Evolution vs. Creationism[W:2571, 3239]

[Paleocon]

Says who? You?

Says metaphysics. Evolution asserts that it is possible, naturally, for one species of creature to naturally transition (over several generations) to another. IOW, that there isn't really such a thing as distinct species.

 

[Somerville]

Says metaphysics. Evolution asserts that it is possible, naturally, for one species of creature to naturally transition (over several generations) to another. IOW, that there isn't really such a thing as distinct species.

WOW!!! That is really some ignorance

 

[Paleocon]

WOW!!! That is really some ignorance

Your concession is noted.

 

[William Rea]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

So this earth turned before these words were spoken the earth will turn long after these words and you are forgotten.

The way you talk that before ateist the earth merely stood still that's a bit of an assumption or is it shock?eace

Yeah, before ateist (sic) started there weren't even any stars, hell there wasn't even a Universe until we got ateist (sic).

 

[William Rea]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Physics does not tell bees to make honey, nor do they direct birds to go south in the winter.

As I said Nature and natural law did not start because of science it was here long before science , after all if not for natural law there would be no evolution , without evolution where would you be?

You seek to explain Natural Law but refuse to acknowledge it's existence???eace

How's the yogic flying going?

 

[William Rea]

Once you realize that evolution is pseudohistorical philosophical theory, not science, it becomes much clearer that it is wrong.

One major problem with it is that people (primarily fundamentalist Protestants, and evolution supporters) try to make the discussion about whether or not evolution contradicts the Bible.

The problem isn't so much that it is contrary to faith, the problem is that it isn't in accordance with natural reason.

OK, show us where it is wrong, point to a specific problem.

 

[William Rea]

Says metaphysics. Evolution asserts that it is possible, naturally, for one species of creature to naturally transition (over several generations) to another. IOW, that there isn't really such a thing as distinct species.

It isn't a revelation that the boundaries between 'species' are fuzzy or that 'species' in itself may not be anything more than a salient classification but, I don't see how the conclusion that 'evolution is pseudohistorical philosophical theory, not science' comes from that?

 

[Cisero]

Says metaphysics. Evolution asserts that it is possible, naturally, for one species of creature to naturally transition (over several generations) to another. IOW, that there isn't really such a thing as distinct species.

If you believe in micro-evolution over a small period of time, it's illogical to not believe in macro-evolution. If a species has small changes in a short period of time, all these small changes over bilions of years will create an entirely different animal.

A fish with legs & arms

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dMRt4NQb1Q

A team of scientists in Australia researching the transitional stage

PLOS Biology: Australian Fish Stretching Their Legs

Over an exhausting 6 years, a team led by Peter Currie at Monash University and Nicolas Cole at the University of Sydney created a detailed picture of how the muscles in the pelvic bones of fish evolved in order to prepare them to crawl onto land.

More images of fish in transitional stages

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZb4IUZvgL0

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Physics does not tell bees to make honey, nor do they direct birds to go south in the winter.

As I said Nature and natural law did not start because of science it was here long before science , after all if not for natural law there would be no evolution , without evolution where would you be?

You seek to explain Natural Law but refuse to acknowledge it's existence???eace

Yes, indeed physics does that.. as well as chemistry.

 

[Paleocon]

It isn't a revelation that the boundaries between 'species' are fuzzy or that 'species' in itself may not be anything more than a salient classification but, I don't see how the conclusion that 'evolution is pseudohistorical philosophical theory, not science' comes from that?

Evolution is a historical claim, premised directly from a philosophical position. The philosophical position is that individual species do not have distinct essences, the historical conclusion is that evolution between species therefore happened.

If you believe in micro-evolution over a small period of time, it's illogical to not believe in macro-evolution. If a species has small changes in a short period of time, all these small changes over bilions of years will create an entirely different animal.

Does not follow. It's at least as plausible, if not more so, that genetic "micro-evolution" that started to carry a creature's genome into the realm of other species' genomes, would simply make the creature unviable. The assumption that "macro-evolution" is just an extension of "micro-evolution" depends on the metaphysical assumption that individual species don't have their own telos, IOW that there's really only one generic "living things" species, whose only telos is "survive and procreate".

A fish with legs & arms

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dMRt4NQb1Q

A team of scientists in Australia researching the transitional stage

PLOS Biology: Australian Fish Stretching Their Legs

Over an exhausting 6 years, a team led by Peter Currie at Monash University and Nicolas Cole at the University of Sydney created a detailed picture of how the muscles in the pelvic bones of fish evolved in order to prepare them to crawl onto land.

More images of fish in transitional stages

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZb4IUZvgL0

Which demonstrates nothing. They didn't actually study evolution (because evolution is a pseudohistorical philisophical theory, inherently beyond the study of empirical science), they studied some fish they decided fit at some important point in their creation story.

 

[William Rea]

Evolution is a historical claim, premised directly from a philosophical position. The philosophical position is that individual species do not have distinct essences, the historical conclusion is that evolution between species therefore happened...

In other words, it's a conspiracy theory. Wrong forum section Paleocon.

 

[Paleocon]

In other words, it's a conspiracy theory. Wrong forum section Paleocon.

No. I can't help it that you won't read what I said, and have instead responded to something with zero logical connection to my comment whatsoever.

 

[William Rea]

No. I can't help it that you won't read what I said, and have instead responded to something with zero logical connection to my comment whatsoever.

I read what you said, if that is not where you are going then please elaborate.

 

[shagg]

Evolution is a historical claim, premised directly from a philosophical position. The philosophical position is that individual species do not have distinct essences, the historical conclusion is that evolution between species therefore happened.

There is scientific data, gleaned from the geological strata as well as from currently living organisms, supporting the scientific theory of evolution. It is a theory expressed from scientific position. Argue against the data if you wish, but it is scientifically based, not philosophically.

Does not follow. It's at least as plausible, if not more so, that genetic "micro-evolution" that started to carry a creature's genome into the realm of other species' genomes, would simply make the creature unviable. The assumption that "macro-evolution" is just an extension of "micro-evolution" depends on the metaphysical assumption that individual species don't have their own telos, IOW that there's really only one generic "living things" species, whose only telos is "survive and procreate".

Unviable genetic combinations happen all the time, its part of the process. That's the thing though, every conception is a chance at a random genetic mutation, which may be beneficial or detrimental to the organism, or may be completely unnoticeable. Thats why it takes so long. Once a beneficial mutation happens, the organism will be more likely to survive and reproduce. You throw telos in there like it means something. Purpose does not define a species. Physical attributes do. You summed it up nicely at the end here though, the telos of any organism is simply survive and procreate. Those that don't simply cease to be. You could argue the telos of say, decomposition related bacteria is to break down dead things. But in reality, thats just what they do in order to survive and reproduce.

The assumption that individual species don't have a specific purpose isn't really required for most people, although it is easily deduced if one is for evolution. You do see it come up though, mostly when someone tries to argue that god made everything with a purpose. It usually follows with a challenge for the evolutionary to prove a negative.

 

[Paleocon]

I read what you said, if that is not where you are going then please elaborate.

I mentioned nothing of a conspiracy theory. Before I spend time elaborating for you, I need some indication that you will actually read what I write, not something you imagined.

There is scientific data, gleaned from the geological strata as well as from currently living organisms, supporting the scientific theory of evolution. It is a theory expressed from scientific position. Argue against the data if you wish, but it is scientifically based, not philosophically.



Unviable genetic combinations happen all the time, its part of the process. That's the thing though, every conception is a chance at a random genetic mutation, which may be beneficial or detrimental to the organism, or may be completely unnoticeable. Thats why it takes so long. Once a beneficial mutation happens, the organism will be more likely to survive and reproduce. You throw telos in there like it means something. Purpose does not define a species. Physical attributes do. You summed it up nicely at the end here though, the telos of any organism is simply survive and procreate. Those that don't simply cease to be. You could argue the telos of say, decomposition related bacteria is to break down dead things. But in reality, thats just what they do in order to survive and reproduce.

The assumption that individual species don't have a specific purpose isn't really required for most people, although it is easily deduced if one is for evolution. You do see it come up though, mostly when someone tries to argue that god made everything with a purpose. It usually follows with a challenge for the evolutionary to prove a negative.

You assert that it isn't philosophical, and then assert a philosophical theory. There is geological evidence that certain rocks are extremely old. Even if you buy that a fossil near a rock must be the same age, that in no demonstrates evolution. Please, feel free to cite a single piece of scientific evidence that evolution is true.

And your assertion that living things don't have distinct telos, is exactly the point of discussion. You're just asserting it and acting as if I should believe it. Yet reality belies this, as "unviable" means different things for different organisms. For instance, if you stuck a bacteria genome inside a human embryo, it wouldn't become a bacteria, it would just die.

 

[shagg]

I mentioned nothing of a conspiracy theory. Before I spend time elaborating for you, I need some indication that you will actually read what I write, not something you imagined.



You assert that it isn't philosophical, and then assert a philosophical theory. There is geological evidence that certain rocks are extremely old. Even if you buy that a fossil near a rock must be the same age, that in no demonstrates evolution. Please, feel free to cite a single piece of scientific evidence that evolution is true.

And your assertion that living things don't have distinct telos, is exactly the point of discussion. You're just asserting it and acting as if I should believe it. Yet reality belies this, as "unviable" means different things for different organisms. For instance, if you stuck a bacteria genome inside a human embryo, it wouldn't become a bacteria, it would just die.

You do not accept modern geological science?

As for telos, let me make sure I understand you. You're saying that the entire issue is philosophical because it comes down to telos, which is a philosophical concept?

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

It's funny that when I point out that you've wandered off topic with your distractions (arguing the merit of "natural law" while deriding the term "theory"), that you ironically post that my post is a distraction from the OP.

I'm done with this line of craziness.

Again.

yOU SPEAK OF GOING OFF LINE? cHECK YOUR POST , {the irony is strong in this one}? Is that keeping on line ?

 

[Paleocon]

You do not accept modern geological science?

Geology is really a red herring. Even if it's granted that the accepted account of the fossil record is chronologically accurate, that doesn't prove evolution. Whenever the various species of life that do or did exist came into existence, whether God created them individually or whether they "evolved" from each other is a metaphysically based question, not a scientific one.

As for telos, let me make sure I understand you. You're saying that the entire issue is philosophical because it comes down to telos, which is a philosophical concept?

Basically. Evolution asserts that any genome which isn't inherently dysfunctional is equally valid for any creature, provided that it is implemented slowly enough. Since the length of time this is supposed to take is enormous, it's not a scientifically testable proposition.

 

[Quag]

There is scientific data, gleaned from the geological strata as well as from currently living organisms, supporting the scientific theory of evolution. It is a theory expressed from scientific position. Argue against the data if you wish, but it is scientifically based, not philosophically.

And it has been OBSERVED
Evolutionary theory is a way to describe the observed fact of evolution.
creationists fail to differentiate between evolution and the theory of evolution, but then very few of then have any comprehension of either of them.

 

[William Rea]

Geology is really a red herring. Even if it's granted that the accepted account of the fossil record is chronologically accurate, that doesn't prove evolution. Whenever the various species of life that do or did exist came into existence, whether God created them individually or whether they "evolved" from each other is a metaphysically based question, not a scientific one.



Basically. Evolution asserts that any genome which isn't inherently dysfunctional is equally valid for any creature, provided that it is implemented slowly enough. Since the length of time this is supposed to take is enormous, it's not a scientifically testable proposition.

It's like the difference between 'Historical Science' and Observational Science' isn't it?

Really Paleocon, you believe that some of us don't recognise your arguments?

 

[shagg]

Geology is really a red herring. Even if it's granted that the accepted account of the fossil record is chronologically accurate, that doesn't prove evolution. Whenever the various species of life that do or did exist came into existence, whether God created them individually or whether they "evolved" from each other is a metaphysically based question, not a scientific one.

I would agree, if there were no relevant, empirical evidence of a progression of one species evolving into another gradually over time. Early T rex skeletons have shorter femurs than later ones. It can be hypothesized that, possibly, T rex had to travel longer distances later in its time period. Evidence for the need to travel longer distances does not exist of course, its just speculation. But changes in a T rex skeleton over its time period are facts. A provable, empirical fact, consistent with other relative branches of science. Call it what you want, evolution or otherwise, but the fact that species change over time is just that, a fact.

Basically. Evolution asserts that any genome which isn't inherently dysfunctional is equally valid for any creature, provided that it is implemented slowly enough. Since the length of time this is supposed to take is enormous, it's not a scientifically testable proposition.

