Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 86 of 86

Thread: Evolution

  1. #61
    вот так штука CardiacCoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The SLC
    Posts
    10,693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    I actually listened to the entire discussion in that video. I was not, to be honest, very impressed with their analysis. Moreover, they are focusing on something that is really not very important: whether Darwin was 'wrong' doesn't matter. Darwin created the framework for the paradigm. Nothing they are talking about requires the abandonment of the paradigm as modified by current knowledge. There was nothing there that was new or different. It was just intelligent design with a couple of not so articulate oddballs spitting out commentary. The moderator was pretty sharp, as was the intelligent design guy. But nothing new at all.
    Agreed. It’s like if somebody said “Well we now know that some people get sick due to autoimmune conditions and allergies so Is Germ Theory Wrong?!?!? “

    Just because Darwin didn’t understand every weird, rare, unusual way that genetic material can be transferred between organisms doesn’t mean he was wrong. Darwinian evolution will always have massive explanatory power for what is observed in nature at a macroscopic and microscopic level.

  2. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    LOL. Ok tooblue, you and those truly heroic scientists continue to ask those dangerous questions. The rest of us will be too busy trying to maintain the orthodoxy.
    LOL, here's another link to a heroic ... oh, wait he's not a heroic scientist but rather a journalist ...

    https://www.npr.org/2018/08/11/63778...e-tangled-tree
    Last edited by tooblue; 08-09-2019 at 10:01 PM.

  3. #63
    Faith crisis consultant SeattleUte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    18,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    I am probably not familiar enough with this stuff to talk about it here, but I am at a loss as to why you find this material so compelling. First, Darwin never addressed the origin of life, he addressed the origin of species. So you can conclude that archaea must have followed a different creation path and it doesn't affect the mechanism for speciation (plus, it is a peculiar bit of evidence to use to support the notion that God created life; its like God leaving a little drop of material somewhere that doesn't quite fit). It does not mean Darwin was wrong. Likewise, horizontal gene transfer is a mechanism that might have been significant (although the scope of that significance seems very unsettled) but it neither supplants Darwinian mechanisms nor does it urge intelligent design. It is an alternate method for spreading genetic information and allowing species to take advantage of variation that is neutral as to the origin of life. It also does not mean Darwin was wrong, it just means he was incomplete due to lack of information. I am not sure what you mean by your reference to math, but if you mean the timetable of speciation doesn't fit, there are some very real questions to be answered but asking how the human tree speciated at a rate faster than randomness of mutation might permit does not mean that Darwinian thinking (as opposed to Darwin himself) is wrong, it means it is not entirely explored. Moreover, as before, nothing about this issue means intelligent design must be the answer or is even a more plausible answer. In fact, it makes it easier to argue that intelligent design is even less plausible, but that is an irrelevant point.

    If you want to say that Darwin, in his writings, was wrong in some respects because he lacked information or didn't foresee and answer all of the questions raised by subsequent analyses and investigations, you are probably correct. But nothing you have presented suggests, to me, that Darwinian inspired thinking is incorrect or is proven wrong. Further, nothing you presented suggests intelligent design as the answer.
    Let me try to help. Darwin fell upon evolution or speciation. I don’t think he went further than that. He died flummoxed by the the mechanism for speciation. To be sure, he speculated a lot, and it was all wrong. Though Darwin and Gregor Mendel were contemporaries, when Darwin died Mendel’s groundbreaking discoveries that would catalyze genetic science were ignored (and there would be efforts to misappropriate it). (Ironically, the very journal that published Mendel’s findings that would be unearthed many years later was found in Darwin’s study after his death. His notes were in the margins of other articles, but apparently he skipped over Mendel’s.)

    Since then we’ve come to understand DNA, mutation and natural selection. Now, since for good reason scientists won’t touch the supernatural, they are left with randomness as the explanation for how dead matter transmogrified into single cell life, which over time evolved into blue whales, Golden Eagles, and people. Randomness is the only available explanation if, as it must, science restricts itself to considering the material.

    The problem with randomness is that it’s not at all satisfying to us humans at an emotional or intellectual level. In addition to suggesting that we are no more important than the ants I found on my counter and murdered in mass this morning, it’s violently counterintuitive (which doesn’t mean that randomness isn’t the true explanation; truth is often counterintuitive). What we see with our eyes, is that randomness doesn’t build things—on the contrary, if you randomnly throw Lincoln logs on the floor, a log cabin won’t materialize—and has time passed, the universe—life itself—has moved in the direction of increased complexity. Yes, there have been dead ends. But int the long run, there’s been increased complexity on a massive scale. Beautiful complexity.

    The inability of science to explain how dead matter became life and consciousness compounds the problem of counterintiutiveness of the randomness explanation. Though, to be sure, randomness is probably all that science will ever have as the explanation—because it can’t consider anything that can’t be measured, felt, smelled, etc.—and I hope science will always be so disciplined!

