EVOLUTION.

The place to debate matters of faith and religion in a more rigorous manner.
Forum rules
The place to debate matters of faith and religion in a more rigorous manner. Differing perspectives from both Christians and non-Christians are actively welcomed, but contributors should come prepared to justify their opinions and beliefs, while showing due respect to the views of others.

EVOLUTION.

Postby Pondero » March 7th, 2015, 2:58 pm

:yahoo: I will transfer over things from Daily Chat asap.
What stuck in my mind was. Fr. Thomas Dubay. discussed evolutionary theory, and didn't mention Creationism at all. He seemed to zero in on the fact that there was micro and macro evolution (sounds like a subject in a second year course on economics) He emphasized that evolution could NOT be the result of random chance, as some materialists think.

Sprocket replied.
Evolution is the non-random accumulation of random mutations.
Then I wrote:

If non-random, then what is the only alternative.. design. I think it is, because to say random is to say "chance".So, it cannot be the accumulation "of (chance) mutations. Some will discover the contradiction in your sentence eventually.
"For more on this subject we should discuss evolution on a different thread ."Evolution" is suggested, not one such as "Evolution and Creationism" as Creationism itself has different meanings. So, if it is to be discussed, then don't use that title. Stick to "Evolution"
Sprocket replied.
There is no contradiction. The mutations are random, but the accumulation of beneficial ones is non-random, because it follows the rule of survival of the fittest.
I then said.
Now, you are introducing a new word "beneficial" which you didn't say at the beginning. What you call beneficial random ones is contained in the total of random ones, as a subset of same.

For example, if you have a basket of brown and white eggs and you collect the brown ones, you still have an accumulation of brown eggs. The fact that they are brown has not changed. Similarily, if you have all random mutations and collect only the beneficial ones, they are still an accumulation of "random" NOT "non-random" mutations.Beneficial random mutations are part of the set of ALL random mutations.
They can't change to being non-random .

To which Sprocket has replied.
Last edited by Pondero on March 7th, 2015, 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
According to one study, the average adult has a shorter attention span (eight seconds) than a goldfish (nine seconds).
This is not surprising in today's wired , or wified world.
User avatar
Pondero
 
Posts: 12612
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada

Re: EVOLUTION.

Postby Sprocket » March 7th, 2015, 4:51 pm

I did indeed. As I said over there, and as you completely misunderstood, evolution is the non-random accumulation of random mutastions. The mutations are random, but the accumulation of beneficial ones is a non-random process, bec ause it follows the rule of survival of the fittest. Similarlyh, to use your analogy on the other thread, If I keep hens, some of which lay white eggs and some brown, and I go out in the morning to collect them, the white ones and the brown ones will be scattered randomly around, but if I only collect the brown ones, and leave the white ones behind, my process of collecting is non-random, bevause I'm following a rule - only collect the brown ones.
As for the distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution; this is one made by creationists who accept micro-evolution, within a species or genus, for example the evolution of modern horses from the prehistoric eohippus, but not macro-evolution (or, as proper scientists call it, evolution).
Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Sir John Harington (1561-1620)
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 16071
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Re: EVOLUTION.

Postby Pondero » March 7th, 2015, 4:57 pm

I try not to misinterpret what you are saying. But you still have "random events " accumulated according to the principle of survival of the fittest. I do not think that is sufficient evidence for evolution by chance.
(I will add to this later)
According to one study, the average adult has a shorter attention span (eight seconds) than a goldfish (nine seconds).
This is not surprising in today's wired , or wified world.
User avatar
Pondero
 
Posts: 12612
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada

Re: EVOLUTION.

Postby Sprocket » March 7th, 2015, 5:06 pm

Evolution is not by chance. It is by survival of thew fittest. It is the individual mutations that are chance.
Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Sir John Harington (1561-1620)
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 16071
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Re: EVOLUTION.

Postby Pondero » March 7th, 2015, 5:31 pm

Survival of the fittest doesn't prove evolution.
Consider the following disproving Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.
1) Gradual changes by natural selection and random chance are impossible.

