Evolution: A Rubbish Fantasy (And Tin God)

Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants, Obscure Opinions

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Vaikuntha Dham
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 89 times

Evolution: A Rubbish Fantasy (And Tin God)

Post #1

Post by Dimmesdale »

Evolution to me is not factual. It is not rational. It is, in a word, a rubbish fantasy of Darwin.

For many years I intuitively subscribed to it, without much consideration about the details. I thought evolution simply made common sense, and so I accepted it without much reflection. Actually, I bet dollars to donuts this is what most "educated" people think of the theory. Most probably know only a handful of the basic concepts (perhaps random mutation and the death of inadequate populations - if even that). They think this makes a kind of realistic sense, not so much because they have reviewed the science with a fine tooth comb, but because their "gut" tells them this is probably how reality works. After all, science has given us, perhaps more than anything, immense perspective. Ideas of vastness, whether in terms of time scales or of the size of the universe - as well as the great intricacy behind phenomena. People apply this sense of perspective to biological life, look at a model of primates gradually morphing into anatomically modern humans, and viola, "EVOLUTION!" It simply has to be true.

Well, I have come to the conclusion that it isn't true. Not at all actually. In fact, evolution I have discovered is more or less nothing more than a Tin God. A manifestation of intellectual arrogance and domineering. As well as a cover for insecurity and a hiding of what true Reality entails. It is ironic enough that Christians run away from evolution because it challenges their worldview. This I know because I also ran from evolution. Now I laugh at what I ran from. The evolutionary worldview itself runs from actual reality in turn. People are so invested in this theory that, should it prove false, they themselves would psychologically collapse. There is, not to mention, the inconvenient whisper, which will always remain, "well, God, then...." Darwinism is self-hypnosis.

You don't like that? Well too bad. Facts remain facts even if they are not believed. And evolution remains a Tin God.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Evolution: A Rubbish Fantasy (And Tin God)

Post #2

Post by Miles »

Dimmesdale wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:05 pm Evolution to me is not factual. It is not rational. It is, in a word, a rubbish fantasy of Darwin.

Well, I have come to the conclusion that it isn't true. Not at all actually. In fact, evolution I have discovered is more or less nothing more than a Tin God. A manifestation of intellectual arrogance and domineering. As well as a cover for insecurity and a hiding of what true Reality entails.
Curious as to the evidence that's convinced you. Care to share?

It is ironic enough that Christians run away from evolution because it challenges their worldview. This I know because I also ran from evolution. Now I laugh at what I ran from. The evolutionary worldview itself runs from actual reality in turn. People are so invested in this theory that, should it prove false, they themselves would psychologically collapse. There is, not to mention, the inconvenient whisper, which will always remain, "well, God, then...." Darwinism is self-hypnosis.
Obviously you have evidence for what you claim here. How about sharing with us dunderheads.

You don't like that? Well too bad. Facts remain facts even if they are not believed. And evolution remains a Tin God.
And these "facts" are what? . . . . . . . . . . . . .


.

User avatar
Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Vaikuntha Dham
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 89 times

Re: Evolution: A Rubbish Fantasy (And Tin God)

Post #3

Post by Dimmesdale »

Miles wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:24 pm
Curious as to the evidence that's convinced you. Care to share?
I do care to share, but I won't. Not because I don't have facts on my side, but that I don't want to argue. I almost repented of this post actually. I realized it was more inflammatory than informative. One of my problems is proving myself right all the time and getting angry while arguing points. I am realizing more and more as I get older that controversy really isn't my forte, that sticking your nose in the fire isn't really worth getting so emotional, all for very meager gains.

