The Adult Atheist Thread

The slow evolutionary process must also have the evidence of intermediary species necessary to explain that all things evolve from a single life source.

Question: can we say that the apes that we have are bound to an evolutionary progress that these species will then eventually become humans?

Yes. A muslim who I feel is undeniably intelligent, creative, happy to satirisie his own beliefs and culture.

The fact that the Ayatollah issued a fatwa against Rushdie doesn't change any of the above, don't you think?

But at least, can we say that evolution is true and possible only for certain life forms, and thus is not a universal principle that can account for all the changes and diversity of species?

But at least, can we say that evolution is true and possible only for certain life forms, and thus is not a universal principle that can account for all the changes and diversity of species?

But at least, can we say that evolution is true and possible only for certain life forms, and thus is not a universal principle that can account for all the changes and diversity of species?

Dave Allen,

I quite agree there is at least one Muslim and probably more that would not present a problem for the west, but Islam in general is a problem. The party line is one of violence, disgree and die. The Koran is very explicit in its instructions to kill the infidel.

No. What are your objections?

Go on, list 'em!

1. How do you know randomness decided the genetic changes which contributed organ-building parts?

2. Even if mutation provided the right parts, how do you know selection for fitness alone will get so creative as to produce organs?

These two central features of Darwinistic evolution theory are merely assumed; there is absolutely NO conclusive evidence, nada, none that randomness and NS are capable of creative complex system building . . . it is assumed because it is how physicalisitc, usually religion-hating atheists, prematurely appropriate credit away from creationists for explaining creation.

It's all grand theory when it comes to mutation/NS, yet science is supposed to be observation, not pure theory.

Why is it improper to assume mutation/NS are the creative forces? As I said before, if the universe is conscious, where else would it have asserted its creative effort while it evolving life forms but at the genetic level? And because the issue of what created life is in truth actually still open, physicalistic theorists should stop pretending the issue is closed.

1. How do you know randomness decided the genetic changes which contributed organ-building parts?

2. Even if mutation provided the right parts, how do you know selection for fitness alone will get so creative as to produce organs?

These two central features of Darwinistic evolution theory are merely assumed; there is absolutely NO conclusive evidence, nada, none that randomness and NS are capable of creative complex system building.

. . it is assumed because it is how physicalisitc, usually religion-hating atheists, prematurely appropriate credit away from creationists for explaining creation.

What they usually do is a red-herring move to take the real issue off subject by making the debate between the concepts of life having slowly developed vs. near-instant creationism. Everyone who's studied the evidence with an open mind knows gradual development took place, but nobody actually knows what the forces were that drove the creative building of organ systems. Nonetheless, no evolutionist ever touches the mutation/NS question, and instead incessantly lists tons of evidence showing the substantial genetic and fossil evidence of gradual change.

The only thing ever "proved" in regard to the physicalism theory is that simple adaption of a trait of an already-created complex organ system can occur. A bigger bird beak can be selected, or a darker moth color, but it can't be shown (not even close) that selection/mutation created the beak or moth wings in the first place. It's all grand theory when it comes to mutation/NS, yet science is supposed to be observation, not pure theory. A heater with a thermostat can cause the heater to "adapt" to temperature changes, should we assume the thermostat created the heater?

Why is it improper to assume mutation/NS are the creative forces? As I said before, if the universe is conscious, where else would it have asserted its creative effort while it evolving life forms but at the genetic level? And because the issue of what created life is in truth actually still open, physicalistic theorists should stop pretending the issue is closed.

1. Complex self-replicating chemicals are prone to mistakes. Why make a special case of ones that contribute to organs?

2. Selection for fitness does not create organs. You have a huge misunderstanding of evolutionary theory here.

If and when a mutation occurs, it will either make the organism less fit to survive, more fit to survive or make no difference to its fitness for survival. There is no third option - that's a complete set. If the mutation makes it less fit to survive, it is highly likely that the genome will not prosper.

Why? Because we're talking thousands of individuals per generation over thousands of generations - statistical probability converges to certainty.

Likewise a beneficial mutation is highly likely to allow the genome to prosper. Not always, but again statistically. (I might have a beneficially mutated son who dies in accident - the end of that particular gene.) If the mutation does nothing to increase fitness for survival, the gene in question will simply propagate as any other and no speciation would ever take place.

Absolutely EVERY book I have read on the subject devotes very extensive and detailed study to mutation and natural selection. A number of YouTube clips, wiki articles and websites also investigate it - all you have to do is a bit of reading if you are genuinely curious about the matter.

So are you saying that the theory of relativity is not science? Or that theories about cosmology are not science?

I see opponents of evolution trot out this "it's only a theory" thing over and over again.

All I see is how do you know? What if? This that and the other. I do apologise for disrupting this thrilling conversation, but in an abbreviation from Isaac Asimov's "Armies of the Night":
-Evolution: Only a theory.
-Theory: A hypothesis compiled on an evidential basis
-Creation: Only a myth.

How do you know the changes are "mistakes"? That is, how do you know what is behind the changes?

But if you are so sure physicalistic "mistakes" will result in perpetual system building, set up some chemicals and get them doing anything beyond turning repetitive after a few layers of change.

Okay, before we go any further I ask that you please stop the tactic of trying to undermine my credibility. I understood (and believed) evolutionary theory 40 years ago; I think it is BS now, but that is not because I don't understand it. Just make your points without trying the argument virtually every evo believer I've ever debated tries (and I've debated many dozens . . . BTW, I am not religious, so the only objections you'll hear from me are based on a priori assumptions evo believers make that circumvent the empirical process, as you do in the rest of this post).

That's the theory alright . . . and the evidence you have that mutation occurred "randomly"? And the evidence you have that fitness alone is the only criteria for organ design?

Haven't you merely assumed these factors because you've accepted the theory a priori as true? Doesn't the empirical process demand a demonstration of your hypotheses that randomness can provide the sort of happy accidents that yield organ parts, and that selection for fitness will make use of those happy accidents to build creatively?

Regarding selection for fitness, if any trait is to survive, of course it must be fit enough. If you were designing a computer, doesn't every single design feature have to be fit enough to endure as a computer part? So because your choices all possess the quality of fitness, should we assume fitness is the only thing you are designing for when building a computer? Hell if fitness is all that matters, then it should be something tank-like, indestructible. Who needs all the sophisticated complexity?

So? That could be true if an organism's genetics were being manipulated consciously too; say my hypothesized "creationary consciousness" wasn't all powerful or all knowing, but more like a general feature of the universe and so had to experiment.
sophisticated complexity?

You assume genetic change was random, but how can you possibly know they were random? Haven't you just assumed that fact because it supports the physicalist theory you already believe?

Theory, theory, theory. You have not provided one single bit of evidence (don't feel bad, no evolutionist I've debated ever does) that proves the gene changes that contributed parts for organs were "random," or that even if all the right parts were somehow correctly provided for building an organ (yes, over many generations), that selection for fitness alone would craft something so creative as an organ system.