|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Molecules to Man Evolution
« Back to club forum
| |||||||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Vic 07:27 & 11:15<Why did you use ellipsis to leave out what I said was the chief claim of Darwin’s theory – that one common-sense definition of species evolved into another common-sense definition of species? Because it invalidates your point?> No. Two reasons:- 1. I left it out because you yourself used hyphens to indicate it was parenthetical. 2. Because MY point was that you had contradicted yourself, and that parenthetical comment was not relevant to my point. <You expect me to participate in a thread where you misrepresent what I’ve said> You still haven't pointed out a misrepresentation. Claiming that I didn't copy and paste an irrelevancy is not to misrepresent, but to ignore. <falsely tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about> Please, a direct quote from my post which says you 'don't know what you are talking about'. What I DID do is point out how you contradict your own statements. The closest I've come to accusing you of 'not knowing what you are talking about' was to say "You don't even understand the theory that you so vehemently oppose". That is much more specific than a general allegation of ignorance, and I gave my reasons for saying that; which you implicitly acknowledged by saying you haven't read 'Origin of Species'. You can quote snippets of 'Origin', apparently from various hostile sources, but not much understanding of context has been shown. For example, that quote from his final paragraph is not part of the theory, but a vague speculation/extrapolation for future consideration. That's why it's in the final paragraph and not in the argument itself. <falsely say I’m contradicting myself?> Falsely? Some of your statements sure looks like self-contradictions to me! Perhaps you might care to explain why they NOT contradictions, rather than simply taking offence. Get a grip, Vic, and DEBATE (i.e., marshal evidence into a coherent, logical argument) rather than assert and then bluster against reasonable responses to your assertions. 11:15 <I realize evolutionists on here can’t control themselves when it comes to molecules-to-man evolution,> Like all humans, some can and some lapse. Those who lapse will be encouraged privately to lift their game, and if they don't heed a quiet word then the process set out in the Rules will be followed. But you still have a duty to respond to those who are NOT trolling, who put forward their opinions and comments appropriately. If you want two mods to look at this thread with a view to explicit discipline, then that can be done. I will exclude myself from considering your complaint, because I have already formed an opinion that one participant gets closer to the line than I'm comfortable with (and has been told so, privately) and one other has (in places) not completely complied with Rule 5. If you want to initiate a formal examination, then please send me (and two mods of your choice) a PM giving details. |
||||||||||||||
|
@Bob But to briefly reiterate my points… • Observing changes within a species is not the same as Darwin’s central claim – that one common-sense definition of species evolved into another common-sense definition of species. • Darwin wrote of the LUCA in “On the Origin of Species.” Once again, from an academic paper… <<The quest for the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) roots back to the much-quoted closing paragraph of On the Origin of Species where Charles Darwin infers: “…that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.”>> Here’s more (an AI overview…) <<The "Last Universal Common Ancestor" (LUCA), a single-celled organism hypothesized to be the ancestor of all life on Earth, is a key concept in Darwin's "tree of life" theory, representing the point where the three domains of life (Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya) converge. Here's a more detailed explanation: Darwin's Tree of Life: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, outlined in "On the Origin of Species," proposed that all living organisms share a common ancestry, forming a "tree of life" where different species branch out from a common root. LUCA as the Root: The concept of LUCA, the last universal common ancestor, is the hypothesized primordial organism at the base of this tree, from which all life on Earth is believed to have descended. The Three Domains: LUCA is considered the ancestor of the three domains of life: Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya. Hypothesized Characteristics: While LUCA is a hypothetical ancestor, scientists have proposed that it was likely a simple, single-celled organism that lived billions of years ago, possibly in an extreme environment like deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Molecular Evidence: The search for LUCA is supported by the discovery of universal genetic code and molecular similarities across all life forms, suggesting a common origin. Ongoing Research: Scientists continue to study LUCA, using genomic data and other methods to learn more about its characteristics and the early evolution of life. LUCA's Complexity: Recent research suggests that LUCA may have been more complex than previously thought, potentially possessing an early immune system and a surprisingly complex genome.>> www.google.com A single-celled organism is obviously part of the theory of evolution and is the LUCA. Of course the theory to my knowledge doesn’t explain the complexity of the LUCA; that, along with abiogenesis, is just another unaddressed point. That said, I’m done participating in a discussion on this subject. |
||||||||||||||
|
Common Sense I’m uncertain what “common sense” is supposed to mean. Mosquitoes can carry Zika virus, which injected into ovulating women can produce birth defects. I have not looked deeper into the precise cause, but it is abundantly evident from the examination of human and other primate DNA we share common endogenous retroviral genetic insertions. We share more in common with the old world primates (Africa tailless species) than with new world prehensile varieties. So viruses can modify germ lines with snippets harvested from other random species, or their own. Darwin, of course, was completely unaware of this source of mutation, though now that we know it doesn’t alter the underlying theory at all—simply adds additional explanatory power. So the point is does infection of the germ line (if not passed on via inheritance than obviously there is no impact) constitute creation of a new species? The criteria most commonly used for sexually reproducing species (last I heard we’ve actually identified dozens of sexes) is reproductive isolation, though even that has limitations. We crossed a lama with a camel, two species separated by twenty million years of geographic isolation. These two species cannot naturally interbreed, and I think the offspring are like mules. When was the last common ancestor of the horse and donkey? |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic If all you want to demonstrate is that Darwin's theory was full of lacunae and thin on evidence, I can agree with you. No problem! Now let's move on to the theme of this thread; "Molecules to Man Evolution", which is supported by evidence that Darwin could not have even imagined. Thank you for including in your post the summary of modern areas of science contributing to the question. So if you want to discuss the flaws in the MODERN theory, then address the evidence supporting the modern theory. If you would rather restrict the conversation to Darwin's theory in its original form and looking only at the evidence he presented, then I don't know what that would achieve. That position is ancient history now; the world of science has moved on in the last 150 years, even if anti-evolutionists haven't. |
||||||||||||||
|
Common Sense Sometimes Reality is not quite what 'Common Sense' would have us believe. So what is a 'Common Sense' species? It was once argued that American First Peoples were not the same species as Europeans. Today a German Shepherd and a Chihuahua would appear to most people as different species unless they already knew they were both 'Canis Familiaris'. Science is not advanced by following 'common sense', but by critically examining it. One of the most obvious examples is the whole concept of 'Species'. Exactly what IS a 'species'? There is the 'common-sense' assumption that a 'species' is defined and has limits. Thus the common belief that one species evolved from a different species. But that's not exactly true! What happens in real life is that descendants differ from their ancestors. These differences are incremental, and there is rarely one single sharp dividing line to the point when one species becomes another. No 'pure wolf' parents suddenly gave birth to a fully-formed domestic dog. So the limits to 'species' are not sharp and defined. If the entire lineage of a dog were laid out in front of the best 10 Veterinarians in the world, there would not be any point where all could say "Ah! THAT is a wolf, but THIS next one is the first dog in the ancestry!" It is only when we have perhaps twenty sets of bones out of a history of twenty million generations that we can see the differences between them. When do these differnces trigger a new 'species'? When humans find it convenient to treat them as such, using human-invented criteria such as morphology (no two individuals are exactly identical, so how different does it need to be to be a different species?) or different behaviours (This cat likes "Yummo" brand pet food, that cat doesn't. Is it a different species of cat?) or ability to interbreed (but what happens if the offspring is sterile?), etc. So anyone who wants us to restrict our discussion to a 'common-sense definition' should start by telling us what that 'common-sense definition' is. |
||||||||||||||
|
Completely Unsupported? Darwin observed changes within a species and then made the completely unsupported leap that what he saw meant one species evolved into another species beginning with a single-celled organism.>> So I began with a series of links detailing observation and experimentation in evolutionary biology. Darwin did conduct some cross breeding experiments, but relied more heavily on his observations of the experiments of other breeders. You will find in Origins multiple lengthy descriptions of the experiments by pigeon fanciers and others on inheritable characteristics and fixed mutations. But even if Darwin hadn’t been so industrious and observant, we have enjoyed nearly two hundred years of subsequent study, observation, and experimentation, all revealing the relationships first charted by Linnaeus. So attacking Darwin without ever having read Origins is akin to attacking Moses without knowing the first thing about him. It is possible (even likely) Moses never actually existed, given the lack of evidence the Jews were ever in Egypt. But that belongs in a separate thread. Here we should focus on the works of Niles Eldridge, Stephen J. Gould, Theodosius Dobzhansky, E. O. Wilson, J. B. S. Haldane (Beetleman), Mary Anning, Ernst Mayr, Jennifer Doudna, Carlos Chagas, Sewall Wright, and oh so many others. I guess to be fair Mary died before Darwin published, but her discoveries laid a groundwork for much subsequent work in evolutionary biology. Had she been permitted to attend school it is quite possible she would have beaten Darwin to publication. But modern evolutionary biology would look nearly identical despite a radically different original author. The calculus developed by Newton and Leibniz worked the same despite the use of radically different notation. Had Darwin never existed Wallace would have published his theory. It was a bit more wrong than Darwin’s, containing errors that would likely have persisted decades before ultimately being corrected. But again, the current theory developed under Wallace would be indistinguishable from that under Darwin. It is possible we might even be further along—Wallace might not have become as contentious to ecclesiastical authorities as Darwin became—through no fault of his. |
||||||||||||||
|
Geologic Strata Indeed. No lagomorohs (bunnies) in Cambrian strata. Where we find Tiktaalik there are no (zero) birds, reptiles, mammals, flowering plants, dinosaurs… There are insects largely unlike anything that exists today, but aside from them and a few other amphibians zero terrestrial vertebrates. If life arose in the oceans, yet evolution is false, the. why was there an extensive period of time where all vertebrates were marine organisms and there were no terrestrial species, followed by terrestrial plants and insects, followed by another epoch of very sarcopterygian lungfish looking amphibians, followed by pelycosuars and sail backed reptiles absent any other terrestrial vertebrates, followed by Triassic beasts, then a long period of Jurassic animals (with the early Jurassic different from what we find in the late Jurassic), then a period of Cretaceous life forms, and so on? All of this lays out along evolutionary theory, and no competing theory has ever been proposed to counter this. Again, the “third way” folks merely outline additional mechanisms, they certainly don’t deny or refute the science. |
||||||||||||||
|
Third Way <<This is another misrepresentation and why I no longer have interest in participating in a debate on this subject.>> Neither Bob nor I said you claimed anything about Third Way, only that you brought them up. So how could we have misrepresented anything you said? Unless you never mentioned Third Way. And it sounds like you agree they remain evolutionists, as they retain the word in their title. At least you weren’t doing what Frank does, citing references that refute your main points. I love how he does that. |
||||||||||||||
|
Shiva 19:24 I have found that very few of them actually understand the theory in any detail greater than the 'average man in the street'. And I can understand that, too; why would they waste their time studying something which they already know is wrong? But virtually all of the active disputers have one common theme; they have all boned up on sources that provide "101 proofs that Darwin was wrong!" or "How Atheists are destroying faith in the Creator!", etc. And they take these 'sources' at face value, as though they were quotes from the Bible. Not a critical examination in sight! Yes, these are the people who accuse Doctorates in Biology of slavishly following what they were told! Vic is above this level. He shows critical intelligence when he tells us that none of the other theories going around is any better. His chief problem is that he is uncomfortable with uncertainty. He just can't settle for 'provisional acceptance, subject to adjustment when better information comes to hand'. The answer has to be totally 100% correct before he will take it on board. He can't accept a working hypothesis. Unfortunately, Science doesn't work like that. In fact, nor does life, but he gets through that by telling himself that some of his core beliefs are indeed 100% correct. It works for him. |
||||||||||||||
|
