YEC is a Bible-centered view (allowing for their interpretation of the Bible and of Genesis 1 only), the science is a distant second and only if it supports the first. So it’s counterproductive discussing science with a YEC unless you can first rationally and honestly discuss alternative views of “Day” in Genesis 1.
Yet it seems to me YECs are of two minds about Evolution. In our culture, they see it as representing an anti-Bible, man-over-God, “God is unnecessary” position. Yet some will suggest that evolutionary processes happened MUCH faster than you or I believe, in order to produce all the variations (related species) from the few “kinds” on the Ark. So the word “Evolution” represents to them a philosophically naturalist world view, but evolutionary processes with God helping may be OK.
Hi T. Not sure I want to get into this with ya, dude. I think it’s a faith position.
I hope what comes below does not come across as dismissive, but I don’t have much time. I would much prefer to sit down over coffee and discuss - much more personable! But here goes.
Your analogy shows a more complex and fascinating aspect of genetics. A single genetic change can have multiple effects (like your rocks). But the amount of luck needed for this to accidentally produce lots of useful novel stuff exceeds my credibility filters. And “coordinated” as I used it almost certainly requires multiple changes at multiple unrelated genetic sites.
Also, the assertion that this explains macroevolution is not science… it’s philosophy. If it is science, show me a single example where this type of genetic event has resulted in multiple coordinated morphological changes allowing a species to move into a new habitat. You are connecting a genetic possibility we know of with historical morphological events, but you have zero data connecting them.
So I think you can argue that your “analogy” may be plausible, but it’s not science.
Hope that helps explain my perspective. All the best!
Marty
If you aren’t aware of the scientific evidence I can see how you would tend towards that position. If you want to discuss the evidence that have led scientists to these conclusions I would be happy to present it.[quote=“Marty, post:22, topic:36922”]
Your analogy shows a more complex and fascinating aspect of genetics. A single genetic change can have multiple effects (like your rocks). But the amount of luck needed for this to accidentally produce lots of useful novel stuff exceeds my credibility filters. And “coordinated” as I used it almost certainly requires multiple changes at multiple unrelated genetic sites.
[/quote]
There is no luck needed, and I will show you why using another analogy.
The chances of your parents meeting and having you is pretty slim. The chances of your grandparents each meeting and producing your parents is even slimmer. If you go back several generations the chances of that specific genealogy existing and leading to you is nearly impossible, and yet there it is. If we were to rewind the tape of history and start over there is every chance that a whole new series of events would occur producing a completely different genealogy, and that new genealogy would also be so improbable as to be impossible. The key here is that the very act of people having kids and those kids having kids guarantees that we will end up with a highly improbably genealogy.
The same for mutations. The very act of accumulating mutations guarantees that we will end up with a mutational pathway that is highly, highly improbable for the very same reasons.
The examples are all around you in the species living today. Their genomes are direct records of their ancestry, and the genetic evidence clearly shows that they share common ancestors. Their genomes also contain evidence demonstrating patterns of natural selection and random mutation. Nature has already done the experiment, and the results are all around us.
That analogy is the kind of thing you see on atheist web sites, and makes philosophers face palm. So I take it you are an atheist? If so, then as an atheist, you need Evolution to be true, and if Evolution doesn’t explain everything, then your entire faith system is at risk. So I can see why you respond as you do.
Unlike you I don’t need Evolution to explain everything, so it’s easier for me to look at the data with an open mind. If the data doesn’t fit Evolutionary theory, it doesn’t really matter to me.
But I do wonder how you find meaning in an utterly meaningless universe, how you find love when you know it’s just chemicals, how you have such utter confidence in your opinions when reason is just an evolutionary process that helped our species survive and its relationship to truth is unknowable. Such it would be if atheism is true and Evolution explains everything.
So why do you have such utter confidence in your opinions when they are just neurons firing as they have been programmed (according to your own world view)? Or is that not your world view?
Hmmm… that seems to indicate you have high expectations of people being rational, consistent, determined to think things through deeply, and then maybe agree with you. But if you lower those expectations, life makes much more sense!
Yes, yes… it does make more sense. But World War I and World War II made sense in there own times too. I am a pretty tender sprout you know…
Side Bar: Isn’t it amazing that America suffered through a vast and intense enterprise … and in less than 5 years the greatest threat to humanity had been dispatched (m.o.l.).
And here we are with low level threats all over the world… and we’ve been at war for almost 20 years now… and have accomplished nothing really.
It reminds me of an incredibly depressing Star Trek episode… where thousands of people a day calmly walked into booths to be mercifully, compassionately and systematically dispatched … according to the cold mathematics of inter-planetary warfare!
In a giant computer-operated war game system… the computer would tell each planet how many people died (theoretically) and how man (theoretically) … and it was each planet’s job to round up the people peacefully and walk into giant versions of transporter boxes that delivered all their quarks to “the Undiscovered Country - - from whose bourn no one returns!”
Now I know why all those people line up and walk into those boxes…
[ This episode featured in their 1967 season - - just about exactly 50 years ago today! ]
When my WWII veteran father and I watched this episode, 50 years from then would have been just after the close of WWI, no TV, network Radio wouldn’t start until the 1920’s… Newspapers were King … and people thought the Earth was created in 6 days…
I’m not T_aquaticus, but just wanted to point out the following:
Few (if any) people believe that evolution explains everything. Most scientists think that evolution explains the diversity of species we see on earth. That’s all. That would certainly include religious scientists.
There were atheists before the theory of evolution, so evolution isn’t needed to be an atheist. If we don’t know how life changed over time then we don’t know. Not knowing something does not endanger atheism. Also, atheism is a lack of faith.
You are also continually committing the Sharpshooter Fallacy, which is what makes philosophers face palm.
Why would it matter if it is just chemicals? I find meaning in my life, is that so terrible? If you find meaning in your religious beliefs then that’s great, I see nothing wrong with that.[quote=“Marty, post:26, topic:36922”]
So why do you have such utter confidence in your opinions when they are just neurons firing as they have been programmed (according to your own world view)? Or is that not your world view?
[/quote]
I have confidence in my conclusions because they are supported by evidence that is independent of my neurons firing, evidence that is accessible in the universe around me.
