Evolution and Intelligent Design

[Gman]

GMan,

You will find that I am not the usual sort of evolution supporter that you are perhaps used to here. I'm much better schooled, both in evolutionary biology, and in Biblical and theological studies, than most.

Again.. No one is really against evolution here. G-d in fact can use evolution to create. That isn't the issue. However, if you claim that your science oppresses the belief in G-d, then we are going to have problems here.

To take your last point first, if you are going to try to impress us with your knowledge of Latin tems for logical fallacies, then at least you ought to know what those fallacies are.

Again you have started the ad hominem attacks.. You don't think I don't know what a logical fallacy is? What are you implying?

Simply calling your behaviour childish is not an ad hominem argument. There is no such think in logic as an ad hominem attack - there is only an ad hominem argument. If you don't know the difference, and it is obvious that you do not, then spend some time looking it up so you'll be better prepared in the future, and not look so foolish here.

Oh, so now you are calling me a fool? Well consider this a warning then for you, one more snap and we are going to have to let you go... You cannot answer my questions because you have no answer.. I'm sorry for your choices.

You continue to try to ask a question which by its very nature has no meaning - every time you refer to "my" god, you reveal your wilfull ignorance. I've explained that I have no God - and why.

Sure you have a god... You have given your authority to your science. Your science, or god, is telling you that there is no god or evidence for it. Your god creates, tells you right from wrong via evolutionary thought processes. This is nothing more than religion..

You don't like that answer, so you pretend I haven't answered. You keep asking about the origin of life, and I've told you two times so far that I don't give a rat's *** about the origin of life -

Now now.. Don't get angry. Be patient. It's ok, we already know you don't have an answer to the origin of life. No one does, so if you did it probably would have made it on CNN.

I am concerned with the evolution of life once it arose on Earth - as are all evolutionary biologists. That you can't seem to understand that fairly obvious point would seem to say that you are blind to anything other than pushing your particular agenda. You claim to want to talk about evolution. Then do so. Until then, you have no right to expect respect from me.

Again... You are the one claiming that science can be defined via pragmatic Evolution. Your religion.. Sorry, I mean science. As for respect, you will get no respect from me either. Frankly the assumptions I find from "so called" evolutionary biologists are comical.. I enjoy a good laugh every once in awhile and you have provided that for us.

Good luck.

The origin of life is not the subject with which evolution deals. By definition, evolution is about the change in populations over time.[/list]
Adocus

Not according to your philosophy..

[Danieltwotwenty]

GMan, when you can come to the discussion table without pitching childish tantrums and insisting on the use of terms which you have been told are inaccurate, I will address your posts. Until then, there is nothing worth saying in response to you.

Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems that this is Ad hominem, you are calling G childish etc... and rejecting his arguments on that basis which is clearly Ad Hominem as per definition.

Wiki

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.[5]"

G's argument is what it is, if you want to attack the argument that is fine, if you want to attack G then maybe this forum isn't for you.


Dan

[sandy_mcd]

maybe this forum isn't for you.

But, but, but ... he's "much better schooled, both in evolutionary biology, and in Biblical and theological studies, than most."

[Danieltwotwenty]

maybe this forum isn't for you.

But, but, but ... he's "much better schooled, both in evolutionary biology, and in Biblical and theological studies, than most."

Obviously didn't study ettiquette.

[Pierson5]

Pierson5,

The explosive nature of the Cambrian is with the appearence of almost every phyla that has ever existed. In China, the record shows that it happened in only 3-5 million years.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=639

Your pointing to the appearance of lower catagories of life.

The Avalon explosion is the same as the Ediacara.
http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/25 ... -explosion

retink on some "precambrian animal" evidence
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 130531.htm

This whole "Cambrian" argument is just a big argument from ignorance.

Just what an evolutionist would fall back on. But, it is not a lack of evidence and it is not just the Cambrian, as I pointed out. And we have lots of reasons why animal life could not exist earlier (as I gave you).

If you are getting your information from a place like the Discovery Institute, you should probably do a little background research. The DI is obviously biased and has published misleading information, if not flat out lying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_ ... ontroversy

Regardless, let's continue...