Apatzer Thought Experiment I worded my post with those two questions. Because neither question has direct evidence based on the definition of direct evidence. I didn't mean to suggest that there was NO evidence.>> I believe I understood the point of your interesting exercise. Even LLMs appear to make assumptions based on the wording used by those asking questions. I know my aunt was talking to some pro choice people once, only she forgot how they refer to themselves, and asked about their “pro abortion” views. Well THAT shifted their perspective of HER views, which certainly weren’t anti choice. Almost no one claims to be pro abortion. Proponents of reproductive freedom merely believe they aren’t entitled to make health and medical decisions for others. On the other hand, the mindset women cannot inherit wealth, have their own independent checking account, or even vote didn’t completely end even in the twentieth century. When my grandmother was a little girl women were not allowed to vote. She remembered suffragette marches. And some states required a male co-sign a bank account into the 1970s. Back to the AI, the way LLMs work is that the ideas expressed tend to reflect the views of a majority of well educated people. Kind of a scientific consensus, though it isn’t too difficult to cajole the AI into insanity. The AI possesses phenomenal capabilities, though one must still exercise a measure of caution. I get answers from Gemini that are refuted by the links Google offers immediately below it, sometimes. Variances in numbers, etc. Sometimes the links are older, outdated information, and sometimes the Oracle is off instead, when there is conflict. I suspect that on occasion both may be wrong. Even then, as Mark Twain notes, the race is not always to the swift, nor the fight to the strong, but (absent odds) that’s the way to bet. |
||||||||||||||
|
Insults? Misrepresentations? By your own admission you’re “ignorant” of the very work you attack. I put that in quotes as it was not intended as an insult, merely an observation. You don’t even have to pay for it, the book is freely available online. On the other hand, I think we’re far better off discussing Gould, Mayr, Wilson, Eldridge, Dawkins, and company. <<The quest for the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) roots back to the much-quoted closing paragraph of On the Origin of Species where Charles Darwin infers: “…that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.”>> pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov <<And “into which life was first breathed” was a sop to believers that Darwin later said (if my memory’s right) he regretted writing.>> I doubt he said that—I suspect you are unintentionally misrepresenting him. I’m happy to eat my words provided a legitimate source (which most of yours are). You accuse me of misrepresentation but all I said was that you cited the Third Way crowd. I never asserted any belief or view on your part, did I? |
||||||||||||||
|
Bob 18:04 I just caught up to here, instead of reading the whole thread first. Yes, the accusation is lofted frequently by Softaire too. Sorry to repeat your point about what the Third Way evolutionists said, but (from what I understood) even Andrew agrees they are still evolutionists as they retained that in their title. I’m paraphrasing from memory here, I suppose I should go back and quote exactly, but I trust my approximation conveys the gist and intent absent any misrepresentation, which I assure everyone here is far from my objective. I remember discussing evolution and cosmology on a BBS back in the 1990s. Someone asked, “what’s the difference between a universe created by God and one in which God doesn’t exist?” That question gobsmacked me. It still does. I think so much boils down to the answer we choose. I think it was Apatzer who used my example of God writing His name in the configuration of stars, and maybe encoded in our DNA. The way any author or artist signs a work, or Trump signs a Bible. Again, lack of signature doesn’t imply no artist. Look on your car’s frame. No designer signature. Those are on the blueprints back at HQ. Though the car does have a make, model, and dealer decals. I could get a “Property of YHWH” in Hebrew tattooed on my lower back side like a tramp stamp my lady friends would rarely see when they finish, because… well I’ll just stop there. I also thought a really awesome “signature” would be a shorter year, exactly 360 days long or even better, precisely 100 pi days in length: 314.14159265 days. No natural explanation for the year just coincidentally matching ten digits of pi. Only a God could pull off a trick like that. I’m not saying God has to do anything to please me. He sure didn’t lift a finger too many other times, beyond scrawling on Belshazzar’s wall, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin. Mm, if I get that tramp stamp I want it written in Aramaic. ܕܝܠܗ ܕܝܢ ܝܗܘܐ Awesome. I thought if I sought expert help here I might end up with Aramaic for “my brain is addled by syphilis,” but I guess that word might not have existed in that language circa 300 BCE. |
||||||||||||||
|
LUCA <<The "Last Universal Common Ancestor" (LUCA), a single-celled organism hypothesized to be the ancestor of all life on Earth, is a key concept in Darwin's "tree of life" theory, representing the point where the three domains of life (Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya) converge.>> Excellent. Finally something less than 150 years old, and grossly outdated. Darwin was utterly ignorant of both eukaryotes and archaea. Bacteria had been known for 200 years, though. Gemini: Antonie van Leeuwenhoek is credited with discovering bacteria in 1676, describing them as "animalcules" through his self-made microscopes, and his work laid the foundation for microbiology. Gemini: Although foreshadowed by suggestions made by earlier authors, by far the most important advance made in our understanding of the living world as a whole was the realization by Chatton (1937) that there are two major groups of organisms, the prokaryotes (bacteria) and the eukaryotes (organisms with nucleated cells). Gemini: Humans recognized Archaea as a distinct group of organisms separate from bacteria in the late 1970s, specifically in 1977, when Carl Woese and George Fox published their findings, using ribosomal RNA analysis to establish a new domain of life. So it is really exciting to finally be moving from the mid nineteenth century into the early 21st century in this discussion. |
||||||||||||||
|
LUCA May Be Older than Previously Thought |
||||||||||||||
|
Shiva 21:19 A question that is impossible to answer with any definition, because it doesn't specify the characteristics of the universe created by God nor the universe in which God doesn't exist. (I point out in passing that this is not precisely worded, because most Theists would agree that God doesn't exist IN the universe anyway; but I understand what is meant) I can imagine a universe created by some god which shows absolutely no unmistakably 'divine' fingerprints at all. The theory of 'Ab Initio Teleology' posits precisely such a universe. This is one which was deliberately designed by a god so that the initial starting conditions, plus quantum uncertainty applied at critical points if required but no further discernible inputs, would unfold 'naturally' to give any result the Infinite Being might intend. Like an ACME Roadrunner Trap constructed by Wile E. Coyote. Such a Being would do so to discover what some intelligent but totally non-religious race might do if placed in what appears to be a totally mechanistic universe. Of course this is a non-sense, because 'wondering what some intelligent race might do' would be one of those details already built in 'Ab Initio'. That's not an absolute disproof of 'Ab Initio'; it only suggests that such an Infinite Being is playing a game where he already knows the results. I can also imagine a universe in which (as per Patz's example) God emblazons something across the sky saying "I'm God. If you want to know more about me, read the 'Book of Everything' by the Great Prophet Zarquat" and even give an ISBN number. But if that happened, think of how many people would change their name to 'Zarquat' and write their own 'Book of Everything'! And the arguments about which book should be allocated tat specific ISBN! Conspiracy theories would abound! It would even be argued by the Huxleys of that universe that the stars making up the script in the sky are purely random; but the superstitious ancestors, on the lookout for signs of God, invented an alphabet that had phonemes specifically assigned so that it would spell out such a message. And third problem is agreeing on what such a God (if he/she/it wanted to be detected) would or wouldn't do. For example, the current clincher for many moderns is "A good God wouldn't allow so much evil and suffering in the world. Therefore God is either not good or not God." Just like a child getting an injection at school would say "If that doctor is good, he wouldn't stick needles into every child he sees!" That attitude assumes that the Infinite is just like us, completely comprehensible to us, only bigger, and owes us his care and consideration. Somewhat lacking in humility, making ourselves and our comfort the centre of the Divine Purpose. So a more meaningful answer would be "This is the only Universe we know. It's the only one where we can make a hypothesis and then test it. Your question comes from the wrong direction for Science to be meaningfully applied." |
||||||||||||||
|
Exploring Questions I can too. But what is the “right” direction for any question related to God’s existence to come from for applying science? So far science reveals only that God isn’t subject to tests for divine intervention. Faith healers have great success with vague maladies, headaches and tumors, but never cure amputees. Priests enjoy no greater success at games of chance than anyone else. Intercessory prayer is no more successful for those prayed than for those not. All signs of God’s ambivalence or nonchalance. Not long ago a Jewish friend of mine passed away and went to heaven. There he met God, and told the Creator a joke about the holocaust. God responded with, “that’s not funny.” My friend replied, “yes, I guess you just had to be there.” We have the characteristics of our universe, and those of the YEC universe. They are vastly different. Clearly the YEC God is refuted by science. But what about the real God? I have long been inclined to believe that whatever we might hope to reliably learn about God could only come from nature. That God seems largely uncaring and capricious. People suffer and die horribly for really bad reasons. Tens of thousands of innocent Ukrainians slaughtered willy-nilly (plus since the illegal invasion Russia has lost a total of 895,450 men wounded or killed) all because Putin needs his ego stroked. |
||||||||||||||
|
Shiva 17:50 Yes. My first hypothetical Universe, the one created by a God who wanted to leave not trace, would not provide any proof that God DIDN'T exist; it would only make a positive proof impossible. At the other extreme, in a Universe where everything screamed at you that God exists in the most obvious way possible, it could still be argued by the skeptics as 'purely a co-incidence' or even a failure to discern an 'absolutely natural cause' for whatever is seen. So it is not only THIS universe that can't 'prove' either way. Nor could any universe that I can imagine. I could put this into scientific terms by saying that Science is a methodology that ASSUMES that every observable phenomenon has a natural cause (i.e., arises through the laws of physics rather than 'intervention from outside'). So it is by definition unsuited to detecting any 'intervention from outside'. When a result doesn't match up with expectations based on the known laws of physics, the physicist doesn't conclude "God did it!" He concludes that there might have been some flaw in the experiment, so he reviews his calculations, re-examines his apparatus, looks for 'natural' rather than 'supernatural' interference, and if the discrepancy continues he might conclude that our understanding of the laws of physics might need to be adjusted. If the physicist is of a religious frame of mind, he might thank God for leading him to design and carry out such a critical experiment; but he won't say that the old theory is fine except for God interfering every time this experiment is done. So Science is by definition unsuited to detecting any evidence either for or against God. <We have the characteristics of our universe, and those of the YEC universe. They are vastly different. Clearly the YEC God is refuted by science. But what about the real God? I have long been inclined to believe that whatever we might hope to reliably learn about God could only come from nature. That God seems largely uncaring and capricious.> Yes, it is clear that the Universe does not match the predictions implicit in the YEC model. So many things in the YEC model are given 'explanations' that show only the ignorance of the explainers. My favourite is the Grand Canyon. All the sediments exposed in the Canyon by the river are not evidence of an incredibly long period of sedimentation; they were all laid down in the early stages of Noah's Flood. For this to be done so quickly would require very turbulent water flows, which would at least cause the stratification to be jumbled. And for coarser sediments to be laid over finer sediments as happens in several places, the flow velocity to bring the coarse sediment to the location would be more than sufficient to erode the finer sediments first. Then, after a period long enough for those sediments to settle but short enough for them to still be soft, a later stage of the Flood cut deep into the sediments to leave the canyon roughly as we see it today. Unfortunately, the time taken to allow more than a mile depth of sediments to consolidate enough to not liquify when lateral confining force is removed (say, by a trench being cut beside it) is not just a few days or months, or even years. We are talking decades EVEN IF THERE WAS SOMEWHERE LOWER FOR THE INTERSTITIAL WATER TO DRAIN TO (which is a detail YEC explanations never seem to include.). And if such a drainage point is provided, the loss of interstitial water immediately adjacent the drainage point in a period so short as a few months would mean that the groundwater level further away could not maintain a hydraulic balance. The whole slope would slump in a slip circle, which can happen on slopes as low as ten degrees and heights of only a dozen yards. A near-vertical face a mile high is laughable except in already-consolidated rock. So, we can rule out 'evidence for God' that isn't really evidence at all. But that is not the same as saying it is evidence for 'no God'. <That God seems largely uncaring and capricious.> Yes, just like that school doctor who stabs needles into every child he sees. Or perhaps we just don't understand the purpose. What is the purpose of Creation, anyway? If we knew that, we could perhaps sit in judgement on God, to determine if he is competent for the job. All we can tell for sure from observation is that this universe is not designed to make everyone happy all the time. Perhaps the real purpose is deeper, perhaps even more sinister (depending how you look at it). Perhaps the purpose is to see how many of us humans will act with love and compassion to each other, even when it costs us our own comfort and peace, possibly even our limbs and lives. Perhaps God has even given us hints of that, for those with eyes to see. It's not only the Crucified Jesus that most people respect, but any number of local heroes, firemen, rescue workers, etc. Remember those Russian guys who put the lid on Chernobyl? They knew it was going to kill them, some leaving widows and orphans behind. But they did it to save others. Perhaps there is suffering in this universe because without the real possibility of some cost, real love is just a myth. But we don't know. Whatever we might speculate, this is the universe we live in. We can only guess about 'purpose', and try to play the hand we have been dealt as well as we can. |
