Newly found species fills evolutionary gap between fish and land animals

EurekAlert (AAAS) ^ | 05 April 2006 | Staff

[William Terrell]

By whom? Please be specific, explaining exactly how the theory of evolution is used to justify the premise that the world exists without a creator.

This has been discussed endlessly. I can't believe you ask me to post to you who have read it many times on other threads.

Michael Behe? Is he the only one you can think of?

[muawiyah]

You're missing the part where Darwin suggests his viewpoint is that of the agnostic. Check this thread to find a direct reference to it.

I think some of these guys were overwhelmed to find it was just chemistry at work ~ they had been looking for something they called "the spark of life", and here was Darwin saying "it's in the screwing".

Later on we have Crick, et al, and DNA, and the discovery that it's not simply chemistry ~ it's an entire incredibly complex manufacturing, communications and data processing device at the root of it all.

If you could have shown DNA to Darwin I suggest he'd gone away confused and not sure if he should be an agnostic or engaged in serious prayer all the time.

It'd been too much for his Victorian mind (when they still thought everything was clockwork, and a "computer" was still someone who "computed").

Turns out there is no "spark of life", viruses exist and have genes ~ just plug them in to your own genome and maybe they'll do something ~ ? I think they can. Others still think that the only stuff you're ever going to get to work you got from your parents.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You were arguing that Christianity makes various claims about the Bible."

Yes, I am. This is undeniably true.

"Since the overwhelming majority of Christians do not make those claims, your argument was false."

The overwhelming majority of Christians do not make the claim that Jesus rose from the dead as redemption for our sins? Christians do not make the claim that there are moral absolutes? What bizarro world do you live in?

"Now, does Christianity argue that there are certain absolutes? Sure ~ but in the spiritual and moral sense."

And those absolutes are written down in the Bible, which they hold as objectively true. It can be argued whether it really IS objectively true; but to say that Christians don't claim it is objectively true is nonsense.

Subjectivism and postmodernism will be the death of a free republic.

[muawiyah]

No, it really hasn't been defined as just "change" for hundreds of years.

BTW, my statement is correct whether we are talking about "defined" or "hundreds".

[muawiyah]

Which means, of course, you can study life without reference to evolution.

That's not what is currently being claimed by those who seek to keep ID and Creationism out of the schools. They claim now that evolution is the very paradigm for biology itself, and you cannot understand the slightest thing about life without using evolution.

I doubt either position is correct, but there you have it.

[William Terrell]

Again, how do you wish to define complexity?

Oh please. So long as you duck and weave it's unlikely that trans-species evolution will deal close questioning. With these tactics, the only way such theory of evolution will survive extinction is by government edict.

[Dimensio]

This has been discussed endlessly. I can't believe you ask me to post to you who have read it many times on other threads.

I am sorry, but claiming that it has been "discussed endlessly" does not provide evidence for your claim.

Michael Behe? Is he the only one you can think of?

Michael Denton, who agrees with Michael Behe. A great number of Catholic theologians and Catholic scientists. And, as I have pointed out, a number of individuals who post to this forum.

[muawiyah]

And, you are coming close to hitting on the head the problem of "Natural Selection". It's certainly invisible, and it may involve being an eater, or being eaten, or maybe not at all (does DNA care if it's eaten?).

Gad.

[muawiyah]

No, scientists accept new models only through a process of attribiton where the old believers die off and are replaced with the new believers.

[William Terrell]

Does a database become more complex when you change the data? Does it become significantly more complex if you duplicate all the records? Does it become significantly more complex if, after the record duplication, some records are changed?

Yes, yes and yes. Have you ever worked with databases and tables as a programer?

[muawiyah]

Chaos doesn't really exist. Things just dump back into the vacuum.

[Dimensio]

Yes, yes and yes.

Interesting. How does changing information in a database make the database more complex? How does a database become more complex if a copy of it is made? How does it become more complex if, following a copy, some records are changed?

[muawiyah]

No, the Bible is merely a collection of pieces of papers. The stories in the Bible exist independently of the Bible's existence, either as a comprehensive library of books, or as the books themselves.

Most of the New Testament consists of eyewitness accounts and moral arguments.

That's hardly an objective existence for the Bible.

It is not, as it were, a Koran, that is believed to be sacred in and of itself, and for which any abuse of same deserves the death penalty.

In short, the Bible is not an idol.

[William Terrell]

Do you likewise think it's possible that we know something about the ancestry of life on earth without knowing everything about how it originated?

No, but you have to have sufficient evidence that doesn't admit of more than one interpretation. The fossil record should be be composed almost entirely of transitional forms. It isn't.

Every single bit of evidence you have requires a presupposition of trans-species evolution.

You have to know something for sure, and you don't.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"No, the Bible is merely a collection of pieces of papers. The stories in the Bible exist independently of the Bible's existence, either as a comprehensive library of books, or as the books themselves."

The Bible didn't exist until it was assembled and codified. It is taken as objective truth by Christians.

"Most of the New Testament consists of eyewitness accounts and moral arguments.

That's hardly an objective existence for the Bible."

I didn't say it WAS objectively true; I said that it is taken as objective truth by Christians.

"It is not, as it were, a Koran, that is believed to be sacred in and of itself, and for which any abuse of same deserves the death penalty.

In short, the Bible is not an idol."

So? That doesn't change the fact that what is written in the Bible is taken as objectively true by believing Christians.

[William Terrell]

Then you have to stipulate the equal possibility of a creative intelligent force. Evolution can not be without a creation.

[jec41]

For all anyone can know the entire Universe is just in my mind."

Or that you are a space alien, and that Thetans fill my body. Sorry, you're babbling now.

One of the soundest arguments of philosophy (faith and belief) by Descartes for reason by doubt. That only you exist and that everything around you is created by your own thought for your own benefit. Solipsism is hard to refute by philosophical argument because one can deny anything. Science does not even address it because it has not been observed as fact. However the church denied and renounced Descartes's proof by argument. The soundest argument against Solipsism is that most who believe it are considered insane and reside in a insane asylum.

[William Terrell]

This "simple explanation" involves the introduction of an invisible, undefined, unexplained, and inexplicable entity

Like the introduction of a aimless random force that bring organization from disorder?

[atlaw]

To the extent that you are suggesting that "natural selection" is a tautology, here is an interesting reply --

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html

[Dimensio]

Then you have to stipulate the equal possibility of a creative intelligent force.

What evidence exists for a "creative intelligent force"?

Evolution can not be without a creation.

The means by which the first life forms came to exist is not relevant to the theory of evolution. I do not understand why you continue to speak on the subject when it is not relevant to the theory.