree shows diversity first increasing at low taxonomic categories, eventually building to diversity at higher taxonomic categories. Evolutionarily speaking, this pattern seems inevitable — small changes add up, eventually producing new species, then new genera, families, orders, etc. Unfortunately for the theory, this description is the opposite of the actual pattern in the rocks. The greatest morphological differences appear in the lower Phanerozoic rocks, while the rest of the fossil record consists largely of variations of familiar themes.
@unknownuser said:
Do I believe there are more than 8 notes in a scale. Yes I do. But within the set of parameters as defined by the 8 notes there seem to be endless compositions...so one could be fooled into looking/listening no further.
Being a musician, I appreciate a music analogy. Given there are 8 notes in a standard major scale, I understand how you might think that being stuck in one key would be a "static condition" despite the seemingly "endless compositions" - and yet, DNA has only 4 elements. Is that not itself, then, a static condition? And yet whole symphonies of species are written with those four elements.
There are 12 notes in a chromatic scale in western music. A major scale uses 8 of those 12 in a particular interval pattern. A natural minor scale also uses 8 of 12, but 3 are different, and there is a different interval pattern. A harmonic minor likewise uses 8 of 12, but 3 are different from the major, and one is different from the natural minor. Then there's the melodic minor scale, which has only one note different from a major scale when ascending, and is the same as the natural minor scale when descending. A chromatic scale uses all 12 notes. Then there are modal scales, but that's just too much...
The point? Good question!
The point is that (traditionally) a composer selects one key as the basis of a composition, and structures the composition based on the type of music being written and on the style (baroque, classical, romantic, etc). For example, a rondo has a different structure than a sonata or minuet. A symphony is distinct from a concerto, an opera, or a cantata. The styles (or "periods", thinking historically) are like higher orders, the composers and types are like lower orders, and the individual works are like the various species - they can be grouped by like parameters.Baroque : Bach : Concertos : Brandenburg #3 in G Major
Baroque : Bach : Toccatas & Fugues : d minor
Classical : Mozart : Symphonies : #40 in G minor
Romantic : Brahms : Symphonies : #1 in c minorGranted, it's not a perfect analogy (keys are independent of types and styles, though the 12 tones are constant throughout western music from the late Renaissance to the late 19th century), but it is fun.
Anyway, need to get back to Windowizer...
Morlecular natural selection fully incorporates Polyphyletic evolution as it can create independent chances of organic molecules from inorganics ones. It doesn't prove anything Rick. Gene-centric natural selection can also incorporate Polyphyletic evolution. I still don't understand why that would mean God. Care to elaborate?
-
@chango70 said:
Molecular natural selection fully incorporates Polyphyletic evolution as it can create independent chances of organic molecules from inorganics ones. It doesn't prove anything Rick. Gene-centric natural selection can also incorporate Polyphyletic evolution. I still don't understand why that would mean God. Care to elaborate?
I didn't say it proved or disproved a creator. I was saying that the same evidence that would suggest polyphyletic evolution to an evolutionist would suggest creation to a creationist. And it makes sense that that would happen, since each view believes that the major groups of organisms have unique origins rather than a universal common ancestor.
Here's a quick rundown of what happened:
Original assertion: the evidence is accommodated by both creation theory as well as [polyphyletic] evolution theory.
first con argument: the evidence is not accommodated by creation theory, citing monophyletic evolution theory as evidence.
first response: not all evolutionists believe in monophyletic origins; evidence that is accommodated by polyphyletic evolution theory (multiple biogenesis events) would also be accommodated by creation theory.So, did you come to a decision on whether having only 4 DNA nucleotides constitutes a static system? (In the music analogy, I see these as the notes, as they are the building blocks for life, as notes are the building blocks for music).
Oh, and no chains here. But you're entitled to your opinion...
-
It occured to me that the way I am saying things may be confusing to some. So here's a story that I hope illustrates things:
A man went outside after a rainstorm and saw that the streets were wet. A few days later, as he was walking, he saw a wet street and decided, "it must have rained here," and he walked on home. Because he was out walking, he missed the news report that a water main had broken near where he was walking, causing streets to be wet.
He saw the evidence (the street was wet), and the evidence was accommodated by his theory (it had rained). However, the evidence was also accommodated by alternate causes (badly adjusted irrigation system, leaky water truck, a broken water main, melting ice or snow, someone washing their car, etc.), one of which happened to be the actual situation.
The point is, the available evidence is accommodated by more than one theory. That being the case, the evidence (as it is) cannot be said to prove one or the other.
