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

Faith & Science Conversation
241

@RichardG (“cc” to @Roy )

Time tells so QUICKLY around here.

Richard, your pronouncements on Evolution are incorrect. Let me itemize for you:

[1] Evolution is still about the changes and development of individual [delete: creatures or] species.

[2] That is the definition of evolution. [Actually, the definition of evolution is the change in genotypes in a population. So there can be evolution without speciation, but not speciation without evolution.]

[3] It is not Common Ancestry. [Actually, “common ancestry” is a necessary factor because as a population changes, it has a unique history of ancestors SOMETIMES shared by related populations and/or species. The only way to avoid “common ancestry” is to presume de novo creation for individual species/populations.]

[4] It is not genetic comparisons. [Delete: It is not even morphological or feature comparisons. It is development.] Since some creatures can seem identical, but have different physiological features (due to genetic differences), evolution must always come down to genetic comparisons (when genetic data is available) - - or the implied differences left by unique fossil patterns.

[5] And the one thing Science cannot explain is why there is any development at all. If it works don’t fix it, but nature “fixes” things all the time, often with disastrous results. [Richard, you are describing “mutations” in the genetic code…. sometimes having disasterous consequences.]

[6] Nature cannot identify a void. Nature cannot identify the use of wings or legs. Nature cannot compare two features and identify the better one. Nature has no communal intelligence or diagnostic capability. (assuming there is no God). Science takes too much for granted that can happen without such guiding intelligence or design. [This paragraph is a religious idea, which I for the most part agree with. Where we disagree is that the “non-Theist evolutionaries” have a pretty good track record for showing how and why differences in physiology or genetics can have even minor contributions to evolutionary success. Naturally, we THEIST EVOLUTIONARIES think there is a limit to what non-theists can prove.]

Richard, your errors are serious ones…. but not beyond the realm of rational correction.

2 Likes
242

No they are not errors, because there is no correct, right or certainty.

If you are going to try and stablish absolutes then we have nothing to discuss, because your mind is already made up.

The difference between us is that you bow to science and I do not.

I disagree on both counts.
(How can they have a track record when nothing is certain)

Richard

243

I can’t recall ever having encountered the first one, I think I remember the second, I definitely remember the third, I think I remember the fourth, definitely remember the fifth, and would have to go back and look at my notes on the sixth.

1 Like
244

So that’s none.

Or at least none you can name, which amounts to the same thing.

That’s not part of evolutionary theory.

You don’t even know what evolutionary theory is.

You might claim you have “a basic knowledge of Evolution and evolutionary theory”, but that claim is falsified every time to try to talk about some part of evolutionary theory and end up making a complete fool of yourself, like you did upthread when you tried to talk about transitional fossils.

All you have is opinions based on out-dated misconceptions and lack of information, and the only use your posts on evolution have is for pointing out where you are wrong so that others don’t make the same mistakes you have.

So:

They do match up. The nested hierarchy derived from physiological features by Linnaeus matches extremely well with the nested hierarchies derived from DNA sequences.

That’s been done for every example you have raised, and transitional forms are available either in extant organisms or in the fossil record for all of them.

Evolution is not about the changes and development of individuals, only about populations over multiple generations..

That’s an extremely common error.

Of course it can. The Red Queen hypothesis (which you admitted you didn’t know about because it’s only 52 years old) is one explanation. The imperfect nature of DNA replication is another explanation. That nothing works in all environments and so an unchanging species would eventually be driven extinct by others better adapted to a changing environment is a third explanation.

The things you think science cannot explain have been explained.

Nature doesn’t need to do either of those things.

That’s what natural selection does.

Nature doesn’t need one.

False.

Scientists expend great effort working out whether and how evolutionary changes could have happened. The issue isn’t that this work isn’t done, or that the results aren’t available, it’s that you don’t know about it and can’t be bothered to look.

That’s why you don’t know about Tiktaalik or Microraptor. It’s why you don’t know about reptilian hearts or multi-engined vehicles or mutation rates or the twin-nested hierarchy or population dynamics or mimicry or any of the things you falsely claim do not exist. Even though you admit your knowledge of evolution is 50 years out of date, and you know you aren’t aware of more recent findings, you can’t be bothered to look. So you will never learn, hence you will never know better.

But that doesn’t seem to stop you claiming to know better than people who do look, and do learn, and do understand.

There is no shame in ignorance. It is curable. But there is shame in refusing to cure ignorance, and even more shame in insisting that your ignorance is somehow superior, and even more shame in repeating the same errors over and over and over again despite correction from multiple people on multiple occasions.

You can’t even comprehend that writing ‘knitpicking’ is a mistake. Expecting you to comprehend anything more complicated than that is futile.

1 Like
245

Written with the confidence of someone who thinks Aristotle was Belgian and the London Underground is a political movement.

Those are all errors, Richard. Like your insistence that transitional fossils must lie on the direct line of descent, or that population dynamics doesn’t apply to creatures that don’t live in groups. But your errors are worse that Otto’s. Unlike Wanda, we don’t even need to look them up.

246

:thinking:

Are finches in the macro world?

Did Darwin have in depth knowledge of genetics

I am not the one making a fool of myself.

Thank you for proving that the modern scientific view of evolution has lost its way and focus.

Richard

247

@RichardG

How do I BOW DOWN to science? You yourself confesses that WITH or WITHOUT GOD, natural processes look the same. And since you and I both agree that God is the ultimate “invisible mover” behind all nature, there is nothing for you and I to disagree about.

And yet you INSIST that I am IGNORING “other” interpretations. Please name an event, or situation, or perspective that YOU strongly feel I am ignoring. If you are specific, we can come to an understanding.

But if all you do is wave your hands around and speak in generalities I will know you have no IDEA what OTHER IDEAS there are.

1 Like
248

That’s an inappropriate emoji for what you are doing.

Try :face_with_spiral_eyes: or, since you have ignored the rest of my post, :chicken:.

Yes. But while they provide evidence and data for evolution, they aren’t part of evolutionary theory.

Obviously not. Your point, if you have one, is unclear.

You are.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, I doubt you could explain, and no-one is likely to believe you.

1 Like
249

You accept what it says even though it cannot see the hand of God. It is like claiming that because we cannot (as non scientists) see UV or harmful rays of the sun we do not have to take any notice of them. Just because Science refuses to see God does not mean that his actions will not alter the results.
Eg the difference between a random change and a deliberate or biased change. If the change is designed , no matter how specific or variable, it means that any further “selection” is less significant. The change was because of God not because of Natural Selection.
IOW the mechanisms that science sees do not take into account any specific designing or specific “building” or direction of change. It can only claim that it is due to Natural selection or Survival of the fittest, adaption, or whatever mechanism it lands upon. It can blame climate or other circumstances when they had nothing to do with it at all.
IOW Science cannot get it “right” without the information of what God has done or influenced. It is ignoring what it cannot see. (and assuming it does not exist)

Richard

250

I know. Its not your fault either. it is the trend of the moment and the direction study is going.

Howeve, by claiming that the macr world is no pat of evolution science has changed the parameters of evolutionary theory. It is more interested in proving Common Ancestry than working out the progression or “tree” of evolution.
If God is the creator and builder, the blocks will be the same, (Genetic comparisons) and the progression will be the same but the meaning of “common” (Ancestry) will not be.

Richard

251

No, it’s your fault for not explaining, and possibly not knowing.

I note that you have only quoted part of my sentence, simultaneously omitting and confirming the next part (“I doubt you could explain”).

You seem to suffer from the misconception common among pseudoscience supporters that no-one reading your post can either remember what you were responding to or scroll up to find out.

I doubt anybody has claimed that. I certainly haven’t.

You may be confused about the differences between theory, evidence and data.

You don’t read scientific papers or articles, so you can’t possibly know what scientists are interested in.

You are also completely wrong, as demonstrated by the projects that are aimed at doing exactly what you claim scientists are not interested in. Projects like this one.

2 Likes
252

I think you did, right there.

:woozy_face:

Clearly I am wasting my time (again).

I assumed , perhaps falsely that the scientists on this forum were an example of the current trend and focus. If so, my comment stands.

:smiling_face_with_sunglasses:

I am sure, if I looked, I could find a project to investigate the validity of Big Foot. One project is not the trend. Or has science not heard of exceptions proving the rule.

No, I do not follow current scientific papers, why should I? I am happy for you to point out changes, if only you would do it politely.

