Can the history of life on earth be proven to be the result of any natural process?

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Buzzard

I’m not a scientist, but from my amateur point of view, I would be reluctant to propose a theory that explains the history of life on earth without knowing what that history is.

From the scientific point of view, past events leave evidence that can be assessed in the present. Using that evidence, we can construct testable hypotheses about the past and use that evidence to determine if our hypotheses are accurate. A common given example is forensic science that uses evidence at a crime scene to reconstruct history.

@Buzzard

It seems to me that that history is unkown and unknowable - one can only theorise about what it might be, That means a theory of evolution is built on a theory of history - a theory built on another theory sounds kinda pointless to me.

The theories are built on observable facts, such as the observable physical features in fossils or the sequence of bases in genomes.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

The only facts that can be established about our History is that humanity has existed for at least as long as there are human records. We also know that humans give birth to humans. To suggest that a human was born from a creature that was not human is to suggest something that cannot be demonstrated

Why can’t it be demonstrated?

@RichardG

If the scientific method is to demonstrate then ToE is not using the scientific method when it claims that something other than a human gave birth to a human.

Hypothesis: If humans evolved from a non-human ape-like ancestor then there should have been species in the past that had a mixture of human-like features not found in other apes and ape-like features not found in modern humans.

Experiment: Search the fossil record and compare the mixture of features in those fossils to the predictions made by the hypothesis.

Observations: We find fossils with the mixture of features predicted by the hypothesis.

Conclusions: The fossil record supports the hypothesis that humans evolved from non-humans.

That’s the scientific method.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@St.Roymond

Which biologist (paleontologist?) a while back noted that at this point all new fossils are transitional?

I’ve never liked that description, personally. It tends to bake evolution into the definition of a transitional fossil. I prefer a definition of transitional fossil that is strictly limited to what we can observe which is the mixture of physical features in the fossil and how it compares to other species.

[Buzzard]

@adamjedgar

oh i have significant doubts about that statement…even the study itself makes the observation in its abstract that snakes likely independantly evolved hollow fangs…this means that the evolutionary trail isnt able to determine how this occured via normal darwinian methods…

The same could be said for probably thousands of other biological features obsetved in nature, which is why I consider ToE to be an iadequate and overrated theory.
Not only can’t the evolution of hollow fangs be sensibly explained, no one can explain how said fangs came to be connected to the snakes poison glands.
And even if someone did arrive at a sensible explanation, there’s no to prove that that’s actually what happened.

A lot of papers on evolution are just pointless talk-fests. Surely the authors can find more contructive things to do with their talents.

Now i will add fuel to my own fire here in that, the notion that poison exists in snakes in a world where there are no tears, no sickness, no suffering, no death (Revelation 21)…that is highly problematic for the entire future Biblical model

It’s not problematic at all - there won’t be any poisonous snakes in Heaven, nor will there be any creatures that kill and eat other creatures.

[Buzzard]

@Roy

As for the fossil record under a Biblical model, if you were capable of doing the calculations, which you clearly aren’t or you wouldn’t be a YEC

Oh dear …

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

For example, can you explain why common ancestry and vertical inheritance should not produce a nested hierarchy?

And I have told you that there is nothing wrong with your logic within the bounds of science. It is just that science does not see all the factors and so cannot be expected to get it completely right

@T_aquaticus

If the answer is, “Yes, the evidence is consistent with evolution, but I still don’t accept it,”

It’s as good an answer as any.

@T_aquaticus

@RichardG

To suggest that a human was born from a creature that was not human is to suggest something that cannot be demonstrated

Why can’t it be demonstrated?

You show me any progeny that is not the same species as its parents.

@T_aquaticus

@RichardG

If the scientific method is to demonstrate then ToE is not using the scientific method when it claims that something other than a human gave birth to a human.

Hypothesis:

A nd that is where the con comes. Science treats hypothesis as fact.

@T_aquaticus

If humans evolved from a non-human ape-like ancestor then there should have been species in the past that had a mixture of human-like features not found in other apes and ape-like features not found in modern humans.

Why does that follow? Where does this hypothesis derive from? It does not come from you finding those things. You look for them after making the hypothesis. That is putting the cart before the horse.

@T_aquaticus

Experiment: Search the fossil record

That is not an experiment. That is investigation and cataloging. You do not change what you find And you do not do anything that can be called experimentation.

@T_aquaticus

Observations: We find fossils with the mixture of features predicted by the hypothesis.

You interpret the fossils. You reconstruct the creatures using know characteristics of living creatures. And I have seen your misuse of visual comparison with the ludicrous idea that a hinged jaw came from an ossified gill slit.

@T_aquaticus

That’s the scientific method.

And I have just shown you that your are twisting it.

Richard

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Buzzard

@Roy

As for the fossil record under a Biblical model, if you were capable of doing the calculations, which you clearly aren’t or you wouldn’t be a YEC

Oh dear …

Ok, that may be too strong. I’ve taken the 2nd bit out.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Buzzard

Not only can’t the evolution of hollow fangs be sensibly explained, no one can explain how said fangs came to be connected to the snakes poison glands.

That bit’s easy - if poison glands evolved from saliva glands, they’d already exit into the mouth after which connecting them to the (not-yet-hollow) fangs is just a gradual change to the glands’ exit location.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Buzzard

It’s not problematic at all - there won’t be any poisonous snakes in Heaven, nor will there be any creatures that kill and eat other creatures.

So no humans then?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@DeaconKenNY

Do we have any direct physical evidence that anything in the Bible is true, since none of us were there, and the amount of non-biblical information and/or eyewitness accounts outside of the text in the Bible is sparse, if nonexistent?

The difference is that faith/ religion does not need that proof.

Science does.

Richard

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@RichardG

@T_aquaticus

@RichardG

To suggest that a human was born from a creature that was not human is to suggest something that cannot be demonstrated

Why can’t it be demonstrated?

You show me any progeny that is not the same species as its parents.

Google speciation in plants via polyploidy.

[Buzzard]

@RichardG

You are claiming that you do not need to know precisely how things evolved., but, because they are here, they must have!

I think there’s a lot of truth to that statement.

It goes kinda like, “We ‘know’ things evolved, so why bother with (the impossibility of) demonstrating how it happened.”
What they mean by “know” is “believe”.

[Buzzard]

No point comparing belief in the Bible to science. The former is based largely on faith and the latter is based on evidence.

[Buzzard]

@Roy

So no humans then?

Human, yes … vegetarians. There won’t be bloodshed of any kind in Heaven.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

You show me any progeny that is not the same species as its parents.

So you expect speciation to happen in a single generation?

@RichardG

A nd that is where the con comes. Science treats hypothesis as fact.

No, science treats hypotheses as hypotheses.

@RichardG

Why does that follow? Where does this hypothesis derive from?

It derives from the theory of evolution. All hypotheses are derived from a larger theory. A theory predicts what should and should not be observed if the theory is true.

For the hypothesis I gave, the theory predicted that we would find fossils with a mixture of ape and human features before any such fossils were found.

@RichardG

That is not an experiment. That is investigation and cataloging.

That’s what an experiment is, investigation and cataloging.

@RichardG

You interpret the fossils. You reconstruct the creatures using know characteristics of living creatures.

There is no interpretation. They are objective facts. The Australopithecus pelvis is more similar to the human pelvis than it is to the pelvis of other apes. The Australopithecus skull is more like other apes than it is the skull of humans. It has a mixture of human and ape features. This is an objective fact.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Buzzard

@Roy

So no humans then?

Human, yes … vegetarians. There won’t be bloodshed of any kind in Heaven.

Is it really heaven if there’s no pastrami?

[Buzzard]

@Roy

That bit’s easy - if poison glands evolved from saliva glands, they’d already exit into the mouth after which connecting them to the (not-yet-hollow) fangs is just a gradual change to the glands’ exit location.

Please explain how “gradual” changes - in terms of natural selection and survival advantage - would construct an enclosed duct that conveys the secretions of a snake’s poison glands to its fangs?

And how did the gradually-constructed duct know which direction to head in to connect precisely with the fangs (which each conveniently featured a hole its base to receive the duct)?

Furthermore, why would the whole procedure be necessary if the snakes are already surviving without venomous fangs?

[Buzzard]

@Roy

it really heaven if there’s no pastrami?

I’ve never tried pastrami but you’re obviously quite fond of it.

My belief is, when in Heaven, humans will have no memory whatsoever of their former earthly existence, so pastrami won’t be missed bcoz no one will remember pastrami. You won’t miss what you don’t remember.
I also believe that food will be completely unnecessary in Heaven and we will eat and drink only for pleasure.

[Buzzard]

@Roy

Ok, that may be too strong. I’ve taken the 2nd bit out.

I do understand your frustration, however.

Why YECs can’t accept Genesis as a figurative description of creation, I know not. Their misinterpretation of a passage in Romans exacerbates the problem.

[rsewell (All Truth is God's Truth)]

@Buzzard

It’s not problematic at all - there won’t be any poisonous snakes in Heaven, nor will there be any creatures that kill and eat other creatures.

Well, if poisonous snakes did not evolve, and God did not make creatures that kill and eat other creatures, there are none on Earth either. But here we are.