Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[Dinwar]

So where would the evidence be Dinwar.....?

LOOK UP JACK HORNER'S WORK.

The funny text is because you've AGAIN ignored my repeated statements of where to find the evidence. Either you aren't reading anything I write, or you're being intentionally obtuse.

This is what I am asking for, nothing more. AND, I am arguing nothing else than that this evidence does not exist. Show it to us here and now and I'll pack up the tent and move on.

I've done so more than a dozen times. So I'm gonna go ahead and call you a lier on this part.

 

[Dinwar]

Just to prevent you from saying "HA! You can't!!!", here's a link to an article including a talk by Horner on the subject:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jun/14/1

You can do your own research from there.

If you still think we don't understand how dinosaurs evolved into birds, nothing will convince you.

 

[Sideroxylon]

What a fascinating guy. Thanks for the link, Dinwar.

 

[Mojo]

Strawman

AAAAAAnd argument from personal incredulity.

 

[catsmate]

Why are these people wrong?

Because they disagree with Patrick1000 of course.

 

[Kay]

No, I am an atheist........

It does point out how delicate this stuff all is, and it does go a long way to explain a great deal of the nuttiness around "evolution" in the culture at large, and I am talking about mainstream culture here, not fringe stuff like literal creationist culture.

Here in the United States, 75% of adults, so I have read, identify themselves as Christians. That is 175 million people, the vast majority of voters. In addition, there is a sizable minority of other theists; Jews, Muslims, that like Christians, belong to a faith characterized by the believers having a personal relationship with their God.

As such, the vast majority of Americans, with respect to their most fundamental views on who they are, would be classified as intelligent design advocates. To be a Christian is to view this world and oneself as a creation, AN INTENTIONAL CREATION. Were I a Christian, I would view myself as being made by God, AND! most importantly, God made me with a purpose. This was no whim, this world, and the people in it. This is what religion in our occidental tradition is all about.

Now, you have 175 million people in the US, self identified as intelligent design advocates. One then introduces "evolution", undirected, unintentional, purposeless, wholly natural evolution. Cognitive dissonance anyone? A bit of an understatement my friends, wouldn't you say???????........

Why can't a Christian believe in evolution?

Personally, I'm an atheist. But I know that you can argue and have seen Christians argue that only God could have done such a brilliant and complicated process that eventually leads down to man. Or something like that.

Besides, on one of your points.... when schools in America taught that the earth went around the sun in the 19th century, was that a violation of church and state? After all, the Catholic Church ( and I would guess other Christian demoninations, but I'm not sure) taught that the sun went around te earth

 

[Acleron]

...

If I am an attorney and my client is accused of a crime and I prove him/her to be not guilty, my proof of his/her innocence is not predicated on my producing the real culprit. He is free to go once I show he/she was not connected with said events.

Likewise, I can show that the mechanism of evolution as presently conventionally presented is as best we can see not connected to macroevolutionary events like birds from reptiles. Because I have no alternative, in no way does this disqualify my exceedingly valid criticisms, my counterclaims with respect to the currently proffered mechanism's truth.

But what you are doing is closer to a lawyer, saying only 'The guilt of my client is incredible' and sitting down. He won't win many cases that way.

Because you can't/won't understand that accumulation of small changes in a genome lead to a large change and that a largely different genome gives a different animal is totally irrelevant. The existing theory of the mechanism of evolution explains the facts of evolution. It explains biodiversity, it explains antibiotic resistance, it explains the fossil record, it explains why lizards are changing in short periods of times. It can be used to predict where certain fossils will be found (and they have found them),

It can also explain possible mechanisms for the detailed changes in morphology over a period of time.

It cannot explain precisely how those changes occurred, but even if it did, I strongly suspect you would then ask for times, dates and preserved biochemistry for each individual change. In fact, despite your denials, your methods of argument are similar to creationist/IDers. If the new tactic is to pretend you are not of that belief to give your arguments more authority, it doesn't work for a simple reason. The scientists who you deride for their beliefs, do not have such beliefs. They are swayed by the evidence. They certainly will never be convinced by someone who just pleads ignorance and that is your only argument. (Oh and that of the strawman that present theory is a completely random process)

 

[Aridas]

Finally, God would be dead once and for all......

Funny. Your extrapolation is flat out wrong, though.

Just in case you didn't notice Dinwar, were the fossil record to actually provide solid proof that the conventional(UNDIRECTED, UNINTENTIONAL) biochemical mechanism of evolution was a FACT, God would POOF!, no longer be a possibility, let alone a fact, proven out of existence she would finally be, once and for all. The fossils, "proving" the molecular mechanism, would prove that God never was, as there never was INTENTION.

No longer? Seriously? The Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent God who allows Free Will to exist that most Creationist Christians want to believe in was never a possibility. Evolution has nothing to do with that. We've already been over this, though. Your logic is wrong, to the point that it could never be right. It's heavily based in Creationist propaganda, regardless, spread by those who get quite a bit of money and recognition for upholding a false dichotomy.

Still, just because, I'm going to repeat my challenge. Present to me an accepted area of science that says anything about God, in the first place, before either attacking the godlessness of any scientific theory or saying that they say anything about God.

 

[Patrick1000]

Christianity is a religion in which one has a personal relationship with God.

Funny. Your extrapolation is flat out wrong, though.



No longer? Seriously? The Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent God who allows Free Will to exist that most Creationist Christians want to believe in was never a possibility. Evolution has nothing to do with that. We've already been over this, though. Your logic is wrong, to the point that it could never be right. It's heavily based in Creationist propaganda, regardless, spread by those who get quite a bit of money and recognition for upholding a false dichotomy.

Still, just because, I'm going to repeat my challenge. Present to me an accepted area of science that says anything about God, in the first place, before either attacking the godlessness of any scientific theory or saying that they say anything about God.

In the occidental Christian tradition, men and women are "made in the image and likeness of God". Men and women are made with intention. God makes men and women in the furtherance of a purpose. Our creation is very much directed, full of intention, full of purpose. At least it is in the context of the Christian tradition.

Modern evolutionary theory as conventionally presented features a mechanism that is undirected, unintentional, purposeless. As this mechanism would be responsible for our creation, yours, mine and that of everyone on this planet, were it true, and as that mechanism is very much undirected, one may conclude, if the science of evolution is true, then there is no Christian God. And one also notes that correct or incorrect, modern evolutionary theory is atheistic. It is a "science" and one starkly anti-religious/anti-Christian. Evolution's mechanism is atheistic, and so ironically a doctrine very "religious" itself in its strong denial of Christianity's personal God.

 

[Aridas]

In the occidental Christian tradition, men and women are "made in the image and likeness of God". Men and women are made with intention. God makes men and women in the furtherance of a purpose. Our creation is very much directed, full of intention, full of purpose. At least it is in the context of the Christian tradition.

As I said, we've been over this.

Modern evolutionary theory as conventionally presented features a mechanism that is undirected, unintentional, purposeless.

No. Sorry, your argument's just as bad now as it ever was. "A mechanism that is undirected, unintentional, purposeless" simply fails, when compared to reality.

"Undirected?" Natural selection could be considered certainly be considered direction, though, if you didn't only seem to be looking at the mutation side of things. Intelligent direction? Maybe, you could suggest actual tests regarding intelligent design, as you seem to love bringing that up and seem to keep driving at it?

"Unintentional?" Alright, my facepalm's out of the way, so... let me repeat myself. Intention is utterly and completely irrelevant. It makes exactly as much logical sense to say that evolution is intentional as it does to say that its unintentional. Neither conclusion is supported in any way. What is supported is that there is no need for intention.