The bolded isn't true, nor is it part of evolution.

to use your previous example of bacterial genome in a human embryo, of course it wouldn't survive. The genome is is the very blue print an organism builds itself on. The embryo, every cell of it, contains the human genome. I'm not sure how you'd go about replacing the dna of every cell, but if you could, it wouldn't be viable. Bacteria is a single celled organism, evolved to survive as such. You can't expect to make something so complex as a human out of that blueprint. I'd be like trying to build a car out of rollerskates.

But telos..... is definitely a philosophical topic. The evolutionist, as far as I can tell, would have to argue that the purpose of any organism is to survive and reproduce. Where as the creationist obviously would stand behind gods plan for all things. But sadly telos isn't something that can be proven or disproven, being as abstract as it is. I would say though that humans have "repurposed" many organisms throughout our history.

 

[Paleocon]

It's like the difference between 'Historical Science' and Observational Science' isn't it?

Really Paleocon, you believe that some of us don't recognise your arguments?

What?

 

[Paleocon]

I would agree, if there were no relevant, empirical evidence of a progression of one species evolving into another gradually over time. Early T rex skeletons have shorter femurs than later ones. It can be hypothesized that, possibly, T rex had to travel longer distances later in its time period. Evidence for the need to travel longer distances does not exist of course, its just speculation. But changes in a T rex skeleton over its time period are facts. A provable, empirical fact, consistent with other relative branches of science. Call it what you want, evolution or otherwise, but the fact that species change over time is just that, a fact.

Human beings have gotten observably taller over the past few centuries. I'm not aware of anyone who denies that what traits are predominant in a species can change over time. So arguing that they can is really attacking a strawman.

The bolded isn't true, nor is it part of evolution.

to use your previous example of bacterial genome in a human embryo, of course it wouldn't survive. The genome is is the very blue print an organism builds itself on. The embryo, every cell of it, contains the human genome. I'm not sure how you'd go about replacing the dna of every cell, but if you could, it wouldn't be viable. Bacteria is a single celled organism, evolved to survive as such. You can't expect to make something so complex as a human out of that blueprint. I'd be like trying to build a car out of rollerskates.

But telos..... is definitely a philosophical topic. The evolutionist, as far as I can tell, would have to argue that the purpose of any organism is to survive and reproduce. Where as the creationist obviously would stand behind gods plan for all things. But sadly telos isn't something that can be proven or disproven, being as abstract as it is. I would say though that humans have "repurposed" many organisms throughout our history.

You should have read after the bolded.

And I meant if you placed a bacterial genome inside a human embryo before it began to duplicate its cells. Even then, the result would be death (as opposed to becoming a bacteria). So too if you put a human genome in a bacteria, it would die, not grow into a human.

And regarding telos, that we've put various creatures to the use of our own purposes doesn't really contradict that each species has its own telos. The telos is the species' intrinsic end, how its members ought to be. And its not reducible to DNA, thus if a human and a bacterial colony were to switch genomes somehow, they would both die, because their DNA would be directing them to act in ways radically at odds with their telos.

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

OK.

Seeing how we're obviously in two completely different and unrelated conversations, I'll end mine here.

Nothing new if Atheist went to a preacher of a church and started discussing evolution 9 out of 10 would want to end the conversation.
Why should I expect any different from Atheist both say the same belive as I beleive talk like I talk no questions
As far as you leaving well TA TA.
.

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Natural law as described by you is just how the universe works
In acknowledge that physics decides how the universe works and the study of physics is an attempt to understand it.
I really have no clue what you are going on about my seeking to explain it but refusing to acknowledge it.
I asked YOU to explain what YOU meant by it. I never denied the existence of it.
Your explanation was basically that it is physics under a different term.
How this has anything to do with evolution or creationism is beyond me, perhaps you could try to tie it together a bit

My explanation is there today we know Natural law that is how the universe works . you have said according to me Natural Law is how the universe works .
For a species to understand the whole Universe a species might try venturing into the universe first or is this guesswork , maybe an armchair intellectual from a tiny planet 3rd rock fro the Sun of a solar system in a huge galaxy one of many ? To understand the universe by staying on the planet Earth maybe a trip to the moon and a couple of probes and telescope and presto" you understand the whole universe?
I don't think so.eace