It would seem? That is false logic. The fact that any development occurred does not prove how it was derived.
Directed implies intelligence. Survival of the fittest is not directive it is reactive. It works best in herd dynamics with an alpha male who can pass on the change quickly, If the change is not a dominant trait it will not be carried forward at all. If the developing creature is solitary then survival of the fittest is almost irrelevant because there is no competition within the species.
Evolution cannot, by definition, build, or have any sort of direction. Random means just that. Just because a reptile sprouts feathers it does not follow that a future one with feathers will sprout wings. The fact that there are still so called âlowerâ creatures proves that any deviation does not necessarily affect the whole species (otherwise there would be no lower species) so the probabilities of the right-developed creature developing the next or tertiary development in a staged transformation become greater and greater the further the developments goes from the original .
Statistics is not a concrete argument because statistically unlikely events do occur. You can âbeat the oddsâ but, on the same basis, every single transformation has to beat the odds. How many transformations would it have taken to produce the diversity of Nature from a single cell?
That is no longer the restriction placed on Evolutionary change. Using DNA sequencing you, apparently can grow not only a set of wings but the whole ancillary systems as well.
I guess you canât have your cake and eat it. The changes have to be big enough to bridge perceived âgapsâ but not big enough to prevent compatibility.
Logically Evolution should not work⌠But there is some proof of evolutionary change. But, that does not mean that evolution can do what science currently claims that it can. It involves extrapolation beyond current provability.
The same way that humans never have blue eyes? Thatâs recessive, and seems to be a mutation that only happened a few times.
If it has a mutation that makes it easier to get food, it will live a bit longer (on average), and thus have more chances to pass on genes. If it has a detrimental mutation, it wonât live as long (on average), and thus will have fewer chances to pass on genes.
It has the direction âdo something that worksâ. The same type of direction that air molecules with random motion take to flow from a high-pressure chamber to a lower pressure one. Do they have intelligence?
âLowerâ is not a good term to use of any contemporaneous organisms, as they are all equally advanced.
Yes, nobody thinks that it always affects every individual.
I was unaware of anyone claiming this.
They donât have to bridge a gap all at once. Why would that be necessary?
What logically fallacies does it commit?
As does every single scientific theory. Proving anything true, including statements like âI existâ, is outside of science.
âHow many more times! God is absent because God is irrelevant to Science.â
You are right to criticize the claim that science makes God irrelevant, but your arguments are actually promoting that position. The error is not in the science itself, but in the logical, philosophical, and theological errors behind the claims. The approach of ID and creation science has been to believe the lie that science takes God out of the picture and either attack the science or try to stuff God into the scientific picture.
This error is quite popular among both pseudoscientific atheists and ID or creation science advocates. But the biblical picture is that science is describing Godâs ordinary ways of running the universe. You do not have to know anything about the author of a book to read the book, but the author is not irrelevant to the book. Thereâs no more point in trying to defeat macroevolution than trying to defeat macrogravity. Of course, it is much more popular to invoke evolution in support of bad philosophical and religious claims than to invoke gravity in support of them. But in reality, claiming that evolutionary patterns show that we morally ought to do something is no better logic than claiming that the law of gravity shows that I ought to drop rocks on people. That doesnât mean that evolution or gravity is immune to examination; science should be continually testing and seeing whether we can correct or improve our scientific models. But both are merely science, telling us about physical patterns in the natural world and no more. This is one important point of Genesis 1 - all things, whether the heavens, the sea and sky, the land, or the things in each of those, are merely parts of Godâs good creation and do not have agendas of their own. If we know God, we can appreciate what we learn from science as examples of His wisdom and power. But on their own, they are just the way things are. Haldane supposedly answered âWhat have your studies about science taught you about the Creator?â with âThat He has an inordinate fondness for beetles.â Science itself indeed provides us with such theologically useless information as âthere are lots of kinds of beetlesâ. More insight is gained from Ruth Grahamâs quip. When the Soviet Union publicized the claim that the first cosmonauts did not see God when in space, media tried getting a response from Billy Graham. He was out, so Ruth filled in by saying that he would have seen God by simply exiting the capsule. Likewise, it is when we step outside of science and look at questions such as its philosophical justification or how to pursue it ethically that we get into contexts where God is highly relevant.
Claiming that science shows that there is no God because of scientific data is a bit like concluding that there is no intelligent agency behind my post because you canât detect anything special about the electrons used in transmitting it. Instead, you need to read the post. You might still doubt that thereâs intelligent agency, but it would then be on relevant grounds. Essay: God, Occam, and Science has a more extensive discussion about the error of claiming that Occamâs razor allows us to say âyou can do this science without reference to God, therefore God is irrelevant.â
Having read this I do not think that you understood what I said.
(and I am not going to try and explain it again)
If you have to ask this then you did not read, or understand what i wrote.
Ireducible complexity?
Aw shucks.
No need to be pedantic. You know perfectly well what I mean.
And when blue eyes occur?
The only possible use of a recessive trait would be if it was not needed yet. But that would entail knowing both what was needed now and what might be needed in the future. Things like eye colour are not really going to affect survival, unless you are a fox.
Methinks you are oversimplifying basic Mendelian genetics.
(oh, sorry, I am not supposed to understand that)
Evolution is not like every other theory. Most theories start with observation and data pertaining directly to the process or phenomenon it is trying to isolate and identify.
Evolution starts with the preconception that all life must have developed from a single source. There is absolutely no data that can start from. But DNA studying seems to be giving it a good try now.
I wasn;t aware that existence was a scientific theory You seem to be confusing philosophy with empirical science.
By claiming that evolution does make God irrelevant, and that one should therefore oppose macroevolution, you are endorsing the modernistic error that God should be found within science, rather than recognizing that science should be found within God. The theory of biological evolution is an attempt to describe the pattern for making new kinds of organisms. God could use it or not use it however much He wants to. We can investigate the data to see how well it fits with evolutionary expectations for the origins of organisms. That process does not directly contain reference to God any more than does a recipe for a cake or directions to get to Pismo Beach. But a commitment to honesty and diligence, or an understanding of why we can understand aspects of the working of the universe, or why itâs worth doing, all involve theological questions.
The statement that science should be found within God should probably be clarified. God provides the context for understanding what science is and why it works. I do not mean that science is a âpartâ of God in a pantheistic sense. Rather, I mean that science is the way that a Christian ought to approach learning about how the creation works, just as the true way to run a Christian business is not to make a big show of Christian symbols but to do a good job, be honest, treat the employees and customers and environment well, etc.
Reducible complexity followed by removal of unnecessary parts.
Not only that, but I have already shown you the evolutionary steps for the irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear.
Thatâs not how evolution was developed. Even Darwin stated that life could have had multiple origins:
More importantly, you are ignoring all of the observations and data that led Darwin to his conclusions. Those observations include the nested hierarchy, biogeography, and breeding programs humans used on domesticated species. Why donât you read about it?
That is not a starting assumption of any formulation of evolution that I have ever encountered. For instance, if one reads On the Origin of Species, as I have done, it never invokes that as a starting point. If I remember correctly, any statement to the effect of universal common ancestry, if present at all, is at least 80% of the way through the book, in the chapter on conclusions and predictions of the theory.
Existence is not a theory, it is a starting assumption that all of science requires to function. However, it is a statement about reality, and as such cannot be proven true, unless it is defined to be true, and both proof of truthfulness and defining axioms are outside of science.
That seems to be a relat¡ively common (or at least an @relatesâ ; - ) misperception.
âCompetitionâ relates () to specific locales, whether or not it is shared. If itâs shared, add competition within the species to the environment and survival of the fittest.1 Otherwise there is still survival of the fittest within the species, just not in direct competition with each other.
