Just Accidental?

[Hockeycowboy]

It is comprised of a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation and scientists are able to use it to make useful predictions about what sort of phenomenon should be expected to occur.

That does not negate a Creator, which explains the origin of life.
(The only facts we have are a testament to micro evolution, not macro. To say otherwise is distorting the facts.)

(Do you know how many predictions have failed? With regard to the fossil record alone, there are many!)

If creationism were the best available explanation it would be the prevailing scientific theory. It isn't.

Again, why would you expect a concept that solely explains how organisms arrived, to have any bearing on how they thrived?

The scientific theory of evolution (that all organisms share a common ancestor) is indeed the best available explanation for the diversity of life on earth

No, it isn't. The best to explain this diversity is separate creative events. Believing the Giant Sequoia is a cousin to humans, is fantasy.
And it is "available ". The evidence is obvious, when one understands the internal harmony of the Scriptures, revealing a Divine Source. Archaeological discoveries continue to verify its truthfulness. Tho many times it tries to be hidden, as expected, from what the Bible discloses regarding the times we live in. Even Isaac Newton came to realize this, in his daily study of the Bible. He was an expert scholar of it!

 

[SkepticThinker]

That does not negate a Creator, which explains the origin of life.
(The only facts we have are a testament to micro evolution, not macro. To say otherwise is distorting the facts.)

Who said it did?

Your claims are just wrong. Sorry. The only one distorting the facts is you. I've repeatedly asked both you and Deeje to provide some sort of demonstration of the barrier that you both seem to think exists which would block small changes from become larger changes over time. As of yet, neither of you has done so.

(Do you know how many predictions have failed? With regard to the fossil record alone, there are many!)

Actually quite the opposite, which is why evolution is the only game in town.

Again, why would you expect a concept that solely explains how organisms arrived, to have any bearing on how they thrived?

Have you not been following the conversation?

No, it isn't. The best to explain this diversity is separate creative events. Believing the Giant Sequoia is a cousin to humans, is fantasy.
And it is "available ". The evidence is obvious, when one understands the internal harmony of the Scriptures, revealing a Divine Source. Archaeological discoveries continue to verify its truthfulness. Tho many times it tries to be hidden, as expected, from what the Bible discloses regarding the times we live in. Even Isaac Newton came to realize this, in his daily study of the Bible. He was an expert scholar of it!

Scriptures/the BIble are claims, not evidence. "It's obvious" is a claim, not evidence.

All evidence obtained from all branches of science have pointed to and confirmed evolution over and over again for the last 150+ years.

I don't care what Isaac Newton thought before we knew as much as we now know about the world we inhabit.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Are you not even aware of the role of selection, which is the opposite of chance?

Are you aware that natural selection is based on random variables, like mutations? How shaky is that?

That is like saying "the roof of the building is solid", while ignoring that the structure itself is based on shifting sand.

Or saying about a medical operation, "the surgeon is using the best scalpels, but I'm gonna ignore that his hand is shaky!"

You guys will try to grasp the evidence that supports your conclusions, but ignore the evidence that doesn't.

So be it....we all can make our own choices, whether we know it's accurate or not.

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you aware that natural selection is based on random variables, like mutations? How shaky is that?

Ok, obviously we need to start at the basics.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms of random mutation and non-random selection operate together to produce non-random results. The variations.....produced by mutations....are indeed randomly generated. But then those variations go through a selective filter (natural selection) that generally operates within a framework where the variations that increase fitness are selected for, and the variations that decrease fitness are selected against.

Since the select for/select against filter is based on fitness, it is decidedly non-random.

It's similar to if I had a black bag that's full of colored discs that all feel the same to the touch. I reach into the bag and pull out one disc at a time, then I keep any red discs and discard all non-red discs. At the end of the process, I have all red discs. Well.....how can that be? I picked the discs out the bag at random!!

The answer is simple, and serves to illustrate my point. Even though the first step in the process is entirely random (pulling discs out of the bag/mutations), the results of that process are then put through a non-random filter (red stays, non-red discarded/increased fitness stays, decreased fitness discarded), which generates a non-random outcome.

Understand?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I've repeatedly asked both you and Deeje to provide some sort of demonstration of the barrier that you both seem to think exists which would block small changes from become larger changes over time. As of yet, neither of you has done so.

During the life of this thread, yes, we have! (Well, I have. But Deeje has, too, I think.)

I'll just mention two of the barriers: apoptosis and sexual selection.

Apoptosis, alone, is enough to discredit Gould's theory of "punctuated equilibrium", an idea he helped push to try to explain the jerky and non-linear observations found in the fossil record.

He got into some heated disputes with his colleagues over that one! But in the end, i remember some of his one-time detractors reluctantly came to accept it....because they had nothing else!

His popularity made him the envy of some of his fellow scientists.

 

[SkepticThinker]

During the life of this thread, yes, we have! (Well, I have. But Deeje has, too, I think.)

I'll just mention two of the barriers: apoptosis and sexual selection.

Apoptosis, alone, is enough to discredit Gould's theory of "punctuated equilibrium", an idea he helped push to try to explain the jerky and non-linear observations found in the fossil record.

He got into some heated disputes with his colleagues over that one! But in the end, i remember some of his one-time detractors reluctantly came to accept it....because they had nothing else!

His popularity made him the envy of some of his fellow scientists.

Please elaborate has to how cell death acts as a barrier of the accumulation of small changes from become bigger changes over time.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm always amused when creationists try and speak to (let alone criticize) Eldredge and Gould's puctuated equilibrium. Pretty much every time, none of them have actually read the paper, and very, very few of them even understand the concept. All they know is the silly straw man they get from their creationist sources ("they proposed it as an excuse for no transitional fossils").

If you try and get them to address the core reason for its proposal (modes of speciation), it's usually pretty entertaining.

 

[Deeje]

I love these emojis you have! Where can I get them, to put on my iPad?

Metis already asked this HC......here is the link.

Just Accidental?
Say it with emoji's

 

[savagewind]

Metis already asked this HC......here is the link.

Just Accidental?
Say it with emoji's

eliminate the last nine figures and you will arrive at the right place.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It's similar to if I had a black bag that's full of colored discs that all feel the same to the touch. I reach into the bag and pull out one disc at a time, then I keep any red discs and discard all non-red discs. At the end of the process, I have all red discs. Well.....how can that be? I picked the discs out the bag at random!!

I understand....obviously, natural selection chooses the best, and ignores or discards the rest.

Really, isn't the genetic code pretty much stable, too stable to account for the sheer diversity of past and present successful organisms? (Yes, even some extinct ones were successful; i would call the trilobite a success, on the basis of there being so many of them!) I believe it is; it is a very stable organic structure.

What's the percentage of beneficial mutations compared to harmful mutations? It's extremely low! Is it enough to account for the innumerable species that have ever existed? "Sure," you say; "Life has been evolving for 3.8 billion years!" (Well, I'd limit that to just prior to the Cambrian Explosion, ~ 540 million years ago.)

That timespan represents a lot of living things!

Since harmful mutations vastly outnumber beneficial ones, there should be plenty of evidence showcasing harmful mutations in the form of inferior anatomical parts, observed in the fossil record.

We don't...almost all seem perfectly suited to match their environment.


I'm done here. Deeje, thanks for starting the thread.

 

[Deeje]

I'm always amused when creationists try and speak to (let alone criticize) Eldredge and Gould's puctuated equilibrium. Pretty much every time, none of them have actually read the paper, and very, very few of them even understand the concept. All they know is the silly straw man they get from their creationist sources ("they proposed it as an excuse for no transitional fossils").

If you try and get them to address the core reason for its proposal (modes of speciation), it's usually pretty entertaining.

If its entertainment you want......try this.

https://www.facebook.com/1336698239737161/videos/1359459414127710/

I wish I found evolution entertaining......it's really quite boring......

......unsatisfying and completely useless in giving us a reason for WHY we are here. (yes, some of us actually need a reason for our existence) Who cares how things changed if you cannot explain where life came from? Not your problem....? Yes, I noticed that.

The big question, (where did life originate?) when it is answered, will show evolution up to be the "Titanic" of our modern era.....a fact that everyone thought was "unsinkable"....

Got your lifebuoy handy?

 

[Deeje]

I'm done here. Deeje, thanks for starting the thread.

Thanks for your input my brother......believers are going to believe, and those who don't want to know the Creator will never believe of their own volition, no matter how much you reason with them....they think we are the blind ones and all they want to do is

about their own version of the science. The Creator teaches us about the original, not the man-made counterfeit.