-
Okay Rick with the same logic as the wet road:
A person in a wheelchair rolls themself to the podium where a preacher is 'healing', after a few moments of whacky theatrics the preacher slaps him over the head with his well worn bible and declares him healed. At this point the person leaps out of their wheelchair and dances a jig.
Conclusion?
-
@rickw said:
It occured to me that the way I am saying things may be confusing to some. So here's a story that I hope illustrates things:
A man went outside after a rainstorm and saw that the streets were wet. A few days later, as he was walking, he saw a wet street and decided, "it must have rained here," and he walked on home. Because he was out walking, he missed the news report that a water main had broken near where he was walking, causing streets to be wet.
He saw the evidence (the street was wet), and the evidence was accommodated by his theory (it had rained). However, the evidence was also accommodated by alternate causes (badly adjusted irrigation system, leaky water truck, a broken water main, melting ice or snow, someone washing their car, etc.), one of which happened to be the actual situation.
The point is, the available evidence is accommodated by more than one theory. That being the case, the evidence (as it is) cannot be said to prove one or the other.
Love this explanation. thanks rick w. is rick W means rick warren?
-
@solo said:
Okay Rick with the same logic as the wet road:
A person in a wheelchair rolls themself to the podium where a preacher is 'healing', after a few moments of whacky theatrics the preacher slaps him over the head with his well worn bible and declares him healed. At this point the person leaps out of their wheelchair and dances a jig.
Conclusion?
hey pete im lost with this one. maybe the person is nt sick. mm i did not get it.
-
@solo said:
Okay Rick with the same logic as the wet road:
A person in a wheelchair rolls themself to the podium where a preacher is 'healing', after a few moments of whacky theatrics the preacher slaps him over the head with his well worn bible and declares him healed. At this point the person leaps out of their wheelchair and dances a jig.
Conclusion?
Primary Conclusion: There are three scenarios: either I don't understand why you posed this particular scenario, you didn't get the point of my story, or you're trying to ridicule me. The situation itself proves none of these possibilites, but accommodates all of them.
Secondary Conclusion: Your story does not contain any logical conclusion, so you can't legitimately claim "with the same logic." Or perhaps you meant you want me to show how your scenario would be analyzed using the same explanation as I gave for the wet road. In that case, two explanations would fit the scenario: fake healing or real healing. The situation in the story does not prove either explanation, but is accommodated by each.
-
Any true scientist knows that there is more than one explanation and that all theories are just that...supposition based on observable fact...even if they are often initiated by unsupported moments of inspiration.
I do believe in a creator...just not one that is continually meddling in our affairs, as many traditionally religious folk seem to imagine.
I also believe in the survivability of the human soul, but I find the traditional view of heaven to be insufferably boring and firmly belive that the traditional hell is no more than people's natural reaction to impotence in the face of evil...the sense of a posthumous "You'll get yours." with respect to evildoers they are either powerless or too late to restrain. It's certainly true that we create our own hell on earth. It may be true that in death we are faced with the true implications of our actions and get to create our own hell then also.Although I fully support the advances in knowledge of the scientific Greats, there is a frightening amount we still know virtually nothing about; even very basic stuff like light and gravity. The Wave/Particle duality of light is well known, but I'd bet good money that it is, in fact, neither a wave or a particle.
Gravity is even more mysterious. It is everywhere; its range is apparently limitless; its effects are instantaneous, or at least it travels far faster than light. Some believe it to be particle-based, others more like a wave or universal matrix. Basically we don't have a clue other than it appears to be intimately related to both space and time.
Sure, we can model it mathematically in precise detail...we can send spacecraft to slingshot their way from planet to planet and end at a destination with near pinpoint accuracy...but we don't know what it actually IS.The way it is traditionally modelled is that every atom of matter in the universe is exerting a gravitational pull (by whatever means) on every other atom. This is an inferencing system that puts SU to shame. Furthermore...whether you attribute this to attractor particles or some kind of wave...energy is involved. The performance hit in SU would be nothing compared to this. To keep this up forever and over infinite distances would require more energy than exists in the entire universe.
It's not impossible that gravity, space and time are merely constructs....that the vast distances across which they operate are irrelevant, because they (the distances) don't really exist It's also perfectly possible that the Big Bang is just a construct too...and that we just imagine that everything is separated by such distances. Entanglement appears to be an observable fact...and Entanglement seems to suggest that everything is still touching, not racing away from everything else at vast speeds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Dq454iFp2c&feature=relatedI do think that much of the Bible is little more than myth, fable and analogy; and that it has absolutely nothing to tell us about creation. However, when it comes to the question of whether there is or isn't a creator, the universe is simply way too weird to write-off anything. "Reality" might be much closer to the basic premise of The Matrix than we care to admit. It...and us...may just all be an illusion.
Advertisement