Sounds to me like they have failed to learn the most basic lesson on the value of cooperation. So I would compare it with two who climbed together and credit lack of cooperation as responsible for reducing the survival rate down to 50%. And for this reason, the natural enemies of those climbing alone were themselves for their own foolishness.
Methinks you overthink the analogy. It was just a simple illustration of terminology and the meanings of words. (They may have been climbing their respective mountains for completely different and unrelated reasons.)
Methinks your analogy failed. Not because of what it tries to show, but because it does not represent a complete understanding of Survival of the Fittest.
(Stick to science. I do not think philosophy is your bag)
That is quite true. The problem with the taught theory of evolution is that it is mistaken. Evolution does not take place because of random deviation, but as a response to ecological change. Darwinian evolution is false in that it is not based on ecology, rather than random deviation of genes and the struggle for survivalâŚ
Climate change killed off the dinosaurs and opened the way for the mammals including humans. Randon deviation had nothing to do with it. Evolution takes place in response to ecological change. Random deviation is a part of the evolutionary process It not cause evolution.
The theory of evolution does not exclude the possibility of God guiding mutations. The theory is silent on what God may do or may not do. All the theory states is that there is no statistically significant correlation between the mutations an organism needs in a specific environment and the mutations it gets.
This thread has been quite a confirmation of my suspicions. A big reason why so many people cannot believe in the findings of science is because it will not submit to the insertion of the word âGodâ in every other sentence. It is all about power and domination. So many of the religious just want to use their religion for the domination and control over people and the world, and they see science as getting in their way. They have to be the sole explanation for everything and be the final authority about the nature of reality and human beings, precisely because it will not stand up to the evidence and the free exchange of ideas.
I have said evolution is the only reason I can believe in Christianity. The above only underlines this, because I would be an atheist before I would accept this sort of Christianity remade into a tool of power. I can only believe in the God of Christianity when He is about love rather than power and control. I see this most clearly in the idea God discarded power and knowledge to become a helpless human infant for the sake of love. With evolution we see this from the very beginning because for creation, it puts God in the Biblical role of shepherd to teach and guide rather than the role of designer watchmaker, which is frankly more of a Deist conception. I would choose to be part of the opposition if Christianity were all about authoritarian dictation and control. But with evolution in the Christian picture, we have a God who avoids being the controller and dictator, rejoicing instead in the ability of His creations to make their own choices.
I do not think that this is the case any more than pure chance. It is more likely to be parts of a bigger picture that we do not have all the components of.
There is clearly some randomness in evolution so that God is not pulling every string. it is more likely that He set parameters within which Evolution is given freedom.
However, within Biblical theology is the conviction that humanity is not the result of chance but a specific creation of God. Random evolution may produce humanity but there is no certainty. I suppose we could just relinquish the pride of being the âImage of Godâ or at least having âdominion over natureâ, but that means rejecting a major part of Scripture.
The upshot of this is a theistic approach which does not have all the answers. Evolution is there, but so are elements that are, as yet (and maybe never) identified.
My conversations over the plausibility of Evolution are based on the fact that there are elements missing that scientists refuse to consider, but instead try and force the current mechanisms to fulfill without understanding the mechanics that make them fail. But, they cannot see any failure, or appreciate any limitations within current evolutionary theory, and object to my suggestion that there are some.
The big assumption here is that God interacting with nature would be distinguishable from random chance. Science doesnât make any ontological arguments about randomness. All science can say is that a process is indistinguishable from our models of what randomness would look like. Science makes no claim about what Godâs actions would look like, or what role God has in nature. Science only goes as far as the empirical evidence will let it.
Or those elements have been considered and biologists have found your reasoning to be lacking.
) to specific locales, whether or not it is shared. If itâs shared, add competition within the species to the environment and survival of the fittest.1 Otherwise there is still survival of the fittest within the species, just not in direct competition with each other.