You do not observe “evolution” in the sense of “origin of species”.
You super-mega-extra-ultra extrapolate into the hocus-pocus territory some common observations that can mean anything and nothing in particular.
I observe that:
Nothing creative comes out of randomness and randomness is unknowable
Nature is discrete and in fact not gradual hence gradualism fails
Selection can only happen when life is involved - no dead rock selects anything about another dead rock. And if there is no new function to select, then selection does nothing.
There is no new functions that is for sure not built in
Nothing ever “arises”, especially not qualitative changes from quantitative accumulation.
There is no abiogenesis. “Evolution” cannot possibly be separate from abiogenesis, hence no “evolution”.
There is no “benefit” or “fitness” separate from survival - the only thing we observe
The structure of the biosphere is all in our heads and tells you nothing about ID, “evolution”, or any other process.
Yeah, we do. We see mutation, selection, and reproductive isolation. Those are the proposed mechanisms for the origin of species.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:312, topic:35830”]
I observe that:
Nothing creative comes out of randomness and randomness is unknowable
[/quote]
Scientists do observe creativity coming from random mutations. For example, aerobic citrate metabolism in E. coli emerged through random mutations. Antibiotic resistance emerges from random mutations. The mutations that separate humans and chimps are responsible for the differences in our morphology.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:312, topic:35830”]
2. Nature is discrete and in fact not gradual hence gradualism fails
[/quote]
You are conflating quantum mechanics and evolution.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:312, topic:35830”]
Selection can only happen when life is involved - no dead rock selects anything about another dead rock. And if there is no new function to select, then selection does nothing.
[/quote]
No one is saying that dead rocks evolve, per the theory of biological evolution.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:312, topic:35830”]
4. There is no new functions that is for sure not built in
[/quote]
Mutations produced aerobic citrate metabolism in E. coli. It wasn’t built in.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:312, topic:35830”]
5. Nothing ever “arises”, especially not qualitative changes from quantitative accumulation.
[/quote]
Bare assertion.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:312, topic:35830”]
6. There is no abiogenesis. “Evolution” cannot possibly be separate from abiogenesis, hence no “evolution”.
[/quote]
What in the theory of evolution would need to be changed if God created a simple RNA replicator that then evolved naturally into all of the biodiversity we see today?
Evolution doesn’t require abiogenesis anymore than the germ theory of disease requires abiogenesis.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:312, topic:35830”]
7. There is no “benefit” or “fitness” separate from survival - the only thing we observe
[/quote]
How is that a problem?[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:312, topic:35830”]
8. The structure of the biosphere is all in our heads and tells you nothing about ID, “evolution”, or any other process.
[/quote]
The nested hierarchy is a massive piece of evidence that supports evolution.
How did all these dead rocks get selected so that there are so many of them the same size? And they all just formed these patterns due to natural causes? (Or was it the Breath of God)?
And is it either God or “gravity”? (To some Christians of the Middle Ages, indeed it was. They preferred the idea of angels being commanded by God to push around the heavenly bodies.)
And so have attempts to build a solar system in the lab. Failed. Miserably.
So what?
Stop right there! I have a lot of experience with writing evolutionary algorithms to solve various problems. I don’t know what you mean by “hocus-pocus” but “emerging creativity” is exactly what I observed. Even though the algorithms were quite simple, they produced incredibly complex and creative solutions to difficult problems.
As to evolutionary algorithms which have been applied to biological evolution simulations, they are impressively “innovative.” I would recommend you start with something relatively simply like AVIDA and work your way up.
How so?[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:315, topic:35830”]
Once you introduce God, your narrative falls apart. It’s either God or “evolution”. Like saying: “the hammer nailed it” versus “the worker nailed it”.
[/quote]
I will ask again. Perhaps this time you can give an answer.
What in the theory of evolution would need to be changed if God created a simple RNA replicator that then evolved naturally into all of the biodiversity we see today?[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:315, topic:35830”]
Germ theory doesn’t tell you a story. In addition, a story that replaces essential parts with black boxes and magic soup is laughable.
[/quote]
The theory of evolution doesn’t tell a story, either.
If the germ theory of disease does not require abiogenesis, then neither does the theory of evolution.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:315, topic:35830”]
The rest of your reply is just nonsense.
[/quote]
It only shows that creationists can’t address the facts.
Correct. We observe organisms living long enough and well enough to reproduce. That’s exactly what the Theory of Evolution predicts and that is what we observe.