"Purposeless?" Intentional purpose? Irrelevant as intention. Unintentional purpose? Roughly the same as gravity, I'd say. But, just for fun, this video is amusing and deals with what you're trying to talk about, it seems.

As this mechanism would be responsible for our creation, yours, mine and that of everyone on this planet, were it true, and as that mechanism is very much undirected, one may conclude, if the science of evolution is true, then there is no Christian God. And one also notes that correct or incorrect, modern evolutionary theory is atheistic. It is a "science" and one starkly anti-religious, atheistic, and so very religious itself in its strong atheism, its denial of the Christian personal God.

If you accept the premises that are ascribed to the Christian God, there is no Christian God. To have validity, your point has to first overcome that barrier, among many others.

 

[Mojo]

Likewise, I can show that the mechanism of evolution as presently conventionally presented is as best we can see not connected to macroevolutionary events like birds from reptiles.

Go on then. You haven't so far.

 

[steenkh]

Modern evolutionary theory as conventionally presented features a mechanism that is undirected, unintentional, purposeless. As this mechanism would be responsible for our creation, yours, mine and that of everyone on this planet, were it true, and as that mechanism is very much undirected, one may conclude, if the science of evolution is true, then there is no Christian God.

Nope. Catholics officially support evolution (at least before the pope Benny), and they still think their God exists. When I was a child a long time ago, my religious teachers (nuns and priests) told me that God simply "nudged" evolution a bit here and there to arrive at the desired result: humans. As a young man, I imagined this could have happened by sending a single cosmic ray particle at just the right moment, seemingly like the rest of random cosmic rays that strike DNA all the time. It was also possible that God had seeded the original Big Bang in just such a away that humans would arise on Earth without further intervention needed by God.

It was before I became an atheist, and at the time, I marvelled at how God's infinite wisdom and knowledge enabled Him to use such a complicated method to create humans, and that this act of creation presumably would be as easy for God as blinking an eye is for us.

So you see, the Christian God is what is called a "god of the gaps", and there is no way ever that he will be disproved by science. Christian literalists have a hard time with science, of course, but the majority of Christians are not literalists.

 

[Mojo]

In the occidental Christian tradition, men and women are "made in the image and likeness of God". Men and women are made with intention. God makes men and women in the furtherance of a purpose. Our creation is very much directed, full of intention, full of purpose. At least it is in the context of the Christian tradition.

Modern evolutionary theory as conventionally presented features a mechanism that is undirected, unintentional, purposeless. As this mechanism would be responsible for our creation, yours, mine and that of everyone on this planet, were it true, and as that mechanism is very much undirected, one may conclude, if the science of evolution is true, then there is no Christian God. And one also notes that correct or incorrect, modern evolutionary theory is atheistic. It is a "science" and one starkly anti-religious/anti-Christian. Evolution's mechanism is atheistic, and so ironically a doctrine very "religious" itself in its strong denial of Christianity's personal God.

This is not a problem for the theory.

 

[Patrick1000]

How about a bit of Dawkins then ?

As I said, we've been over this.



No. Sorry, your argument's just as bad now as it ever was. "A mechanism that is undirected, unintentional, purposeless" simply fails, when compared to reality.

"Undirected?" Natural selection could be considered certainly be considered direction, though, if you didn't only seem to be looking at the mutation side of things. Intelligent direction? Maybe, you could suggest actual tests regarding intelligent design, as you seem to love bringing that up and seem to keep driving at it?

"Unintentional?" Alright, my facepalm's out of the way, so... let me repeat myself. Intention is utterly and completely irrelevant. It makes exactly as much logical sense to say that evolution is intentional as it does to say that its unintentional. Neither conclusion is supported in any way. What is supported is that there is no need for intention.

"Purposeless?" Intentional purpose? Irrelevant as intention. Unintentional purpose? Roughly the same as gravity, I'd say. But, just for fun, this video is amusing and deals with what you're trying to talk about, it seems.