Nevertheless, concentration on genetic matching and Common Ancestry is not addressing direct lineage or evolutionary progressions.

Of course, you seem to think that common Ancestry proves direct lineage somehow. It is a shame that you cannot actually trace it in the macro world, but obviously that does not matter any more to you but i will repeat:
If God created the heavens nd the earth and life, starting up from single cells then there is your common ancestry (God!)

Never mind

Richard

253

O
M
G

We had an answer for that well over fifty years ago.

Sorry, but no – mathematical analysis shows that what we actually see is what should be expected.

The odd thing is that you can’t see that you’re tossing the glory of God in the trash and accepting a cheap picture instead.

Which oddly enough Richard is fine with until it comes to biology.

2 Likes
254

@RichardG

You flunk Theology 101. Do you also reject Dr. Behe’s Billiard Ball analogy?

Give me a single example of Evolution that wasn’t designed by God using natural laws to execute His creation?

255

Stop asking the same question and ignoring what i have said.

:woozy_face:

I see none of God’s Glory in scientific evolution. It is cold and heartless.

Richard

256

@RichardG

The same question I ask is the one YOU keep ignoring.
What is an EXAMPLE of me, or famous Creationist Dr. Behe, not sufficiently
recognizing God’s role in creation? He see’s God’s creation as a divine
game of billiards…. and so do I.

And you have the boldness to ask me why I keep asking you about
de novo creation! You sound like you believe individual species have
no common ancestries …. which leaves us to wonder if that’s because
you think there are cases where evolution REQUIRES supernatural creation?

Is that what’s going on, Richard? If so, that pretty much takes you right out
of the Evolution “gall game”!

257

So you’d rather say that God does it all directly? That leaves no glory at all.

There’s at least as much glory in evolution as in cosmology – more, really.

1 Like
258

I fail to se your logic. The glory is in the result not the methodology.

So I do not relate to your analogy, sorry I am sure.

However, billiards involves skill and knowledge, it is not random. You aim the white to get the deflections to achieve your goals. Scientific evolution has neither skill nor aim.

If Common Ancestry means they all derived from a single organism, then I have no problem, but that is not what the scientific use (name) is trying to claim.
Common Ancestry is claiming that science knows exactly how each creature develops and the processes used to achieve it, IOW it is claiming that their understanding of evolution is correct. It is saying the notion is a corroborative proof that creation was created by a series of random deviations that produced appropriate adaptions and features that resulted in the flora and fauna we have today, including humanity. The emphasis being random.
Random: No clear or obvious structure or sequence = No God or intelligent oversight.
You do not actually believe that there is no God or intelligent oversight, but you seem happy that science does.

I am not happy that science does not allow for God. I know why, but that does not mean I will let it pass. God did create the Heavens and the Earth and all that is on it. I see no reason to believe a process that clearly excludes Him.

Evolution is the process of getting from Zero to Human (et al) Science knows this, I know this, but the exact process involved is beyond the reach and knowledge of scientists until or unless they acknowledge the intelligence involved in do it.

Richard

259

I suspect George is referring to the ‘cosmic billiard shot’ model described by Mike Behe and others, in which the designer was able to determine which initial conditions would result in the eventual evolution of humans billions of years later through completely natural processes with no further intervention being required, by lining up the subatomic particles of the universe like a cuer lining up the balls for a trick shot.

I don’t know why ‘billiards’ was used for the analogy instead of ‘pool’ or ‘snooker’, both of which have more balls and therefore more capacity for impressive shots.

1 Like
260

It is on this planet (though sometimes from a single species rather than a single organism).

“According to modern evolutionary biology, all living beings could be descendants of a unique ancestor commonly referred to as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of all life on Earth.”

As usual I’m wondering if there is a single aspect of evolutionary biology that you don’t misunderstand.

No it isn’t. That level of detail is impossible to achieve. It would be a ridiculous claim, and it’s just as equally ridiculous to claim that anyone who isn’t completely bonkers would make that claim

Codswallop.

Anyone who has run an evolutionary algorithm, played roulette or used a bagatelle board knows that an intelligent overseer can initiate and monitor a random process.

No-one needs to acknowledge ‘conclusions’ which are based on misinformation, misunderstanding and faulty reasoning.

3 Likes