I’ve recently been reading the health care literature where it describes researchers investigating various “dysfunctioning mutation repairs” where a new allele gave the descendants of some individual (a single ancestor who lived several centuries ago) special advantages in avoiding the diseases which were very common among the rest of the population today. One case involved a mutation which allowed the carrier to have abyssal blood lipid chemistries and yet not suffer from the usual coronary diseases. All of the cases cited brought selective advantages for survival and reproduction.
The lists you’ve gathered from anti-evolution websites were not only debunked long ago, they ignore piles and piles of mounting evidence against them that is published in scientific journals with each passing year.
Actually, biologists have observed and reported speciation. You have not observed it because you still have not considered the evidence I provided in post 252.
You replied to Lynn Munter, so is the “you” singular or plural here?
I assume you are saying that instead of being simply “wrong”, we are “too wrong” in some superlative sense? How so?
Yes. Why is that a problem for you?
I get the strong impression that you have have no idea how evolutionary algorithms operate. (Lots of evolutionary algorithm even use RANDOMNESS to create! Sound familiar?)
Anyone who believes that a sovereign, omniscience God created the universe surely thinks that God designed that universe. And if God created the laws of chemistry and physics within that universe, doesn’t that mean that God created the evolutionary processes which arise from chemistry and physics? So if God created evolutionary processes, did he not also design evolutionary processes to function as they do?
You replied to Lynn Munter, so is the “you” singular or plural here?
I assume you are saying that instead being simply “wrong”, we are “too wrong” in some superlative sense? How so?
Yes. Why is that a problem?
I get the strong impression that you have have no idea how evolutionary algorithms operate. (Lots of evolutionary algorithm even use RANDOMNESS to create! Sound familiar?)
Anyone who believes that a sovereign, omniscience God created the universe surely thinks that God designed that universe. And if God created the laws of chemistry and physics within that universe, doesn’t that mean that God created the evolutionary processes which arise from chemistry and physics? So if God created evolutionary processes, did he not also design evolutionary processes to function as they do?
Tell me about this “childish and phantasmagorical story”. (I have no idea what you are talk about.)
First, the theory is not mine. I was very late coming to understanding the discoveries which others had made.
Secondly, every scientific theory makes testable, falsifiable predictions. If you are denying that the Theory of Evolution makes testable, falsifiable predictions, I suggest that you start a new thread on that topic. (However, that issue has been thrashed out on this forum many times over the years. The Theory of Evolution ranks among the most attested and most tested theories in all of science. It has made many dramatic predictions which have been confirmed in absolutely dazzling ways. My personal favorite was the prediction made concerning the reason for the difference in chromosome numbers between humans and chimpanzees. About seven years after the prediction was published, genomic comparisons confirmed that the difference was due to a chromosome merger observed in human chromosome #2—exactly as predicted by means of the Theory of Evolution!)
Not meaningless at all. Just because some words have imprecise boundaries doesn’t make them useless. Species and speciation are terms used every day in the scientific journals with very little confusion. Your complaint is like saying, “The term mountain range is meaningless because nobody can define exactly a line on the ground where a mountain range begins. Where do the foothills end and the mountains begin? Where do the flatlands end and the hill country begins? Show me on a map the boundary line that encircles the Appalachian Mountains!”
By the way, the reason species can be difficult to exactly define is because evolutionary processes never stop! Every organism which reproduces is a transitional form and each such form is basically confusing the “boundary” of that species. And every evolutionary biology textbook discusses the “ring species” concept because it is a beautiful illustration why evolution makes it hard to say where one species ends and another begins—because they really don’t! Evolutionary processes make populations quite dynamic and difficult to predict in terms of exactly how they will evolve and diversify over time!
Indeed, despite the flaws in your statement, it is a wonderful concession to the very interesting and creative powers of evolutionary processes! God knew exactly what he was doing when he designed evolutionary processes to diversify life on earth.
Yet again @NonlinOrg has provided a great many fascinating claims. I too am very interested in seeing NonlinOrg explain them and cite supporting evidence.
The backlog of questions for NonlinOrg is building up but I’m eager to see how this thread continues to develop.
I’m quite fascinated by the viewpoint that evolutionary algorithms can’t be designed by programmers for the purpose of solving difficult problems.
And anyone who believes God is omniscient and omnipotent should recognize that a Creator of the universe would be fully capable of designing a universe where evolutionary processes accomplish the Creator’s will for life on earth.
It reminds me of those who argue that a universe created by God cannot involve “randomness”, even though we observe “randomness” all around us, and the Bible says that God is fully sovereign over random processes, such as the casting of lots. Why would anybody think God is stumped o0r thwarted by random mutations or stochastic processes in physics?