I posted this in "Randoming Ramblings" so you can take it as face value: a ramble where I blow off steam. I used strong language here, but evolution advocates (like Aron Ra) likewise use strong and ridiculing words to get their point across. I see this sort of rhetoric as a cold slap of water in the face of self-satisfied evolutionists. So I think it has a right to stand.
It is ironic enough that Christians run away from evolution because it challenges their worldview. This I know because I also ran from evolution. Now I laugh at what I ran from. The evolutionary worldview itself runs from actual reality in turn. People are so invested in this theory that, should it prove false, they themselves would psychologically collapse. There is, not to mention, the inconvenient whisper, which will always remain, "well, God, then...." Darwinism is self-hypnosis.
Obviously you have evidence for what you claim here. How about sharing with us dunderheads. [/quote]

Like I said, the moment I present evidence, I will get wrapped up in the whole debacle of a debate that will not go anywhere and merely tax my emotions. So I won't even bother. I don't think you are a dunderhead, just misguided like I was. I think there are fine intellects on both sides of the debate. If you don't see THAT then I say you are willfully neglecting the facts.

Good luck on your discovery of the actual Truth.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Evolution: A Rubbish Fantasy (And Tin God)

Post #4

Post by Miles »

Dimmesdale wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:06 pm
Miles wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:24 pm
Curious as to the evidence that's convinced you. Care to share?
I do care to share, but I won't. Not because I don't have facts on my side, but that I don't want to argue. I almost repented of this post actually. I realized it was more inflammatory than informative. One of my problems is proving myself right all the time and getting angry while arguing points. I am realizing more and more as I get older that controversy really isn't my forte, that sticking your nose in the fire isn't really worth getting so emotional, all for very meager gains.

Like I said, the moment I present evidence, I will get wrapped up in the whole debacle of a debate that will not go anywhere and merely tax my emotions. So I won't even bother. I don't think you are a dunderhead, just misguided like I was. I think there are fine intellects on both sides of the debate. If you don't see THAT then I say you are willfully neglecting the facts.

Good luck on your discovery of the actual Truth.
No debate intended or argument expected. Just want to get the source of all this information you have. So feel at ease in sharing your evidence, and if you feel you're on the verge of "the whole debacle of a debate" you always have the option of backing out. Otherwise I'll take your silence as an indication that you have no convincing evidence, which, from your unwillingness to continue here, is my suspicion.


.

User avatar
Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Vaikuntha Dham
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 89 times

Re: Evolution: A Rubbish Fantasy (And Tin God)

Post #5

Post by Dimmesdale »

Miles wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 5:32 pm Otherwise I'll take your silence as an indication that you have no convincing evidence, which, from your unwillingness to continue here, is my suspicion.
No convincing evidence in general, or no convincing evidence to you? There is a difference, you know. I have evidence which I have shared with others, and they are entirely convinced by it. It makes sense to them as it does to me. The same evidence, you would probably not be convinced by though. You need to understand that when it comes to "objective evidence" for or against evolution, there is no such thing. Macroevolution has never once been directly observed - you are working from speculation to speculation to speculation. You see things through your own preconceived filter (well, let's see how it WOULD WORK -IF- It DID - BECAUSE IT DID! ) which you form largely beforehand. In other words, depending on your presuppositions, you see what you want to see, not what is actually "there." This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just highlights the bias that all humans have.

Evolution to me, especially regards humans and apes, is a hodgepodge of ad hoc "explanations" and includes assumptions that I don't buy for a second largely because I don't see the point, first of all, in assigning one "size-fits-all" explanation (natural selection) when there are so many other potential ones that to me are so much more viable.

My best evidence against evolution though, is that there is no compelling evidence FOR it. To me it seems largely a speculation. Can evolution answer the following questions to anyone's satisfaction?

Why are humans practically hairless (among nearly ALL ADULT LAND MAMMALS), and what is the adaptation/benefit of male-pattern baldness?
Why are humans so far removed from all other primates and (how CONVENIENT!) the only species of human being left on the planet?!!! (I guess we must have all just killed each other - Duh).
If we developed bigger brains by scavenging for dead carcasses in the savannah - why did we all of a sudden develop this taste for meat and why do our teeth tell a different story?

Anyway, one more thing: I'm a Religious Person and My Religion directly contradicts Darwinism. Oh, but that's just my hallucination. Who said it was a hallucination? You? Why should I listen to you? Why should I listen to your ASSUMPTION?

