Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 68 of 136 (667428)
07-07-2012 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by dwise1
07-07-2012 1:59 AM


Re: Other relevant E v C empirically testable issues
So just what the frak is this imaginary barrier that you're fretting about?
I suppose the barrier that PaulGL is referring to (although he doesn't appear to know what he is referring to) is the fusion of human chromosome 2. This event could bring about the "hopeful monster" you referred to in Message 62. It is a sudden, major genomic change and contrary to (from Message 62):
quote:
Rather, the degree to which each generation of a changing population changes is very slight; "sudden" changes in the fossil record (in geologic time, so in thousands of years) result from the accumulation of lots of small gradual changes with each generation (in generational time, so in one to a couple tens of years, depending on the species in question).
This fusion did not occur a little bit at a time, in small gradual changes. It may have made a small difference morphologically, but it was a major event in the genome.
Now whether this fusion event itself caused infertility or not is uncertain. In at least in one situation, the Przewalski's horse (mentioned by Coragyps in Message 61), this type of event does not cause infertility but it does result in offspring with a conglomerate of chromosomes ie. 65 as opposed to 64 or 66.
Since none of the great apes are known to have 46 chromosomes, it is most likely that either:
1. The fusion event caused the split OR ...
2. The fusion event occurred within the human lineage (after the chimp / human split)
If option 1 is true then either
1. The fusion caused infertility in which case we have the dilemma that PaulGL supposes OR ...
2. The fusion did not result in infertility in which case we should have a Homo spp. (living or extinct) with a conglomerate of chromosomes, such as with Przewalski's horse.
If option 2 is true then
We should see Homo spp. (living or extinct) with 48 chromosomes, Homo spp. (living or extinct) with 46 chromosomes AND Homo spp. (living or extinct) with chromosome conglomerates, ie. 47.
Is there any evidence that Homo spp. have chromosome numbers other than 46? Note: I do understand that we don't have access to all DNA from all extinct species and that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You assumed that that event had to have happened within a single generation.
Since chromosome fusion is a relatively rare event, I would assume that this event did occur in a single individual and then spread to that individual's descendants. And since all known hominids except humans (Homo spp.) have 24 chromosomes, it seems most plausible that option 1 is true (that is: the fusion event caused the split). And since it is pretty obvious that the human lineage survived (the event did not cause infertility), shouldn't we expect to find Homo spp. (living or extinct) with a conglomerate of chromosomes?
What is the most accepted understanding of this? Are there any known hybrids of species with different chromosome numbers that do not have a conglomerate of chromosomes?
HBD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by dwise1, posted 07-07-2012 1:59 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by PaulGL, posted 07-10-2012 1:50 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 69 of 136 (667492)
07-08-2012 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulGL
05-27-2012 2:11 PM


Red Herring? Where?
I actually had to look up what a 'red herring' argument was
Definition:
quote:
A red herring is a detail or remark inserted into a discussion, either intentionally or unintentionally, that sidetracks the discussion. The red herring is invariably irrelevant and is often emotionally charged. The participants in the discussion go after the red herring and forget what they were initially talking about; in fact, they may never get back to their original topic."
So what is the actual 'red herring' (in your opinion) here? Is it that you think the whole debate distracts people from accepting Christ? You have not at all clarified what you think is distracting from the argument!
The problem is that many people believe that all that exists is what we can see, hear and touch.They insist on evidence (this is especially true on a forum like this). So for them, your emotionally charged bluster about satan, uniformitarianism, divine creation, and discrediting the Bible is distracting from the main argument - which is evidence! Back up some of your claims (for example that uniformiarianism is in contradiction of scientific evidence) with evidence.
And for those on the other side of the fence, the young earthers, who hold that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and that it is to be taken literally; your comment on time elements not appearing until the 4th day is a 'red herring' since the important topic is the inerrancy of the Bible. "Making Christians appear ignorant and illogical" is also irrelevant since what makes people wise is believing the Word of God and when Christians believe the Word of God - they will appear foolish to the world.
And to those of us who are somewhere in the middle ... there is really nothing which we can agree with or support either. The closest you come is ...
Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
... except that here you say the evolutionists have discarded the Genesis account for "nonscientific" reasons - when in fact, the reasons for rejection of the Genesis account are for scientific reasons ie. lack of evidence. And that religionists reject evolution which is just not true. There are many "religionists" who do not reject evolution. If your point is that religion and evolution are are two separate ideas and that they can exist independently, then I could agree with that, but you need to word your point much, much better.
It appears that you are cut-n-pasting your posts from another source (not just this OP, but most subsequent posts too) - a book you wrote on the subject, maybe?? Wow, what a bore that book must be. It seems you have done nothing more than lifted ideas from various website and scrambled them onto some pages. Try posting some of your own words (not cut-n-paste). Describe the actual 'red herring' you are inferring. Present some evidence of your claims. Narrow your topic down a bit, I am not even sure what you are arguing. Stop painting everyone with the same brush (actually you have 3 brushes - evolutionsts, religionists and you).
HBD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulGL, posted 05-27-2012 2:11 PM PaulGL has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PaulGL, posted 07-10-2012 1:41 PM herebedragons has replied
 Message 75 by PaulGL, posted 07-10-2012 1:57 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 93 of 136 (667663)
07-11-2012 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by PaulGL
07-10-2012 1:41 PM


Re: Red Herring? Where?
First you say
BUT it IS of crucial (both individually and as a species) importance to know WHY we are here.
then you go on to say
The answer to WHY we are here does not lie within the purview of knowledge
If it is crucial to know WHY we are here, but the answer is not within the realm of knowledge ... what are we to do? Let our feelings tell us why we are here?
The problem is this: Many believe that the physical realm is ALL there is. So, HOW we got here is of primary importance. IF we got here purely by natural processes, and we can explain everything with natural explanations, then what need is there to bring God into the discussion? So how can you discuss the WHY without the HOW?
HBD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by PaulGL, posted 07-10-2012 1:41 PM PaulGL has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by PaulGL, posted 07-11-2012 12:17 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 94 of 136 (667665)
07-11-2012 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by PaulGL
07-10-2012 1:57 PM


Re: Red Herring? Where?
a very boring book, yes. don't read it,
I apologize, I should not have insulted. It was meant more as a comment on your cut-n-paste style rather than your book.
you might get the message.
But that's just it, if your book is written like your posts are written, I don't see how anyone could get the point.
TIP: use the peek button at the bottom of the frame to see how others format their messages. here is a link to dBCodes help
HBD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by PaulGL, posted 07-10-2012 1:57 PM PaulGL has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by PaulGL, posted 07-11-2012 12:10 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 95 of 136 (667666)
07-11-2012 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by PaulGL
07-10-2012 1:50 PM


Genetic mutation with the surviving traits trending towards an increase in intelligence. Eventually crossing (by possibly and perhaps even a single mutational change at the chromosomal level- of course) a threshold level whereby the increased intelligence resulted in a free will.
I have no idea what you are saying here. Do you believe free will is genetically encoded?
Or does intelligence give us the ability to think our way to free will?
This really makes no sense.
HBD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by PaulGL, posted 07-10-2012 1:50 PM PaulGL has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by PaulGL, posted 07-11-2012 12:03 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 102 of 136 (667756)
07-11-2012 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by PaulGL
07-11-2012 12:03 PM


Re: as simply as I can put it
I will respond to all three messages #96, 97 and 98 in one post - its easier to manage a discussion that way. And it is easier to follow if you would indicate what comment or point you are responding to. *use the peek button to see how it is formatted*
Free will is dependent on a requisite level of intelligence, and not merely gross brain size but a high 'brain-to-body' ratio.
What are you basing this assertion on? Humans do not have the highest 'brain-to-body' ratio. Small birds have a brain-to-body ratio about 3 times higher than humans, a tree shrew has higher ratio than human, and a mouse has the same brain-to-body ratio as humans. The creatures are not candidates for free will are they?
Knowledge, indeed all of the physical universe, points seeking persons in the right direction.
OK
The answer is an eternal Person received into the center of the seeker who opens to receive Him.
I assume you are referring to Jesus Christ as this Person.
But received into an organ- the human spirit- in the center of their being, deeper than their mind.
Uhmm?? The human spirit is an organ? Organs are made up of tissues and cells - they are physical entities. Have you another understanding of what an organ is? You make this sound as if it is an actual place within a person that we should be able to observe.
What you have done here is simply make bare assertions with no supporting evidence or even any reason for the assertion. As far as I am concerned the evidence doesn't even need to be physical or empirical. It could be logical, inferential or even just plausible. But you present nothing ... Just declarations. I quote what ringo said in Message 84
ringo writes:
Anybody can rattle off empty claims - "God likes tofu." Show us the thinking behind your claims, one step at a time.
So where to start?? Lets go back to Message 59 that should be a good start. One step at a time show the thinking behind your claim that
A. Man evolved.
B. His evolution from primate to man was distinguished by his obtaining a spirit.
C. This was possible only when he became capable of being responsible, which is dependent on obtaining free will, which is dependent on reaching a 'plateau' level of brain-to-body ratio.
How do you distinguish between man, who has a spirit, and ape, who does not have a spirit? And maybe, how did the evolutionary process accomplish that? Another point you should be sure to expand on is how free will was imparted upon man? By evolution or by God once man reached an evolutionary plateau?
I think if you can address these 3 points we will have accomplished something here.
HBD
Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by PaulGL, posted 07-11-2012 12:03 PM PaulGL has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Tangle, posted 07-12-2012 3:01 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 107 of 136 (667886)
07-13-2012 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Tangle
07-12-2012 3:01 PM


Re: as simply as I can put it
What's a spirit?
That's actually a good question Tangle, I really hadn't given any thought to a definition.
definition:
quote:
1. a distillate; especially : the liquid containing ethyl alcohol and water that is distilled from an alcoholic liquid or mashoften used in plural
No really,
quote:
noun
1. the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.
2. the incorporeal part of humans: present in spirit though absent in body.
3. the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.
4. conscious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter: the world of spirit.
5. a supernatural, incorporeal being, especially one inhabiting a place, object, etc., or having a particular character: evil spirits.
I guess I would consider a spirit or a person's spirit to be an entity or being or part of a person that exists outside of time and space. However, I am not prepared to defend this position, nor do I claim there is empirical evidence that supports it. I just tried to answer the question as best I could.
PaulGL proposed that evolutionary processes brought man to a point of sufficient intelligence that allowed him to be responsible enough to handle free will which in turn allowed him to be given a spirit. I asked how does he distinguish between these two states. Since he believes that this process was genetically determined, there should be genetic markers which indicate the presence or reception of a spirit.
So, perhaps he may have a better definition and supporting evidence regarding "what is a spirit?"
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Tangle, posted 07-12-2012 3:01 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Tangle, posted 07-13-2012 9:06 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024