If you accept the premises that are ascribed to the Christian God, there is no Christian God. To have validity, your point has to first overcome that barrier, among many others.

Dawkins says living things seemed to have been made "on purpose" but were not. They are the creation of a "blind watchmaker".

Now there is a bit of frank atheism for you.

Christianity is at root about one's having been created by God, not a wholly naturalistic process.

 

[Mojo]

And one also notes that correct or incorrect, modern evolutionary theory is atheistic.

Science is atheistic. It has no place for that hypothesis.

 

[Mojo]

Dawkins says living things seemed to have been made "on purpose" but were not. They are the creation of a "blind watchmaker".

Now there is a bit of frank atheism for you.

Christianity is at root about one's having been created by God, not a wholly naturalistic process.

And once again ths is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

 

[Mojo]

True. But, being as your complaints against evolution amount to "I don't understand it, and you guys are mean"...

Actually, they now amount to "I don't understand it, you guys are mean, and it's atheistic".

 

[Patrick1000]

I know many Christians buy in to evolution......

Nope. Catholics officially support evolution (at least before the pope Benny), and they still think their God exists. When I was a child a long time ago, my religious teachers (nuns and priests) told me that God simply "nudged" evolution a bit here and there to arrive at the desired result: humans. As a young man, I imagined this could have happened by sending a single cosmic ray particle at just the right moment, seemingly like the rest of random cosmic rays that strike DNA all the time. It was also possible that God had seeded the original Big Bang in just such a away that humans would arise on Earth without further intervention needed by God.

It was before I became an atheist, and at the time, I marvelled at how God's infinite wisdom and knowledge enabled Him to use such a complicated method to create humans, and that this act of creation presumably would be as easy for God as blinking an eye is for us.

So you see, the Christian God is what is called a "god of the gaps", and there is no way ever that he will be disproved by science. Christian literalists have a hard time with science, of course, but the majority of Christians are not literalists.

I know many Christians buy in to evolution......I attended Catholic grade school, a boys' school with a more than excellent science teacher.

This, evolution and Catholicism being compatible, is of course gobbledygook however. But what are Christians going to do on the other hand? So people, Christians, pretend there is no inconsistency, no incoherence.

These people believe that they were made in the image and likeness of God by a wholly natural, purposeless, undirected, unintentional process.

Pretty dang silly is all I can say.

 

[Aridas]

Dawkins says living things seemed to have been made "on purpose" but were not. They are the creation of a "blind watchmaker".

Now there is a bit of frank atheism for you.

Christianity is at root about one's having been created by God, not a wholly naturalistic process.

You tried this before, remember? It didn't make your point then. It's not making your point now.

All you're doing is showing that you don't actually understand the subject that you're trying to talk about.

I'm going to repeat my challenge, yet again. Present to me an accepted area of science that says anything about God, in the first place, before either attacking the godlessness of any scientific theory or saying that they say anything about God. Bear in mind that examples of science countering specific claims that don't need to be taken literally in the first place are not acceptable for this.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Dawkins says living things seemed to have been made "on purpose" but were not. They are the creation of a "blind watchmaker".

Now there is a bit of frank atheism for you.

Christianity is at root about one's having been created by God, not a wholly naturalistic process.

And what did he say after that in way of argument? Are we doing a bit of quote mining? Charles Darwin was equally frank in "Origins". Richard Feynman argues that it is this kind of honesty in declaring the problems with your ideas* that distinguishes science from pseudoscience. To quote out of context like this without acknowledging how such questions were answered is dishonest and a frequently used creationist tactic.

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

I can't remember what he said but perhaps it was about the counter intuitive nature of the world around us. We could equally say that the earth seemed to be the centre point about which the sun, moon, planets and stars revolved, but is not.

ETA * What Dawkins is doing here is not so much talking about problems with evolution but addressing a possible objection based on problems with a basic human approach to understanding the world.