Anyway, I'm done. As you might notice my temper is gaining on me. But yeah, I don't know. I suppose I did turn off people by being so scalding in my assessment of evolution without "backing it up" - that inspired me to try to back it up now. I don't know if I should regret this or not, although actually not, I've learned something, and I hope you have too.....

Peace.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Evolution: A Rubbish Fantasy (And Tin God)

Post #6

Post by Miles »

Dimmesdale wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 7:49 pm
Miles wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 5:32 pm Otherwise I'll take your silence as an indication that you have no convincing evidence, which, from your unwillingness to continue here, is my suspicion.
No convincing evidence in general, or no convincing evidence to you? There is a difference, you know. I have evidence which I have shared with others, and they are entirely convinced by it. It makes sense to them as it does to me. The same evidence, you would probably not be convinced by though. You need to understand that when it comes to "objective evidence" for or against evolution, there is no such thing. Macroevolution has never once been directly observed - you are working from speculation to speculation to speculation. You see things through your own preconceived filter (well, let's see how it WOULD WORK -IF- It DID - BECAUSE IT DID! ) which you form largely beforehand. In other words, depending on your presuppositions, you see what you want to see, not what is actually "there." This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just highlights the bias that all humans have.

Evolution to me, especially regards humans and apes, is a hodgepodge of ad hoc "explanations" and includes assumptions that I don't buy for a second largely because I don't see the point, first of all, in assigning one "size-fits-all" explanation (natural selection) when there are so many other potential ones that to me are so much more viable.

My best evidence against evolution though, is that there is no compelling evidence FOR it. To me it seems largely a speculation. Can evolution answer the following questions to anyone's satisfaction?

Why are humans practically hairless (among nearly ALL ADULT LAND MAMMALS), and what is the adaptation/benefit of male-pattern baldness?
Why are humans so far removed from all other primates and (how CONVENIENT!) the only species of human being left on the planet?!!! (I guess we must have all just killed each other - Duh).
If we developed bigger brains by scavenging for dead carcasses in the savannah - why did we all of a sudden develop this taste for meat and why do our teeth tell a different story?

Anyway, one more thing: I'm a Religious Person and My Religion directly contradicts Darwinism. Oh, but that's just my hallucination. Who said it was a hallucination? You? Why should I listen to you? Why should I listen to your ASSUMPTION?

Anyway, I'm done. As you might notice my temper is gaining on me. But yeah, I don't know. I suppose I did turn off people by being so scalding in my assessment of evolution without "backing it up" - that inspired me to try to back it up now. I don't know if I should regret this or not, although actually not, I've learned something, and I hope you have too.....

Peace.
Image Then your refusal to back up your assertions is indeed an indication you have no convincing evidence.

Have a good day.


.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Evolution: A Rubbish Fantasy (And Tin God)

Post #7

Post by Difflugia »

Dimmesdale wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 7:49 pmMy best evidence against evolution though, is that there is no compelling evidence FOR it.
Evolution writ large (not the mechanisms behind it, but the bare assertion that groups of organisms have changed over time) can be inferred from genome sequencing. It's to some extent an unfortunate historical accident that the the theory originally drew on fossil data because we get far less data from fossils than we do now from genome comparison. If we had no information at all except modern gene sequences, we have enough to be as certain that evolution happened (not how, when or why, but that it, in fact, did) as we are about anything else we know.

The pattern itself is pretty undeniable. Wolves and foxes are a bit different from each other, jaguars and tigers are a bit different from each other, wolves and foxes have the same differences from jaguars that wolves and foxes appear to have had a common ancestor.
Image
That's it. This pattern, over and over, applying almost in a fractal sense from individual populations all the way up to the major kingdoms and a billion years back in time, means that either evolution happened (by whatever mechanism) or something completely indistinguishable from evolution did. If God created everything all at once, He did so in a way that looks like the populations slowly changed, divided, and diverged over time.
Dimmesdale wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 7:49 pmTo me it seems largely a speculation. Can evolution answer the following questions to anyone's satisfaction?

