Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

A problem of Gradualism and the Survival of the Fittest within Evolutionary Theory.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    JohnMartin uses the same criteria for evidence of evolution that certain atheists here use for evidence of a god, yet they see fit to criticise him for using the same yardstick that they themselves do.
    This post still bothers me a lot, and questions whether you have a respect for science.

    Atheist reject the existence of God, because of the lack of objective verifiable evidence for the existence of God.

    Does John Martin reject evolution and a 13+ billion year old earth, because of a lack of objective verifiable evidence, or 'proof' as a many fundamentalist Theists claim with a self-imposed ignorance of science.

    Waiting for an answer . . .
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-23-2017, 09:04 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Atheist reject the existence of God, because of the lack of objective verifiable evidence for the existence of God.

      Does John Martin reject evolution and a 13+ billion year old earth, because of a lack of objective verifiable evidence

      Waiting for an answer . . .
      JM imposes his own criteria for "verifiable evidence" on the records - as do atheists. Both reject, and reject the possibility of, anything outside their world view being acceptable evidence. While I might agree to some extent that the evidence for a god could be questionable, the atheist viewpoint commonly rejects reliable evidence for the veracity of the Bible itself - though the latter action is not restricted to atheists alone, but also includes a large number of commentators who are more or less on the Christian side of the fence.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        JM imposes his own criteria for "verifiable evidence" on the records - as do atheists. Both reject, and reject the possibility of, anything outside their world view being acceptable evidence.
        The Evolutionary evidence is beyond question. It lies in the linking together of verified facts from several different disciplines, e.g. from the fossil record, cladistic analysis and genomics. When all the independent lines of evidence all point to the same answer, we can feel perfectly justified in considering it settled science. To deny this is to argue that virtually all living scientists and living biologists, all major university biology departments, every major science journal and every major science organisation in the world, is wrong and that you are right. This is highly unlikely.

        While I might agree to some extent that the evidence for a god could be questionable, the atheist viewpoint commonly rejects reliable evidence for the veracity of the Bible itself - though the latter action is not restricted to atheists alone, but also includes a large number of commentators who are more or less on the Christian side of the fence.
        There is no reliable evidence for the veracity of the Bible. “ In contrast to the relative stability of the New Testament text in later times, our oldest witnesses display a remarkable degree of variation. The evidence suggests that during the earliest period of its transmission the New Testament text was in a state of flux, that it became standardised in some regions by the fourth century, and subject to fairly rigid control (by comparison) only in the Byzantine period. (B. D. Ehrman, ‘The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture: The Effect Of Early Christological Controversies On The Text Of The New Testament’,
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • My comment says:
          Point A: "JM makes up rules of evidence which enable him to deny the existence of any evidence which supports the veracity of the theory of evolution."
          Point B: "Atheists make up rules of evidence which enable them to deny the existence of any evidence which supports the veracity of the existence of God."

          The yard-stick is one and the same for both ... I never said that they were measuring the same thing.
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
            In other words, you get to define what "more from less" is in a way that makes evolution impossible, but everything else fine?

            EDITED TO ADD: a test of this hypothesis. Jon, is a single cell developing into a mature organism more from less? If not, why not?
            The acts of generation, nourishment and growth which cause cells to form into a mature organism do not infer more from less, but only more is caused by mlutiple causes. Such causes include the soul with its powers of nourishment and growth, along with the corresponding biological causes of nourishment and growth and the addition of energy through food. All the causes act together to produce the final effect in the mature orgnanism. But at no stage in the organism growth is there ever a breach of less from more. There is never more from less in biology, or any science.

            JM

            Comment


            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              Actually John, you assume much more than that. You assume that what you call grave threats will always come to exist, and that all species will face them simultaneously. EVERYONE understand that extinctions occur, and EVERYONE understand that sometimes they occur because of the evolution of a predator that annihilates the prey faster than it can adapt. As I said earlier, mankind is itself just such a threat to many species on the Earth. But without your ADDITIONAL conditions of universailty and simultanaity, life continues to evolve.

              The reality is your extra assumptions simply are not reality. They are not required. Nor are they the norm.

              For your conclusion to be true, such a threat must have sufficient scope and frequency as to wipe out all species simultaneously. And that simply has not happened on the Earth for over 3 billion years. As long as some subset of life survives the threat, it can go on to evolve a new set of life. There are several mass extinctions known in the history of life on the Earth.

              Source: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/dinosaurs-ancient-fossils-new-discoveries/extinction/mass-extinction/



              Ordovician-silurian Extinction:
              Small marine organisms died out. (440 mya)

              Devonian Extinction:
              Many tropical marine species went extinct. (365 mya)

              Permian-triassic Extinction:
              The largest mass extinction event in Earth's history affected a range of species, including many vertebrates. (250 mya)

              Triassic-jurassic Extinction:
              The extinction of other vertebrate species on land allowed dinosaurs to flourish. (210 mya)

              Cretaceous-tertiary Extinction: (65.5 mya)

              © Copyright Original Source



              life continued in each case. As my arguments shows, in the absense of your universal, simultaneous threat - which is the NORM - life evolves.


              Jim
              In principle if a threat is grave, it will cause extinction and no time is available for evoluton. If the threat is not grave, then there is not sufficient reason for evolution to occur. Either way, if the threat is grave, or not grave, there are reasons for evolution not to occur.

              JM

              Comment


              • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                Except for the case of an oak tree (more) coming from an acorn (less). That one simple example which refutes your nonsense scared you so badly you wouldn't touch it.
                The acorn is a living organism with a soul. The soul has powers of nourishment and growth, which act with biological causes to bring the acorn to the full oak tree. The oak has more being than the acorn, but the process to cause the oak never breaches less from more.

                JM

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                  JM: Feathers for flight must have started as something non-functional.
                  Naďvete: No, feathers for flight probably evolved from feathers used to cushion animals during falls.
                  JM: Feathers for preventing falls must have started as something non-functional.
                  Naďvete: No, feathers for preventing falls could have evolved from feathers used in courtship displays - as the feathers got larger, they incidentally became more supportive.
                  JM: Feathers for courtship display must have started as something non-functional.
                  Neophyte: No, feathers for courtship display probably evolved from small feathers used for insulation, that gradually became larger and more colourful.
                  JM: Feathers for insulation must have started as something non-functional.
                  Neophyte: No, feathers are modified scales in which the surface ridge became more tenebrous and divided.
                  JM: Ridged scales must have started as something non-functional.
                  Irritatee: No, ridged scales are hardened scales that provide better protection from predators, and may also assist movement by providing streamlining.
                  JM: Hardened scales must have started as something non-functional.
                  Ennuite: No, hardened scales are simply scales that have evolved thickness as a protection against predators and the environment.
                  JM: Scales must have started as something non-functional.
                  Ennuite: No, scales originated as ridges and folds of skin, much like the ridges of fingerprints but bigger.
                  JM: Folds of skin must have started as something non-functional.
                  Veteran: No, folds of skin are simply skin that has increased in area compared to the body that supports it, as might happen when a creature's structural development slows.
                  JM: Skin must have started as something non-functional.
                  Veteran: No, skin is a specialised cell with thick, non-porous walls.
                  JM: Thick cell walls must have started as something non-functional.
                  Commando: No, Thickened cell wall can be formed by taking a standard cell wall and increasing the amount of cell membrane on the side that is not adjacent to other cells.
                  JM: Cell wall must have started as something non-functional.
                  Commando: No, cell walls evolved from simple membranes by the addition of specialised pores for transporting molecules and energy.
                  JM: Membranes must have started as something non-functional.
                  Marathoner: No, membranes are considered to have originated as layers of directional lipids that formed a barrier between the inside of a proto-cell and the external environment.
                  JM: Lipid layers must have started as something non-functional.
                  Marathoner: No, lipid layers are simply large groups of lipids. It's not hard to see that an organism that produced lipids may enhance it's production of them.
                  JM: Lipids must have started as something non-functional.
                  Saint: Actually, lipids include fats and fatty acids, which can be used by an organism to store energy.
                  JM: Fatty acids must have started as something non-functional.
                  Saint: No, fatty acids are similar to carboxylic acids, which can donate H+ ions.
                  JM: Carboxylic acids must have started as something non-functional.
                  Minor deity: Well, carboxylic acids are very similar to amino acids, so it's likely that the former were produced from the latter in pre-biotic chemistry.
                  JM: Amino acids must have started as something non-functional.
                  Minor deity: Well, amino acids have been found in meteorites, so they can be generated from simple naturally occurring compounds such as water, CO2, etc. They can combine to form proteins, but don't actually do much by themselves.
                  JM: See? Evolution requires non-functional organs! I am vindicated! Evolution is a fraudulent hoax!
                  [devastating explosion]
                  So much faith in material naturalism and atheism. Yet both are false. So much faith in evolution with the millions of transitional forms to cause functional organs, yet the theory is only a hyper-extrapolation of trivial results to account for the origins of the rest of biological life. Such faith in such trash. For the entire process is simply more from less.

                  JM

                  Comment


                  • If circumstances are extreme, extinction will result. However, circumstances that impose stress are survivable by some members of a species, which go on to produce offspring that have the traits which made it possible. That is seen even in humans, where populations can survive on water that would poison most ordinary people.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                      The acorn is a living organism with a soul. The soul has powers of nourishment and growth, which act with biological causes to bring the acorn to the full oak tree. The oak has more being than the acorn, but the process to cause the oak never breaches less from more.

                      JM
                      JM,

                      That is interesting. Where do you get the notion that oak trees have a soul? Please explain your thinking or source for this.
                      Thanks.
                      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                        The acorn is a living organism with a soul. The soul has powers of nourishment and growth, which act with biological causes to bring the acorn to the full oak tree. The oak has more being than the acorn, but the process to cause the oak never breaches less from more.

                        JM
                        Ignorant hand waving non-answer noted. JM can't explain the observed instances of more coming from less.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                          In principle if a threat is grave, it will cause extinction and no time is available for evoluton. If the threat is not grave, then there is not sufficient reason for evolution to occur. Either way, if the threat is grave, or not grave, there are reasons for evolution not to occur.

                          JM
                          There's a huge amount of ground between the two end points "will cause immediate extinction" and "has no effect". Population can and do react and evolve to smaller selection pressures such as gradual temperature change or gradual increase in threat from predators. JM is too afraid to deal with those cases however.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                            In principle if a threat is grave, it will cause extinction and no time is available for evoluton. If the threat is not grave, then there is not sufficient reason for evolution to occur. Either way, if the threat is grave, or not grave, there are reasons for evolution not to occur.

                            JM
                            The second half of your statement is patently false. There are a large number of drivers of evolution that do not rise to the level of a grave threat. For example, changes in climate can drive evolution if they are gradual enough or if they force migration to an area the species is only marginally adapted. I already mentioned the issue of fitness plateas. There is no guarantee any species has reached such a plateau at any given time, meaning there is selective pressure to evolve. This evolution however introduces selective pressure on other species in the same region or competing for the same resources. And this introduces the fact that multiple species evolve together in a continued battle for success within their ecological niche.

                            You also forget the ever present element of disease which itself can introduce reasons to evolve both through change in a species or by changing the ecological balance of species through the extinction one or more.

                            There is more, but this alone is sufficient to demonstrate both the failure of your reasoning and your ignorance of the topic.

                            Jim
                            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-24-2017, 09:19 AM.
                            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                              JM imposes his own criteria for "verifiable evidence" on the records - as do atheists.
                              Perhaps. But what you actually said was "JohnMartin uses the same criteria for evidence of evolution that certain atheists here use for evidence of a god". Having personal criteria for evidence is very different from sharing JM's criteria for evidence.
                              While I might agree to some extent that the evidence for a god could be questionable, the atheist viewpoint commonly rejects reliable evidence for the veracity of the Bible itself.
                              Not that I am aware of. I think you are overstating the case here too.
                              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                                The acts of generation, nourishment and growth which cause cells to form into a mature organism do not infer more from less, but only more is caused by mlutiple causes.
                                Evolution is a combination of selection, random mutations, generation time, drift, etc. So it has multiple causes, and therefore doesn't violate your principle.

                                NB: this is not to accept that the principle is in any way valid. We still get the sun out of the strong force, whether you acknowledge it or not. But i figured why not play along?
                                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X