Here is an excerpt from Time magazine:

"Now, with information based on the lead content of zircons from Siberia, virtually everyone agrees that the Cambrian started almost exactly 543 million years ago and, even more startling, that all but one of the phyla in the fossil record appeared within the first 5 million to 10 million years. "

http://www2.ggl.ulaval.ca/personnel/bou ... osion.html

Now, 5-10 million years is still a "blink of an eye" with regards to evolutionary history. So, it took place over several million years, and there's evidence that certain complex creatures actually existed pre-cambrian. Think about how long 3-5 million years actually is. Some of these creatures at the beginning had life cycles that lasted a fraction of a day. That’s hundreds of millions of generations of creatures. Humans have only had around 10,000 generations.

The Cambrian explosion just happened more rapidly at the time, and there are many things that could have caused that. Much more oxygen was in the air, which speeds up mutations. The amount of information in the genome of animals may also have reached a critical point where more mutations ended up to be beneficial. There are lots of good theories, but we don’t need to know why it happened to look at the evidence and determine that it did, in fact, happen.

Nothing prior to Cambrian?
Small Bilaterian Fossils from 40 to 55 Million Years Before the Cambrian
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/305/5681/218.abstract

http://phys.org/news/2012-03-oldest-ske ... ralia.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran_fauna

http://phys.org/news/2011-11-team-expla ... osion.html

The Precambrian fossils that have been found are consistent with a branching pattern and inconsistent with a sudden Cambrian origin. For example, bacteria appear well before multicellular organisms, and there are fossils giving evidence of transitionals leading to halkierids and arthropods.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm

None of the new creatures had body parts that evolved out of nothing. Each and every new body part is just a new or more advanced use of a body part that existed in an ancestor. The eye is a perfect example, is well documented, and exists in all ancestral stages in current creatures that can be observed. The creatures that evolved in the Cambrian were the first that COULD be fossilized relatively easily, as earlier creatures were only soft tissue. The transitionals are documented both by alternate fossil evidence such as trace fossils and borings, and the modern day genetic analysis. The link you provided regarding trace fossils is interesting, but it doesn't account for every type of trace fossil that we have. There is much to be accounted for.

We know that these animals existed – you don’t seem to deny that – and we know which ones came first due to the fossil record and the genetic analysis of modern day animals, which match perfectly, so one cannot deny that the Cambrian Explosion was a bona fide event. So what is your argument?

You say I "fall back" on the claim that you are making an argument from ignorance. If you think going from "We don't know exactly" to "Therefore X is false, or Y is true" is a legitimate argument, we have nothing to talk about. Instead of giving me evidence for an alternate hypothesis, you refer a book. I don't care if you don't accept the evidence for evolution. You're an adult and can believe whatever you want. What I care about are the alternative hypothesis "challenging" core scientific principals. If the Avalon/Cambrian issues you brought up are complete mysteries, it would be wise for us to remember that every mystery ever solved in the history of mankind has turned out to be "not magic".

I noticed you didn't address my main point. Feel free to post the evidence you have supporting your hypothesis for this event. As I said before, if you manage to prove evolution incorrect, it does not prove ID is correct. False dichotomy.

I was not presenting evidence for ID. A good book on that is Dr. Rana's book "The Cells Design."

Fascinating, here's a couple more:

I'm a vertebrate paleontologist, and I'll stand by: if you need me, just holler!

I am an evolutionary biologist, and as such, the question of the origin of life does not interest me - that is a field for the chemists and molecular biologists to worry about.

Adocus

Ah! Excellent. Feel free to chime in whenever you like. You seem to know more about the topic than I do (as I would expect) and are doing a fine job thus far.

So everything is chemicals? Please explain how chemicals created you. In detail please..

No one knows exactly how it happened. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. There are plenty of good hypothesis though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

That is a topic for another thread though. Let's keep this one about evolution.

Again.. No one is really against evolution here. G-d in fact can use evolution to create. That isn't the issue. However, if you claim that your science oppresses the belief in G-d, then we are going to have problems here.

Maybe we are getting confused with "against" and "deny." Plenty of people here deny evolutionary fact. I haven't seen anybody make the claim that science "oppresses the belief in God." I have said before it may be in conflict with some individual's creationism stories (if we have a common ancestor with apes, how does that explain Adam/Eve, etc...). I know this is a simple example and doesn't apply to everyone, but I think you get the idea. This creates bias and a "hidden agenda."

Simply calling your behaviour childish is not an ad hominem argument. There is no such think in logic as an ad hominem attack - there is only an ad hominem argument. If you don't know the difference, and it is obvious that you do not, then spend some time looking it up so you'll be better prepared in the future, and not look so foolish here.