Why are humans practically hairless (among nearly ALL ADULT LAND MAMMALS),
Humans aren't practically hairless. We're covered in hair and have the same density of hair (hairs per square inch) as chimpanzees, but it's short, fine, and provides little thermal protection. That can be explained by being large enough to hold heat and evolving someplace warm. Compare a leopard with a bengal tiger, for example, or African and Asian elephants with North American mammoths.

The corollary question is if the hair we have is so ineffective, why did God create us with it? He just succeeded in making it look like we evolved from something that needed it.
Dimmesdale wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 7:49 pmand what is the adaptation/benefit of male-pattern baldness?
Male-pattern baldness doesn't seem to affect reproductive success, so it could just be genetic drift. It also might be a side-effect of something that is adaptive. In terms of natural selection, the only things that really require an explanation are things that are maladaptive.
Dimmesdale wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 7:49 pmWhy are humans so far removed from all other primates
How "far removed" do you think we are? Nobody would mistake a gorilla for an orangutan, either.
Dimmesdale wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 7:49 pmand (how CONVENIENT!) the only species of human being left on the planet?!!! (I guess we must have all just killed each other - Duh).
What do you think that means and for whom is it convenient? Homo is hardly the only genus with a single extant species.
Dimmesdale wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 7:49 pmIf we developed bigger brains by scavenging for dead carcasses in the savannah - why did we all of a sudden develop this taste for meat and why do our teeth tell a different story?
I'm not sure what conclusion you're trying to draw. Meat and fat are calorie-dense and easy to digest. There's no evidence that humans are instinctive hunters and many herbivores can be trained to enjoy meat (I'm not going to link a video, but search YouTube for "cow eats chicken" or somesuch), so our meat-eating may be much more of a learned adaptation than a genetic one. As you say, our teeth are those of herbivores.
Dimmesdale wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 7:49 pmAnyway, one more thing: I'm a Religious Person and My Religion directly contradicts Darwinism.
That's far more debatable than evolution itself. Many people are comfortable with an allegorical understanding of Adam, Eve, and the patriarchs.

User avatar
Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Vaikuntha Dham
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 89 times

Re: Evolution: A Rubbish Fantasy (And Tin God)

Post #8

Post by Dimmesdale »

Difflugia wrote: Mon Dec 21, 2020 12:43 pm
Dimmesdale wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 7:49 pmMy best evidence against evolution though, is that there is no compelling evidence FOR it.
Evolution writ large (not the mechanisms behind it, but the bare assertion that groups of organisms have changed over time) can be inferred from genome sequencing. It's to some extent an unfortunate historical accident that the the theory originally drew on fossil data because we get far less data from fossils than we do now from genome comparison. If we had no information at all except modern gene sequences, we have enough to be as certain that evolution happened (not how, when or why, but that it, in fact, did) as we are about anything else we know.
Do the genes reflect information about reproduction/generation or merely the fact that living beings are related (morphologically, with similar genes and their processes, etc). To my mind, you can have similar blue prints for buildings, but that does not mean one building begot another. However, I wonder if there can be inferred something more, regarding lineages. If indeed all species have common descent, which I don't believe.

Sigh.

I realize I was arrogant now in my original post. But I am working from MY own peculiar AXIOM - which I will not change. I still need to learn, so I thank you for that. I will ask questions for now, and not critique, because to be honest, though I know my axiom is right (in my humble view), I am largely ignorant about evolutionary theory.

I will learn.
Difflugia wrote: Mon Dec 21, 2020 12:43 pmThe pattern itself is pretty undeniable. Wolves and foxes are a bit different from each other, jaguars and tigers are a bit different from each other, wolves and foxes have the same differences from jaguars that wolves and foxes appear to have had a common ancestor..
Ok, so my question is, again somewhat reframed, IF we can show that a human baby is the son of a human father through genetic testing on Maury, can we, in similar or identical fashion, show that genetically a bird is the descendent of a primordial fish? Or can we ONLY demonstrate similarity, morphologically or otherwise? If the latter only, then I say Chartres Cathedral may as well be the great ancestor of Willis Tower. That is my opinion.
Difflugia wrote: Mon Dec 21, 2020 12:43 pmImage
That's it. This pattern, over and over, applying almost in a fractal sense from individual populations all the way up to the major kingdoms and a billion years back in time, means that either evolution happened (by whatever mechanism) or something completely indistinguishable from evolution did. If God created everything all at once, He did so in a way that looks like the populations slowly changed, divided, and diverged over time.
I do believe that all life is related, even intimately so. With creation there was an exchange of information among the distinctive essences of living beings. That is what I believe. But I do not believe in common descent. That is too extreme a position in my view.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Evolution: A Rubbish Fantasy (And Tin God)

Post #9

Post by Difflugia »

Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Dec 21, 2020 4:09 pmI realize I was arrogant now in my original post. But I am working from MY own peculiar AXIOM - which I will not change. I still need to learn, so I thank you for that. I will ask questions for now, and not critique, because to be honest, though I know my axiom is right (in my humble view), I am largely ignorant about evolutionary theory.
I was trying (and I hope I succeeded) in my response to be answering questions rather than arguing conclusions. I actually have a biology minor (computer science major; I like both subjects, but didn't feel like taking enough classes to dual-major) with a solid dose of biochemistry, so I'm hopefully talking out of the right orifice, anyway.
Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Dec 21, 2020 4:09 pmDo the genes reflect information about reproduction/generation or merely the fact that living beings are related (morphologically, with similar genes and their processes, etc). To my mind, you can have similar blue prints for buildings, but that does not mean one building begot another. However, I wonder if there can be inferred something more, regarding lineages. If indeed all species have common descent, which I don't believe.
That's actually a common analogy and challenge, but the answer fits common descent rather than common design.

To extend the analogy, imagine that in one building, there's a door leading to a conference room. In a similar building, the conference room wasn't needed, so the building was shortened to eliminate it. Further imagine that the second building has the door in exactly the same place, but it doesn't lead anywhere and just opens to face the back wall. That would be pretty good evidence that a sloppy designer cribbed the design from the first blueprint, keeping some similarities that make sense in the parent design, but not in the descendant design.

There are lots of relationships like that between related organisms. One example is that lemurs are the only primates that can synthesize their own vitamin C. Monkeys and apes (including humans) can't. It turns out, though, that we have the right set of genes to make vitamin C, but one of them (GULO) is broken. A mutation made it stop working, but most primates (including, presumably, the ancestor with the mutation) eat fruit, which is just chock-full of vitamin C. For that particular organism, it wasn't maladaptive to no longer make vitamin C. Even though the gene was now broken, it kept getting copied, both within its somatic cells and its gametes. Every monkey, ape, and human has a broken vitamin C gene, a door that goes nowhere. That tells us two things. First, lemurs branched from the lineage before the mutation occurred. Second, all primates are more closely related to each other than they are to any other organism.

Even though each cell dutifully copies the vitamin C gene, broken though it is, there's no longer any selection pressure on that gene. More mutations won't make it any more broken, so primates continue accumulating mutations in the broken gene. We can actually map the pattern of mutations to see which lineages diverged when, giving us a map of primate evolution. It's the same pattern as mapping differences in working genes, but it's now completely divorced from function.
Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Dec 21, 2020 4:09 pmOk, so my question is, again somewhat reframed, IF we can show that a human baby is the son of a human father through genetic testing on Maury, can we, in similar or identical fashion, show that genetically a bird is the descendent of a primordial fish? Or can we ONLY demonstrate similarity, morphologically or otherwise? If the latter only, then I say Chartres Cathedral may as well be the great ancestor of Willis Tower. That is my opinion.
If you accept that genetic testing between humans can show a family relationship, then yes, we can show that the bird is descended from a particular kind of fish. In fact, all land vertebrates are descended from the same fish. We even know that it was a freshwater fish.

