Austiran Cardinal talks about evolution

[Patroklos]

It's always an endless entertainment to see people so desperate for their beliefs that they'd cling to anything to say that evolution doesn't exist.

Almost as funny as people who are so enamored with the science" that they are incapable of seeing the limits of that approach, limits that are fundamental to system.

By ignoring it and refusing to accept the limits in regards to things like evolution, it becomes nothing but another dogma defended out of a rationalized faith, albeit one with a better constructed rationalization.

Science as a religion, probably the greatest sleeper threat to human development out there, definitely more harmful than creationism.

desperate for their beliefs that they'd cling to anything to say that evolution doesn't exist

I don't see why people need to disprove evolution or ID to justify their own belief, as neither contridict the other. It shows a lack of "faith" on both sides parts

[Spiffor]

I'm finding myself agreeing with Patroklos

[Patroklos]

No need to tease me....

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I don't see why people need to disprove evolution or ID to justify their own belief, as neither contridict the other. It shows a lack of "faith" on both sides parts

ID does contradict evolution; that's pretty much the point of ID.

[Patroklos]

ID does contradict evolution; that's pretty much the point of ID.

How so?

All ID does is identify the limitations of the theory, which as far as I can tell will always be the limitations of most science, and found a home in a way that to me is a most sound compromise. Does belief in ID in any way hinder further development of the theory? No. Can religious people believe in both without being hypocritical? Yes, and more importantly now scientists can too.

It is a predictible retreat/refinement of reglion. No different than God living at the top of a mountain until we climbed it, the sky until we started flying, and now some unreachable plane.

Science mongers always make bones with religion because they are usually monolith and dogmatic, yet here are religious people trying to modify their faith based on your proof and you still assault them.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Granted, a static record would be a falsifiable claim against evolution, as it predicts a changing fossil record. However, the changing fossil record came first, before evolution. So it doesn't make sense to claim a static fossil record as falsifiable evidence against evolution, since the evidence was already there for a dynamic fossil record. The record suggested evolution as a theory, not the other way around, in that evolution made a prediction that could be verified and disproven.

The bolded part is not true. Darwin based his theory on observation of living organisms, not the fossil record. The fossil record at the time was quite poor. Darwin explicitley said what the fossil record should show, should his theory be correct. Lo and behold, subsequent discoveries all over the globe have affirmed his prediction. Had a static fossil record been found, then it would have disproven his prediction and been incompatible with evolution. That's falsifiability by any measure.

. I said that a dynamic record does not necessarily indicate that chance directed evolution is the only theory that works. I said the fact that the fossil record changes, is not proof in itself that evolution is directed by chance.

That's not the point. Whether or not a dynamic record proves evolution isn't the issue--the issue was, does a static record disprove evolution? The answer is categorically, yes it would. Ergo falsifiability.

Platypus: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html

There is nothing "chimerical" about the platypus beyond superficial resemblance of features. It is not "half bird, half mammal," as would be required to be a true chimera. Its apparently avian features are a product of niche evolution, and we have fossil ancestors to see this development.

Mutations: You clearly don't know how mutation works in terms of population changes. Are there limits on the degree of individual mutations? In many cases, yes. But that's not what was meant. It was about the accumulation of mutations in populations over generations. There has never been discovered any "barrier" to this. If morphology can be shown to "increase" on even the smallest level, then over larger time periods, there would be no qualitative barrier to larger changes.

So again, should such a barrier be shown, we'd have evidence falsifying evolution.

4. Granted, however, don't we discover new species all the time? How would we know from our ignorance, that a species that is new, has been created, rather than simply overlooked, or undiscovered?

If the invisible creator can't see fit to have these creations made in our view, why should we assume they are happening that way? We've observed new species arising, so we know evolution works. We've never observed creation ex nihlo. Now, maybe when I'm walking down a path in the woods, little creatures are magically blipping into existence just out of sight. Perhaps I just catch a glimpse of it in my peripheral vision, but *poof* it's too late to see it happen, because the creator likes to be tricksey that way. Then, just to be sneaky, the creator lets other species arise through observed evolution, because it likes to confuse and deceive us... OK, if you want to believe that, it's up to you, but until it's actually observed and proven that it occurse, there's no reason for science to give it any consideration.

This is old ground. Physics at the turn of the century said that there would be hardly cause to learn anything knew, things didn't really change until people started questioning some of the fundamental assumptions surrounding classical mechanics.

Chemistry seems to just be starting with this, in exploring the nature of the atom, and how that affects theories on bonding, and everything else, in applying the knowledge of physics to chemistry, in order to gain greater understanding of why chemistry works the way that it does. Evolutionary theory is part of the classical, and deterministic model of the world, and will have to be modified, just as physics was, and chemistry will continue to be.

Right, because Evolution has been static as a science since Darwin.

I'm not sure why I get into these arguments with you, because you clearly are content to live on strawmen and completely ignorant misconceptions of the state of Evolutionary theory.

Evolution has undergone tremendous change since Darwin, and continues to "evolve" on it's own. It's shown to be a terrifically useful theory, and all of modern biology is predicated on it. But it hasn't remained monolithic and unchanging. Scientists are constantly fine-tuning, revising, criticizing, excising, etc. That's part of why evolution has been so successful--it is extremely flexible.

No, and for the same reason, chance holds just as much water. Science can only say so much with the evidence that they have. To say that one cannot know whether a force drives evolution, is not a shame for science, but rather a proper understanding of the limitations. To ascribe the cause to chance, when a force behind evolution has not been detected, is an assumption based upon silence.

This is just absurd, and I'll ask again: Should we say we don't know what drives weather patterns, as Thor might be behind it all? Or Vulcan behind eruptions?

And again, "random chance" has never been said to be the "force" behind evolution. This is just your charicature of it, based on a complete lack of understanding of what is meant by "random" when it comes to mutations. We do know the forces behind evolution: mutations + selection. The forces behind those are, ultimately "random" in the sense of being unpredictable physical forces. But not "random" in the sense of being chance. And there is certainly nothing "random" about selection.

There is categorically no evidence whatsoever for an invisible metaphysical force behind anything, not just evolution. Until such a force is shown to exist, then the scientific method states that the default assumption should be that it doesn't have an effect on evolution.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Patroklos


How so?

All ID does is identify the limitations of the theory, which as far as I can tell will always be the limitations of most science, and found a home in a way that to me is a most sound compromise. Does belief in ID in any way hinder further development of the theory? No. Can religious people believe in both without being hypocritical? Yes, and more importantly now scientists can too.

It is a predictible retreat/refinement of reglion. No different than God living at the top of a mountain until we climbed it, the sky until we started flying, and now some unreachable plane.

Science mongers always make bones with religion because they are usually monolith and dogmatic, yet here are religious people trying to modify their faith based on your proof and you still assault them.

ID is the idea that living things exhibit traits that cannot have evolved "naturalistically". Possibly, you're confusing it with deism or theistic evolution; that's about the only way I can make sense of your claims.

To take on of the ID crowd's favourite examples, ID claims that the eubacterial flagellum cannot have evolved - some "designer" must've intervened at some point. Not only is this claim more than shaky empirically, accepting it would close a line of enquiry for evolutionary biology.

[Jon Miller]

That is probably the biggest reason for the scientific community to not accept ID. It is because then they would have to quit doing science, or become alienists or something that would be looking for the intelligence (if they still wanted to study the origins of life).

As such, there is no reason for a scientist in the field to be ID.

Jon Miller
(maybe to study if ID is required.. but that wouldn't be something that anyone in the field would hope for)

[Patroklos]

ID is the idea that living things exhibit traits that cannot have evolved "naturalistically".

Well there you go again mixing jargon. If I believe that god created the world and is omnicient, then all nature is is gods computer program following the course it was programed to do.

And of course we can even decetralize it. He just created the set up and then let things run as they will, but evolution and the natural mechanisms that it follows are still gods design.

It all depends on how far you and what direction you want to take it. Science will always lose here however because faith requires no facts, and until it can prove other wise ID is a valid hypothesis waiting for an experiment, like so many others.

But irregardless, a "god is in the gaps" approach is designed to exploit the very weakness, or strength as you may see it, that as Boris's source stated about science. There "are no absolute certainties."

And on another line, no proof that evolution is based on chance exists. What is proven is that organisms evolve over time, the widely accepted as fact part has nothing to do with the impetus of such change.

But the whole debate is stupid anways, because you cannot prove religion scientifically, they are two different worlds that for some reason people pit against each other for no good reason.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Well there you go again mixing jargon. If I believe that god created the world and is omnicient, then all nature is is gods computer program following the course it was programed to do.

And of course we can even decetralize it. He just created the set up and then let things run as they will, but evolution and the natural mechanisms that it follows are still gods design.

Very fine, but that is incompatible with ID.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Very fine, but that is incompatible with ID.

How so? ID is about saying that there was a creative force, that has created ancient components of life, which have evolved since then.

The study of evolution is not about knowing what created life, it's about knowing how life evolves. The two don't play in the same category.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Spiffor

How so? ID is about saying that there was a creative force, that has created ancient components of life, which have evolved since then.

No it isn't.

This discussion is becoming increasingly unreal. In this context, "ID" has a fairly restricted definition; the idea that there are biological systems that cannot have evolved naturalistically, and that we therefore must presume that a "designer" at some point intervened in the development of life.

That's the meaning the founders of the ID movement themselves use. I can't figure out why you guys seem to insist on misrepresenting them, but doing so cannot help either science or ID.

[Ben Kenobi]

The bolded part is not true. Darwin based his theory on observation of living organisms, not the fossil record. The fossil record at the time was quite poor.

I would challenge whether the fossil record was so poor as to prevent folks from establishing that the record did not show changes. At the time, there had been dinosaur fossils found, before the origin of species was written and published, and these bones were unlike anything that currently walked the earth. 1824, Buckland named the first genus of dinosaurs, which is before the origins of species.

There is nothing "chimerical" about the platypus beyond superficial resemblance of features. It is not "half bird, half mammal," as would be required to be a true chimera. Its apparently avian features are a product of niche evolution, and we have fossil ancestors to see this development.

So, my question, is anything then qualified as a chimera. That's the problem with defining it based upon lineage, since lineage is how the relationship between species is determined. The platypus would be evidence in itself that there is a link between birds and mammals, and hence, would automatically cease to be a chimera.

You clearly don't know how mutation works in terms of population changes. Are there limits on the degree of individual mutations? In many cases, yes. But that's not what was meant. It was about the accumulation of mutations in populations over generations.

You never stated the word 'population' until now. If you are referring to mutations accumulated over time, then I suggest you refer to such. I'm not a mindreader Boris.

Mutations accumulated over time, are the sum of the individual mutations. The fact that the individual mutations are checked, acts as a check on the accumulation of mutations.

There has never been discovered any "barrier" to this. If morphology can be shown to "increase" on even the smallest level, then over larger time periods, there would be no qualitative barrier to larger changes.

A ball dropped in air faces air resistance. The same is true of mutations over time, in that while the mutations continue, there are still limitations to how quickly they can happen. That mutations are checked, is a significant barrier, the same way that air is a barrier to motion.

OK, if you want to believe that, it's up to you, but until it's actually observed and proven that it occurse, there's no reason for science to give it any consideration.

Ex nihilio? From the earth is not from nothing, Boris. From dust you are, and to dust you will return. Even the creationists don't claim that creation comes from nothing.

Secondly, the same standard applies to evolution. We don't observe monkeys turning into people, so how can we be sure that men used to be monkeys?

[Ben Kenobi]

Evolution has undergone tremendous change since Darwin, and continues to "evolve" on it's own. It's shown to be a terrifically useful theory, and all of modern biology is predicated on it. But it hasn't remained monolithic and unchanging. Scientists are constantly fine-tuning, revising, criticizing, excising, etc. That's part of why evolution has been so successful--it is extremely flexible.

True, which is why it causes problems, since the theory needs to be modified beyond all recognition in order to fit in with what we know. Epicycle after epicycle is being added to make it more 'flexible', yet no one questions whether the fault is in the model, not in the precision.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thanks Ben for the laugh Do you have flat-earther friends, by any chance? It'd further increase the entertainment from such threads

No, I'm afraid I don't. I guess my question to you, Spiffor, would be to ask what do I believe with respect to evolution? I think you are being rather quick off the mark to pigeonhole me.