Oh, so now you are calling me a fool? Well consider this a warning then for you, one more snap and we are going to have to let you go... You cannot answer my questions because you have no answer.. I'm sorry for your choices.

Come now, it's not that bad. I would say I've gotten worse from some of the "regulars" of the site.

Sure you have a god... You have given your authority to your science. Your science, or god, is telling you that there is no god or evidence for it. Your god creates, tells you right from wrong via evolutionary thought processes. This is nothing more than religion..

I would disagree. Science is a method. It's not a set of beliefs, it's not a denial of any beliefs. Science is comparable to a set of instructions on how you should tie your shoes, but is instead applied to observations.

If science is a god, so is the tag on my shirt that says to dry clean it.

I still see a lot of false dichotomies here. Again, I don't care if you don't accept the vast amounts (see page 1) of evidence for evolution. You are adults and can believe whatever the heck you want. The same can be said for HIV, Holocaust and mental illness deniers. What I care about is the alternative that is being pushed to be taught in colleges and schools. Do the work, convince the scientific community and it will be taught in public schools and universities. Let's see the evidence!

[Gman]

No one knows exactly how it happened. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. There are plenty of good hypothesis though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

That is a topic for another thread though. Let's keep this one about evolution.

Call it a hypothesis, call it a theory, or call it chicken noodle soup.. The fact here is that no one has 100 percent proof. What am I saying here? You are going to have to take what you project here by faith or miracles....

Maybe we are getting confused with "against" and "deny." Plenty of people here deny evolutionary fact.

No... Micro evolution is a fact, macro evolution is NOT a fact. It is "assumed" via micro evolution.

I haven't seen anybody make the claim that science "oppresses the belief in God." I have said before it may be in conflict with some individual's creationism stories (if we have a common ancestor with apes, how does that explain Adam/Eve, etc...). I know this is a simple example and doesn't apply to everyone, but I think you get the idea. This creates bias and a "hidden agenda."

No... But when someone says evolution does this and evolution does that (especially around origins) and leaves out God, what do you think that implies? A "hidden agenda?

Come now, it's not that bad. I would say I've gotten worse from some of the "regulars" of the site.

Don't get me started...

I would disagree. Science is a method. It's not a set of beliefs, it's not a denial of any beliefs. Science is comparable to a set of instructions on how you should tie your shoes, but is instead applied to observations.

If science is a god, so is the tag on my shirt that says to dry clean it.

No.. You totally missed my point. Science is a method, but people will always interject their philosophy into their science. Always... Whether you are a creationist, evolutionist, an atheist, or an alien from mars. Philosophy and science must conflict. Science and philosophy deal with the same thing. Human life. But they try to understand it under different types of considerations. One physical or natural and the other philosophical. And that is why they conflict because that are trying to come to an understanding of the same thing, human life, from two different points of view. People try to divide them where they don’t interfere, but you can’t do that. Don't forget, you brought up pragmatic evolution. What we have here is philosophy vs philosophy or religion vs religion and very very little actual science..

I still see a lot of false dichotomies here. Again, I don't care if you don't accept the vast amounts (see page 1) of evidence for evolution. You are adults and can believe whatever the heck you want. The same can be said for HIV, Holocaust and mental illness deniers. What I care about is the alternative that is being pushed to be taught in colleges and schools. Do the work, convince the scientific community and it will be taught in public schools and universities. Let's see the evidence!

Again... Evolution itself does not interfere with the existence of God. People's philosophy interferes with God, not the science itself. So do your own work...

Let's see the evidence! without your philosophy...

[bippy123]

As a former theistic evolutionist, I never saw a problem with believing In God and believing in Evolution. Heck even staunch evolutionists like Ken Miller never did.

My switch to ID came when I finally saw that Macroevolution was being tauted as a fact, instead of an assumption and there really wasnt and isnt any good evidence to make it a fact. Even in tests like the fruit fly tests and the bacteria tests as I have shown a few pages back, if anything they put a serious dink into the armor of macroevolution.


I allready know all the evidences that believers in macroevolution use since I was one myself and used to argue for them.
What I finally found disturbing is how fanaticial believers in macroevolution pushed their ideology as if it were a religion.

Pierson, how are you doing with Joe Nickell, its good that you dont use him as evidence for your stance against the shroud of turin. That wasnt too successfull for you was it lol

[1over137]

maybe this forum isn't for you.

But, but, but ... he's "much better schooled, both in evolutionary biology, and in Biblical and theological studies, than most."

Obviously didn't study ettiquette.

Posts like this remind me of atheistic forums. What such an atheist who is reading it could think? That we are no different.
(Sorry for stepping in, but I had to say this.)

[sandy_mcd]

What such an atheist who is reading it could think?

That all people share a common humanity? That tweaking people we find somewhat obnoxious is fun even if we know it doesn't show us in the best light?

[Danieltwotwenty]

maybe this forum isn't for you.

But, but, but ... he's "much better schooled, both in evolutionary biology, and in Biblical and theological studies, than most."

Obviously didn't study ettiquette.

Posts like this remind me of atheistic forums. What such an atheist who is reading it could think? That we are no different.
(Sorry for stepping in, but I had to say this.)

Well I disagree, I think there is a big difference between defaming someone's character for no clear reason and calling someone out on their bad behaviour.


*Edit* just calling a spade a spade, maybe next time he wants to post he won't be so blatantly rude.
Dan

[1over137]

maybe this forum isn't for you.

But, but, but ... he's "much better schooled, both in evolutionary biology, and in Biblical and theological studies, than most."

Obviously didn't study ettiquette.

Posts like this remind me of atheistic forums. What such an atheist who is reading it could think? That we are no different.
(Sorry for stepping in, but I had to say this.)

Well I disagree, I think there is a big difference between defaming someone's character for no clear reason and calling someone out on their bad behaviour.


*Edit* just calling a spade a spade, maybe next time he wants to post he won't be so blatantly rude.
Dan

I am not sure if people here called a spade a spade. I sensed mocking in the posts.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Well I am sorry that you see it that way, mocking was not my intention.


My intention was to point out that he had been extremely rude and insensative and I tried to be as nice as possible by making a joke of it.

I guess different cultures have different ways of approaching these sort of things.

Dan

[narnia4]

Is anyone here familiar with Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)? Here's a link by Plantinga about it (I'd recommend reading it instead of just my summary).

http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/alspaper.htm

Its basically arguing that given evolution, naturalism is very unlikely to be true. Under naturalism, evolution biases our cognitive faculties and rational thought processes only toward survival. Any correlation with what's actually true is only coincidental. So if naturalism is true then we are not justified in our belief that our faculties are reliable and therefore not justified in believing anything to be true at all (including naturalism). Under a view other than naturalism, we can believe that evolution could have been a guided process (similar to intelligent design but not necessarily limited to strict definitions of it).

I don't really use the argument myself but I thought the attempt to use evolution to disprove naturalism was interesting. Apologies if this is really off-topic but it seemed to fit under the thread title.

[sandy_mcd]

Under naturalism, evolution biases our cognitive faculties and rational thought processes only toward survival. Any correlation with what's actually true is only coincidental.

Gosh, I would think "survival" might have something to do with "truth". Is that animal or plant dangerous? Wouldn't it be helpful to know the truth?
Seriously, there are some good points.
Our thought processes do not cope well with things like quantum mechanics, universe/nothing, etc. Intuition is really bad in guessing at "truth" these areas.
And all of the people some of the time and some people all of the time are failed by their cognitive faculties.

[narnia4]

Under naturalism, evolution biases our cognitive faculties and rational thought processes only toward survival. Any correlation with what's actually true is only coincidental.

Gosh, I would think "survival" might have something to do with "truth". Is that animal or plant dangerous? Wouldn't it be helpful to know the truth?
Seriously, there are some good points.
Our thought processes do not cope well with things like quantum mechanics, universe/nothing, etc. Intuition is really bad in guessing at "truth" these areas.
And all of the people some of the time and some people all of the time are failed by their cognitive faculties.

This strikes me as missing part of the point, although this line of reasoning is also part of the reason why I don't use the argument.

Its not that our faculties never fail us, its that they're generally truth-seeking. It might be true that certain animals are dangerous or plants could kill us, but lower animals can develop defense tactics or inherit traits aiding in survival without caring one iota whether there is some "truth" involved or not and without developing truth-seeking faculties. So while truth could be helpful in evolution, there must be countless ways in which we could have evolved that could aid in survival without coming to good conclusions about the nature of things.

I think the argument could be stronger than it is, I think the point is strongest when it relates to metaphysical truths (as you may have indicated). Knowing that you shouldn't poke a dog with a stick might aid in survival, knowing that naturalism is true certainly doesn't.