||||||||||||||
|
Bob 21:34 Then there is the river itself. One young creationist insisted flood water could carve the channel in five minutes, which believe exceeds the speed of sound, and would hardly result in a meandering canyon with pronounced loops. Volcanic deposits show the layers were not cut quickly, though the canyon itself is quite recent—only within the past five million years. <<So, we can rule out 'evidence for God' that isn't really evidence at all. But that is not the same as saying it is evidence for 'no God'.>> We disagree on this point. If Homo sapiens possessed attributes, organs, blood type, and so on absent any evolutionary antecedent—it would be difficult to dismiss ourselves as anything but a special creation. If there were no other primates, no old world or new world monkeys, no tarsiers or lemurs, no fossils of ancient hominids—it would be exceedingly difficult to explain our origin vis natural means. More troublesome than abiogenesis itself, an admittedly tough nut to crack. That’s the single argument Andrew possesses against evolution that truly has any feet. There are other things that could defy physical explanation hearkening to a special creation. A complete absence of craters pocking planetary surfaces, or descriptions of things in the Bible only modern science reveals, such as the mass of the Higgs boson and other physical constants. An accurate description of the six quarks comprising nucleons. The ancient Greeks possessed the concept of the atom, but failed to recognize water was not simply an element separate from the other three (or four—earth, fire, air, and aether). Had Jewish scribes laid out that water was comprised of two components of air, and described the relative masses—that would be exceedingly difficult to explain given what is known of their technology. Or if events were foretold with greater accuracy. Granted, I’m delighted how well Genesis maps to modern cosmology, given the language they possessed for describing origins. We don’t quite end up with the geologic epochs as we now know them, but the successive life forms depict an understanding of evolutionary processes well beyond “everything was put there all at once.” It would have been far more convincing had “behemoth” been more accurately described and depicted as NOT intersecting with our species. We could go on in this vein, but we agree the Bible was never intended as a science text. My only point is that Gods could have been far more convincing. So why the subterfuge? <<I could put this into scientific terms by saying that Science is a methodology that ASSUMES that every observable phenomenon has a natural cause (i.e., arises through the laws of physics rather than 'intervention from outside'). So it is by definition unsuited to detecting any 'intervention from outside'.>> The accusation among religious types is common, but I believe unwarranted. I freely admit many or even most scientists might insist the assumption of natural cause is inherent. I just remember my chemistry experiments going awry. I could have stipulated divine intervention or miracles, but then I noticed residues in our test tubes. A thimble of sulfuric acid to rinse the tube—I could pour the same thimble from tube to tube and after twenty the acid was quite dark. A final water rinse and our anomalous results disappeared. So contamination seemed far more likely than God’s interference. Not every time we look do we find the answer. What is dark mass? What is dark energy? Granted, physicists and astronomers are not searching for spiritual answers. Does that mean it is ruled out? I think we agree there hasn’t been any real value historically in relegating disease to the antics of demons and angels. We studied intercessory prayer, meaning divine influence was NOT ruled out initially. It was ruled out statistically. Just between you and me, I am inclined to put the Big Bang in God’s hands. We’re not solving some of these mysteries in my lifetime, so I anticipate dying without sure natural knowledge of how everything came to be, and after me we will conclude ALL science is a Chinese hoax created to convert us into transgender homosexuals—not just climate science and evolutionary biology. And the world will abandon the pursuit of knowledge to further Putin’s global domination, MAGA. |
||||||||||||||
|
Shiva 11:57 1, <If Homo sapiens possessed attributes, organs, blood type, and so on absent any evolutionary antecedent—it would be difficult to dismiss ourselves as anything but a special creation.> Funny you should say that, because my novel 'Legends of Erde' posits a world where genetically-modified humans are left to colonise a planet in which no vertebrates have limbs. The relevant HOX gene just didn't happen there. Many generations later there are debates about how humans are the only species (other than arthropods) with legs. I won't spoil it for you; if you don't want to buy the book I'll email you a free PDF. 2. <More troublesome than abiogenesis itself, an admittedly tough nut to crack.> I agree that abiogenesis is the tricky bit. 3. <A complete absence of craters pocking planetary surfaces,> Except for such craters being found, we would not have noticed if they were absent. 4 a). <descriptions of things in the Bible only modern science reveals, such as the mass of the Higgs boson and other physical constants> This argument assumes current scientific knowledge is 'correct'. As a thought experiment, consider the 'science of a thousand years ago. Had the Bible mentioned diseases being caused by animals so small as to be invisible, it would have been taken as either absurd, or at best a metaphorical way of talking about evil spirits. Would that have proven the Bible 'correct' in the eyes of those tenth-century thinkers? Whatever 'scientific' theories might have been written into the Bible by God as 'proof', they would have been convincing only for a thin slice of history. Times before that would have considered them fantasy, times later would consider them 'outdated and primitive'. 4b). Another assumption made here is that the Bible writers were simply writing down dictation from God. This is a form of the Doctrine of Inspiration held only by the most extreme literalists. Certainly the New Testament writers didn't hold to it, because when they don't quote the original 'inspired' Hebrew, but from the Septuagint which was a rather inaccurate translation of the Old Testament into Greek. My view, and that of virtually every reputable scholar whom I have read, is that these writers were writing in their own words from their own experiences and meditations to people of their own time about problems facing their readers at that time. There were not many readers in those times that would have been interested in the rest mass of an Up quark! 4 c). And a third point is that reading the Bible for clues about science is like reading a dictionary to decide the best place to put your reading glasses at night. The writers were not interested in theoretical science! They were interested in how to live lives pleasing to God and honouring Jesus. Where they seem to allude to a 'scientific' detail, a proper reading will reveal that they were using a common concept at the time as an illustration of some further point. They were NOT asserting that the illustration itself was infallible. 4 d). <I’m delighted how well Genesis maps to modern cosmology, given the language they possessed for describing origins.> Pure co-incidence! Refer to point 4 c above. I have posted elsewhere about how Genesis Ch. 1 should be read. It shows that God is in control, that humans are made to be 'in his Image', and that the purpose behind Creation is Worship. Other lessons may be drawn from it as well, it being so artistically and theologically rich, but paleontology is well down the list! |
||||||||||||||
|
dmaestro 22-Mar-25, 06:04 |
|
||||||||||||||
|
The vast gulf between the abilities and capabilities of humans and the abilities and capabilities of the most advanced animal is evidence enough for me that humans are a special creation. Look at what humans have accomplished in comparison to what the most advanced animal has accomplished. That’s not to say animals aren’t intelligent and clever, but what other than a special creation explains the differences? |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 06:21 I assume you mean any animals currently extant. Even that is highly debatable, but if extinct animals are included in the list that gulf closes dramatically. Of course, we need to assume a specific definition of 'human' here, or we end up talking at cross-purposes; so you might clarify by telling us where you draw the line between 'human' and 'animal'. Do you include Neanderthals as 'humans'? Or Homo Erectus? Or Ergaster? Or even Habilis? Please define 'human' in biological terms rather than theological, and then we can talk biology. <Look at what humans have accomplished in comparison to what the most advanced animal has accomplished.> This is a common argument, but it confuses two very different concepts. It is one thing for an INDIVIDUAL to be intelligent; it is another thing for a CULTURE to build cities, split the atom and send spacecraft to other planets. I would challenge anyone to take a neonate and simply watch carefully, with no external intervention, while that neonate grows into an adult who can figure out all by itself how to go to the moon. The achievements of a culture do NOT accurately indicate the intelligence of individuals in that culture. Otherwise one would conclude that today's Americans are so much more intelligent than Neanderthals who somehow managed to survive Ice-Age Europe for thousands of centuries. Or Australian Aboriginals who survived quite well in Central Australia while Burke and Wills, complete with horses and provisions, died in that same environment. But drop a few Texans or Californians (or any other modern humans!) into either of those environments with no modern aids, and see how long they last! Answer:- the only modern humans who would survive would be those whose CULTURE had prepared them, not those whose INTELLIGENCE was higher. |
||||||||||||||
|
Please define 'human' in biological terms rather than theological, and then we can talk biology.>> I was talking about modern humans. If you want me to be more specific, I’d say humans alive during the last 200 or so years. <<This is a common argument, but it confuses two very different concepts. It is one thing for an INDIVIDUAL to be intelligent; it is another thing for a CULTURE to build cities, split the atom and send spacecraft to other planets. I would challenge anyone to take a neonate and simply watch carefully, with no external intervention, while that neonate grows into an adult who can figure out all by itself how to go to the moon.>> Ok, what culture of animals has built skyscrapers, split the atom, landed on the moon, composed symphonies, invented the Internet, found a way to instantly communicate with another member of their species living thousands of miles away, etc.? <<The achievements of a culture do NOT accurately indicate the intelligence of individuals in that culture.>> A culture is comprised of individuals. <<But drop a few Texans or Californians (or any other modern humans!) into either of those environments with no modern aids, and see how long they last!>> But modern aids exist because humans invented them. <<the only modern humans who would survive would be those whose CULTURE had prepared them, not those whose INTELLIGENCE was higher.>> A culture is comprised of individuals. You can’t separate the two. Obviously not every individual in a culture is intelligent, but the more/most intelligent in a given field drive the achievements of humans in that field forward. There’s no debating that the abilities, capabilities and accomplishments of humans are vastly superior to the most advanced animal species. I think that renders humans as a “special creation” much more than whether their biological makeup is similar to some species of animals. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 18:12 If you're only talking about humans that lived in the last 200 years, then does that mean all those people who died before 1800 were not human? The people who wrote the Bible, for example? Does it also mean that 'accomplishments' before 1800 are also not included in Humanity's highlights? Such as the invention of calculus, music, writing, etc? I don't want to misrepresent you; just understand precisely what you DO mean. <A culture is comprised of individuals.> Yes, it is! just as a human body is comprised of cells. But I have yet to see a single human cell build a skyscraper. You have fallen into the error of Reductionism, which gained prominence during the Enlightenment. Yes, that same way of thinking that 'disproved' God! To put it bluntly, Literalists and their Reductionist kin are not 'Champions of the Faith' fighting off a flood of Atheism. It is more accurate to see them as Atheism's greatest victories, in that these Literalists have even adopted a Scientific, Reductionist approach to interpreting their own sacred texts! They defend the literally absurd because they can no longer think in mythic terms. Many even think that 'myth' is a swear word, instead of a legitimate way of conveying a profound truth in a way accessible even to the uneducated. Even the examples you call upon to show 'intelligence' are technological (i.e., scientific) rather than spiritual. Where are your examples of 'spiritual intelligence'? <But modern aids exist because humans invented them.> Yes; OTHER humans invented them! And those other humans didn't invent them from scratch, but on the back of yet other humans who had come before them. You are still confusing an 'intelligent individual' with a member of a scientific culture. <Obviously not every individual in a culture is intelligent, but the more/most intelligent in a given field drive the achievements of humans in that field forward> I totally agree with you on this point. In fact, I would go further. I would suggest that as our culture gets more complex it allows some individuals to concentrate on more detailed and refined concepts than would be possible for them if they had to spend their time hunting or gathering to survive. It's this specialisation of labour that is the key to cultural achievements. Our current culture allows much higher population densities than previous centuries, and better communication. These factors allow more brilliant minds to interact more often, working together to produce what no single mind could achieve. That's not individual intelligence, that is culture making better use of what intelligence is available. As for those not in the 'brilliant' category, the culture also provides for them too. It allows them to concentrate on their own special skills at whatever level they are able to attain, rather than having to become mediocre at everything. It might look like greater intelligence, but in fact it is no more than greater specialisation. To my mind, the most intelligent humans that ever lived (as a general population) were probably the Neanderthals. They lived in clans of only a dozen or so, and those few adults had to be able to do EVERYTHING needed to keep the clan alive during an Ice Age; and they did this for 200,000 years. The Neanderthal brain was significantly larger than that of a modern human. It is my surmise that the 'average' human is less intelligent now than our ancestors were 50,000 years ago, but our more sophisticated culture has taken over from purely biological evolution. Individual humans are getting dumber because they don't need to be smart to survive. <There’s no debating that the abilities, capabilities and accomplishments of humans are vastly superior to the most advanced animal species.> Taken purely as you state it, I agree. But what is the basis for those 'vastly superior' abilities? I hold that it is our social organisation, not our individual intelligence. Getting back to your original rhetorical question (06:21), "What other than a special creation explains the differences?" My answer is:- 1. A base level of intelligence sufficient to allow co-operation in groups. 2. Language that allows learnt skills to be passed down through generations and new skills to be built off previously acquired skills, rather than the base skill having to be re-invented by each new generation. 3. The Neolithic Revolution, that allowed settled life in groups larger than a clan, thus allowing for specialisation of labour. 4. Time and lots of it for those other factors to have a cumulative effect. |
||||||||||||||
|
<<Yes; OTHER humans invented them! And those other humans didn't invent them from scratch, but on the back of yet other humans who had come before them.>> Obviously. <<You are still confusing an 'intelligent individual' with a member of a scientific culture.>> I’m not confusing that at all, and I have no idea where you came up with that. You’re simply misrepresenting what I’ve said and then arguing against your own misrepresentation. A culture is comprised of individuals – some are intelligent, some not so much. But given the size of the human population, many are intelligent enough in specific fields to drive accomplishments in those fields forward. It appears you disagree on the cause of the vast gulf between the abilities, capabilities and accomplishments of humans vs. animals. In response to your four points… 1. Animals cooperate in groups, whether for hunting prey, building structures, producing, etc. 2. Animals communicate in language as well. Obviously not human language, but a form of language nevertheless. 3. Why weren’t animals similarly affected by the Neolithic Revolution? 4. Animals have been subject to the same amount of time as humans. I’d be more inclined to believe the numbers of humans played more of a role in their being a special creation than the four examples you cited. But ultimately, God gave man dominion over animals and their status as a “special creation” is due to God. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 20:00 <<Yes; OTHER humans invented them! And those other humans didn't invent them from scratch, but on the back of yet other humans who had come before them.>> Obviously.} Is that meant to be agreement or disagreement? Either way, you still completely miss the point. That is, the abilities of a large group that works with a sophisticated organisational principle should not be attributed to a single individual. When wolves hunt, whichever individual gets to the prey first will attack it; but on a building site, the worker closest the bricks will not always be the one who lays the bricks. And heaven help us all if he is the one designing the building as it rises! <<<You are still confusing an 'intelligent individual' with a member of a scientific culture.>>I’m not confusing that at all, and I have no idea where you came up with that.> Your comments indicate that you're confusing them so completely that you can't even recognise the distinction. <You’re simply misrepresenting what I’ve said.> You seem to like that word 'misrepresent'. In doing so, you sow more confusion. Exactly WHAT did you say that I 'misrepresented', and HOW did I 'misrepresent' it? My current guess is that I'm not misrepresenting anything; I'm pointing out a distinction that you can't see. <A culture is comprised of individuals – some are intelligent, some not so much.> This is a critical point. I agreed that a culture is comprise of individuals, BUT it is also more than the individuals just as a human is more than a collection of human cells. It is the organisational structure, division of roles and continuing group dynamic that is more than the sum of the individuals. I gave a few examples, and you completely ignore these rather than attempting to address them. Perhaps because your reductionist view didn't allow you to understand that point. <In response to your four points…> Again, you address these four points as separate issues instead of recognising their interaction. Occupational hazard for a Reductionist. 1. Without language (more on that later) and tools, animal co-operation is limited to a very low level compared to humans. Also, the numbers of animals co-operating constructively is limited to (say) hunting packs. Co-operation on a large scale (e.g., migration of hers) is each animal responding as an individual to the mass, not acting in a defined role. 2. Animal language? Vocal signalling, yes, but when did two animals sit down to discuss concepts? Language is more than making sounds in response to an immediate situation. As I said in my point (but which you studiously ignored), I spoke of "Language that allows learnt skills to be passed down through generations and new skills to be built off previously acquired skills, rather than the base skill having to be re-invented by each new generation." 3. Do you even know what the Neolithic Revolution was? I'm surprised. I thought that was common knowledge among people with your obviously high level of intelligence, and even more surprised that you didn't at least have a sneak peek at Wiki if in doubt before responding. Here is the Wiki link. en.wikipedia.org 4. Most animals have been around even longer than humans. Length of time in itself is irrelevant (but as usual, you don't see how length of time interacts with other factors!). What is important is time while those other factors are present to have a cumulative effect. By-the-way, do you realise that your response to my four points tends to contradict your own thesis? You earlier said (18:12) "There’s no debating that the abilities, capabilities and accomplishments of humans are vastly superior to the most advanced animal species." Yet now you are saying that animals show the same behaviours, but at a lower level. If they show those same behaviours (regardless of level), then those behaviours are not so unique as to demand a special creation of humans! They only need refinement. Also, your closing sentence is effectively an admission that your whole case is based on a religious perspective rather than scientific considerations. In summary, your argument is thin, it can't defend itself against rather obvious objections, It has nothing to commend it as being a better explanation than the alternative and it falls over its own feet as it tries to do so. Anyway, I've answered your keynote question "What other than a special creation explains the differences?" Now it's your turn to show how ONLY special creation (which I take to mean fiat creation at a specific time) is necessary for these traits to be manifest. Perhaps you can pull your thesis back to safety. |
||||||||||||||
|
