As the editorial review in the comment of @klw shows, the explanation of Rothman is not supported by biologists. He understands and defines evolution in a way that differs from the common understanding and definition.
Cells and individuals are not eternal and are doomed to death. Cells or individuals that have not reproduced have disappeared without leaving a trace in this world. The process of evolution and the filter of natural selection are not about the survival of a cell or individual, except in the sense that a cell or an individual that dies before reproduction is a dead end.
What matters is the transfer of genetical heritage to the following generations. Some would say that also the transfer of immaterial information matters. In this sense, reproduction and anything that increases the relative number of viable, reproducing grandoffspring are more important than the survival of an individual. If dying after reproduction increases the relative number of grandoffspring, then natural selection tends to filter (âselectâ) such traits instead of the prolonged survival of a cell or an individual.
The relevant alternatives are either immortality or reproduction (sensu lato, meaning it includes also the transfer of the genetical heritage through relatives), otherwise the given fate is disappearance in the anonymous black hole of past history - a dead end.
As a believer in both ID and Irreducibility, I can clearly state that it has nothing to do with YEC. Even if the original progenitors of the theories were YEC it does not mean that you have to buy into YEC to believe them.
They arenât answered, since there are very wide range of beliefs as to what God did, and when.
So, with respect to ID:
What was designed?
When was it designed?
How was the design instantiated?
If you canât (or wonât) answer, youâre confirming for the 1000th+ time that ID is a scam, intended only as a disguise for getting creationism into schools.
Matthew 24 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. 39And they were oblivious until the flood came and swept them all away.
The Apostle Peter (first leader of the Christian church)
2 Peter 2 4For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them deep into hell,a placing them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 5if He did not spare the ancient world when He brought the flood on its ungodly people, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, among the eight; 6if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction,b reducing them to ashes as an example of what is coming on the ungodly;c7and if He rescued Lot, a righteous man distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)â 9if all this is
The apostle Paul
Hebrews 11 7By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in godly fear built an ark to save his family. By faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
So were Christ, Apostles Peter and Paul:
flat-earthers?
Geo-centrists?
YEC?
I would seriously challenge the claim in that reference that flat earthers predate YECâŚthat is complete nonsense and there are loads of Old Testament references that clearly refute that timelineâŚthe most famous and most prolific Old testament writer Moses would be a serious problem for that as a theological claim. The only way that calim can be reasoned is if Moses never existedâŚeven then the dating of his writings are way to early in Jewish theology for flat-earthism i think because for starters, the usual flat earther source in the Bible comes from the book of Job. However, there is a big problem with that:
other texts come from Chronicles 16, Psalms 96 &104, and Isaiah 45âŚwritten way later than GenesisâŚso dead end there as well.
Ill have to read Dr Ross article hereâŚmy understand is that ID sit on the Old Earth side of the fence. Whilst YEC are I/D obviously, we are not Old Age Earth, there is a very distinct difference between the two. In fact, am i not correct in that generally, they side with TEism on ancient preflood biblical history and timelines?
What does it mean to be a âbeliever in Irreducibilityâ? I think we all accept the fact that some biological systems canât have any parts removed without the system losing function. Is there anything beyond this?
It means that you cannot build them slowly as per the evolutionary process, either.
But that âbeliefâ seems beyond science unless there is a specific example. (which is almost impossible to provide, not because it isnât there, but because there always seems to be a way round it)
IOW you will always claim a way through it even if it defies normal credulity *(because incredulity is not scientific either)
Without resurrecting an old argument, e.g. feathers. I would claim that the primary function is flight, but because they can be used for insulation or display that is considered a legitimate way for them to be formed and used first. (The irreducibility being to fly with feathered wings)
You seem to think that the exception proves your rule whereas it is the other way around. For at least 95% of birds the primary function of feathers is for feathered flight.
Evolution is much more likely to adapt away from the primary function than towards it. (That would be building or aiming towards a goal rather than adaption)
RichardG: complicate to answer here but in terms of life . . . Theistic Evolution (Details unspecified)
Now you are saying there are features that canât have evolved. So what gives?
Thereâs also the obvious route of starting with reducibility and then removing parts until no more can be removed. Thereâs also the examples of irreducible systems evolving slowly, as seen in the evolution of the mammalian middle ear.
I should not have to answer that. it goes without saying. That is the whole poin orf irreducible. The convex is unbuidable slowly!
Are you trying to be dumb or does it come naturally!
Of course it means that some things cannot evolve using the evolutionary process of small steps. That is the whole point of irredcibility. It canât be built slowly!
No, it doesnât. Irreducible systems can be built via indirect routes. Evolution does not require that systems be built one unchanging piece at a time
Itâs not beyond science. Itâs been rejected as untrue.
Since the mid-20th century, young Earth creationistsâstarting with Henry Morris (1918â2006)âhave developed and promoted a pseudoscientific[12] explanation called creation science as a basis for a religious belief in a supernatural, geologically recent creation
Claudius Ptolemaeus; c. 100 â 160s/170s AD) Greco-Roman mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, geographer, and music theorist who wrote about a dozen scientific treatises, three of which were important to later Byzantine, Islamic , and Western European science. The first was his astronomical treatise now known as the Almagest, originally entitled MathÄmatikḠSyntaxis. The second is the Geography which is a thorough discussion on maps and the geographic knowledge of the Greco-Roman world. The Ptolemaic Universe was geocentric, if I remember correctly.