2)The geological strata are embarrassingly empty of transitional forms.(Darwin himself admitted that if his theory were correct, there would have to be innumerable transitional developments.). Where are they?

3)There are no partial forms, half developed transitions in the paleontological record,. Every species appears from the beginning perfect.

4) “The evolutionary frenzy" lasted only. 5 to 10 million years says geochronologist Samuel A Bowling of The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

5) Why was there no evolution of advanced animals, since 530 million years ago?
According to one study, the average adult has a shorter attention span (eight seconds) than a goldfish (nine seconds).
This is not surprising in today's wired , or wified world.
User avatar
Pondero
 
Posts: 12612
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada

Re: EVOLUTION.

Postby Sprocket » March 7th, 2015, 5:43 pm

1. No it isn't.
2. Tiktaalik roseae, Archaeopteryx lithographica, feathered dinosaurs...
3. Same point as 2.
4. There have been periods of relatively rapid evolution, and periods of relatively little change.
5. Dinosaurs, birds, mammals...
Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Sir John Harington (1561-1620)
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 16071
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Re: EVOLUTION.

Postby Pondero » March 7th, 2015, 6:12 pm

My question. Number 5 should have read "earlier than" 565 million years not "later than.

I can see you are on the ball. I will answer the other statements you make,later.

By a transitional form, I mean a falcon for example with an eye that was say only 40% developed, there aren't any.. This points to design of existing perfect species...more on that in my next post. Feathered dinosaurs appears to be a perfect species, as with all dinosaurs they died out 6 million years ago when the comet, or whatever it was struck the Yucatan peninsula. (if memory serves). You may wait some time for my next post as I have certain other things to do right now.
Last edited by Pondero on March 7th, 2015, 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
According to one study, the average adult has a shorter attention span (eight seconds) than a goldfish (nine seconds).
This is not surprising in today's wired , or wified world.
User avatar
Pondero
 
Posts: 12612
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada

Re: EVOLUTION.

Postby Sprocket » March 7th, 2015, 6:15 pm

In that case, "because it was over 530 million years ago". Why would you expect advanced creatures so long ago?
Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Sir John Harington (1561-1620)
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 16071
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Re: EVOLUTION.

Postby Sprocket » March 7th, 2015, 6:17 pm

Pondero wrote:
I can see you are on the ball. I will answer the other statements you make,later.

Fine, but I don't promise to reply. Evolution is one of those interminable subjects which never come to any kind of conclusion, like Israel/Palestine.
Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Sir John Harington (1561-1620)
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 16071
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Re: EVOLUTION.

Postby Pondero » March 7th, 2015, 6:26 pm

Sprocket wrote:
Pondero wrote:
I can see you are on the ball. I will answer the other statements you make,later.

Fine, but I don't promise to reply. Evolution is one of those interminable subjects which never come to any kind of conclusion, like Israel/Palestine.


Hopefully, this source of some of my questions will be helpful.
....geochronologist Samuel A. Bowring of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. To compound the enormity of Darwin's claims, we note that this frenzy of alleged drastic changes occurred about 530 million years ago, and "since then, advanced animals have stuck with those same basic body plans; no new ones have evolved", adds Bowring. [5] Across the sea we read in the London Daily Telegraph about this same explosion of fundamentally new forms the highly pertinent question, "Why was there no fossil earlier than 565 million years ago?" [6] Even Stephen Gould admits all this: "The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash. About five-sixths of life's history tells the story of single-celled creatures alone." [7] No wonder that he also had given up on Darwin. A further wonder is why the popular press and television, if they are so interested in objectivity, do not present documentaries on these developments ... and much else.


I agree this discussion could go on forever. There is nothing theological in accepting evolutionary theory.Some form of God guided evolution,NOT based as the materialists have it, on CHANCE is possible.
According to one study, the average adult has a shorter attention span (eight seconds) than a goldfish (nine seconds).
This is not surprising in today's wired , or wified world.
User avatar
Pondero
 
Posts: 12612
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada

Next

Return to In depth

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest