Science vs. Creationism

[Tarkanian]

If amphibians are the in-betweeners, that is the middle stages of the evolution, why did not they go extinct?
(and they survived)
so, if they could apparently survive, why and how could they keep on evolving?
(cos there was no apparent need and others than the fittest obviously DID survive)
according to evolutionary logic; everything that lives now actually has to be the end-product of an ongoing process.
therefore, we are not supposed to be seeing those in-between middle-stage-evolutionary life forms.
As one bro:. put it well, all those ampihibians are proofs verifications for themselves, that they exist as they are.
They are not pointing to an evolution, for we dont have the not-evolved-form of the same animal.
SAME /= similar

You guys are connecting too many dots just too easily and believe in a fairytale.

 

[One Brow]

....but not "evolution".....since the frogs/amphibians never "change" into anything else....fish, turtles, snakes, alligators, etc. etc. etc. They stay within the Genesis "kinds" that prevents that from occurring!

Evolutionary theory does not say something changes into something else. We didn't change from being a fish, we are still fish.

 

[One Brow]

If amphibians are the in-betweeners, that is the middle stages of the evolution, why did not they go extinct?

Thousands of populations of amphibians have gone extinct over the millennia. Some adapted well enough to survive. Why should it be otherwise?

so, if they could apparently survive, why and how could they keep on evolving?

Because the environment keeps changing.

according to evolutionary logic; everything that lives now actually has to be the end-product of an ongoing process.

There is no end-product, just the current version.

therefore, we are not supposed to be seeing those in-between middle-stage-evolutionary life forms.

Sure we should. If they can survive, they will survive.

As one bro:. put it well, all those ampihibians are proofs verifications for themselves, that they exist as they are.
They are not pointing to an evolution, for we dont have the not-evolved-form of the same animal.

There is no such thing as a not-evolved living thing. Anything the reproduces will evolve.

 

[babe]

yup, lots of amphibians estivate. Just another proof of connection between them and fish.

OK. . . . let me use this as an example, for an exercise in logic. Logic without bias.

Take all the amphibians, or even bacteria, that "estivate", generalizing the strategy as some capacity to anticipate an oncoming challenge to survival, and take preparatory action. . .. specifically to prepare for dessicating conditions by reinforcing their perimeter somehow with a layer that functions to preserve some hydration within, and further to prepare by moving to a location that will aid in preserving hydration, and even include having proteins, membranes, structures that will maintain essential functions through a dessicating event.

How is that different, say, from any other life capacity that addresses a general life need. Your argument, AKMVP, is essentially "trivial", to borrow a term much used in math, that describes a solution that is useless, or "zero" by definition, like saying A=A.

A shared strategy or capacity does not prove a line of descent from one recognizable lifeform to another. It is irrelevant to the issue of how living things are interconnected. It is equally trivial to the argument for a strictly materialist reality, as well as it is for a "spiritual" reality imputed to some idea of "God".

The more valid way evolution theorists can establish a connection would be to go to the DNA and compare the sequences that code for "shared proteins", or closely-related enzymes and structural protein, perhaps. You could then discuss a certain number of apparent point mutations, and maybe theoretically construct a tree of relatedness between the amphibians who estivate, a sort of special set of of relations like that derived from the studies of cytochrome c.

When you have done that, evolutionists can still argue for a purely material process, and religionists can still argue for creation, with equally valid. . . . and equally trivial. . . .points. The information so gathered does not prove the path of history, or the "purpose" of nature.

estivation is, however, a good example that demonstrates intelligence. . .. cognition and action with purpose. . . in relatively simple "life". It's like mammals who will prepare for birth by digging a hole in the ground, or going into a cave, where the vulnerable young can be kept warm and safe from predation. . . .

It is actually, a proof of "intelligent design" in it's most elemental form, where the intelligence is in the creature, at least, if not in the creator.

 

[PearlWatson]

In a discussion such as this one, character traits such as me potentially being hypocritical have no bearing on whether what I am saying is correct or not. Instead of assessing my character, maybe you should assess my posts, and try to find weaknesses in my application of science to explain evolution. You have interestingly avoided that-- which is of little surprise to me.
Because I see the movement of ID more intellectually-damaging, and I would much rather target all of my energy to debunking that ethos than critically analyzing whatever the hell you deem Darwinism to be.

Okay lets start this conversation again without bringing any judgments to the table.

Now that I know more about what the chart represents let's move slower and with more clarity.

My initial question was how do you move from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction.

So you show me a chart of how a male bacteria (has f plasmid) passes this information to a female bacteria (doesn't have f plasmid) .

Why is there a difference between them in the first place?

 

[PearlWatson]

What is biblical reason for genetic mutations, disease, suffering and death in fish, birds, dogs, bananas and mushrooms for example?

I guess the bible says the food and animals were created for mankind and they are subject to the same entropy.

Oh so you guess? I thought you KNOW for sure?
LMAO this is getting funny. So I get that humans may be doomed by "almighty intelligent designer" to diseases, genetic mutations and suffering as per biblical reasons in order for their soul to achieve eternal life after death but what does defective rose, fish, frog or mushroom gains after their life ends prematurely because of mutation, genetic defect or disease? And what about those plants and animals who were "created" not for mankind use? Are they exemption?

I ain't Ken Ham. I ain't trying to make the data fit the biblical account, let alone the literal interpretation, so yes I did guess at it, because I like you and I thought it was an interesting question.
It brought new light to Ken's challenge on "The Fall". babe covered many aspects of the question but didn't mention the possibility that "The Fall" wouldn't apply to animals and plants.

 

[carolinajazz]

Okay lets start this conversation again without bringing any judgments to the table.

Now that I know more about what the chart represents let's move slower and with more clarity.

My initial question was how do you move from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction.

