Do so in a separate thread instead of doing it over and over in every thread.
What is the case against Evolution?
- Thread starter Seattle
- Start date
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Well, I am not pleased with duplicity contained in the OP question; "What is the case against Evolution".
What case? There is no case against Evolution. Evolution is a self-evident natural universal mathematical physical function, since the beginning.
Just as we have no scientific alternative or case opposed to Abiogenesis.
You only think your word salad arguments have any genuine mathematical content with a logical connection to explaining life. Mostly you ascribe creative power to extant life forms, which begs the question.
Rhetorical nonsense. There is no scientific argument/model or theory that takes away from the only scientific fact that how life came to be is via chemistry and Abiogenesis, and then evolution of course.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
What is your case against Evolution?
No, the power comes from dynamic energy, the creativity of pattern formation lies in the mathematical aspects of physics.
Word salad?
God stretching his hand out to poor Adam who was all alone lying on the barren grounds of early earth 6000 years ago. IMO, that is ascribing extant lifeforms where there should not exist any. Accompanied by a bunch of little extant life forms of God's family, ain't that quaint. Or,
Fibonacci number patterns occur widely in plant structures, including this cone of queen sago, Cycas circinalis
Fractal spirals: Romanesco broccoli showing self-similar form
That's mathematical extant life, no? How did it get mathematical? Evolution and copying of regular efficient patterns?
Last edited:
If you can't figure that after so many posts and links, why repeat? Can't recall anyone at SF changing position on anything of substance. Peace.
Your position is plain for all to see...A position burdened entirely by your belief in ID, and ignoring the science. A position that has surfaced in many aspects of science.
I'm not trying to sway anyone's opinions here, just sharing my perspective in that science and faith don't have to be at odds with one another. Usually, it's mainly fundamentalists who struggle with reconciling their faith with science.
But, I'll come back to reply more. We don't have to agree on this, but I'd hope that you can respect my views, as I respect yours.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Well it sure uses a LOT less screen real estate than image salad.
God stretching his hand out to poor Adam who was all alone lying on the barren grounds of early earth 6000 years ago. IMO, that is ascribing extant lifeforms where there should not exist any. Accompanied by a bunch of little extant life forms of God's family, ain't that quaint. Or,
Fibonacci number patterns occur widely in plant structures, including this cone of queen sago, Cycas circinalis
Try to respect others by not filling screen after screen with off-topic prosthelytizing.
Okay, I have some time at work now, to reply to your post, James:
Some of it is a gut feeling, some of it is in reading different ancient texts and believing that if others thought there was something more (and these beliefs have carried through thousands of years) then maybe it's worth exploring.
I didn't mean for my comments above to derail the thread
But, thanks for asking and letting me share.
(Having said all of that, my spiritual beliefs don't cause me to have irreconcilable differences with science.)
Well, faith at least for me, doesn't come down to one ''ah-ha'' moment; it's been a journey of sorts.
This is probably where believers and non-believers start talking past each other, but here goes. lol Faith is a belief system, and it's not based on objective evidence. Faith is largely arrived at from subjective experience, and beliefs through studying different religions, and belief systems, and also as to what can be discovered through prayer or meditation. Do you feel science is the only way to find answers about yourself, and the universe? I don't feel it is.
You're content with that, but, I guess I'm not. I was when I identified as an atheist, but per my post above, I don't think that the answers about life and the world around me, can only be answered through science. In my opinion, there is too much emphasis on expecting science to do all the heavy lifting, and if it doesn't provide an answer, we should just stop seeking. Or we keep seeking until we find an answer that suits, which is fine, of course. I'm not saying we insert a god...most believers don't come to faith that way, from what I can tell. It's not like I was an atheist, and then started thinking about scientific theories and said ''yep, I'm going back to belief, because that makes the most sense.'' I came back to faith for personal reasons, yet my faith honestly doesn't contradict my respect and understanding of science. Believing in a god, doesn't cause science to suddenly become meaningless. (unless you're a devout fundamentalist)
The mysteries of the universe aren't uncomfortable gaps. My faith isn't about plugging a god in to help me ''handle'' scientific mysteries of the universe. But, I understand that from where you sit, it could seem that way. Not all believers are alike, there's also that. In my opinion, science is a means to discovering what has always been there.
I had a personal experience that led me back to believing, and when I was an atheist, I felt ...Idk, a sense of emptiness. Like in an existential kind of way. I've always been interested in spirituality and world religions even just from a research standpoint, so maybe some of us just aren't comfortable being atheists. One of my friends tells me that I went back to faith on pure emotion, but logically, I'm still an atheist. It would seem that everyone tries to ''diagnose'' the believer in the room. lol All I can say is, I'm happy now.
Some of it is a gut feeling, some of it is in reading different ancient texts and believing that if others thought there was something more (and these beliefs have carried through thousands of years) then maybe it's worth exploring.
I didn't mean for my comments above to derail the thread
But, thanks for asking and letting me share.(Having said all of that, my spiritual beliefs don't cause me to have irreconcilable differences with science.)
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I agree, religious representations of "Creationism" or at least "Intelligent Design" are prominent all throughout history and the world and in the most obvious places. That painting came from a special place for worship.
Well, none of my posts are intended to offend. I merely present my views of natural science and religion and bring what I consider evidence to the table.
Please note that my arguments are from the POV of science. I have no objections to any spiritual beliefs or practises that are designed for attaining peace and tranquility.
I admire several of the Deistic religions which focus on personal enlightenment and growth.
But then adherents to deism don't label other people as "infidels" or "apostate", or "blasphemer", which are "guilty of sin" labels.
That is the "word salad" used by relgious zealots. I object to those words.
I don't use those type of words other than to remind the reader of the violent history of religions inspite of their "word salads" about "salvation" and "heavenly rewards".
If that offends somebody, though luck.
There is no way this topic can be discussed and not upset somebody. The bloodiest wars have been fought over theism and atheism.
My question was about the case was against Evolution, to which I have not seen a persuasive argument or any reasonable answer.
I offered two views on the question; the religious view and the biological view. And my evidence is accompanied by narrative that explains my views. Which is the more compelling?
You cannot ask me to withhold evidence on the basis that it might offend someone. There would never be a debate of any kind.
Trick is not to be offended and present your case clearly and persuasively. I am not offended being labeled atheist as long as the label is used with "respect" to me.
Last edited:
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I think that there's commonality in the genetic code that codes for them as well, so they definitely seem to be related.
A mutation that starts a transport site in a cell membrane off on a long road to becoming a flagellum would probably be disadvantageous to its function as a cell membrane transport site. So why would natural selection have initially selected for such a mutation? Why would natural selection favor intermediate steps between a transport site and a flagellum if those intermediate steps don't have any selective advantage?
That's Behe's argument (as I understand it). That complex biological systems presumably appeared as the result of a whole series of steps. But if the selective advantage of the system is a function of the entire system working as a whole, that ultimate advantage at the end of the transformation wouldn't explain the various earlier steps that led up to it. It's "irreducible" in the sense of a biologically functional whole being reduced to its individually non-functional parts. (Interesting mereological issues here.)
Unlike you (I think) and Behe, I'm not convinced that this is an insurmountable obstacle to biological evolution. In fact, I'm inclined to think that "Miller's basic argument" is probably correct in its broad outline.
But... I don't think that leaping from cell membrane transport sites to flagella with a wave of one's hand is satisfactory science. (It's more akin to myth-making.) It needs to be understood and explained step-by-step.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I agree to a point. But it is not evolution that needs to be explained step by step. There is sufficient scientific evidence of evolution throughout the natural world as well as throughout the universe to support the evolution argument.
It is the objection to Evolution of the Flagella (Flagellum) that must be explained in detail on the grounds of extraordinary external intervention. How? Mortar and pestle? A change in code in the DNA?
"God did it" is not persuasive argument in my book. I expect more than that.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Actually I ascribe creative power to chemistry, via the mathematical potentials inherent in elementary chemistry itself. After all bio-chemistry was preceded by and evolved from elementary chemistry. No?
Mathematics is not an extant thing. It is a deterministic process via orderly interaction of relative causal values and functions.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Not really. I didn't suggest anything to compete against evolution.
What do I need to explain?
I posted a reply to the question in the subject line: "What is the case against evolution?"
I noted that many details of evolutionary theory are subjects of controversy among evolutionary biologists themselves in the professional literature.
Then I opined that this thread is more about arguments that "ID" proponents use than arguments internal to the science itself.
Then I said that I think that Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument might be the best of those arguments. I said that although it isn't a slam-dunk refutation of evolutionary biology in my opinion, it presents an interesting conundrum.
And that generated some reaction from our atheists, as I anticipated it would.
As for me, I don't know how life originated. (Calling the origin of life "abiogenesis" and then pretending that the new name constitutes an "answer" to the origin of life is foolishness.) I do assume that life arose by a long process of chemical evolution involving self-replicating molecules, but I don't actually know that. I can't explain the appearance of metabolism and all the rest of the cellular machinery. At this point, I don't think that anybody can, even though there are countless hypotheses.
Nor do I know all the fine details of how the life we see around us evolved subsequent to life's origin. (We do have information from the fossil record, comparative genomics etc, that I think is very good and fills in some of it.) I'm very strongly inclined to accept natural selection, not so much as an explanation, but more as a research program. It won't be an explanation of life's origin and subsequent transformations until we can explain in detail what happened. Until we can, it's more of a heuristic strategy, a strategy for generating explanatory hypotheses.
That being said, I don't attribute any of this to the active intervention of any divine beings either. (For one thing, I don't know that there are any divine beings.) I certainly don't think that Hebrew, Christian, Islamic or Hindu mythology has anything to do with the answer. (Yes, I consider the Bible and Quran to be just as mythical as the tales of Zeus.)
I'm quite happy with science's methodological naturalism.
Last edited:
Why can't scientists accept that we just don't have a clue as to how life started just yet.
I think we will need much more time to figure things out but right now scientists just don't have the tools (or the technology), the intelligence and the evidence to formulate a complete theory of just how life began.
I think we will need much more time to figure things out but right now scientists just don't have the tools (or the technology), the intelligence and the evidence to formulate a complete theory of just how life began.
This new age stuff has nothing to do with the OP.
They sound to me like pseudoscience subforum material....No?
Because the whole point of science is to look for clues.
We have some very good clues, just no certainties.