That's not a Missing Link! - the vocabulary of "Intermediate Forms"

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@RichardG

I am claiming God uses natural means that are indistinguishable from any other natural effect. That does not make them miracles in the accepted usage.

And if that was all you were saying everybody would stand up and cheer your perspicacity. I think you are bored.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@gbrooks9

What are you talking about?

I am talking about justifying the type of behaviour I listed above.

Richard

[Apistos]

My favourite web page from 30 years ago said,

‘Bored? Lonely? Tired? Then hold a meeting, the practical alternative to work.’

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@RichardG

I am talking about justifying the type of behaviour I listed above.

Richard

@RichardG

Well, I’m thinking that we’ve discussed all that enough.
I kindly ask you to start a thread of your own on whatever topic you think most needs our attention.

[Roy]

@RichardG

Survival of the fittest, by definition favours the strong or the organised.

‘Fittest’ in that context refers to suitability, not athleticism.

@RichardG

Nature has produced a balance between predator and prey so that neither has the upper hand, …

That’s too vague. Specific species? All species? Upper hand in what sense? Numbers? Abilities? Physical strength?

@RichardG

… but that does not stop preying on the weak and vulnerable, or sick. So there is a limit to how far compassion and support for the underdog goes.

It doesn’t go anywhere. Lions don’t show compassion to vulnerable antelopes. Antelopes don’t show compassion to vulnerable trees. Trees don’t show compassion to vulnerable grasses. Grasses don’t show compassion to vulnerable bacteria. Bacteria don’t show compassion to vulnerable lions.

@RichardG

But in the global view, it balances out.

Also too vague. What balances out? Species go extinct, including through predation. Sometimes large numbers of species go extinct at about the same time, from the same cause.

@RichardG

There are anomalies and freaks that seem to have bypassed Natural selection if that is based purely on optimised adaption. Scientific evolution cannot account for these.

Natural selection isn’t based purely on optimised adaption. Other effects also play a role, including sexual selection, which was known about long before RichardG ‘studied’ evolution, and which may be the cause of the ‘anomalies and freaks’ of which he didn’t give any examples.

@RichardG

Science has a tendency to extrapolate, so that what works in one place, will be expected to work in a disparate one. That is a fallacy.
Each situation is unique in nature. We are not dealing with inanimate objects, e are dealing with independent creatures who are not being controlled in any way shape or form.

@RichardG

Acts of both compassion and cruelty can arise without rhyme or reason. Science cannot account for the individual, it works on groups and genomes.

Genomes come from individuals.

@RichardG

Solitary existence makes no evolutionary sense! But it is common.

Solitary existence makes evolutionary sense for larger organisms that require an area of resources to survive and which would be in direct competition with each other if they were not solitary.

@RichardG

monogamy makes little evolutionary sense, but it is common.

Monogamy makes evolutionary sense for species in which a single parent is insufficient to raise young.

@RichardG

Killing off the mate makes little evolutionary sense, but it is found.

Killing off the mate makes evolutionary sense if the surviving parent thereby gains additional resources to raise young.

@RichardG

Abandoning the offspring makes little evolutionary sense, but it is common.

Abandoning offspring not only makes evolutionary sense - there is always a trade-off between resources devoted to producing young vs resources devoted to protecting them, and producing and abandoning thousands of young is frequently more successful than producing and raising a few.

@RichardG

Feeding frenzies make little evolutionary sense, in the long term.

Feeding frenzies aren’t long term.

@RichardG

So much of ecology is beyond the scope of scientific evolution. Science imposes human values and understanding onto nature where it doesn’t belong.

@RichardG

The reason people spend a lifetime studying one group is because they find it doesn’t match the expectations.

(Moderator edit to remove third person references and personal comments. stick to the arguments and play nice. -Phil)

[Apistos]

Absolutely, the unfathomable ocean of ignorant false pattern recognition - apophenia - is an evolutionary triumph that has served us well in all areas. Except science of course. Real pattern recognition is for nerds.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

Jut in case the post does not get removed.

I do not think that scientists are ignorant or that I know more than scientists or that what I think is an anyway superior. Since when was disagreement a crime?

I have a basic knowledge of Evolution and evolutionary theory, much of which has not changed in 100 years.

Obviously I know why people spend a lifetime doing science. I have spent a lifetime with my faith. There is no difference in terms of value or dedication.

Naturally I apply my faith to my beliefs. If that is contrary to scientific thought, tough. They do not rule my world and i am not imposing my faith onto them If make an observation on how I see nature, that is my prerogative.

Any justification for Killing off mates, or abandoning children is purely subjective and cannot be claimed as “right”

And that is the crux of all this. Certain people are claiming exact knowledge and truth and correctness that is purely subject to scientific reasoning and methodology. It is not a crime to think differently or to base one’s beliefs and ideals on things other than science.

Nor is it a crime to criticise scientific conclusions or theories

To my knowledge this forum is to encourage dialogue between science and Christianity and not submission or superiority either way.

Richard

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

Even before Darwin coined the term it was believed that there was a hierarchy of creatures starting with single cells, developing complexity, and because there are boney fish it was assumed that land animals developed from them.

Reference? I’m not aware of anyone prior to Darwin who thought tetrapods evolved from bony fish.

@RichardG

The along comes Darwin with ideas of the mechanisms that could develop complexity or specialisations. But there was a problem to get from a fish to a land animal you have to lose aquatic features to be replaced by land dwelling.

Like what? You can have fins that also function as legs, as is the case with Tiktaalik roseae, the transitional fossil between bony fish and tetrapods. You can have both lungs and gills.

@RichardG

But fish do not have limbs as such. So we look for transitional creatures whereby the fins mutate into load bearing limbs. Not really forthcoming. Oh dear.

What are you talking about?

Google Search

@RichardG

Lets thin again. What if there was an earlier creature, who never bcfame a fish but became a reptile in one development? Brilliant. We do not need a transition between fish and land animals, or even amphibians and reptiles, we go straight to reptiles.

That’s not thinking. That’s just making stuff up from whole cloth.

@RichardG

But wait the metabolism for reptiiles is completely different from mammals.

In what way are they different?

We also have many examples of transitional fossils for the transition between reptiles and mammals.

Google Search

@RichardG

I know, we will let reptilian dinosaurs become birds and other dinosaurs become mammals, or even have primal mammals scurrying around under massive dinosaurs waiting for them to become extinct.

No mammal has a dinosaur as one of its ancestors. The transitional fossils are found in synapsids which are not dinosaurs.

@RichardG

You see its these transitions!. To change metabolisms you need to devolve before you evolve and that is not natural, or evolutionary.

What???

@RichardG

The point being there are only so many ways to construct a living organism. Once you get a bone structure it will mirror other boney creatures.

Then why don’t they? Why is the bat skeleton so much different to a bird skeleton?

@RichardG

There are hidden funnels, and biases that mean y can’t get Pegassi or griffins.

Why not? Why can’t there be a species with feathers and three middle ear bones, as one example? Why can’t we find a mixture of bird and mammal features in any species?