Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (9005 total)
35 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Hyroglyphx, PaulK, vimesey, xongsmith (6 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,214 Year: 12,962/23,288 Month: 687/1,527 Week: 126/240 Day: 15/10 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time.
Taq
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 3 of 187 (810539)
05-30-2017 12:41 PM


jar writes:

For millions if not billions of years the only form of reproduction was either clonal splitting or cellular combination followed by division.

That may not be true. Bacteria also have sex, but I am not sure when it was supposed to have evolved:

Bacteria can swap DNA between very distantly related species, even between Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria.


  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 32 of 187 (810626)
05-31-2017 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dogmafood
05-30-2017 8:00 PM


Prototypical writes:

You presume to know what the designer's objective might be.

Oh the irony. The statement above was quickly followed by this statement:

Perhaps all of these failed life forms were merely stepping stones on the way to some ultimate objective. Perhaps the variety is the objective.

In one moment you claim that no one can know the objectives of the designer, and then you turn around and propose what objectives the designer has. Go figure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dogmafood, posted 05-30-2017 8:00 PM Dogmafood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Dogmafood, posted 05-31-2017 6:52 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 33 of 187 (810627)
05-31-2017 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dogmafood
05-30-2017 10:10 PM


ProtoTypical writes:

We are assessing the performance of GOD.

That seems to be a rather large and unevidenced assumption.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dogmafood, posted 05-30-2017 10:10 PM Dogmafood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Dogmafood, posted 05-31-2017 7:10 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 34 of 187 (810628)
05-31-2017 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Davidjay
05-30-2017 10:49 PM


Davidjay writes:

Wow, you would mock God....

You would first need to provide evidence that there is a God and that this God had anything to do life on Earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Davidjay, posted 05-30-2017 10:49 PM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Davidjay, posted 05-31-2017 3:48 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 97 of 187 (811369)
06-07-2017 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Dogmafood
05-31-2017 7:10 PM


ProtoTypical writes:

If we are contemplating the possibility that GOD exists then we should realize that we are not capable of critiquing anything that THEY might have done. You need a GOD's view to do that.

That is also a rather large and unevidenced assertion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Dogmafood, posted 05-31-2017 7:10 PM Dogmafood has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 98 of 187 (811372)
06-07-2017 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dogmafood
06-03-2017 1:11 PM


ProtoTypical writes:

That captures my point exactly. If they are the same argument then they are both faulty.

Ultimately, the argument we are using is that if the evidence is consistent with natural processes, then we conclude that natural processes did it. We observe that natural processes (e.g. natural selection and random mutation) produce matching molecular and morphological phylogenies in living species. We then find that larger species groups also fall into these same phylogenies, which means that the evidence is consistent with natural processes.

Now, you could argue that some tricksy deity just made everything look like it occurred through natural processes, but what would be the point? You might as well argue that since God can plant DNA and fingerprints at crime scenes that we can't use forensic science in courts. As soon as the physical evidence doesn't matter, then the conversation is over.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dogmafood, posted 06-03-2017 1:11 PM Dogmafood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Phat, posted 06-07-2017 2:14 PM Taq has responded
 Message 106 by Dogmafood, posted 06-07-2017 7:36 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 99 of 187 (811373)
06-07-2017 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dogmafood
06-06-2017 6:49 PM


Re: Any designer is irrelevant.
ProtoTypical writes:

The whole point of your thread is to refute the idea of a designer and so if the concept is fantastically irrelevant then what's the point of denoting any evidence?

Actually, the whole point is for ID/creationists to once again demonstrate that ID/creationism is a dogmatic religious belief that can never be falsified by any evidence, no matter what that evidence is. The claims that we can't "judge design" just further support that conclusion.

I don't see sufficient reason to stop asking the question or to stop seeking refinement of the answer.

When you make ID/creationism unfalsifiable, as you have done, then you have ceased asking questions and are refusing to refine the answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dogmafood, posted 06-06-2017 6:49 PM Dogmafood has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Phat, posted 06-07-2017 2:08 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 103 of 187 (811379)
06-07-2017 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Phat
06-07-2017 2:08 PM


Re: Any designer is irrelevant.
Phat writes:

Belief is a valid approach, however.

When has a dogmatic belief ever been a valid approach to any question? When you start with the answer, why even ask the question?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Phat, posted 06-07-2017 2:08 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 104 of 187 (811381)
06-07-2017 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Phat
06-07-2017 2:14 PM


Re: Tricks or Treats
Phat writes:

Exactly. If God exists and is as powerful and far reaching as some believe, He would have no need to trick anybody.

We were told that we couldn't judge what the designer would or wouldn't do, or why. Therefore, a trickster deity is on the table.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Phat, posted 06-07-2017 2:14 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 110 of 187 (811456)
06-08-2017 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Dogmafood
06-07-2017 7:36 PM


ProtoTypical writes:

I don't understand this point at all. How else could it possibly look? If you design a universe and it has processes in it then those processes will, no doubt, look natural.

If species were separately designed then we wouldn't expect to see a nested hierarchy since there is no reason that a designer would force its designs into a nested hierarchy. The only reason we would expect to see a nested hierarchy is if species evolved from a common ancestor.

Is it possible to identify ourselves as being part of a designed system from the inside of that system?

As described above, yes. If we suddenly saw nearly all species suddenly appear in the fossil record just 10,000 years ago, then I think we could conclude that there is a high probability that we are in a designed system of life.

My objective is to examine my own belief on the subject.

If I may make a suggestion, your first step should be to ask yourself what it would take to prove ID/creationism wrong. That is what any good scientist would do. What would it take to disprove ID/creationism when it comes to the question of the origin of species?

From what I have seen so far, you seem to have taken the position that a designer can do anything and produce every possible observation. If that is the case, then I don't see how your belief can be examined.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Dogmafood, posted 06-07-2017 7:36 PM Dogmafood has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020