Evolution

[Plasmatic]

Web said:

Speaking of incomprehensible, Plasmatic, I'm afraid many of your last points lost me in the jargon.

If you will point out where your confusion is I'll happily rephrase.

Web said:

I do not put natural selection and angels on the same level... however many have experienced angels in a miraculous way that cannot be scientifically certified, while others believe that natural selection can accomplish miracles of macro-evolution. I've noticed that many evolutionists are now using "macro-evolution" in a way that obfuscates the difference between micro and macro-e.

You didn't state explicitly what differentiates the two for you..... Is one more justified?.. Is one not a matter of faith? Is your acceptance of the report of others claim to "miraculous" experiences justified? Is ones rejection of the very concept of "miraculous" as meaningless-invalid an instance of faith, or of a different criteria for meaning?

Ps. I found your point about micro e. entailing as much natural selection as macro e. substantive.

[Plasmatic]

Web said:

We're talking about an information-reducing process [natural selection] being allegedly responsible for an uncountably larger information-gaining result, ie. phylogeny from a single common ancestor, whose origin is being refused to be discussed ["It's a different question..."] -- really? The opposite and equivalent question would be "where did God come from?" to which the appropriate and very religious answer is: "We don't know, He's just always been there." By refusing to acknowledge the importance of this original question to the doctrine of macro-evolution, the evolutionist is virtually saying: "I don't know, you simply have to believe." The religious answer is at least honest, whereas the avoidance behavior is, well... dishonest.

There is a very big difference in the two "questions". One is a proposed, necessary existence of a type of entity that is experienced, a material-biological entity. The other is a proposed entity unlike any possible to be experienced.... If I said, "there are foot prints here coming from the east, therefore some biological creature with human feet walked here from the east", that is very different from saying, "the window is broken and there are no footprints because it was done by an "non-material entity".But the fact that the window is broken is proof of the validity of its intelligent non materiality" .....

[Sparky]

I find your point mostly incomprehensible. Wanna rephrase? As stated it looks like an attempted circumspect reductio.

Yes...attempted. And would you ask Rumsfeld to rephrase?

As long as you don't mean "now" to be at the same time and the same respect.....

But, I do. "Now", is easier to remember than before, which mostly is out of reach.


I have found that speaking in neologisms very satisfying...

[webolife]

Plasmatic,

Science's limitation to the material natural realm is what makes it inadequate to explain the root and first causes... this is why you (philosopher and atheist) and lots of other scientists refuse to consider first causes and design, and instead claim that these are irrelevant to "science". Perhaps they are the most relevant questions!

Thank you for your acknowledgement of the natural selection issue. It is and always has been illogical to equate the kind of variation seen within [all] populations to the kind of variation seen between the many phyla, classes, and families of organisms. Of course this equating is absolutely essential to the promotion of evolution as a paradigm. as an extreme analogy it's rather like taking a particular jigsaw puzzle and putting all its pieces in a box, then splitting them into groups, and occasionally throwing a random piece or two into the mix, then continuing to do so until a brand new jigsaw puzzle is formed. Recombination of the same information cannot create new kinds, only variations, some perhaps very unusual, within an original genome. This is micro-evolution, what Darwin observed, and what put an end to the misconception of "fixity of species".

Macro-evolution depends on mutations continually entering into the mix and being selected for the viability of the organism. This would be reasonable if the mutations were usually beneficial [or neutral] but what is observed is a preponderance of negative, deleterious, or lethal mutations -- the macro-evolutionist is forced by his/her belief in the evolution paradigm to ignore, downplay, deny, and lie about this in order to bolster the assertion that micro-evolution can result in macro-evolution.

[webolife]

As we continue our discussion of material and immaterial off forum, I hope to show you why it is possible for a scientific paradigm to include reference to the immaterial realm. The materialist scientist must make excuses or create imaginary entities or processes to fill the void of evidence for a theory like evolution or the bb, whereas the inclusion of nonmaterial causes for design fills the same void of evidence. It is a belief system which drives either choice. To claim that a theist is touting a "god of the gaps" is just a smokescreen for the materialist's own "imaginary entities of the gaps".

[Plasmatic]

Web said:

Science's limitation to the material natural realm is what makes it inadequate to explain the root and first causes... this is why you (philosopher and atheist) and lots of other scientists refuse to consider first causes and design, and instead claim that these are irrelevant to "science". Perhaps they are the most relevant questions!

Let's be fair here, I have not refused to consider anything. I stated in detail my arguments against the deduction of a necessary first cause in private. If you recall I pointed out the common acceptance of an irreducible eternality, but that the conception of creation as deployed from one side is unjustifiable- violates the structure of language-meaning preservation. I rather see the extension from a perceived multiplicity of living and non-living entities, to the experience-meaning preserving conclusion that there has always been a multiplicity of particulars interacting dynamically.

We can talk more easily in other mediums...

[Spektralscavenger]

For alternative views on these matters:

http://davidpratt.info/evod1.htm

http://davidpratt.info/evod2.htm#e1

http://davidpratt.info/evod3.htm

I can tell you he´s lying in at least one thing:
symbiogenesis does have been confirmed in the lab and it takes only some hours, so imagine the possibilities given millions of years.

[Sparky]

imagine the possibilities given millions of years

Why limit to such a short time scale?? I suggest that we need to look at the possibilities with an infinite time. Maybe not even that long. How about 1/2 infinity.

[King David]

"Unexpectedly primeval organisms grew out of these seeds and eggs: a fern that no botanist was able to identify; primeval corn with up to twelve ears per stalk; wheat that was ready to be harvested in just four to six weeks. And giant trout, extinct in Europe for 130 years, with so-called salmon hooks. It was as if these organisms accessed their own genetic memories on command in the electric field, a phenomenon, which the English biochemist, Rupert Sheldrake, for instance believes is possible."

Hmmm, I wonder why this is never mentioned in Evolutionary literature...

Jarva, you are a Gold mine of information. Shame about the rest of the article...

The Swiss pharmaceutical group patented the process – and then stopped the research in 1992. Why? Because "primeval cereals" generated by an electric field, in contrast to modern strains of seeds, require hardly any fertilisers or pesticides – i.e. crop protection agents, sold as priority products by Ciba at that time. The discovery was soon forgotten, without the global scientific community taking any notice

Nothing to see here... move along please...

This is due the War on Consciousness that we are experiencing in contemporary society . If people were aware of the power of consciousness it would scare the living bejebus out of themselves. Doesn't anybody realize that it is funny they call is by it's actually name?!!?: POTENTIAL!