55
   

How can a good God allow suffering

 
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2016 01:53 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Are you disputing natural selection ???
No. Speciation.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2016 01:54 pm
@Leadfoot,
Sorry.
Ros started it.
Blame him.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2016 02:37 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
Are you disputing natural selection ???
Some genotypes fail some stick. What could be more simple eh ?
Here's the hard part. Just for an example, the odds of random mutation in one genotype (along with natural selection) changing a cow-like land animal into a whale are not good enough for me. Even in millions of years.
This also ignores the problem of abiogenesis as well.

Simple enough for you?
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2016 04:05 pm
@neologist,
Replication, indirectly, both in the fossil record and in the world we inhabit--the peppered moth being a classic example of the principle of natural selection observed in nature in the lifetimes of millions of observers. Falsification--show that it can't have happened that way, and you're on the way, but it still won't authorize your holy roller explanation. Macro-evolution simply refers to time scales and more widespread populations, don't try to hobble my response in advance. Basically, people like you attempt to say that if someone can't satisfy your "god of the gaps" objections, you get to come up with that "god did it" BS.
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2016 04:57 pm
@Setanta,
You should really leave this to farmer. He at least can talk the talk. There is a huge difference between adaptation and speciation. The peppered moth is still a moth. My spaniel can still make puppies with a dachshund. But, as I referenced here, the Indohyus would have a heckofa time mating with a dolphin.
JimmyJ wrote:
We're talking millions of years here.

And you are incorrect. Blow holes ARE a migrated nostril. In fact, they technically ARE nostrils. If you aren't satisfied with the first source I'll have to send you to Berkeley's explanation (which says essentially the same thing in more detail). Keep in mind Berkeley has one of the great Biology schools in the West.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

I've already provided multiple lines of evidence regarding the evolution of the eye. I don't think I need to go through that again...
neologist wrote:
You can be the expert here, Jimmy. Contrary to your condescending assertion, I know the blow hole is a nostril. What you have failed to address is how this nostril, in it's journey, manged to separate from the throat. When did it happen? Was it a simultaneous double whammy? Or, if not, how did intervening mutations survive? 'Cause, you know, that would be important. And while you are at it, explain when the intervening mutations suddenly developed breach birth, also necessary to keep newborns from drowning.

I've looked through your 'evidence' and can't see much in the way of explanation.

Here's the whale's great great grandaddy:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Indohyus_BW.jpg
He's got a long way to go.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2016 05:02 pm
@neologist,
You should really leave rhetorical logic to me, as you clearly can't or won't play that fairly. You're dodging and you're setting up straw men. Speciation was not a part of the remarks to which i responded. You were getting snotty about the naturalistic scientific method, and i responded to that. Now you want to move the goalposts--because i provided you a reasonable answer which you apparently are not prepared to address.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2016 05:13 pm
@Leadfoot,
I have a problem with the coinage random just as well but that problem does not question natural selection fundamentals. Again set Biology aside and study the evolution of language and culture...I want to see you deny the mutation of memes for instance...you see the good thing about natural selection is that as a strong theory it explains far more then biology. You want to narrow down the talk to some obscure, I admit, scientific lingo about random mutations and odds but none of it changes the bases for an evolutionary theory. Long term adaptation and selection leads to speciation and faster if we drop the random word.
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2016 05:13 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
. . . Speciation was not a part of the remarks to which i responded. . .
True, but speciation is the form of evolution to which I take exception. See my post here

I apologise if I did not discern your defense of adaptation.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2016 06:24 pm
@neologist,
My entire response was predicated upon your allegation of a theory of evolution being dicey because of a failure to adhere to the naturalistic scientific method. The problem i have is that theists will take any lacuna in evolutionary theory as an opportunity to allege that "god did it" is the answer to any of such acunae--what is called the god of the gaps.

On the basis of no observational evidence for phenomena, most of geology and astrophysics would be inadmissible. Nevertheless, geologists and astrophysicists have consistently predicted the outcomes of investigations in their discipline. I mentioned the peppered moth because it is a pure example of not only observational confirmation, but of predictive success.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2016 07:32 pm
@neologist,
How do these Bible Thumping threads get turned into "erzats science". It appears you theumpees like to deny scientific discussions and like to hide your belief systems in a religious format. I find that kind of cowardly of you.

The "Migration of nostrils " in cetaceans is NOT a defining evidence associated with the evolutionary connections between Raoellid mammals and cetaceans. The "nostril " is more of a way to "track volutionary morphing"
The real associations are 4 areas that were first defined from a smattering of fossils in the late 1980's and pretty much evidenced by 2007. These areas include

1. Indohyus has a thick coating of bone in a medial space of its middle ear. This
structure, called an involucrum (nasty word but hey, I didnt pick it, is UNIQUE to all the cetaceans and, little indohyus. All living whales have the involucrum , SO DID INDOHYUS.(There is a NAture article from 2007 that dicusses the structure and its function and its evolutionary track (via fossil bones)

2 Indohyus had a tooth structure unique to it and the early fossil species of whales (pakicetus, Indocetus etc). There was a familar pattern of dentition morphing that evidences a dietary change from vegetarian to meatatarianin about 1 15 my period. All dentition was developed as "fully whale like " (for toothed whales) by the time Basilosaurus was roaming the estuaries of mid Asia.

3Limb bone structure of Indohyus was unique to a whole bunch of water dwelling mammals. The limb bones had a sheath of dense heavy-weight coating of osteoapatite which is unique to ALL early whales, only toothed whales among the living species, todays seals, beavers, hippos and there is a developing sheath in polar bears. These are all animals adapted to aquatic living and the sheath keeps them from bobbing around.

4. O16/O18 ratios in Indohyus' fossil tooth enamel indicated that this critter was indeed aqautic It had toes with thick nails (actually mini-hoofs) on each digit and the digits were seen to morph into longer versions as that feature was a more successful adaptation in younger aged fossil Indohyuses.

AlsoRemember, theres a huge event beginning to occur in the neighborhood around the same time that the Indohyus lived there . In late Pangean times The area of the belly of Asia has a southern neighbor called the Cimmerian Terrain. This is separated by Tethys sea and along about 50 million years ago the entire area began closing (ie , moving the Cemmerian landscape towards the bowels of Asia) , where, by 30 my later, wed begin seeing the rising Himalayas.
Until that time, think of the area like the Atlantic Coast of US. It was a "trailing edge plate" that was loaded with shallow esturies and swamps. These would soon become deeper basins as Cemmeria started moving N at a rather fast rate (tectonically speaking) some say as fast as 10 cm 'year.
So here we see the developing ocean basins and entire oceanic shelves and fossil rich sedimentary beds appeared. Was this a force for transmutation of species?? Who the hell knows but, theres some real circumstantial evidence that relates these fossil species together.

One last thing is that the occurence of the stem species like indohyus and pakicetus etc ALL happened in this area of the earth.


neologist
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2016 08:49 pm
@Setanta,
I agree with you up to this point:
It is my contention that proof of a creator and proof of speciation are both subject to serious deficiency when it comes to empirical scrutiny. In the end, both the believer and skeptic resort to "rational" analysis of data which is as often as not skewed by their personal orientation.

That being said, I am constantly entertained by the proclamations of either that their conclusions must be accepted as axiomatic.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2016 09:13 pm
@neologist,
...aaah the axiom problem as the last trick in the bag. That one never fails...
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2016 11:12 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
I have a problem with the coinage random just as well but that problem does not question natural selection fundamentals.
You may not like it but random mutation either through radiation damage or copying errors are ALL natural selection has to work on. No mutation - No natural selection.
Quote:
Long term adaptation and selection leads to speciation and faster if we drop the random word.
Oh, you are a Lamarkian evolutionist. That theory is dismissed by virtually all experts in the field. I think Farmerman once explained the flaws in it far better than I could. Adaptation and selection can create Chiwauwas (sp?) and Great Danes, or as with Darwin's birds, short beak and long beak finches, but not new species.
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2016 11:21 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
How do these Bible Thumping threads get turned into "erzats science". It appears you theumpees like to deny scientific discussions and like to hide your belief systems in a religious format. I find that kind of cowardly of you.
Hey there Farmerman. That's BS. I complained about the thread drift first and it was one of your fellow atheists (ros I believe) who pushed it that way. Just read back a page or 2..
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2016 01:18 am
@neologist,
The more specific my statements become, the more vague your defense becomes. And you certainly do love a straw man. You have been referring to speciation, not me. Speciation is not a cut and dried matter--no responsible biologist who knows her business says that it is. Speciation can occur fromsexual isolation--one group being cut off from another--as well as genetic drift which eventually results in an inability to interbreed. From an online article in the journal Science:

Quote:
Brown bears—some of which are called grizzlies—and polar bears are closely related and are even able to interbreed.


That article is concerned with the diet of polar bears--but it serves to show that speciation can occur through the sexual isolation of part of a species, and that the two parts of a species can remain sexually viable, while occupying different niches, and having radically different food sources.

But you're just attempting to move the goal posts again. And it is hilarious that you suggest an equivalence between holy rollers and scientists. Holy rollers start from a premise--that there is a god--for which they provide zero evidence. You have not addressed at all the fatal weakness of the "god did it" crew, and their penchant for employing the "god of the gaps" technique.

At no time have i "proclaimed" that anything i've said must be considered axiomatic. Your rhetoric is a mess, and your claim to rely upon and adhere to the naturalistic scientific method more and more implausible.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2016 04:03 am
@neologist,
Quote:
proof of speciation are both subject to serious deficiency when it comes to empirical scrutiny
Id love to hear yourconcerns. Im not going to read back several pages .You may point me to your concerns or ill merely consider this another baseless statement from someone trying to sound like they know of what they speak. (and you always can count on me to remind you )
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2016 07:52 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Quote: from Science Journal:
"Brown bears—some of which are called grizzlies—and polar bears are closely related and are even able to interbreed."


That article is concerned with the diet of polar bears--but it serves to show that speciation can occur through the sexual isolation of part of a species, and that the two parts of a species can remain sexually viable, while occupying different niches, and having radically different food sources.


I'm confused about what you are trying to prove here. It sounds like an argument against evolution. In spite of very different environments, food sources, and lots of time, they remained bears. Evolution should have had one or the other becoming a new species. A whale maybe.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2016 08:48 am
@Leadfoot,
No I am not a Lamarkian...although Lamarkism has had a sort of rivival recently as being partially correct or so I have heard. In any case Lamarkian evolution is a minor note on the actual evolutionary proccess. Natural selection works upon disctint mutations that are pseudo random, or to complex to distinguish from noise data. That's my only point. "Random" is an obscure concept...about Lamarkism, fundamentally survival of the fittest mutations does the job, not the behaviour of a group.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2016 09:57 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
sources, and lots of time, they remained bears.
How much time and food would you say is needed to do whatever it is you want to accomplish??
Polar bears sprang from Brown beras as recently as 100k and genetic "mutation time clocks" say 200K +. Theres really a lot of morphological difference between polars and brownies, (Ears, middle ears, eye socket nd fossae around the rear of the eye sockets, paws and nostrils. Here we hqve an example of the precursor (mother species) and the derived (daughter species) , yet the argument seems to disappear that you guys have posted about your denial about evolution of whales in 20 to 40 MILLION years.

Always like your "evidence-free ID" arguments separate so they dont collide with each other eh?
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2016 10:10 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
arguing about "random" mutations is as useless as arguing the bases for "genetic drift".

Lamarck's actual development of his "inheritance of acquired characteristics" Is getting a bit of reconsideration wrt epigenetic methylation, and consequuential transfer of stuff like "lung diseases to offsprings of smokers and gradual adaptation to vegetarian diets from omnivore status (seen in fish and certain mammals like specific populations of cervids. ). Is it rapid adaptation or "neutral"

Being a "Lamarkian " or a pan-adaptationalist or " Neo-Darwinist" or "Neutral theorist" have recently been overused by IDers and Creationists to make it appear that a great schism resides in the scientific world,and it just aint so.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/19/2019 at 07:13:33