On the Impossibility of Evolution on Logical Grounds Alone

[outhouse]

How do people all of a sudden have knowledge of academics.

We study.

So basically out of all the creatures on Earth who have evolved and are still evolving, we are the only ones that don't rely on just instinct and can have a concept of math and science

Yes.

If certain apes were in an enviroment that caused the change, what enviroment was it, what caused the change and how?

No one said apes, only you did.

But we did factually have a common ancestor 7-9 million years ago. We did not come from apes. We factually came from primates.

Multiple issues arise around environmental changes. If a species of primates over population an area and used all its resources, some would be required to move in to survive.

Dryer climates could drop food supplies and require migration.

Sorry I don't buy it

Pick up a text book on grade school biology, or please, take a class for heavens sake. Its not up for debate evolution is fact.

unless something sped up our evolution as in some sort of mutation or outside source, I might accept

Environmental changes can speed up changes or accelerate evolutionary changes.


Outside source is wishful thinking with no evidence in support, and a failure to understand exactly what grade school biology is.

 

[Valjean]

Are you skeptical about organisms changing over time or about the mechanisms described by the theory? If you doubt the scientific explanations, is there some other mechanism you think might be a possibility?

 

[David M]

But we did factually have a common ancestor 7-9 million years ago. We did not come from apes. We factually came from primates.

We did "come from apes". We are Apes, the common ancestor we share with chimps was an Ape (as were the ones we share with Gorillas and Orangs etc). All those are also of course primates but that grouping includes the New World Monkeys which we are definitely not descended from (as the new world monkeys split from the old world monkeys after apes had split off),

 

[dust1n]

a) evolution does not explian the origin of life itself [I think primordial soup is one theory].
b) evolution does not explain the process of mutation/adaption over the course of millennia leading to new speices- merely why pre-existing species survived and others did not.

fair enough. the question of the survival of species over geological time is adequately explained by evolutionary theory. A lack of a naturalistic explanations for other area does not imply the impossibility of a naturalistic explanation, merely insufficient knowledge to make one. it becomes a question as to whether a 'gap' in our knowledge necessitates a god of the gaps.

Actually B is pretty well understood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_evolution

 

[Ouroboros]

a) evolution does not explian the origin of life itself [I think primordial soup is one theory].

Right. Because that's chemical evolution, while evolution usually relates to biological evolution.

b) evolution does not explain the process of mutation/adaption over the course of millennia leading to new speices- merely why pre-existing species survived and others did not.

Strange. We read about how speciation works in anthropology I took a few years back. My teacher was a scientist, with a degree, and the books were written by scientists with degrees, and they had explanations (which we had on tests), but you say they don't. That's quite strange.

 

[Laika]

Right. Because that's chemical evolution, while evolution usually relates to biological evolution.


Strange. We read about how speciation works in anthropology I took a few years back. My teacher was a scientist, with a degree, and the books were written by scientists with degrees, and they had explanations (which we had on tests), but you say they don't. That's quite strange.

my ignorance is evident on this, so I'll take your word for it. I used 'evolution' in a very broad sense rather than its sepcifically biological sense so I was a bit confused myself on it. What I was getting at is there remains no certainty over the origins of all life on earth and that will also involve conflicting ideas/"holes" in other parts of the theory as the same mechanism will still be at work later on in the process of developing new species. it's a logical argument rather than a scientific one.

 

[Ouroboros]

my ignorance is evident on this, so I'll take your word for it. I used 'evolution' in a very broad sense rather than its sepcifically biological sense so I was a bit confused myself on it. What I was getting at is there remains no certainty over the origins of all life on earth and that will also involve conflicting ideas/"holes" in other parts of the theory as the same mechanism will still be at work later on in the process of developing new species. it's a logical argument rather than a scientific one.

I see.

Yes, there are many holes in the theory of evolution. Why else keep on researching and studying it? If we knew everything there is to know about it, there's nothing new to research. This goes for all our sciences. We have holes when it comes to gravity, electromagnetism, star formations, black hole formations, nutrition, health, diving, building with LEGO, drawing, painting, building roads, building and flying airplanes, cooking food, software for forums where people can discuss religion, and so on. We are by no means finished in studying nature and understanding it. I think there are a few fields in mathematics that are now considered complete, but other than that, we're pretty much only starting. (A few hundred years have we studied nature, that's not very long compared to how long it's been around).

 

[outhouse]

What I was getting at is there remains no certainty over the origins of all life on earth

That's called abiogenesis NOT evolution which is fact.

AS far as abiogenesis is concerned we don't know with certainty whether life came from chemistry or panspermia from Mars.

But those are you two ONLY choices, and both go directly back to chemistry.


Once you understand chemistry and a time block of a half million years, if you can even grasp how much time that actually is, its not just plausible, were on the edge of details now.


You would have to follow that branch of science to understand the current advancements, and they are WAY WAY beyond guessing

 

[outhouse]

in other parts of the theory as the same mechanism will still be at work later on in the process of developing new species

Every single living thing is in a state of evolution.

Cyano bacteria is one of our oldest known bacteria's. It still exist today in its ancient form. Because things evolved from it, does not mean change will happen to the original species.

it's a logical argument rather than a scientific one

But its based on severe lack of knowledge in biology.

 

[Laika]

But its based on severe lack of knowledge in biology.

