Evolutionary theory in crisis?

[RickD]

Not one datum point in that. Zero.

Googling "datum".

I'm trying to follow along here. Stop using big words.


Edit***
Sorry Audie. I did tell you I'd ixnay the arcasmsay.

[abelcainsbrother]

Not one datum point in that. Zero.

Yes it is a point if you've read Charles Darwin's book "The origin of Species" because Chrles Darwin insisted that even the tiny variation,as in a litter of kittens,might be accumilated,generation by generation,and extrapolated ad infinitum in order to finally turn a cat into a totally new and different kind of creature this is what Darwin assumed was evolution yet being an evolutionist today you will tell us evolution is not one kind of creature evolving into another kind of creature,just like Kenny did above.

[Audacity]

Welcome Audacity now I might actually get into a serious debate about why evolution is a myth whether you believe in God or not.

I await.

[abelcainsbrother]

It should be noted that adaptation comes FROM genetic change, not the other way around.
In short, and using the cold as an example:
Genetic changes happens that allows the tolerances of colder climates.
Due to that change the organism adapts to colder climates.

Now, environmental factor CAN and DO cause genetic changes BUT TYPICALLY when that happens it is things like pollution, radiation or things like that causing genetic mutations.

I do not know of any case ( and I may be wrong) of the environment causing a SPECIFIC genetic change that allows for adaptation to said environment.

Yes,Francis Crick who won a Nobel Prize showed in his Central Dogma that when it comes to genetics that although genetic information can travel outwards from the DNA in the cell nucleus in order to direct the formation of proteins,information from the body cannot travel bck into the nuclei of germ cells and modify the DNA pattern" In other words the environment cannot effect the DNA of any life and yet evolutionits have down-played and have tried to explain away Crick's "Central Dogma" while evolution scientists like Sean B Carroll teach that fish evolved blindness from living in dark water with no light,or dinosaurs evolved wings to escape predators,etc which is a total made up evolution myth.

[Audie]

Not one datum point in that. Zero.

Googling "datum".

I'm trying to follow along here. Stop using big words.


Edit***
Sorry Audie. I did tell you I'd ixnay the arcasmsay.

We love you for it.

[Audie]

Welcome Audacity now I might actually get into a serious debate about why evolution is a myth whether you believe in God or not.

I await.

By serious debate, we mean facts / data, and no editorial comments?

[Audacity]

Audacity: Not quite following everything you've said in your post, but it matters to a lot to many Christians because, as they see it, it gives lie to the idea that god created all life as is from the very beginning, ergo, the Bible must be wrong. And the fact that people (scientists) seem to have evidence to this effect scares them.

No, no, NO!!! Evolution would be an entirely DEPENDENT series of processes, ONLY possible per what came into to existence IMMEDIATELY at the Big Bang, which moments before, nothing presently physically existing, existed. Then, as there were over 10 BILLION years before there were even conditions conducive to life - much less how one attempts to explain how this could happen uncaused - but make no mistake, ALL of the conditions and things that evolution would be dependent upon all INSTANTLY came into physical existence at the moment of the Big Bang. Explain THOSE things, with their incredible design and highly specific functions and interactive poetry. There is absolutely NOTHING random about what appeared moments after the Big Bang began. Explain that, and THEN we can argue about secondary, entirely dependent processes that supposed occurred over 10 billion years later.

What INSTANTLY emerged, at the moment of the Big Bang, where nothing physically existing had yet appeared, shows great intelligence in design and function - marvels that we still scarcely can discern or understand. Those things were 1) the exact opposite of RANDOM and 2) they reveal a source of great power and intelligence. These are undeniable. And those whom suggest these things could burst into existence with such incredible complexity and function are essentially entertaining nothing but metaphysics - as no science can explain in such things happening without a cause. It is entirely illogical to think this. Science can only measure existing or dependent things, and certainly cannot discern the CAUSE of anything with no known cause. WHATEVER one thinks pre-existed the Big Bang, they must realize it was eternal (could not create itself) and it contained immense power and staggering intelligence.

First of all, I wasn't addressing any particular aspect of evolution, but your question of why it matters if evolution occurred. The why it matters aspect---in particular, why it matters to some Christians. So I'm a bit puzzled by your leap into an issue concerning the Big Bang. Secondly, I have to take issue with your notion, or implication, that the theories of the natural evolution of life are some how dependent on what happened 13.82 billion years ago. The theories of evolution only concern themselves with change, and are not interested in any first cause of life.

[abelcainsbrother]

Welcome Audacity now I might actually get into a serious debate about why evolution is a myth whether you believe in God or not.

I await.

Well,I guess you'll just have to jump in,you might review alittle find something you disagree about and explain why.Or youmight bring up some new point or reason why you believe life evolves. I re-read one of your threads you started about free-will and realized that my argument was kinda weak in favor of free-will.Others defended free-will much better than I did.

[Audacity]

Welcome Audacity now I might actually get into a serious debate about why evolution is a myth whether you believe in God or not.

I await.

By serious debate, we mean facts / data, and no editorial comments?

Actually, I'm not looking for an exclusive one-on-one debate, but a friendly discussion of the relevant issues. If this isn't what you or anyone else is looking for then I'm sorry to have mislead you. But to be clear, although I'm not sure what you mean by "editorial comment," I do like facts and data.

[Philip]

Audacity: First of all, I wasn't addressing any particular aspect of evolution, but your question of why it matters if evolution occurred. The why it matters aspect---in particular, why it matters to some Christians.

Yes, it does matter to some Christians - but that has to do with specifics of how they view the pertinent Scriptures and to what extent they believe the Creation accounts to be speaking scientifically, say, as opposed to other possibilities (as to their individual take upon the theological understandings of the Jews at the time of the writings, or perhaps, symbolically, or even literally).

Audacity: So I'm a bit confused by your leap into any issue concerning the Big Bang. Secondly, I have to take issue with your notion, or implication, that the theories of the natural evolution of life are some how dependent on what happened 13.82 billion years ago. The theories of evolution only concern themselves with change, and are not interested in any first cause of life.

The REAL issue and reason we're discussing evolution on this site is related to whether a universe and life itself is possible without a Creator. So, as for the THEORIES of what took place per the processes in which life began - yes, those are a separate but clearly dependent issue. As for evolutionary processes themselves, EVERY physical thing, chemical and biological process, and condition that would allow them to be possible - all of these were entirely dependent upon what came at the beginning, as if what came at the very beginning had not burst into physical existence, exactly as they did, the processes of supposed evolution would not have been impossible, as the necessary elements, not to mention the immensely complex requirements for life to even exist, would not otherwise have been possible. So, while the details of how evolution might have worked are a separate issue, evolution itself is nonetheless a series of processes that would only have been possible due to what came first - over 10 billion years before any life existed to evolve. And so, for our purposes of argument on this board, what came first is precisely the FAR bigger deal.

Evolution arguments, as they relate to the question of God's existence, are only smoke-and-mirror diversions that avoid the much more important question of what made them possible to begin with - as NOTHING that physically exists, not time, nor space, dimension, the necessary elements, chemistries, biologies - none of those existed, and yet, in the VERY next MOMENT, they ALL did, and with unfathomable power, design, and incredible specificity of function, and all perfectly interacting together with precision and clock-like precision. Not even one aspect of supposed evolutionary processes would have been remotely possible without what IMMEDIATELY happened within moments of the Big Bang's beginning. As all of that intelligent design and functionality was IMMEDIATELY apparent a moment after the Big Bang's beginning, AND was necessary to explain EVERYTHING that followed it, 10-plus billion years later, when life began. This is the FAR bigger issue as for any God arguments! And the God question is the entire reason for this website. We can argue all day long about dependent and secondary processes. I'd rather not, as it doesn't address the central and most important question: Can a such an extraordinary and unfathomably complex universe "pop" into existence without a powerful intelligence and designer.

WHATEVER one thinks existed before the Big Bang, they must admit: 1) It was eternal - it couldn't created itself; 2) It was supremely powerful and intelligent beyond our comprehension! Because what it produced, revealed staggering design, function, and indescribable power, these elements all immediately springing into physical existence within moments of the Big Bang beginning, and they were and ARE necessary to all things that have ever physically existed.

[Audie]

Welcome Audacity now I might actually get into a serious debate about why evolution is a myth whether you believe in God or not.

I await.

By serious debate, we mean facts / data, and no editorial comments?

Actually, I'm not looking for an exclusive one-on-one debate, but a friendly discussion of the relevant issues. If this isn't what you or anyone else is looking for then I'm sorry to have mislead you. But to be clear, although I'm not sure what you mean by "editorial comment," I do like facts and data.

Uh, no I wasnt looking for 1/1 either.

Friendly is good!

So are facts.

[Audacity]

The REAL issue and reason we're discussing evolution on this site is related to whether a universe and life itself is possible without a Creator.

Okay. Just so you're aware that where the theories of the natural evolution of life are unconcerned, they don't care about first causes, or whether or not there is a god. Evolution is quite fine with the idea of god creating the universe and life, so I don't see the relationship between it and the possibility or impossibility of a universe without a god as any kind of issue.

Evolution arguments, as they relate to the question of God's existence, are only smoke-and-mirror diversions that avoid the much more important question of what made them possible to begin with - as NOTHING that physically exists, not time, nor space, dimension, the necessary elements, chemistries, biologies - none of those existed, and yet, in the VERY next MOMENT, they ALL did, and with unfathomable power, design, and incredible specificity of function, and all perfectly interacting together with precision and clock-like precision. Not even one aspect of supposed evolutionary processes would have been remotely possible without what IMMEDIATELY happened within moments of the Big Bang's beginning. As all of that intelligent design and functionality was IMMEDIATELY apparent a moment after the Big Bang's beginning, AND was necessary to explain EVERYTHING that followed it, 10-plus billion years later, when life began. This is the FAR bigger issue as for any God arguments! And the God question is the entire reason for this website. We can argue all day long about dependent and secondary processes. I'd rather not, as it doesn't address the central and most important question: Can a such an extraordinary and unfathomably complex universe "pop" into existence without a powerful intelligence and designer.

Hmm. . . .never seen an argument concerning evolution and how it relates to the question of God's existence. Got an example?

[Philip]

Audacity, the mere mention of Creationism almost always brings out "God of the Gaps" comments, along with condescending, extended pedantic lectures about the supposed truths of evolution, and the insinuation that Creationist are all scientifically clueless. And, it makes sense, IF there is no God, one must explain how what exists, does. But instead of explain the ultimate question - which I try hard to bring people's attention to - those who attack Creationism almost always go on some harangue about evolution. So, Google around - it's not hard to find what I am saying is true. If you'd like, just start here with an article ("15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense") from Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... eationist/ The article can't go two words without mentioning Charles Darwin, haha.

BTW, Audacity, do you understand the Progressive Creationism belief? Yes, they're "Progressives" and they are definitely "PC."

[Audie]

Are you aware of any anti-ToE argument that isnt intellectually / scientifically clueless?

[Philip]

[url]Audie: Are you aware of any anti-ToE argument that isnt intellectually / scientifically clueless?[/url]

Min, clearly, there are key questionable assertions about evolution that are unproven and problematic. And the insinuation that EVERYONE who questions it is some scientific simpleton is prejudiced. That would be putting every person, no matter their knowledge or credentials into the same pot. However, obviously, there are many who make straw men statements about evolution because they don't understand certain basic tenets of it, or how natural selection is thought to have worked/how it didn't work. And all of that doesn't cover the fact that there are various schools of thought about evolutionary and various Darwinian/neo-Darwinian theories. Evolutionists don't all agree - not only upon the processes, but on the mechanisms, how it supposedly branched, may have originated, etc. So, I see a lot of pseudo-intellectual bias in some evolutionists - particularly ones insistent about their anti-theism. But again, and as you have agreed, this debate has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God. And I respect that you also have admitted that.

Otherwise, what is up - are you close to finishing school? When do you graduate?