Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Whether you actually believe it or not is immaterial, you should first really spend time to learn . I suggested earlier "The Making of the Fittest" by Sean Carroll. I also suggest that you read Darwin to understand what he really said. You seem to miss entirely the ways Darwin incorporated his experiments in ARTIFICIAL SELECTION (sorta like making a Mustang in the animal kingdom) as a tool in the way evolutionary mechanisms can present themselves. He covers this in two chapters of "On the Origin of Species... and does a really complete job inThe Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication

Darwin was flummoxed why certain phenotypic expressions showed up in whole packages (fan tailing of pigeon went along with callosties on the pigeon bk an a habit for "tumbling"). Weve known since the 1940' that genetic expressions for certain phenotypic expressions dont necessarily occur "in line" or "one at a time".
The Russians whove been doing work in selecting arctic(fur) foxes to be more tolerant of human contact, hive learnt that the phenotype traits has occurred in big bunches. As successive generations of foxes became more positively responsive to humans, theyve taken on a host of :Cuteness (micro)traits (floppy ears, larger puppy-like eyes, piebald color, shorter snouts etc. vocalization All this happened in about 20 years(I guess less than 40 generation). Russia had then only recently abandoned Lysenkowist "genetics" as the state science.
Weve set the "social environment" and the foxs have adapted in less than 100 generations.

That video provides no explanation to how the the information was placed in the DNA code to provide the physiological changes for the morphological changes necessary for the tremendous jumps in complexity between the examples of the different types of eyes. There is no example in the fossil record that ties the examples given in the video together in a sequence that would be evidence for gradual evolutionary change to the eye. The video showed Darwin saying just because we can't imagine the mechanism that provides the information for the changes in the physiology doesn't mean it didn't happen. Well I would like some evidence. If I don't have evidence all I have is my imagination. I would like to see a pattern of it happening somewhere else in nature. I would like to see the catalytic converter appear on a car without an engineer. That would be a pattern I could use with my imagination to compare.

So are you saying we don't need engineers in manufacturing plants to make evolutionary jumps in automobile design? But the engineers provide the information. Without them there is no catalytic converter. I believe in evolution of both cars and living organisms. If all I have a million years from now is the poster hanging on the dealers wall showing the pictures of the model changes from year to year the Ford Mustang darwinian Evolutionists would use the poster to prove there never were any engineers. They would say all we need is the raw materials the factory workers and a photographer.

Im pitchin but you aint catchin.
F. Leghorn

I'm not familiar with the history of ID and their talking points. My take is to approach it open-mindedly, looking at the possible arguments for and against it. I don't particularly mind if some people see life as too beautiful and complex to have evolved haphazardly. I understand the feeling. I just think they underestimate the sheer power of time. Given enough time, anything that can happen will happen.

I don't understand the question, sorry.

You mean an animated cartoon and a real live scientist using a mouse trap as a tie clip isn't enough evidence!? How could you be so obtuse! Here perfectly reasonable people present you with absolute proof and you refuse to believe. You are truly hopeless.

The bible is right - 'There are none so blind as he who will not see.'

Nobody with brains or talent believes in evolution any more. Evolution is being defended only by academic dead wood.

a tiny drop of thread spam


___


A2k's 13th annual NFL pick-um thread is getting started over here

https://able2know.org/topic/411302-1#post-6498126

First game is tomorrow night!

Little to no NFL knowledge required. Ability to have fun is a requirement.

Hope to see some of you over there.

Nobody really minds ID, its a beautiful story, but theres no way to test it or even develop evidence> My concern with all this is that we get Fndamentalists driving science classes in public schools. THAT is still a living thing in the US. Guys like gunga actually believe their crap even thoug its all fact and evidence free

I understand the US-specific concern here. Nothing I can do though.

I think that at least some of the ID versions I read about here are actually testable, and the results from these tests don't look too good.

The history of ID comes from the Bible. http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-1.htm

I think there's a difference between ID -- or the verious ideas going by that label -- and classic young-earth creationism. ID states that God drives evolution, that He steers it and nudges it along. It does not deny evolution.

One possible exposition of ID:

Pope Francis Says Science and Faith Aren't at Odds
Teresa Welsh • Oct. 28, 2014, at 6:02 p.m.

Word that Pope Francis on Monday said that faith and creationism aren’t at odds with one another may have shocked many Americans, but the comments don’t actually reflect any deviation from long-standing church teaching.

“The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it,” Francis said, speaking at a ceremony in the Vatican Gardens inaugurating a bronze bust in honor of his successor [sic] Pope Benedict XVI. “The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/28/pope-francis-comments-on-evolution-and-the-catholic-church

You keep pitching the fossil record, which is like the picture on the dealers wall portraying the evolution of the model changes of the Ford Mustang. All the fossil record and the poster do is record the changes in evolution they do not provide a mechanism. The mechanism is going to be proven by modeling comparable systems of evolution.

So let's compare models of evolution.

The organisms are living ( the factory has living workers also) which allows for dynamic change that wouldn't otherwise be possible if there weren't live organisms (or live workers). Both scenarios have changing environments which require evolution of the end product for it to survive.

In one scenario the blue prints are hung on the wall of the assembly line or programmed into robots in a factory, in the other the blueprints are stored in the DNA of a biological organism.

In one scenario an intelligent person realizes we need a backup camera is needed in the Ford Mustang to make it easier to park it so it can survive in the market. That intelligent person then goes to the assembly line and changes the blueprints hanging on the wall and reprograms the computers running the robots. In the other scenario biological information in the DNA is randomly changed in the blueprints, no need was recognized so, by luck a new organism is born with a simple shadow sensor which might help it keep from running into things, or finding food. This might help it to survive in the environment. But, the environment is providing the need for an eyeball. It would would work much better, similar to a completely functioning camera. Multiple layers of complex structures are needed now for the eye to function like the camera (lenses, sensors, digital storing, of the data, and a computer to analyze the data and develope a proper response). If random mutations (which are blind to the environment) are to provide the changes in the DNA, how does it know to put the lense of the eye on the eye, and not behind the head or not mix it in with new layers of complexity being added to the organism at same time, in the ear, nose, and sex organs, which are all evolving at the same time as the complex processor that is necessary for all this added complexity to work together. We can replicate the change in blueprints by using the factory as a model and show how complexity was added to the blueprints by engineering. We cannot build a model in a factory replicate Darwinian Evolution. That model would need to add such complexity using minute random changes to make changes to the blueprints in the right sequence overtime to get that sort of macroevolution. The video offered by Sentanta about the eye, was using the fossil record like the poster on the wall in the dealers office, and then throwing in a few far fetched untestable assumptions to find a way to replace the engineers with random mutations to explain the model changes. The assumptions don't provide any details. The main assumption, "we can't use engineered in anyway to describe to describe the mechanism of change in biological evolution" is based on what model? What data are you drawing your assumptions from?

We can observe new layers of complexity being added to the universe in "real time" only one way today, and that is by observing human creative intelligence. We can and I think should, use that as a model because it is the only one we have that actually models evolution accurately.

There are some differences. In the factory version model, we see the engineer make the changes to the blue prints in real time. In the biological evolution version the changes happen inside, "unobservable biological matter", in the DNA molecules. Plus, they happened in the distant past, so we lose the real time aspect. (Except when humans get involved with selective breeding or GMOs).

When comparing models, I think we are overlooking one important question which leads to another comparison between models. In the factory model, are we really observing the engineer making the changes? I suggest " no" for this reason. The idea of changing the blueprints of the Ford Mustang (intelligence) enters the universe by changing the spin of "unobservable biological matter" in the atoms and molecules in the engineer's mind.

So far it appears from modeling, that we have observed only two ways for information for changing or evolving highly complex structures to enter our universe. Both require living biological matter. One is DNA, the other is the human mind. Both look like they could and should be a suitable model for the other from which we should be able to make comparisons.

One model (with little argument among scientists) reveals as the triggering mechanism, the entry of intelligence into the universe through "unobservable biological matter" to introduce the changes necessary for evolving the Ford Mustang to guarantee its survival. The other model reveals random mutations as the mechanism introduced through "unobservable biological matter", to make the changes necessary to DNA for evolving biological organisms to guarantee their survival in a changing environment. The first model is happening in real time and can be replicated. The second is purely hypothetical and cannot be replicated in a real time model for verification. Why can't the "unobservable biological matter" in DNA be an entry point for creative intelligence to guide the evolution of living organisms, thus completing the model comparison in a logical way?

The "mechanism" doesn't matter, because it's natural (nature). It happens based on the DNA and the environment.
https://www.genome.gov/10001177/dna-sequencing-fact-sheet/
BTW, there's a huge difference between human engineering and nature. The design of cars isn't the same as changes in biology.

Instead of showing me the poster on the wall (fossil record) with that post, you showed me the blue prints for the factory to use (DNA). What's the mechanism that triggers the introduction of the correct changes to the DNA?

BTW what is the huge difference between human engineering and nature?

I found this very interesting:


I like the idea of a god waiting a billion years until blue algae produced enough oxygen for more complex life to exist. I like it better than the idea of a god clicking His fingers and saying: "Let O2 be!" on the first day. That's so facile. But creating blue algae SO THAT hundreds of million years of photosynthesis would eventually create enough oxygen, that's smart, right?

Of course, it implies a very patient god, an admirably humble god able to take the time it takes (4 billion years) to produce, through patient DNA coding and tempering, a creature able to worship Him ...

Or is it Her? Meet Kali, the goddess of time, preservation, transformation and destruction, the eater of demons, the trampler of Shiva:

Human's tamper with what is already available. Nature is natural evolution.

Maybe Kali is one of the demiurge God destroyed in the flood.