Those who are undecided will have to make up their own minds. I hope we have helped them to see that the science isn't all its cracked up to be.

Does it matter what we believe? We think it matters a lot....

Does It Matter What You Believe? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[Jose Fly]

I understand....obviously, natural selection chooses the best, and ignores or discards the rest.

Which is how you end up with non-random results. So the whole "It couldn't have happened by chance" is a complete straw man of evolutionary theory.

Really, isn't the genetic code pretty much stable, too stable to account for the sheer diversity of past and present successful organisms?

I have no idea what you mean by "stable", but if you're asking if mutation rates are sufficient to account for life's evolutionary history, it would appear so. For example, each of us were born with between 100-200 novel mutations, and in many organisms the rates can be much higher.

What's the percentage

of beneficial mutations compared to harmful mutations? It's extremely low! Is it enough to account for the innumerable species that have ever existed? "Sure," you say; "Life has been evolving for 3.8 billion years!" (Well, I'd limit that to just prior to the Cambrian Explosion, ~ 540 million years ago.)

That timespan represents a lot of living things!

Since harmful mutations vastly outnumber beneficial ones, there should be plenty of evidence showcasing harmful mutations in the form of inferior anatomical parts, observed in the fossil record.

But again you're forgetting the role of selection. If an organism is born with a deleterious mutation, that trait will be selected against, either through direct mortality or reduced reproductive success, and whatever individuals that have the trait will be highly unlikely to be fossilized and discovered.

And also, if you're looking for examples of anatomical structures becoming reduced in function in the fossil record, there are plenty of them. I can post some if you like.

We don't...almost all seem perfectly suited to match their environment.

That's quite the claim. Exactly how did you determine them to be "perfectly suited to match their environment"?

 

[Jose Fly]

If its entertainment you want......try this.

https://www.facebook.com/1336698239737161/videos/1359459414127710/

I wish I found evolution entertaining......it's really quite boring......

......unsatisfying and completely useless in giving us a reason for WHY we are here. (yes, some of us actually need a reason for our existence) Who cares how things changed if you cannot explain where life came from? Not your problem....? Yes, I noticed that.

The big question, (where did life originate?) when it is answered, will show evolution up to be the "Titanic" of our modern era.....a fact that everyone thought was "unsinkable"....

Got your lifebuoy handy?

Hardly surprising, given that it's coming from a person who declared that they could never, ever recognize evolution as real due to the theological consequences they'd have to face.

 

[Deeje]

Hardly surprising, given that it's coming from a person who declared that they could never, ever recognize evolution as real due to the theological consequences they'd have to face.

I think you might have a comprehension problem Jose Fly. You keep repeating this nonsense as if its actually true.....but its your fantasy, not mine. I have no "theological consequences" to face. You have nothing to prove that your theory is true....not a single shred of substantiated evidence, and you never will. How is that in any way "challenging" to my beliefs? Are you trying to knock me over with a feather?
You can huff and puff all you like but my house is made of bricks....IMO yours is the one made of straw.

Your theory is backed up by doctored evidence. "Doctored" in the sense that scientists can make the fossils say whatever they want them to. Without your interpretation, what would the logical conclusion be? I know what appeals to my logic.....but you can accept whatever version of events you like.

I am not one bit "theologically challenged" by science's "evidence" because none of it is real.
All you have is the jargon and the diagrams....not to mention great computer generated videos.....makes those critters jump right out of the screen, doesn't it? And then you have very likable fellows like David Attenborough spruking away, and everyone thinks science has actually proven what he is telling them.

Its complete hogwash.

Now do you have something more than suggestion? More than inference? More than speculation? More than educated guessing? More than "predictions" or "this leads us to the conclusion that" what we say happened...."?

Please let us know.

I think my Dad is stronger than your Dad......

 

[ArtieE]

Genesis is my backup.......

But Genesis only says that God created the different kinds where does it say that one kind can't evolve into a different kind? Where do you get that from?

What a wonderful thought!

They would simply eliminate slow organic evolution from their minds and apply the same principles to science that are proven....not the conjecture and supposition applied to their unprovable theory.

You didn't actually answer. Here are my questions again:

2. Suppose you as an ID believer were in charge of thousands of scientists and a lot of research laboratories and you were responsible for telling them what kind of research they are supposed to do. What would you tell them? I mean, suppose all the biologists who are evolutionists became ID believers overnight. How would that impact on the way they do their research?