I’m really curious how you came to the conclusion that I was confusing an individual with a group. It seems in your haste to argue you’re not even paying attention to what I’m saying. And, just as a side note, what you cited as reasons humans are so far ahead of animals begs the question of why animals didn’t or couldn’t adapt the methods humans have used to accomplish what we’ve accomplished. If it’s solely due to language, why weren’t animals able to develop a language similar to humans? Is it solely due to anatomy/biology? Whatever you come up with will invariably point to humans being a special creation because we have something animals lack and, as a result, animals haven’t come anywhere near duplicating what we’ve done. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 22:15 Yeah, sure. Your first post in the most recent exchange (6:21) said "The vast gulf between the abilities and capabilities of humans and the abilities and capabilities of the most advanced animal is evidence enough for me that humans are a special creation. Look at what humans have accomplished in comparison to what the most advanced animal has accomplished." It is unclear at this point whether you are talking about the accomplishments of specific individuals, or of 'Humanity' as a species. This is why I said (18:12) "We need to assume a specific definition of 'human' here, or we end up talking at cross-purposes; so you might clarify by telling us where you draw the line between 'human' and 'animal'." That was to cover the 'individual' possibility. My next was to ask "Do you include Neanderthals as 'humans'? Or Homo Erectus? Or Ergaster? Or even Habilis?" in case you meant 'human' ansd a species. You answered "I was talking about modern humans. If you want me to be more specific, I’d say humans alive during the last 200 or so years." This would seem to rule out not only Neanderthals, etc, but also many 'anatomically modern' humans'. So I concluded that you were talking about the abilities and capabilities of individual humans. But you quickly went on to challenge my comments by asking "What culture of animals has built skyscrapers, split the atom, landed on the moon, composed symphonies, invented the Internet, found a way to instantly communicate with another member of their species living thousands of miles away, etc.?" That question specifically said 'culture' rather than 'individual', and even without that direct word the question only makes sense if applied to a workforce of more than one person. Thus, you skipped from individuals to cultures. You then responded to my point that individuals are not cultures by saying "A culture is comprised of individuals. You can’t separate the two. " Quite true as stand-alone sentences, but Inaccurate when taken together UNLESS you intend to ascribe to one whatever properties belong to the other. Thus you have hopped from an 'individualist' meaning to a 'collective' meaning and then denied that there is a difference in meaning. Is this not “confusing an 'intelligent individual' with a member of a scientific culture”? <It seems in your haste to argue you’re not even paying attention to what I’m saying.> It seems in your haste that you are not even paying attention to what YOU are saying, if you need me to remind you of your own words. <What you cited as reasons humans are so far ahead of animals begs the question of why animals didn’t or couldn’t adapt the methods humans have used to accomplish what we’ve accomplished.> You really should learn something about the theories you're so certain are wrong before you dispute them. First, critters don't consider evolutionary options from a menu, and then choose which ones they want. These arise from random mutations, some of which convey an immediate disadvantage and are lost, others might confer an advantage that is not relevant to circumstances, so might lie dormant, or others might provide an immediate advantage and will tend to spread to the whole population within a relatively short time. This is why evolution tends to work in sudden steps with long periods of stability between. Intelligence in turn is very expensive in terms of the brain needed to support it and the energy demands that such a brain requires. So for most animals, this metabolic energy is better spent in other ways, such as better speed, greater strength or simply larger numbers. An individual that was smarter than the rest of the herd but not as fast at escaping predators or needs more time to reach maturity is less likely to live long enough to pass on the genes. <Whatever you come up with will invariably point to humans being a special creation because we have something animals lack> Lots of animals have something that other animals lack. That's one of the requirements for classification in taxonomy. Does that mean that EVERY critter is a special creation? (You might well answer 'YES!', but that only tells me your opinion, nothing about the critters) Meanwhile, as Shiva said way back when, other animals have something that humans lack. Does that make other animals a 'special creation'? And humans and animals have much in common, specially at the molecular level. Many of these points in common are NOT ideal for humans, but can be damaging or at least sub-optimal. For example, why do humans metabolise food anaerobically as a first step, with oxidation only as a subsequent phase? It's probably because anaerobic was the only way to get energy back in the times of LUCA, so we're stuck with it; the oxygen metabolism simply got bolted onto the back of what we already had. A 'special creation' wouldn't have that archaic leftover. <Animals haven’t come anywhere near duplicating what we’ve done.> FIRST POINT We get to the end of your post in which you have asked me to explain why I think you are confusing individuals with collectives/cultures/whatever. And you finish with 'what we've done' without ever going near explaining what you actually meant to say in the jumbled quotes that caused this appearance of confusion. So please explain clearly; are you talking about individual humans when you discuss intelligence and achievement, or are you talking about human collectives who are organised into co-operative communities? SECOND POINT If you say that you speak of 'humans' to mean only those who have lived in the last 200 years or so (your 18:12), then how do you explain the achievements of other societies before this date? I can list many achievements that would be well beyond the ability of any randomly-selected group of a hundred modern adults. However, I will certainly allow you to revise that comment to include humans a lot further back than two centuries. As I asked in the beginning, where do you draw the line between 'human' and 'animal' when it gets down to Neanderthals, Erectus and Habilis? I'm not imposing any restrictions, I just want to know as clearly as possible what you are saying. I hate being accused of 'misrepresenting' when I'm honestly trying to understand. |
||||||||||||||
|
My original statement that humans are a special creation because of the vast gulf in their abilities, capabilities and accomplishments vs. the abilities, capabilities and accomplishments of the most advanced animal species is irrefutable. And it’s not even a close call. It’s not like humans are landing spacecraft on other planets while apes are building airplanes. And whatever you come up with to explain this vast gulf is evidence that humans are a special creation because they clearly have something that animals lack. That’s really so self-evident that I think it’s pointless to argue. Maybe it’d be worth exploring what that “something” is. |
||||||||||||||
|
jonheck 23-Mar-25, 02:07 |
victoriasas |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
