Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scientists Question Darwinism

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

  • The Barbarian
    replied
    Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Have you not heard that "birds are dinosaurs"? Do not your people, "science", say so, right here?
    In the same sense that you are a therapsid reptile, birds are dinosaurs. mammals evolved from therapsids, and birds evolved from dinosaurs. The old "lumper vs. splitter" thing.
    https://www.coursehero.com/file/p53h...mpers-seek-to/

    So, when you say that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, what you're saying is that...
    ...dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds. Yes. See the "lumper/splitter" site to learn about it.

    Bravo! Now, could you tell us something that "dinosaurs would be shown to be the ancestors of" that is NOT a dinosaur?
    Birds are the only known descendants of dinosaurs.

    Remember, "Birds are dinosaurs in the same sense that humans are reptiles."

    Leave a comment:


  • 7djengo7
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Biologists as early as Huxley predicted that dinosaurs would be shown to be the ancestors of birds, and that there must have been feathered dinosaurs.
    Have you not heard that "birds are dinosaurs"? Do not your people, "science", say so, right here?

    “There is no doubt that birds are dinosaurs,” says Luis Chiappe, director of the Dinosaur Institute at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. “The evidence is so overwhelming, I would put it next to whether you’re going to question if humans are primates.”
    So, when you say that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, what you're saying is that dinosaurs are the ancestors of dinosaurs. Bravo! Now, could you tell us something that "dinosaurs would be shown to be the ancestors of" that is NOT a dinosaur?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    Originally posted by Derf View Post
    Yes, I do--especially when applied with the evolutionistic slant. Nothing is therefore fully functional, because nothing is as it will become in the future.
    If you think that's the "evolutionist slant", we have found the problem. No wonder you don't like evolution; you have no idea what it is.

    "Fully functional" is not a term often seen in science, since it's so slippery. You seem to think that every living thing is "fully functional" because it lived.

    As you see, the various series of transitional forms cited by your fellow YE creationist as "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory" often show increasing functionality in various ways. Are all of them "fully functional", or are none of them "fully functional", or do you pick one in the series and announce that full functionality begins there?

    But yours is an outdated concept, given the complexity we've seen at the molecular level.
    Molecular biology has damaged YE creationism beyond repair. Not only does DNA document the same phylogenies first noted on the basis of anatomy, the more we dig into the nature of molecular life, the more it shows us common descent.

    Biologists as early as Huxley predicted that dinosaurs would be shown to be the ancestors of birds, and that there must have been feathered dinosaurs. Now we have many of them. But molecular biology made an unexpected contribution. One T. rex fossil had a little bit of heme remaining in the bone. That heme turned out to be more like that of birds than it was like heme of other reptiles. That finding is completely incomprehensible to creationists, but it's a prediction of evolutionary theory.

    Highly conserved molecules like cytochrome C, don't vary much across taxa, since they are very fundamental molecules involved in oxidative phosphorylation. But they do vary a bit, at sites that aren't actively involved in the enzymatic process. Comparing those differences across the taxa, we get the same phylogenies obtained by DNA and by homologies of structure.

    Again, completely incomprehensible to creationists, but a prediction of evolutionary theory. No, molecular biology is no friend of YE creationism.

    "Functional" is quite apparent.
    It's a word that one can use pretty much as one wishes.

    "Fully functional" might be misconstrued when we don't account for a cursed and groaning creation.
    As you know, God didn't curse creation for any but humans. He is a just God, after all. Animals don't have to farm to make a living, and female animals don't suffer giving birth. It was for us, not for them.

    I'm willing to drop the "fully", if that helps, but you've given plenty of evidence you understand the concept with your obfuscations.
    I'm asking hard questions, and showing you that the entire concept is a failure at explaining the transitionals we see.

    The way you used it was that God creates by contingency and necessity.
    He is God, after all.

    I appreciate the clarification that those are things God inserts into His creation,
    I never told you that. God never has to tinker with creation. He made such that it will do His will, without Him having to patch it up now and then. When He inserts things, they are miracles, and He does them to teach us something, not because He must do so.

    rather than things that He used to create. As such, if it was created "necessarily", but not immediately (in the 6 days, using whatever framework you choose) then God just set it on a path to completion. This is a deistic concept of creation, and wrong, as evidenced when the bible says He created in 6 days and then rested.
    No. God remains intimately involved with every particle of the world. We wouldn't even exist if He didn't. You're missing the point. He set up rules by which the world works and that is how He creates things in this world, excepting miracles. Deism is something very different. Do you see why?

    But even if that is the case, then it argues at least against a single common ancestor of all creatures,
    But your assumption is wrong, leading to a faulty conclusion.

    Now it's part of the creation, as you mentioned above. But if it's a part of creation, then He didn't create that part using necessity and contingency. I.e., He didn't create necessity and contingency using necessity and contingency.
    He merely willed the universe into being. Perhaps you could explain your idea a little more carefully?

    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Pretty much as long as I wanted. Long as you have trees that can hold you. And I was pretty small at the time. Couldn't do long leaps across space as saimangs and gibbens do. But then, neither can chimps. You figure chimps aren't fully functional brachiators?

    Are you beginning to see how "fully functional" is a slippery concept, good for obfuscation, and not much more, when it comes to organisms?
    Yes, I do--especially when applied with the evolutionistic slant. Nothing is therefore fully functional, because nothing is as it will become in the future. I can definitely see how that is obfuscating. Thanks for pointing it out.
    My point, exactly.
    Amen!

    But yours is an outdated concept, given the complexity we've seen at the molecular level. "Functional" is quite apparent. "Fully functional" might be misconstrued when we don't account for a cursed and groaning creation. I'm willing to drop the "fully", if that helps, but you've given plenty of evidence you understand the concept with your obfuscations.


    We're talking about divine providence, not God. God can make things deterministic just as He can make them contingent. It doesn't meant that God has to be deterministic or contingent. The Creator is not the creation.
    The way you used it was that God creates by contingency and necessity. I appreciate the clarification that those are things God inserts into His creation, rather than things that He used to create. As such, if it was created "necessarily", but not immediately (in the 6 days, using whatever framework you choose) then God just set it on a path to completion. This is a deistic concept of creation, and wrong, as evidenced when the bible says He created in 6 days and then rested. But even if that is the case, then it argues at least against a single common ancestor of all creatures, and at most against anything other than the "kinds" espoused by YE creationists.



    It's necessary to creation, since He made it so. He's quite capable of that.
    Now it's part of the creation, as you mentioned above. But if it's a part of creation, then He didn't create that part using necessity and contingency. I.e., He didn't create necessity and contingency using necessity and contingency. Thus it is only one possibly way God might have created. And is not evidenced in Genesis without some obfuscation.

    Do you think God can lie?
    That would be handled in a code of conduct, or a code of ethics, but not a code of creation.
    What's wrapping you up here is that God is eternal. He doesn't change at all, and so He is and will be what He always is. The "I am that I am."
    I don't see how I am wrapped up in that--maybe you could explain.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    The question of whether God can deliberately make a mistake is like the question "can God make a rock so big that He can't pick it up?

    You're asking the wrong question, which implies a non-eternal God. Different category of thing than anything else.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    Originally posted by Derf View Post
    You did all right swinging from trees? You mean you were able to function while staying in a tree most of the time and moving from branch to branch without using your legs over a long period of time?
    Pretty much as long as I wanted. Long as you have trees that can hold you. And I was pretty small at the time. Couldn't do long leaps across space as saimangs and gibbens do. But then, neither can chimps. You figure chimps aren't fully functional brachiators?

    Are you beginning to see how "fully functional" is a slippery concept, good for obfuscation, and not much more, when it comes to organisms?

    But anyway, since you don't recognize even fully-functioning brachiators as fully-functional, what meaning can we attach to your statements?
    My point, exactly.

    I asked what is "necessity" to God
    Those things that He conceives to be deterministic.

    I think you're confusing absolute and conditional necessities.
    Nope.

    If something is necessary for God to exist,
    We're talking about divine providence, not God. God can make things deterministic just as He can make them contingent. It doesn't meant that God has to be deterministic or contingent. The Creator is not the creation.

    then God isn't the definer of "necessary". If God is using "necessity" in His creation, and He defines what it means, it's a non-sequitor--it isn't necessary to God--He doesn't need it to exist, nor to make other things exist.
    It's necessary to creation, since He made it so. He's quite capable of that.

    I.e., He's not bound to some "code of creation" that He has to follow.
    Do you think God can lie?

    What's wrapping you up here is that God is eternal. He doesn't change at all, and so He is and will be what He always is. The "I am that I am."

    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    I used to do that all the time. I would have been better if I had curved digits, longer arms, and shorter legs, but even if I wasn't a fully-function brachiator, I did all right.
    You did all right swinging from trees? You mean you were able to function while staying in a tree most of the time and moving from branch to branch without using your legs over a long period of time?

    But anyway, since you don't recognize even fully-functioning brachiators as fully-functional, what meaning can we attach to your statements?



    I asked what is "necessity" to God
    As Aquinas writes, whatever He wishes it to be.
    I think you're confusing absolute and conditional necessities. If something is necessary for God to exist, then God isn't the definer of "necessary". If God is using "necessity" in His creation, and He defines what it means, it's a non-sequitor--it isn't necessary to God--He doesn't need it to exist, nor to make other things exist. I.e., He's not bound to some "code of creation" that He has to follow.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    Originally posted by Derf View Post
    Sometimes humans die because they can't maintain a constant temp. One version of this is called "hypothermia". Humans would also die often if they needed to swing from trees.
    I used to do that all the time. I would have been better if I had curved digits, longer arms, and shorter legs, but even if I wasn't a fully-function brachiator, I did all right.

    They must not be fully functional.
    Right. Fortunately, we are adapted for walking on two legs. But we're not fully-functional there, either. Because we evolved from quadrupeds, we have a lot of back, knee, hip, and foot problems. Biomechanically, we are far from optimum.

    By that definition, no creature is fully-functional.
    And that is why the "fully-functional" story is such a woofer. It's not the way evolution works.

    And yes, by YOUR usage, "not fully-functional" is the same as "deficient".
    Nope. Feel free to show otherwise.

    I think where this leads is to the idea that we are still working to achieve full-functionality
    How do you think one would "work" to "achieve full-funtionality?"

    because there might be an improvement on some part of us--some evolution step--that isn't quite complete. Maybe we can eventually change our gender at will,
    You think that would be an improvement?

    Or maybe if a creature isn't God Himself, it's not fully functional. That is where evolution must eventually take us: "You can be like God, if you'll just swallow this."
    That makes no sense to a Christian. We were like God right after the Fall.

    Maybe the tails made them slower, so they couldn't escape the flood for as long as the tail-less ones.
    I have no idea where that came from. Our tails are much too short to be of any effect on anything. In fact, some humans lack a coccyx entirely and never know it, until it turns up on an x-ray.

    You seem to have locked onto the current secular narrative like that's the best anyone will ever come up with.
    Maybe you spend more time on the "current secular narrative" than I do. I have no idea what you're carrying on about.

    Ah, so you do believe God creates by trial and error.
    Barbarian observes:
    You're big on projection, aren't you?

    I don't have a problem with God using contingency in His divine providence, because it acknowledges that other agents exist. But what is "necessity" for an all-powerful God?
    As Aquinas writes, whatever He wishes it to be.

    Are you saying there is a something outside of God that God has to abide by to get something done?
    I think you're projecting, again. Maybe you should explain better what you mean.

    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    You're confusing "deficient" with "fully functional." Not the same thing. Monotremes occasionally die because they can't maintain a constant temp, but they usually do O.K. with a partially-functional form of temperature regulation.

    Apes don't have fully functional hands, because their need for climbing means longer fingers and a relatively weak and poorly opposable thumb. For them, it's not deficient, even if it's not fully-functional.
    Sometimes humans die because they can't maintain a constant temp. One version of this is called "hypothermia". Humans would also die often if they needed to swing from trees. They must not be fully functional. By that definition, no creature is fully-functional. And yes, by YOUR usage, "not fully-functional" is the same as "deficient". (Read back over some of your posts with an open mind, and you will see what I'm talking about.)

    I think where this leads is to the idea that we are still working to achieve full-functionality, because there might be an improvement on some part of us--some evolution step--that isn't quite complete. Maybe we can eventually change our gender at will, or some such. Is that what you are suggesting?

    Or maybe if a creature isn't God Himself, it's not fully functional. That is where evolution must eventually take us: "You can be like God, if you'll just swallow this."


    You see, "fully-functional" is your determination what God intended to do, and it's a door that swings both ways. And that is exactly what you've done, determined what God intended to do.

    Early pterosaurs (such as Dimorphodon) had long tails that assisted balance, but later pterosaurs (such as Pterodactylus) had no tails, and so may have been more maneuverable flyers.


    Barbarian observes:
    It's like flying a kite without a tail. It can be done, but it requires much more skill. Early pterosaurs were not fully functional flyers, requiring that long "kit tail" to stay in the air. Later pterosaurs were far less stable, but much more maneuverable, becoming fully functional fliers.
    Maybe the tails made them slower, so they couldn't escape the flood for as long as the tail-less ones. You seem to have locked onto the current secular narrative like that's the best anyone will ever come up with. Time will prove you wrong, as it has proven so many other narratives false.


    Here, you're merely assuming that God is insufficiently wise and powerful (lame?) to use contingency as well as necessity in His divine providence.

    Thanks for that lovely admission.
    You're big on projection, aren't you?

    I don't have a problem with God using contingency in His divine providence, because it acknowledges that other agents exist. But what is "necessity" for an all-powerful God? Are you saying there is a something outside of God that God has to abide by to get something done? Maybe you should explain better what you mean.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    Originally posted by Derf View Post
    Same goes for you--ONLY if you define monotremes as needing to be fully endothermic can you reach the conclusion that they are somehow deficient in their heat-regulation.
    You're confusing "deficient" with "fully functional." Not the same thing. Monotremes occasionally die because they can't maintain a constant temp, but they usually do O.K. with a partially-functional form of temperature regulation.

    Apes don't have fully functional hands, because their need for climbing means longer fingers and a relatively weak and poorly opposable thumb. For them, it's not deficient, even if it's not fully-functional.

    You see, "fully-functional" is your determination what God intended to do, and it's a door that swings both ways. And that is exactly what you've done, determined what God intended to do.

    Early pterosaurs (such as Dimorphodon) had long tails that assisted balance, but later pterosaurs (such as Pterodactylus) had no tails, and so may have been more maneuverable flyers.


    Barbarian observes:
    It's like flying a kite without a tail. It can be done, but it requires much more skill. Early pterosaurs were not fully functional flyers, requiring that long "kit tail" to stay in the air. Later pterosaurs were far less stable, but much more maneuverable, becoming fully functional fliers.

    Ah, so you do believe God creates by trial and error.
    Here, you're merely assuming that God is insufficiently wise and powerful (lame?) to use contingency as well as necessity in His divine providence.

    Thanks for that lovely admission.
    Last edited by The Barbarian; June 24, 2019, 08:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by Derf View Post
    Well, he might start out lame, but then, over millions and billions of years, he becomes less lame.

    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
    His "god" is lame.
    Well, he might start out lame, but then, over millions and billions of years, he becomes less lame.

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by Derf View Post
    Ah, so you do believe God creates by trial and error. Thanks for that lovely admission.
    His "god" is lame.

    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    (assertion that transitionals are "fully functional")

    Barbarian observes:
    That's obviously not the case. For example, early whales were not fully functional as marine mammals. Early pterosaurs were not fully functional fliers. Monotremes are not fully endothermic. And so on.


    Barbarian follows up with:
    Here, you're merely telling God what to do. You don't know what He intends for monotremes. Even creationists like those of the Institute for Creation Research and "Answers in Genesis" admit that natural selection can increase fitness in a population and even produce new species, genera, and families.

    Only if you define "fully functioning monotreme" as "not fully functioning as an endotherm." You can't define away your problem here. Each time, you just cause yourself another problem with an additional assumption.
    Same goes for you--ONLY if you define monotremes as needing to be fully endothermic can you reach the conclusion that they are somehow deficient in their heat-regulation. But that is exactly what you've done, in all three of these cases--determined what God intended to do and proposed that He hasn't yet done it.

    But in all of these cases they functioned just fine for how they were. They weren't seals stuck on land, four-footed beasts banished to the sea, or land or sea animals trying to make it in the air without wings. If they evolved by losing a balancing tail here or there, you can hardly make the case that they must have then all had the same ancestor. And finding animals in the niches between land and sea is quite interesting indeed, but hardly proof of them descending one to another. That's all conjecture. Maybe it's good conjecture, or maybe it's bad. But it's still conjecture. And science is all about overturning previous generations' conjecture. Wait for it...


    No.

    Early pterosaurs (such as Dimorphodon) had long tails that assisted balance, but later pterosaurs (such as Pterodactylus) had no tails, and so may have been more maneuverable flyers.

    The Wright Flyer was longitudinally unstable (see here for more). Once aircraft designers learned that aircraft can be made to fly stable, and learned that this is of immense benefit in pilot training, static stability became a requirement for new aircraft. When war in Europe broke out, the British forces were equipped with a superb training aircraft, but it was so stable that it took effort and time to convince it to change course. They were shot down in droves.

    From now on, low stability was a prime requirement for fighters and aerobatic aircraft. Static stability is proportional to the control forces (more precisely: To the hinge moment of the respective control surface), so reducing stability gave pilots more response for the same effort. Longitudinal static stability is measured as the relative distance between neutral point (NP) and the center of gravity (CG). See here for more. Longitudinal static stability is achieved by placing the CG ahead of the NP. Shifting the CG back gives you a more responsive airplane, but also one which is more easily disturbed by gusts.

    https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q...an-cant-fly-on

    It's like flying a kite without a tail. It can be done, but it requires much more skill. Early pterosaurs were not fully functional flyers, requiring that long "kit tail" to stay in the air. Later pterosaurs were far less stable, but much more maneuverable, becoming fully functional fliers.
    Ah, so you do believe God creates by trial and error. Thanks for that lovely admission.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    (assertion that transitionals are "fully functional")

    Barbarian observes:
    That's obviously not the case. For example, early whales were not fully functional as marine mammals. Early pterosaurs were not fully functional fliers. Monotremes are not fully endothermic. And so on.

    Originally posted by Derf View Post
    Monotremes aren't supposed to be fully endothermic.
    Here, you're merely telling God what to do. You don't know what He intends for monotremes. Even creationists like those of the Institute for Creation Research and "Answers in Genesis" admit that natural selection can increase fitness in a population and even produce new species, genera, and families.

    How do you know He's done with them?

    You're assuming a standard for them that doesn't exist. They ARE fully functional as monotremes.
    Only if you define "fully functioning monotreme" as "not fully functioning as an endotherm." You can't define away your problem here. Each time, you just cause yourself another problem with an additional assumption.

    Pterosaurs were great fliers. Even early ones.
    No.

    Early pterosaurs (such as Dimorphodon) had long tails that assisted balance, but later pterosaurs (such as Pterodactylus) had no tails, and so may have been more maneuverable flyers.

    The Wright Flyer was longitudinally unstable (see here for more). Once aircraft designers learned that aircraft can be made to fly stable, and learned that this is of immense benefit in pilot training, static stability became a requirement for new aircraft. When war in Europe broke out, the British forces were equipped with a superb training aircraft, but it was so stable that it took effort and time to convince it to change course. They were shot down in droves.

    From now on, low stability was a prime requirement for fighters and aerobatic aircraft. Static stability is proportional to the control forces (more precisely: To the hinge moment of the respective control surface), so reducing stability gave pilots more response for the same effort. Longitudinal static stability is measured as the relative distance between neutral point (NP) and the center of gravity (CG). See here for more. Longitudinal static stability is achieved by placing the CG ahead of the NP. Shifting the CG back gives you a more responsive airplane, but also one which is more easily disturbed by gusts.

    https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q...an-cant-fly-on

    It's like flying a kite without a tail. It can be done, but it requires much more skill. Early pterosaurs were not fully functional flyers, requiring that long "kit tail" to stay in the air. Later pterosaurs were far less stable, but much more maneuverable, becoming fully functional fliers.

    "Early whales" were land animals according to your theory. Like "pakicetus" which was at first thought to be semi-aquatic,
    No. It was first thought to be marine. You see, the skull was found first, and it's well-adapted for water, including the sigmoid ear bone that allows better hearing in water. Later, when the rest of the skeleton was found, scientists learned it was adapted for water, but still capable of moving on land very well. Ambulocetus, on the other hand, was mostly aquatic, but still somewhat functional on land. Dorudon was probably less functional on land than a seal is today.

    But the only reason why it is called an "early whale" and named a whale is because they wanted a whale ancestor.
    No, you were misled about that. They called it a whale, because the skull had the characteristics of a whale skull. And lacking the postcranial skeleton, they didn't realize it was a very primitive member of the order.

    This is the cart leading the horse.
    Rather, it's the evidence leading the conclusion. The skull was that of a primitive whale, so they called it a whale. This is exactly what I've been talking about. Creationist objections, as noted above, are based mostly in not knowing the evidence or the circumstances.

    The misunderstandings drive the "objections", until the facts get so overwhelming they have to abandon that part of the narrative. But the belief which produced the narrative is never abandoned, because it is all creationists have when no evidence is allowed.

    You should be different, and I'm surprised that you fight so hard to change scripture to match up with a modern revision of the Bible that keeps having to change its mind.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X