 

[Jose Fly]

I said to Deeje: "Hardly surprising, given that it's coming from a person who declared that they could never, ever recognize evolution as real due to the theological consequences they'd have to face."

Deeje responded:

I think you might have a comprehension problem Jose Fly. You keep repeating this nonsense as if its actually true.....but its your fantasy, not mine. I have no "theological consequences" to face.

This is what makes me believe that any sort of discussion with you just isn't possible. Here is what you said after I asked what would change for you if you were to become an "evolutionist" and if you could still be a JW....

"No, as a believer, I could never compromise my views on this subject. Evolution is used to make God either disappear or to make him out to be a liar....neither of which can be true according to my very strongly held beliefs."

So there you are on January 16 clearly saying that you can't compromise your views on evolution because if you did, you would have to conclude that God either doesn't exist or is a liar, which means you couldn't be a JW.

Yet 12 days later, you just flat out deny all of it.

That's a level of delusion that is so deep, so pervasive, it's an obvious indication that something is fundamentally wrong here, and discussion just isn't possible.

 

[Deeje]

But Genesis only says that God created the different kinds where does it say that one kind can't evolve into a different kind? Where do you get that from?

Read Genesis and you will see it clearly states that God created all land animals, winged creatures, marine creatures and placed them in the habitats that he had already prepared for them. He even differentiated between "wild" animals and "domestic" ones. What need was there for evolution? The only "evolution" is adaptation, which is not the kind of evolution promoted by scientists. Adaptive change is not responsible for macro-evolution. You have no proof that evolution ever happened.

You didn't actually answer. Here are my questions again:

2. Suppose you as an ID believer were in charge of thousands of scientists and a lot of research laboratories and you were responsible for telling them what kind of research they are supposed to do. What would you tell them? I mean, suppose all the biologists who are evolutionists became ID believers overnight. How would that impact on the way they do their research?

No need to repeat....just read my response to see that I did answer your (rather ridiculous) question. Once you acknowledge the Creator, the science become self explanatory. Is there some need for me to address ridiculous scenarios?

 

[Deeje]

I said to Deeje: "Hardly surprising, given that it's coming from a person who declared that they could never, ever recognize evolution as real due to the theological consequences they'd have to face."

Deeje responded:


This is what makes me believe that any sort of discussion with you just isn't possible. Here is what you said after I asked what would change for you if you were to become an "evolutionist" and if you could still be a JW....

"No, as a believer, I could never compromise my views on this subject. Evolution is used to make God either disappear or to make him out to be a liar....neither of which can be true according to my very strongly held beliefs."

So there you are on January 16 clearly saying that you can't compromise your views on evolution because if you did, you would have to conclude that God either doesn't exist or is a liar, which means you couldn't be a JW.

Yet 12 days later, you just flat out deny all of it.

That's a level of delusion that is so deep, so pervasive, it's an obvious indication that something is fundamentally wrong here, and discussion just isn't possible.

OMG.....was that a tantrum?

Jose Fly, the one thing people will notice about your responses to me is the way you often phrase your replies to complain about pedantic personal observations. My stance is no different to yours. Your position is not negotiable either because of what you have chosen to believe, and so is mine. You believe what you accept as evidence, and so do I. We are on opposite ends of this argument....but the real truth is, you have no more "scientific" proof for your position than I do. If you need to resort to this kind of psycho-analytical approach to ridicule my position in order to elevate your own, to me that betrays a complete lack of ability to address my points. You see, it's what you don't address that speaks volumes.

I asked you to address the points in this post.... Just Accidental? ....but you didn't. All you said was "None of that describes a method by which we can differentiate "designed" things from "undesigned". I asked you to point out any errors in a series of articles about the origin of life, but you dodged it altogether. Was it beneath your dignity to even read it? Or did you find nothing in it to criticize?

What about the examples I gave you of what we all perceive an "accident" to be? ( https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/just-accidental.191045/page-121#post-5048477 ) You didn't even acknowledge them. Tell us when accidents are ever beneficial.....and then tell us how many beneficial accidents were responsible for all the lifeforms we see on earth today? You think that's not a stretch?

And then there was this little gem....