I don't think of my willingness to question science from a position of ignorance as a sin. curiosity and a willingness to question everything is part of good science. my point is valid ONLY in so far as a creationist could argue for a "god of the gaps" and use their own ignorance and any uncertianty in science as a basis for their beliefs. the belief that such gaps can and will be filled by natural explanations reflects a naturalistic bias in science which a creationist can legitimately be questioned philosophically. the tendency towards supernatural and natural explanations represents a default setting in our conception of reality. A deist could well make the same argument on the basis of reason rather than by referring to scripture, and would be compatable with science because (western) science is not inherently atheist or naturalistic though the evidence now favours that position.

I am however not a creationist or a deist and so I don't defend my ignorance when people let me know that is the case as there isn't a god hiding in the gaps of my knowledge that I need to defend. I felt it was a valid point that could be explored. I am more than happy to learn from my mistakes as that makes good science. Thanks for your post on Abiogenesis as that was helpful.

 

[outhouse]

my point is valid ONLY in so far as a creationist could argue for a "god of the gaps"

But that is not science or even a decent argument, it is based on bias and faith alone.

I am however not a creationist

I didn't think so. Its possible I didn't fully understand your reply.

I don't think of my willingness to question science from a position of ignorance as a sin

Agreed science does that. Its not where I viewed issues.

I am more than happy to learn from my mistakes as that makes good science

I understand some science, but very ignorant to biology. Compared to my x brother in law, professor and author I know nothing.

 

[Valjean]

I'm still waiting for a proposed alternative to the ToE.

 

[viole]

If it explained it in great detail, why do you still see many people asking it? Also cheap insults isn't going to make your point any more valid.

Ok some apes stayed in one area and didn't evolve while others moved and evolved into humans? What sense does that make? What made those apes move in the first place?

Actually science has a LOT of guesswork and theories. And guess what? When one other theory arises, and if it makes sense, it replaces the old one. So evolution theory will probably be replaced like so many other theories. Theories are not facts. It's like saying entitlements are rights. They aren't the same thing, so let's stop trying to change the definition. Sorry if it doesn't make much sense to start out as very simplistic creatures and all of a sudden becoming cavemen and all of a sudden having a concept of science and math. No one has effectively tried to explained those gaps. Other than saying "lolz evolutionz didz it."

Question for you: do you recognize that we are vastly more similar to gorillas than, say, spiders?

If yes, what made your God so fond of gorilla like design to reuse it for the pinnacle of His creation?

Isn't maybe more rational to think that we and gorillas share a closer common ancestor instead of postulating that God created gorilla like being in His image?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Laika]

But that is not science or even a decent argument, it is based on bias and faith alone.

no. it's not really. it isn't good science, but I take a very heavily philosophical approach to science, so I try to think through how a creationist would reason out their argument.

I didn't think so. Its possible I didn't fully understand your reply.

I believe it is possible to actually prove there is no god, so I'm trying to understand many of the arguments for god in order to know how to counter them. So I often end up defending creationists occassionally because there are certain problems which get overlooked.

 

[outhouse]

I try to think through how a creationist would reason out their argument.

Faith and imagination bud.

They have no standard or even a reasonable explanation beyond godidit, they cannot even agree past that and explain how he did it, BECAUSE no where does any factual evidence fit what they imagine.

 

[outhouse]

I believe it is possible to actually prove there is no god

Agreed.

I could win that court case alone and easily done.

I'm trying to understand many of the arguments for god in order to know how to counter them

You cannot change their minds, the store is closed.

You could easily direct them to the mythology at hand, and ask them which part they accept. Then start to show how factual evidence does not support. But it is a waste of time.


You cannot use science, because they don't, they pervert it. So I find going after the source of their belief using religion they often know nothing at all about is much better, while using credible history even though they pervert that as well.

 

[dust1n]

no. it's not really. it isn't good science, but I take a very heavily philosophical approach to science, so I try to think through how a creationist would reason out their argument

Let me know if you ever find it.

 

[Laika]

You cannot use science, because they don't, they pervert it. So I find going after the source of their belief using religion they often know nothing at all about is much better, while using credible history even though they pervert that as well.

We have to try. I don't think the majority of believers do so malliciously but they've been brought up with a set of beliefs and take them for granted. that isn't wrong but is actually part of the learning process as our ideas are shared from one generation to another. that much is true of all of us as we each inherit certain ideas from our environment without necessarily questioning them (at least until we're much older).

Let me know if you ever find it.

will do. but your welcome to ask them yourself. I dare you!

 

[dust1n]

will do. but your welcome to ask them yourself. I dare you!

I'm still waiting for Creationists to answer my question as to whether the ID is God or Allah or not. Take a look at how much reason there was in that thread.

A lot of Creationists reject the overwhelming majority of material regarding evolution without looking at it. Why would I expect someone to reason a position they never reasoned themselves into in the first place? Some people think the world is 6000 years old and that the Earth was entirely flooded by water so a loving God could kill all the humans in the world except one family. So, excuse me for any cynicism about the philosophical value of creationism.

 

[outhouse]

We did "come from apes". We are Apes, the common ancestor we share with chimps was an Ape (as were the ones we share with Gorillas and Orangs etc). All those are also of course primates but that grouping includes the New World Monkeys which we are definitely not descended from (as the new world monkeys split from the old world monkeys after apes had split off),

Understood, in context I was referring to MRCA which is not the same apes that live today. Which is how creationist often claim as they are in severe denial of how primate evolved and claim the same "kind" existed. They are factually in error.

And I got my dates wrong, that was 14 m years ago, not 7.