To extend your analogy again, instead of two buildings, we have many. Each building has a wall with a large, complicated pattern of red and white bricks. Each time a new building is built, one or two bricks change. By mapping the changes, one could determine the relationship between the buildings and the order they were built in.
Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Dec 21, 2020 4:09 pmI do believe that all life is related, even intimately so. With creation there was an exchange of information among the distinctive essences of living beings. That is what I believe. But I do not believe in common descent. That is too extreme a position in my view.
I'm not sure what the practical difference is, but it seems to me that the idea of exchange would present a different assortment of traits, even at a morphological level, than we would expect from common descent. As it is, for example, all mammals have hair, mammary glands, and a peculiar kind of lung (alveolar), but no other organisms have any of these. Why do they go together? If God was mixing and matching, or there was a sort of flow between organisms, why don't some animals have feathers and mammary glands, or alveolar lungs and a turtle shell? Why is there no such thing as a winged spider or hairy toad? One of the defining features of common descent is that once lineages diverge to the point that they can't reproduce together, there's no way to get a reassortment of traits. Spiders and insects diverged from an arthropod ancestor before wings were evolved. Insects evolved them, but there was then no way to pass them back to spiders. "Insectness" and "spiderness" and "birdness" and "mammalness" are each a package of otherwise unrelated traits. Common descent provides a ready answer for that type of lock-in, but it's difficult to explain otherwise.

The patterns we see are all explained by common descent. If at some point, someone finds a really compelling reason to think that there is no common descent, then we're still left with a pattern that looks exactly like there was.

On the other hand, there might be some reason God made things look that way, but no creationists have come up with anything that fits the data as well as evolution by common descent. They've tried and have proposed things like "common design" and the "creationist orchard" and whatnot, but none of them fit the data closely enough.

User avatar
Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Vaikuntha Dham
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 89 times

Re: Evolution: A Rubbish Fantasy (And Tin God)

Post #10

Post by Dimmesdale »

Difflugia wrote: Mon Dec 21, 2020 6:21 pm I'm not sure what the practical difference is, but it seems to me that the idea of exchange would present a different assortment of traits, even at a morphological level, than we would expect from common descent. As it is, for example, all mammals have hair, mammary glands, and a peculiar kind of lung (alveolar), but no other organisms have any of these. Why do they go together? If God was mixing and matching, or there was a sort of flow between organisms, why don't some animals have feathers and mammary glands, or alveolar lungs and a turtle shell? Why is there no such thing as a winged spider or hairy toad? One of the defining features of common descent is that once lineages diverge to the point that they can't reproduce together, there's no way to get a reassortment of traits. Spiders and insects diverged from an arthropod ancestor before wings were evolved. Insects evolved them, but there was then no way to pass them back to spiders. "Insectness" and "spiderness" and "birdness" and "mammalness" are each a package of otherwise unrelated traits. Common descent provides a ready answer for that type of lock-in, but it's difficult to explain otherwise.
Personally, I believe that God, as the great Artist, has an aesthetic sense. And that aesthetic sense has passed on to us - to the effect that we should certainly regard as absurd and perverse something like an indiscriminate and adulterous amalgamation of qualities that do not go together. It is for one thing contrary to the aesthetic nature of reality - which is something I assert and that scientism does not nearly take seriously enough to its own detriment, imo.

There is something about some animals that strikes me as, in a word, "just right." I cannot imagine a Lion being anything other than a Lion, or that the animal can be "improved". As opposed to a turtle having eight legs and fangs. Some things are simply incongruous. You may say I am just used to what exists but.. no, I still disagree. Even if they would exist they would still strike me as alien.

There is of course the platypus and other such more unusual creatures - but even they do not range too far afield so as to be perverse. Their unusualness, is itself contained in a wholesome aesthetic, in its own right. Rather than, say, a ferret with the legs of a millipede.
Difflugia wrote: Mon Dec 21, 2020 6:21 pmThe patterns we see are all explained by common descent. If at some point, someone finds a really compelling reason to think that there is no common descent, then we're still left with a pattern that looks exactly like there was.

On the other hand, there might be some reason God made things look that way, but no creationists have come up with anything that fits the data as well as evolution by common descent. They've tried and have proposed things like "common design" and the "creationist orchard" and whatnot, but none of them fit the data closely enough.
I still think that people should be open to alternative explanations. But, that's me.

Post Reply