"Tragopogon mirus and T. miscellus (both 2n = 4x = 24) are recent allotetraploids derived from T. dubius × T. porrifolius and T. dubius × T. pratensis (each 2n = 2x = 12), respectively. The genome sizes of T. mirus are additive of those of its diploid parents, but at least some populations of T. miscellus have undergone genome downsizing. To survey for genomic rearrangements in the allopolyploids, four repetitive sequences were physically mapped. TPRMBO (unit size 160 base pairs [bp]) and TGP7 (532 bp) are tandemly organized satellite sequences isolated from T. pratensis and T. porrifolius, respectively. Fluorescent in situ hybridization to the diploids showed that TPRMBO is a predominantly centromeric repeat on all 12 chromosomes, while TGP7 is a subtelomeric sequence on most chromosome arms. The distribution of tandem repetitive DNA loci (TPRMBO, TGP7, 18S-5.8S-26S rDNA, and 5S rDNA) gave unique molecular karyotypes for the three diploid species, permitting the identification of the parental chromosomes in the polyploids. The location and number of these loci were inherited without apparent changes in the allotetraploids. There was no evidence for major genomic rearrangements in Tragopogon allopolyploids that have arisen multiple times in North America within the last 80 yr."

Seriously?

Does the jargon make it more believable?....

or is it just easier to cover up the suggestions and inferences to the uneducated?

If you can't speak to my points in plain English without this rather pathetic attempt to denigrate me personally and to ignore the hard questions yourself, then I agree, there is no point in continuing this conversation.

If you want to present the science in a language we can all understand, then carry on, otherwise it just makes you look like you're either throwing a....

or

.....just whacking the opposition...neither of which contributes to your position in any way.

 

[Jose Fly]

OMG.....was that a tantrum?

How pathetic and childish on your part. I wonder.....do you honestly believe you're giving a positive representation of your faith here?

Jose Fly, the one thing people will notice about your responses to me is the way you often phrase your replies to complain about pedantic personal observations.

Well, you kinda put me in that position when you do bizarre things like tell me all the theological ramifications you'd have to face if you were to become an evolutionist (it would make "God disappear", make "God out to be a liar", and you couldn't be a JW), and then less than a month later say "I have no "theological consequences" to face" when it comes to evolution.

I'm not really sure what else to do with that other than describe it for what it is.....extreme delusion.

I asked you to address the points in this post.... Just Accidental? ....but you didn't. All you said was "None of that describes a method by which we can differentiate "designed" things from "undesigned".

See, this puts me in about the same position as above.

I asked you how you differentiate between "designed' and "undesigned" things, and you respond by posting a bunch of links to JW sites, none of which say anything at all about differentiating "designed" from "undesigned".

Again, the only way I can think of to respond to that is to call it what it is.....extreme delusion.

I asked you to point out any errors in a series of articles about the origin of life, but you dodged it altogether. Was it beneath your dignity to even read it? Or did you find nothing in it to criticize?

See above.

What about the examples I gave you of what we all perceive an "accident" to be? ( https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/just-accidental.191045/page-121#post-5048477 ) You didn't even acknowledge them.

Right, because in that post you ignored everything I had posted to you previously. So you were trying to play a dishonest game where you ignore everything I say to you, while you demand I respond to everything you say to me.

Again, I have to wonder if you truly think you're representing your faith in a positive light.

Tell us when accidents are ever beneficial.....and then tell us how many beneficial accidents were responsible for all the lifeforms we see on earth today? You think that's not a stretch?

I've posted examples here before, and pointed out the fact that beneficial mutations happen all the time, every single day. We're actively fighting against them right now.

Seriously?

Does the jargon make it more believable?....

or is it just easier to cover up the suggestions and inferences to the uneducated?

So that's your childish way of saying that you really have no idea what they're talking about. But rather than take the time to learn the subject, you dismiss it and insinuate that the scientist who did the work are lying.

Again, I have to wonder if you appreciate just how intellectually lazy and dishonest that is, and how poorly it reflects on both you and your faith.

If you can't speak to my points in plain English

But I did. I told you exactly what that paper describes....the observed and documented evolution of a species that is physically unable to breed with its parent species, due to chromosomal differences.

Time for you to come up with another excuse to deny reality.

If you want to present the science in a language we can all understand, then carry on

Explain to me why I should try and present science to a person who very clearly declared that they could never accept it for religious reasons.