So you show me a chart of how a male bacteria (has f plasmid) passes this information to a female bacteria (doesn't have f plasmid) .

Why is there a difference between them in the first place?

Hows this: Belief in evolution gives rise to the question: If the male and the female reproductive organs evolved, how had life been proceeding before the complete formation of both?

According to the theory of evolution, human life evolved from simple microorganisms. But, unlike humans, most microorganisms come from just one parent. They reproduce on their own. How could this form of reproduction have evolved into the more complex form requiring two parents? Evolutionists find this hard to answer.

“We do not even in the least know the final cause of sexuality; why new beings should be produced by the union of the two sexual elements, instead of by a process of parthenogenesis [reproduction requiring only one parent] . The whole subject is as yet hidden in darkness.”—Charles Darwin, 1862.

With reference to Darwin’s view, Science News, September*8, 1984, adds: “He might have been writing today.”

“This book,” states Professor George C. Williams in the preface of Sex and Evolution, “is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory.”

In his book The Evolution of Sex, Professor John Maynard Smith presents “a scheme for the origin of sex,” calling it “the best scheme I can offer.” He states in conclusion: “I cannot pretend to much confidence in this explanation.”

“Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. . It seems that some of the most fundamental questions in evolutionary biology have scarcely ever been asked . The largest and least ignorable and most obdurate of these questions is, why sex?”—The Masterpiece of Nature, by Professor Graham Bell.

 

[Tarkanian]

If they can survive, they will survive.

sure.
but if one organism can survive as it is; then where is the need for further evolution?

Environmental changes did not kill those that have survived, so these animal species are the end-products in their production lane.
It cannot be both ways.
Either you face extinction and you evolve.
or you survive already, so you don't seek new solutions, easier life, whatever that is which forms the underlying "motive" for evolution.

 

[One Brow]

With reference to Darwin’s view, Science News, September*8, 1984, adds: “He might have been writing today.”

When your most recent source is 30 years old, you are out of date. We currently have many different paths along which sexuality could have evovled, the real issue is chooosing the correct one from many.

 

[One Brow]

sure.
but if one organism can survive as it is; then where is the need for further evolution?

Different environments. One population finds itself in a very similar environment for a long time, and changes little overall. Another population moves into a different environment, and changes much more.

Environmental changes did not kill those that have survived, so these animal species are the end-products in their production lane.

The are only the curent products. As the environments change, many populations will die off, but a few will adapt and spread.

It cannot be both ways.
Either you face extinction and you evolve.
or you survive already, so you don't seek new solutions, easier life, whatever that is which forms the underlying "motive" for evolution.

It can be different ways in different locations. The ocean floor is different from the continental shelf. The river delta is different from the main body of the river. The savannah is different from the nearby jungle. when part of the population moves from the ocean floor to the continental shelf, they face differing pressures, and change differently.

This is only one way different species can be formed from a single population. There are others.

 

[♪alt13]

If amphibians are the in-betweeners, that is the middle stages of the evolution, why did not they go extinct?
(and they survived)
so, if they could apparently survive, why and how could they keep on evolving?
(cos there was no apparent need and others than the fittest obviously DID survive)
according to evolutionary logic; everything that lives now actually has to be the end-product of an ongoing process.
therefore, we are not supposed to be seeing those in-between middle-stage-evolutionary life forms.
As one bro:. put it well, all those ampihibians are proofs verifications for themselves, that they exist as they are.
They are not pointing to an evolution, for we dont have the not-evolved-form of the same animal.
SAME /= similar

You guys are connecting too many dots just too easily and believe in a fairytale.

Evolution isn't motivated it just happens.

Imagine someone was born with neon green hair. Would all other colors of human hair need to disappear for this one to continue to exist?

 

[♪alt13]

OK. . . . let me use this as an example, for an exercise in logic. Logic without bias.

Take all the amphibians, or even bacteria, that "estivate", generalizing the strategy as some capacity to anticipate an oncoming challenge to survival, and take preparatory action. . .. specifically to prepare for dessicating conditions by reinforcing their perimeter somehow with a layer that functions to preserve some hydration within, and further to prepare by moving to a location that will aid in preserving hydration, and even include having proteins, membranes, structures that will maintain essential functions through a dessicating event.

How is that different, say, from any other life capacity that addresses a general life need. Your argument, AKMVP, is essentially "trivial", to borrow a term much used in math, that describes a solution that is useless, or "zero" by definition, like saying A=A.

A shared strategy or capacity does not prove a line of descent from one recognizable lifeform to another. It is irrelevant to the issue of how living things are interconnected. It is equally trivial to the argument for a strictly materialist reality, as well as it is for a "spiritual" reality imputed to some idea of "God".

The more valid way evolution theorists can establish a connection would be to go to the DNA and compare the sequences that code for "shared proteins", or closely-related enzymes and structural protein, perhaps. You could then discuss a certain number of apparent point mutations, and maybe theoretically construct a tree of relatedness between the amphibians who estivate, a sort of special set of of relations like that derived from the studies of cytochrome c.

When you have done that, evolutionists can still argue for a purely material process, and religionists can still argue for creation, with equally valid. . . . and equally trivial. . . .points. The information so gathered does not prove the path of history, or the "purpose" of nature.

estivation is, however, a good example that demonstrates intelligence. . .. cognition and action with purpose. . . in relatively simple "life". It's like mammals who will prepare for birth by digging a hole in the ground, or going into a cave, where the vulnerable young can be kept warm and safe from predation. . . .

It is actually, a proof of "intelligent design" in it's most elemental form, where the intelligence is in the creature, at least, if not in the creator.

If you don't want to watch the entire lecture click on 28 in the right hand margin.
https://media.hhmi.org/hl/05Lect3.html