    Sometimes, however, it seems that scientists wax evangelical about randomness where it is the only available explanation.
    When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

    --Jonathan Swift

  4. #64
    Pre-Historic Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Allendale County, SC
    Posts
    11,664

    Default

    Creekster and Seattle get it. Tooblue, stick with art.

    "Darwinian Orthodoxy."

    Crudely stated, in comparison to creekster's and Seattle's more elegant explanations, if the fine contours of Darwin's original explanation are exactly accurate, then we must throw it out, despite generations of scientists improving it, and accept the idiotic Intelligent Design. Binary thinking at its best.

    Horizontal gene transfers and independent development of Archaea only confirm the complexity of the origin of life domains and the origin of species and speciation. Darwin as a starting point and as refined by others is doing just fine.
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

  5. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Topper View Post
    Creekster and Seattle get it. Tooblue, stick with art.

    "Darwinian Orthodoxy."

    Crudely stated, in comparison to creekster's and Seattle's more elegant explanations, if the fine contours of Darwin's original explanation are exactly accurate, then we must throw it out, despite generations of scientists improving it, and accept the idiotic Intelligent Design. Binary thinking at its best.

    Horizontal gene transfers and independent development of Archaea only confirm the complexity of the origin of life domains and the origin of species and speciation. Darwin as a starting point and as revised by others is doing just fine.
    FIFY ... per the Oxford english dictionary, revise:

    "to look at or consider again an idea, piece of writing, etc. in order to correct or improve it"

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...english/revise

    So, yah. I think I am doing just fine in this domain thank you lol

  6. #66
    Pre-Historic Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Allendale County, SC
    Posts
    11,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    FIFY ... per the Oxford english dictionary, revise:

    "to look at or consider again an idea, piece of writing, etc. in order to correct or improve it"

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...english/revise

    So, yah. I think I am doing just fine in this domain thank you lol
    ID is not a valid scientific theory.
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

  7. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Topper View Post
    ID is not a valid scientific theory.

  8. #68
    Pre-Historic Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Allendale County, SC
    Posts
    11,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    You're the one posting links that argues evolution didn't happen. Next thing we'll know, you'll post link saying vaccinations cause autism.
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Topper View Post
    You're the one posting links that argues evolution didn't happen. Next thing we'll know, you'll post link saying vaccinations cause autism.
    lol ... have you actually watched the video I embedded or visited the links? In the video there are three individuals, one of which is a prominent proponent of intelligent design and the other two refuse to label themselves as intelligent design proponents, but no longer accept Darwinian orthodoxy as "absolute." I trust you realize that most proponents of intelligent design certainly accept that evolution is a mechanism by which the development of complex biological structures has occurred, but they do not accept evolution as the only mechanism, precisely because the biological complexity that has and that currently exists on our planet is far too ordered and intricate to be chalked up to randomness.

    I then posted a link to a Darwin apologist reviewing a book (which I have read) called The Tangled Tree: A Radical New History of Life, by David Quammen. Quammen is most certainly a proponent of Darwinian evolution, but has written an interesting book that looks beyond the orthodoxy, by citing science that is REVISING some of Darwins core theories. Here's what he says in another link I posted:

    SIMON: And to understand this, we are getting genetic matter from non-human -- even non-primate sources.

    QUAMMEN: That's correct.


    SIMON: Boy, this really revises Darwinism, doesn't it?


    QUAMMEN: It does revise Darwinism. The canonical view of evolution -- the Darwinian view is that evolution occurs as genes descend from parents to offspring and are very gradually modified and branches diverge. The tree of life is the model used because it chose branches diverging. But now we understand that innovation in genomes doesn't always come gradually. Sometimes it comes suddenly, in an instant, by horizontal gene transfer. And that represents the convergence not the divergence of lineages.
    Would it surprise you to know that in Quammen's book, he never once mentions intelligent design. And obviously, it is a surprise to you that not one individual in any of the links states that evolution didn't happen. And neither have I stated it. Good gravy ...

    Last edited by tooblue; 08-13-2019 at 09:16 AM.

  10. #70
    Pre-Historic Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Allendale County, SC
    Posts
    11,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    lol ... have you actually watched the video I embedded or visited the links? In the video there are three individuals, one of which is a prominent proponent of intelligent design and the other two refuse to label themselves as intelligent design proponents, but no longer accept Darwinian orthodoxy as "absolute." I trust you realize that most proponents of intelligent design certainly accept that evolution is a mechanism by which the development of complex biological structures has occurred, but they do not accept evolution as the only mechanism, precisely because the biological complexity that has and that currently exists on our planet is far too ordered and intricate to be chalked up to randomness.

    I then posted a link to a Darwin apologist reviewing a book (which I have read) called The Tangled Tree: A Radical New History of Life, by David Quammen. Quammen is most certainly a proponent of Darwinian evolution, but has written an interesting book that looks beyond the orthodoxy, by citing science that is REVISING some of Darwins core theories. Here's what he says in another link I posted:



    Would it surprise you to know that in Quammen's book, he never once mentions intelligent design. And obviously, it is a surprise to you that not one individual in any of the links states that evolution didn't happen. And neither have I stated it. Good gravy ...

    ID proponents use clever devices.

    First, challenge Darwinian evolution and propose non-scientific ID.
    Second, after that fails, poke holes in historical statements without understanding so that they can further be allowed to teach non-science, i.e., ID.

    Yes, there are more than one mechanism for speciation and for other evolutionary developments. None of this is earth-shattering or supportive of ID. The mechanisms of nature don't necessarily threaten an idea that some entity has somehow influenced or orchestrated the natural mechanisms of the universe.

    There is no valid young earth theory.

    ID is not a valid theory. The rest of what you put forth is neither startling nor anything else.
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

  11. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Topper View Post
    ID proponents use clever devices.

    First, challenge Darwinian evolution and propose non-scientific ID.
    Second, after that fails, poke holes in historical statements without understanding so that they can further be allowed to teach non-science, i.e., ID.

    Yes, there are more than one mechanism for speciation and for other evolutionary developments. None of this is earth-shattering or supportive of ID. The mechanisms of nature don't necessarily threaten an idea that some entity has somehow influenced or orchestrated the natural mechanisms of the universe.

    There is no valid young earth theory.

    ID is not a valid theory. The rest of what you put forth is neither startling nor anything else.
    Who has brought up young earth theory And if what I have posted isn't startling, then why has it prompted such a startled response from you and others?

    lol

  12. #72
    Pre-Historic Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Allendale County, SC
    Posts
    11,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    Who has brought up young earth theory And if what I have posted isn't startling, then why has it prompted such a startled response from you and others?

    lol
    To nip any legitimization of ID in the bud. ID needs to be killed on the spot.
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

  13. #73
    Senior Member myboynoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Land of the Morning Calm
    Posts
    15,403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Topper View Post
    To nip any legitimization of ID in the bud. ID needs to be killed on the spot.
    Archaea, the Danite of Darwinian orthodoxy.
    Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!

    For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.

    Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."

  14. #74
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    22,397

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myboynoah View Post
    Archaea, the Danite of Darwinian orthodoxy.
    I recently visited Porter Rockwell's cabin, which is in Eureka Utah. Very humble. Surprisingly well-preserved. Nothing to do with evolution (AFAIK), but it's condition startled me a lot more than the hoo-ha in the video that started this thread.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  15. #75
    Pre-Historic Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Allendale County, SC
    Posts
    11,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myboynoah View Post
    Archaea, the Danite of Darwinian orthodoxy.
    I'm more of a Robert Lamphere, Elliott Ness sort of guy.
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

  16. #76
    Ragnar Lodbrok Descendant SoCalCoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California
    Posts
    5,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    lol ... have you actually watched the video I embedded or visited the links? In the video there are three individuals, one of which is a prominent proponent of intelligent design and the other two refuse to label themselves as intelligent design proponents, but no longer accept Darwinian orthodoxy as "absolute." I trust you realize that most proponents of intelligent design certainly accept that evolution is a mechanism by which the development of complex biological structures has occurred, but they do not accept evolution as the only mechanism, precisely because the biological complexity that has and that currently exists on our planet is far too ordered and intricate to be chalked up to randomness.

    I then posted a link to a Darwin apologist reviewing a book (which I have read) called The Tangled Tree: A Radical New History of Life, by David Quammen. Quammen is most certainly a proponent of Darwinian evolution, but has written an interesting book that looks beyond the orthodoxy, by citing science that is REVISING some of Darwins core theories. Here's what he says in another link I posted:



    Would it surprise you to know that in Quammen's book, he never once mentions intelligent design. And obviously, it is a surprise to you that not one individual in any of the links states that evolution didn't happen. And neither have I stated it. Good gravy ...

    I'm trying to figure out what the controversy here is. This is how science works. Scientists challenge the existing "orthodoxy" with new hypotheses and then study and experiment. If the hypothesis is sound, eventually it will be accepted by the scientific community, and science will further proceed.
    If we disagree on something, it's because you're wrong.

    "Somebody needs to kill my trial attorney." — Last words of George Harris, executed in Missouri on Sept. 13, 2000.

    "Nothing is too good to be true, nothing is too good to last, nothing is too wonderful to happen." - Florence Scoville Shinn

  17. #77
    Pre-Historic Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Allendale County, SC
    Posts
    11,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalCoug View Post
    I'm trying to figure out what the controversy here is. This is how science works. Scientists challenge the existing "orthodoxy" with new hypotheses and then study and experiment. If the hypothesis is sound, eventually it will be accepted by the scientific community, and science will further proceed.
    Apparently it's proof that ID has been proven while Darwin was mostly wrong according to tooblue.
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

  18. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SoCal
    I'm trying to figure out what the controversy here is. This is how science works. Scientists challenge the existing "orthodoxy" with new hypotheses and then study and experiment. If the hypothesis is sound, eventually it will be accepted by the scientific community, and science will further proceed.
    You are correct. There is no controversy. Science is doing what science does. Unfortunately, for the defenders of the orthodoxy, Darwin is being revised, and that's very startling. Which ultimately means the defenders actually believe more in the orthodoxy and less in the science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Topper View Post
    Apparently it's proof that ID has been proven while Darwin was mostly wrong according to tooblue.
    Oh, Topper you are better than this. Who said that intelligent design is proven? It was merely an interesting video—no need to get your knickers in a twist.
    Last edited by tooblue; 08-14-2019 at 08:30 PM.

  19. #79
    One man.....one pie Moliere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Republic of Tejas
    Posts
    21,918

    Default

    When I was YMP I remember the 1C teaching a lesson and for some reason he brought up that mormons don’t believe in evolution. He also referred the kids to a YouTube video that explains how the Grand Canyon could have been formed in the matter of a thousand years, thus promulgating a young earth theory. I think that was the last time I let him teach in a combined setting.
    "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

  20. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moliere View Post
    When I was YMP I remember the 1C teaching a lesson and for some reason he brought up that mormons don’t believe in evolution. He also referred the kids to a YouTube video that explains how the Grand Canyon could have been formed in the matter of a thousand years, thus promulgating a young earth theory. I think that was the last time I let him teach in a combined setting.
    Yet another data point about Texas Mo's. What's the deal down there?
    "Seriously, is there a bigger high on the whole face of the earth than eating a salad?"--SeattleUte
    "The only Ute to cause even half the nationwide hysteria of Jimmermania was Ted Bundy."--TripletDaddy
    This is a tough, NYC broad, a doctor who deals with bleeding organs, dying people and testicles on a regular basis without crying."--oxcoug
    "I'm not impressed (and I'm even into choreography . . .)"--Donuthole
    "I too was fortunate to leave with my same balls."--byu71

  21. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    You are correct. There is no controversy. Science is doing what science does. Unfortunately, for the defenders of the orthodoxy, Darwin is being revised, and that's very startling. Which ultimately means the defenders actually believe more in the orthodoxy and less in the science.
    "Defenders of the orthodoxy". I loved that Judas Priest album.

    Just how pervasive are these defenders? And how many brave souls are battling them with real science? It's hard to know who the real scientists are when you're in the orthodoxy bubble like I am.

  22. #82
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    22,397

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    You are correct. There is no controversy. Science is doing what science does. Unfortunately, for the defenders of the orthodoxy, Darwin is being revised, and that's very startling. Which ultimately means the defenders actually believe more in the orthodoxy and less in the science.



    Oh, Topper you are better than this. Who said that intelligent design is proven? It was merely an interesting video—no need to get your knickers in a twist.
    You keep saying that people are startled. What on earth are you talking about? No one here was startled. I wasn’t startled by any assault on Darwinian orthodoxy. I find nothing there that really challenges Darwinian thought. I just don’t get what you keep going on about.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  23. #83
    Pre-Historic Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Allendale County, SC
    Posts
    11,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    You keep saying that people are startled. What on earth are you talking about? No one here was startled. I wasn’t startled by any assault on Darwinian orthodoxy. I find nothing there that really challenges Darwinian thought. I just don’t get what you keep going on about.
    Nailed it.
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

  24. #84

    Default

    Just how pervasive are these defenders? And how many brave souls are battling them with real science? It's hard to know who the real scientists are when you're in the orthodoxy bubble like I am.
    Absurdity

    You keep saying that people are startled. What on earth are you talking about? No one here was startled. I wasn’t startled by any assault on Darwinian orthodoxy. I find nothing there that really challenges Darwinian thought. I just don’t get what you keep going on about.
    Defensiveness

    Nailed it
    Denial

    He also referred the kids to a YouTube video that explains how the Grand Canyon could have been formed in the matter of a thousand years, thus promulgating a young earth theory. I think that was the last time I let him teach in a combined setting.
    Texas size stupidity

  25. #85
    One man.....one pie Moliere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Republic of Tejas
    Posts
    21,918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
    Texas size stupidity
    He was actually from Ohio
    "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

  26. #86
    Pre-Historic Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Allendale County, SC
    Posts
    11,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moliere View Post
    He was actually from Ohio
    Near Dayton?
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •