Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1278 by kenblogton]


1. Any kind of transition or shift - as abrupt as you want it - necessitates the existence of a dimension in which they are separate.

2. You can't refer to a temporal 'jump' to describe how time itself is separate from something.
You have to speculatively invent an 'ontological dimension'.

Reply to 1. The physical and spiritual are not separated by dimensions; that is an unnecessary restriction which you are imposing.

Reply to 2. If time begins at the big bang, there is no temporal jump, and you don't speculatively need to invent anything.
kenblogton

A. It's probably best that you continue this and the above in the Reasons to believe God exists thread, but regardless, this isn't what I meant.

I meant, you're saying that there's "nothing" and THEN "something (inc. time)", but the very use of the word "then", as abrupt as the interval is, necessitates the existence of time.
If you do want a transition between "nothing" and something, you need a dimension to transition across (if they are separate then there is at least one dimension). But you can't appeal to time to do this.

In fact, to emphasise how problematic it is to speculate another dimension, if you (like some theologians) were to say "I mean ontologically prior" - this would be a misleading use of the word prior. Indeed, if we were to use another word for separation for another dimension, we could say "I mean that there was a first cause left of the big bang" - but this doesn't confer the philosophical baggage that is usually attributed by a-theorists onto time. You would be saying "effect follows cause temporally all of the time except really cause is left of effect and sometimes that's not a temporal transition"

B. For stuff relevant/semi relevant to evolution:

many of the chemicals are known to generate from inorganic conditions.
" Because there has been no successful replication of life creation in any lab simulation, it is best to apply Occam’s razor and state that the cause of life was not “spontaneous generation� but began with a “big bang.� “Big bang� is as far as Science can go with respect to the cause of life. Philosophically, one can confidently state life was caused by the creative entity.

This is not application of Occam's razor at all. What is even meant by a "big bang" origin of life? If anything, it's the contrary of Occam's razor - take the spontaneous arisal of life, and add in "god did it". It'd be an argument from ignorance regardless.

Obviously abiogenesis isn't going to be easily recreated in a lab, life could've taken up to 500 or so million years to develop. Across the entire planet. But we're expected to believe that if it did that in 5 months we should see it develop in a small lab.

However, there is virtually no paleontological evidence to support the notion of intermediate species leading to final species;

Final species?
The very suggestion that there is such a thing is already taking it as given that evolution is false. Current species that will lead to others are intermediate species. Many fossils observably appear to be transitive between different species.

the fossil record reflects only final species. Therefore, again, it is best to apply Occam’s razor and state that the causes of the various species are the result not of “evolution� but of species “big bangs.� “Big bangs� is as far as Science can go with respect to the cause of the various species. Philosophically, one can confidently state the various species were caused by the creative entity.

This is not application of Occam's razor - once again, it's an argument from ignorance, and once again, it's hostile to the razor.
Taking "Species arose" and adding "God" flies in the face of Occam's razor.

Reply to A. I used 'then' because I couldn't think of another term to differentiate the state when there was no physical. I understand your suggestion is that there be some dimensional transition to the occurrence of the physical. That is wanting to put it on a continuum, which is setting up a straw man. Non-physical to physical is a dimensional shift.

Reply to B. What I say is correct. What you offer are excuses or rationalizations.
The big bang origin of life is like the big bang origin of the universe. No universe then universe. No life forms then life forms. Without successful abiogenesis, spontaneous generation is mere speculation.
There is no conclusive demonstration of evolution from one specie to another. Species big bangs accurately describes the data.
Of course these are applications of Occam's razor. Theories which are mere speculation with no proven explanatory value are best discarded.
kenblogton

kenblogton

[Jashwell]

Reply to A. I used 'then' because I couldn't think of another term to differentiate the state when there was no physical. I understand your suggestion is that there be some dimensional transition to the occurrence of the physical. That is wanting to put it on a continuum, which is setting up a straw man. Non-physical to physical is a dimensional shift.

It doesn't need to be continuous to be a dimension.
A mathematical space may be discrete (actually, some quantum field hypotheses predict that physical spacetime is to some level discrete).

The point is that you need to assume there is an additional dimension in order to make a change of state possible, and if all that's notable of that transition is simply a justification to say it's possible to jump from no thing to some thing without other dimensions, it seems ad hoc.

Reply to B. What I say is correct. What you offer are excuses or rationalizations.
The big bang origin of life is like the big bang origin of the universe. No universe then universe. No life forms then life forms. Without successful abiogenesis, spontaneous generation is mere speculation.
There is no conclusive demonstration of evolution from one specie to another. Species big bangs accurately describes the data.
Of course these are applications of Occam's razor. Theories which are mere speculation with no proven explanatory value are best discarded.
kenblogton
kenblogton

"Species big bangs accurately describe the data", Well yes, in the same way that you could look at every alternate (or every 10 or something) frames from a film and then say "there aren't any transitional frames, 'big bangs' accurately describe the data". "Theories which are more speculation with no proven explanatory value are best discarded" adding God in has no additional explanatory value but is more speculation. If you wanted to assume that life just arose spontaneously, it's less presumptive to think it did so without presuming a god did it.

If we had taken a snapshot every 10 seconds of a film, what we are saying is that from the similar composition of most snapshots to the following shots, from the similarity but slight difference between shots, that it appears to transition from one shot to the other. What you are saying is that a spaceless timeless conscious entity must have made each snapshot specially and either introduced them all at once or at certain times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... al_fossils

"What you offer are excuses or rationalisations" What's an excuse? Saying that "life had most of the planet and up to half a billion years, we get (if we're lucky) 5 years and a small lab" isn't an excuse, it's a valid point.
If someone gave you a twenty sided dice and said they threw it 20 times and got a 20 by chance, it would be unreasonable to say "I threw it 4 times and didn't get a 20, therefore there's no reason to think the guy who threw it 20 got it by chance alone".
It's a massive loss of scope.

Not only that, but you're then going on to say "since I threw it 4 times and didn't get a 20, obviously when he got the 20 a spaceless timeless conscious thinking entity above the laws of physics willed the 20 into being".
That's the opposite of occam's razor.

[kenblogton]

Reply to A. I used 'then' because I couldn't think of another term to differentiate the state when there was no physical. I understand your suggestion is that there be some dimensional transition to the occurrence of the physical. That is wanting to put it on a continuum, which is setting up a straw man. Non-physical to physical is a dimensional shift.

It doesn't need to be continuous to be a dimension.
A mathematical space may be discrete (actually, some quantum field hypotheses predict that physical spacetime is to some level discrete).

The point is that you need to assume there is an additional dimension in order to make a change of state possible, and if all that's notable of that transition is simply a justification to say it's possible to jump from no thing to some thing without other dimensions, it seems ad hoc.

Reply to B. What I say is correct. What you offer are excuses or rationalizations.
The big bang origin of life is like the big bang origin of the universe. No universe then universe. No life forms then life forms. Without successful abiogenesis, spontaneous generation is mere speculation.
There is no conclusive demonstration of evolution from one specie to another. Species big bangs accurately describes the data.
Of course these are applications of Occam's razor. Theories which are mere speculation with no proven explanatory value are best discarded.
kenblogton
kenblogton

"Species big bangs accurately describe the data", Well yes, in the same way that you could look at every alternate (or every 10 or something) frames from a film and then say "there aren't any transitional frames, 'big bangs' accurately describe the data". "Theories which are more speculation with no proven explanatory value are best discarded" adding God in has no additional explanatory value but is more speculation. If you wanted to assume that life just arose spontaneously, it's less presumptive to think it did so without presuming a god did it.

If we had taken a snapshot every 10 seconds of a film, what we are saying is that from the similar composition of most snapshots to the following shots, from the similarity but slight difference between shots, that it appears to transition from one shot to the other. What you are saying is that a spaceless timeless conscious entity must have made each snapshot specially and either introduced them all at once or at certain times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... al_fossils

"What you offer are excuses or rationalisations" What's an excuse? Saying that "life had most of the planet and up to half a billion years, we get (if we're lucky) 5 years and a small lab" isn't an excuse, it's a valid point.
If someone gave you a twenty sided dice and said they threw it 20 times and got a 20 by chance, it would be unreasonable to say "I threw it 4 times and didn't get a 20, therefore there's no reason to think the guy who threw it 20 got it by chance alone".
It's a massive loss of scope.

Not only that, but you're then going on to say "since I threw it 4 times and didn't get a 20, obviously when he got the 20 a spaceless timeless conscious thinking entity above the laws of physics willed the 20 into being".
That's the opposite of occam's razor.

Second Reply to A. Asking for dimensions assumes some linkage between what is being compared, like when one says time is a fourth dimension additional to the 3 of space. There is no linkage between the non-physical and the physical. I have nothing more to say about this topic.

Second Reply to B. You are avoiding the issues. Abiogenesis or spontaneous generation does not explain the origin of life, just as the absence of intermediate species demonstrates the inadequacy of evolution as an explanation for the various species. Big bang is an adequate scientific description of both the origin of life and the various species. I have nothing more to say about this topic.
kenblogton

[Star]

[Replying to post 1286 by kenblogton]

Big Bang explains the origin of life and various species, but not abiogenesis or evolution?

Do you know what the Big Bang is?

And what do you mean by the absence of intermediate species?

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1286 by kenblogton]

1. Big Bang explains the origin of life and various species, but not abiogenesis or evolution?

Do you know what the Big Bang is?

2. And what do you mean by the absence of intermediate species?

Reply to 1. You have apparently misunderstood what I said, so let me restate it simply:
a. There is no solid evidence that spontaneous creation explains life formation on earth, since abiogenesis has never successfully replicated it in the lab.
b. There is no solid paleontological evidence demonstrating the evolution from one specie to another.
c. Given a. & b., to speak of the origin of life and the origin of species as big bangs accurately reflects the data: no life then life; only final species in the fossil record.

Reply to 2. Intermediate species are the hypothesized evolutionary links tracing the evolution from one more primitive specie to another more advanced specie.
kenblogton

[Star]

[Replying to post 1286 by kenblogton]

1. Big Bang explains the origin of life and various species, but not abiogenesis or evolution?

Do you know what the Big Bang is?

2. And what do you mean by the absence of intermediate species?

Reply to 1. You have apparently misunderstood what I said, so let me restate it simply:
a. There is no solid evidence that spontaneous creation explains life formation on earth, since abiogenesis has never successfully replicated it in the lab.
b. There is no solid paleontological evidence demonstrating the evolution from one specie to another.
c. Given a. & b., to speak of the origin of life and the origin of species as big bangs accurately reflects the data: no life then life; only final species in the fossil record.

Reply to 2. Intermediate species are the hypothesized evolutionary links tracing the evolution from one more primitive specie to another more advanced specie.
kenblogton

Sorry, I'm still not really sure what you're talking about. The point you make about the Big Bang in c is especially bemusing to me. You make it sound like everything suddenly sprang into existence as-is, precluding the need for evolution to explain the origin of species, or the need of a/biogenesis to explain first life.

The point you make in b is patently false. Speciation has in fact occurred both in a lab and in nature while being observed by science. This is documented. Examples include birds and insects, particularly fruit flies, since they breed so quickly.

Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis. It's also a fact; it happens. There are actually countless examples of so-called transitional species which you seem to be unaware of. There are dozens just for humans alone. I used to post photos of real fossils, but after a while it gets ridiculous, so you'll have to Google them yourself if you're interested in learning.

By the way, this is exactly the type of "debate" I was thinking of when I posted my Arguments from Incredulity thread earlier today.

[arian]

My summery of BB Evolution as I understand BB Evolutionist explain it:

* The universe may have 'always' existed, .. starting 13.75 billion years ago

* It is expanding, into 'no thing', in 'no-time' at an alarming rate (just the known universe is already 90 billion light years in diameter, in only 13.75 billion years because nothing exceeds the 'speed of light'. As for the entire universe, well it may be infinitely big but still expanding.)

* Infinite possibilities without space and time was created first, which in turn created a quantum physical universe, which in turn started to rapidly expand into "no thing" creating space and time right after the Big-bang, and chaos followed.

* Through time, having a lot of space Chaos ruled the universe.

* Mingled with "infinite possibilities", chaos started to form stars, planets and entire galaxies held together by "expanding-gravity".

* As the universe cooled, it cooled the planets forming "salt water", which was kept warm by the sun which was still very hot.

How am I doing so far?

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1289 by Star]

Star wrote: Sorry, I'm still not really sure what you're talking about. The point you make about the Big Bang in c is especially bemusing to me. You make it sound like everything suddenly sprang into existence as-is, precluding the need for evolution to explain the origin of species, or the need of a/biogenesis to explain first life.

kenblogton replied: That's exactly what I'm saying. Life sprang up in a manner Science cannot explain, since abiogenesis doesn't work. Also the various species sprang up abruptly, with no gradual evolution, based on the fossil record evidence. Both are big bangs like the original universe big bang.

Star wrote: The point you make in b is patently false. Speciation has in fact occurred both in a lab and in nature while being observed by science. This is documented. Examples include birds and insects, particularly fruit flies, since they breed so quickly.

kenblogton replied: What I said is there is no solid fossil evidence. Of course, individual species, like fruit flies, genetically modify, or evolve, to become different fruit flies, but that is not what is meant by evolution. Evolution is about one specie gradually evolving through many intermediate species to become a completely different specie. There is no such solid paleontological evidence for evolution.

Star wrote: Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis. It's also a fact; it happens. There are actually countless examples of so-called transitional species which you seem to be unaware of. There are dozens just for humans alone. I used to post photos of real fossils, but after a while it gets ridiculous, so you'll have to Google them yourself if you're interested in learning.

kenblogton replied: The so-called transitional species for humans are final, not intermediate species - species in their own right. Intermediate species are transitional, showing the gradual evolving from one specie to the next. There is no such solid data in the fossil record
Are you aware of Mitochondrial Eve & Y-Chromosomal Adam, which suggest that all women and all men are descended from one ancestor.
Evolution is an unproven theory.

kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1291 by kenblogton]

Abiogenesis is the study of how life arose naturally.

Saying "abiogenesis doesn't work" is saying "life arose supernaturally"
Please tell us how you've shown that life can't arise naturally?

Unless you're referring to a specific kind of abiogenesis, e.g. current abiogenesis hypotheses, in which case you still need to show this and if not it's still an argument from ignorance.

Evolution does not specifically refer to the clear separation of species - small differences across populations are also evolution.


"The so-called transitional species for humans are final, not intermediate species - species in their own right. "
I don't see how you could possibly demonstrate this. You're basically saying "these things couldn't evolve (presumably what is meant by final) therefore things don't evolve".


"Intermediate species are transitional, showing the gradual evolving from one specie to the next. There is no such solid data in the fossil record "
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

"Are you aware of Mitochondrial Eve & Y-Chromosomal Adam, which suggest that all women and all men are descended from one ancestor. "
To avoid misconceptions that might give the impression that this is anything like the garden of eve story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondr ... onceptions

"Not the only woman" - Studies have shown that the human population never dropped below 10000 or so. She would've been one of 10000.

"Not the most recent ancestor shared by all humans"
"Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor."
Some studies of recent common ancestors suggest a RCA may have lived in even the past 5000 years.

More importantly;
"Not the biblical Eve"
"is not a fixed individual"
"had a mother"
"was not the only woman of her time"
"Y-chromosomal Adam is unlikely to have been her sexual partner, or indeed to have been contemporaneous (lived at the same at the time) to her."

[Star]

Ken, here's a Homo erectus skull from 1.8 million years ago, excavated in the country of Georgia.

Yes, it's real.