Embarrassing. Disturbing. Offensive.
So you’re saying ToE can’t account for the physical and functional complexity of a human brain … as compared to the physical and functional complexity of a non-human brain.
In that case, why do you worship ToE and claim it has all the answers?
I should probably flag that, but I won’t bother because… never mind.
But it is based on the assumption that the original observable change can be duplicated to cover a bigger one. In the case of Evolution. The observable changes are of a single trait or component whereas the extrapolation is that the same method of change can change the complete animal. That is a very big assumption!
And it is not provable!
(which is when we get all the stuff about proof not being necessary to make the hypothesis and so on)
And I have been trying to get people to tease out the principles of Evoluition since day 1 on this forum and I get blocked, mocked and diverted every time
Is it a simple change mechanism? Or is it able to add a pair of wings, or a new organ in one go?
DNA coding is being presented like it is some sort of modular building system. You only hae to find the right code and you can then build a set of wings.
Where does this coding come from? Who coded it? Are you really going to claim that the system of DNA and RNA arrived by accident? The whole principle of DNA matching and comparison is based on this system. The DNA double helix evvolveld from single one?
If you are looking for God in Evolution you might just find HIm in the DNA/RNA construction.
DNA coding… without it there can be no features to change.
DNA deviations… I am guessing that the number of successful sequences is not unlimited?
Is that pure chance? Are the basic laws of existence pure chance or just a necessity of existence (that was stumbled upon)
I am being told that the control mechanism of Evolution is the survival factor but it is not. It is the DNA itself.
Richard
I should probably flag that, but I won’t bother because… never mind.
“It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.”
Dr.Colin Patterson
The canine tooth may have a groove on the surface that has nothing whatsoever to with helping the flow of the poison, but has everything to do with strengthing the tooth.
And now children, it’s Darwinist story-time!
Rather, it shows how easy it is to invent Darwinist fairy tales and pass them off as science.
You might try and consider that evolution is the system that Father used to create the glorious diversity in nature that we see around us, analogous to how he used the evolution of the universe to create its wonders. It’s not ‘my puny theory’, and that silly language only makes you look foolish and does not advance your argument. Since all of organic reality points to the fact of evolution (just like all of cosmic reality points to the fact of cosmic evolution), your denigration of it is really denigrating him and his choices and methods.
Where did anyone, least of all me, imply that all the answers are known or will be? I understand just recently a discovery in genetics helps explain the deeper folding in the human brain as compared to other mammals. So no, the anathema “ToE can’t [fully] account for the functional complexity of a human brain…” nor would any reasonable person expect it to. That certainly does not mean more will not be learned.
The ‘theory of cosmic evolution’, shall we call it, “can’t [fully] account for the physical and functional complexity of the cosmos” either, nor would any reasonable person expect it to. That certainly does not mean more will not be learned.
It hasn’t, for instance, discovered exactly how our wonderful moon evolved / was created either, let alone some of the wonderful details. You may have seen something like this before:
Have I mentioned your silly exaggerated and accusatory language before? And as above, no one is claiming it has all the answers.
All that time in university physics courses and I never picked up that shockwaves can outrace sound!
There was a new paper on that recently . . . I have no idea where I saw it.
The childlike credulity of Darwinists is astonishing … not to mention, a little disturbing.
Seems like another example of biology for space-cadets.
Maybe it is your lack of education in neutral drift, the neutral theory of evolution (that it can and does produce complexity), genetics and population genetics, molecular biology, mathematical and computational biology and a whole host of others that point to the veracity and verifiability of evolution. It is not unlike all the specialties in physics and geology that point to the antiquity of the earth and cosmos. It’s a done deal. Do you think biology researchers sit around tables and make things up? That it is a great conspiracy? Do you really think you are qualified to critique it? Maybe your inexperience with your Father’s providence is a factor too.
It just happens to be the way God did it. And if you’ve been reading, atheist and agnostic students have come to Christ because of it. (They have whether you’ve been reading or not. 
) Do you really think you are qualified to critique it?
I know a number of my professors sat around at tables trying to figure out where best to take their next research trip to try to find a hole in the accepted theory.
Is that the VFA or VFB?
You appear to be talking about science, but you are claiming that God invented the system. And that has always been your reason for vehemently defending evolutionary theory, even though it denies God’s involvement (I could say that it has holes in it as well but that would only make your blood boil. If it is from God then it must be perfect)
Is that because God is trying to hide HIs handiwork? By creating a system that denies His involvement? How wonderfully obtuse!
So as I said, is this VFA or VFB?
I was told that you (me) cannot mix science with VFA!
God cannot use Evolution. It is completely self-controlled. There is no space in evolutionary theory for God.
Richard
That is not true. Biological sciences typically proceed by first collecting information (data), then based on that information, forming hypotheses that may explain observed patterns. The hypotheses might be verbal or mathematical. Based on these hypotheses, scientists make predictions that can be tested by collecting new data or making experiments. Based on the new data, experimental results and modelling, some hypotheses get support, others do not. Those that do not get support are rejected.
If we are talking about evolution that may have happened in the past as the hypotheses predict, the predictions cannot usually be tested experimentally but we can collect new data. The hypotheses predict that we should find certain kind of forms, either living or extinct. As long as such forms are not found, the hypotheses remain just hypotheses. If predicted forms are found, one or more hypotheses get support while others may be refuted.
Collection of new data, experimentation and modelling can refute hypotheses that make false predictions. They can also give support to one or more hypotheses. An inherent property of most biological hypotheses is that scientific research can only give support to a hypothesis, it cannot prove that the hypothesis tells the absolute truth because there is always the possibility that someone might invent another hypothesis that can explain the observations as well or better.
Therefore, demanding absolute proof for something that happened in the past is beyond science. Science can say that a hypothesis is very likely or almost certainly true, or at least better than any other hypotheses, because it can explain all observations but there is never 100% certainty. You either accept the minor uncertainty or not but that is what is and will be available through science.
Despite the uncertainty, the predictions made based on the hypotheses can be tested by collecting new data. Therefore the claim that they are untestable and not science is wrong.
But that is the whole point. They are not taught as hypotheses. They are not taught as unproven. They are taught as fact..
Richard
Maybe. Most have essentially no sexual dimorphism in shell form. There are also simultaneous and (rarer) sequential hermaphrodites.
God cannot use the evolution of the universe. It is completely self-controlled. There is no space in the evolution of the universe for God.
God cannot use the evolution of the weather. It is completely self-controlled. There is no space in the evolution of the weather for God.
Greetings all,
You have developed an interesting discussion, but it does not seem to be going anywhere because everyone is making good points.
St.Raymond says that God is the Designer, which God is as Creator. Mitchell says that God is Love, which is very true. and Dale says that God is the Source of Providence, but how can God be three different persona? The ancient Church Fathers solved the problems by creating the Trinity. God is both One and Three.
God is Creator- Father, Logos-Son-Savior, and Holy Spirit-Love.
A problem with the Father-Creator is that many people have used it to justify the patriarchy, which is wrong. God is not male.
A problem with God is the Designer us that God created everything out of nothing which is beyond our ken. Also God is always recycling everything, which we do not. I prefer to say that God is the Source of the Creation.
Sod made the Creation so its parts are interdependent. Jesus taught us that all persons are interdependent also…
There is no such animal
All you are doing is proving that you do not understand the principles of evolution
Oh you know the workings. but not the principles, because principles are philosophy and you only do science!
Richard
Please excuse any of the following which do not correspond to your edited post:
What are you talking about? You don’t believe in weather?
Ah, I bet you are complaining that weather does not evolve. That might be because you are using a myopic understanding of the word.
Does weather follow the rules determined for it by its Creator? Yeah, I think so, unless he sovereignly and providentially intervenes.
Does organic nature follow the rules determined for it by its Creator? Yeah, I think so, unless he sovereignly and providentially intervenes.
The study of the rules God set for the evolution of the weather is part of what we call ‘meteorology’.
The study of the rules God set for the evolution of organic nature is part of what we call ‘biology’.
Biological evolution follows rules. Just like the weather.
And please wax eloquent about how the philosophical principles differ.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.