What Does the Religion of Darwinism actually have faith in?

[FA_Q2]

Well, you were doing well for a minute there. That whole "mountain of evidence" or "mountain of facts," canard only goes one way. I ask for some of the mountain of evidence to be presented by the person who claims that it is there, and they refuse, giving one of a few standard excuses.

But I'll try again: please present some of the mountain of evidence.

For evolution?

We have fused genes with humans and apes. We have identified retro viral insertions that match ape and human DNA perfectly with the predictions of common ancestry. That is right, a prediction was made based on evolutionary principals and BAM, turns out we found exactly what was predicted. Also same thing with wings by the way and that was predicted in Darwin's time. We not only predicted what but also WHERE such a thing would be found. And it was. We have a continual taxonomic history for hundreds of current species. We have speciation happening right now. We have examples of novel abilities being developed in micro organisms that did not and have never existed before. We can identify the mutations that are required for these novel abilities. And we have a LOT more. We have observed evolution. That is simply a fact. We have directly caused it, see dogs. We have viewed evolution in real time in the laboratory with bacteria.

And that canard goes right back to you, I have presented clear cut evidence before and everyone runs for the hills the second it is presented because they have no answer. Last time someone posted an asinine article that was easily shown to be factually incorrect and then disappeared when called out.

Again, mountains of evidence. The entire field of taxonomy is a decent start to be quite frank. It is so well attested mostly because it is the single most challenged theory of all time because it rubs up against some people's interpretation of biblical books.

That is why I compare this to flat earth. It shares the exact same roots, flat earther's almost exclusively come to their incorrect conclusions though failed interpretations of biblical texts.

 

[surada]

For evolution?

We have fused genes with humans and apes. We have identified retro viral insertions that match ape and human DNA perfectly with the predictions of common ancestry. That is right, a prediction was made based on evolutionary principals and BAM, turns out we found exactly what was predicted. Also same thing with wings by the way and that was predicted in Darwin's time. We not only predicted what but also WHERE such a thing would be found. And it was. We have a continual taxonomic history for hundreds of current species. We have speciation happening right now. We have examples of novel abilities being developed in micro organisms that did not and have never existed before. We can identify the mutations that are required for these novel abilities. And we have a LOT more. We have observed evolution. That is simply a fact. We have directly caused it, see dogs. We have viewed evolution in real time in the laboratory with bacteria.

And that canard goes right back to you, I have presented clear cut evidence before and everyone runs for the hills the second it is presented because they have no answer. Last time someone posted an asinine article that was easily shown to be factually incorrect and then disappeared when called out.

Again, mountains of evidence. The entire field of taxonomy is a decent start to be quite frank. It is so well attested mostly because it is the single most challenged theory of all time because it rubs up against some people's interpretation of biblical books.

That is why I compare this to flat earth. It shares the exact same roots, flat earther's almost exclusively come to their incorrect conclusions though failed interpretations of biblical texts.

Gene flow between species influences evolution in Darwin’s finches

Princeton ecologists Peter and Rosemary Grant led a team of researchers to discover how genetics and hybridization affected the beak shape of finches on the Galápagos Islands.

www.princeton.edu

 

[FA_Q2]

Gene flow between species influences evolution in Darwin’s finches

Princeton ecologists Peter and Rosemary Grant led a team of researchers to discover how genetics and hybridization affected the beak shape of finches on the Galápagos Islands.

www.princeton.edu

What was your point?

That there is gene transfer between 'species?'

That has always been known. I am not sure what you are getting at here?

 

[surada]

What was your point?

That there is gene transfer between 'species?'

That has always been known. I am not sure what you are getting at here?

Talking about adaptation in Finch beaks. That's adaptive evolution and it's not hard to understand.

 

[FA_Q2]

Talking about adaptation in Finch beaks. That's adaptive evolution and it's not hard to understand.

No, it is not but it is also not entirely outside the idea of ID either. That we stratify the various finches into species is just a function of using a poorly defined term. Species is really a vapid term in itself as it does not have a hard definition. Usually it is used to identify 2 populations that are incapable of breeding. Clearly that does not apply here but the term is used anyway.

Common ancestry, OTOH, is outside the ID wheelhouse.

I, however, have the same take on that idea as Laplace.

 

[surada]

No, it is not but it is also not entirely outside the idea of ID either. That we stratify the various finches into species is just a function of using a poorly defined term. Species is really a vapid term in itself as it does not have a hard definition.

Common ancestry, OTOH, is outside the ID wheelhouse.

I, however, have the same take on that idea as Laplace.

Well, what is a small study that's easy to understand for those of us who can't eat the whole elephant in one sitting.

 

[hjmick]

Five pages for a topic that should have been shut down on page one. Why? Because "Darwinism" is not a religion.

 

[BreezeWood]

Here's the reason I say that it is a religion: It is impossible that all of the changes required for Darwinian evolution to be the explanation for the abundance of species on Earth would have been random. Therefore a Darwinist must believe in some guiding force that brings the changes about in ways that further evolution . . . or . . . a Darwinist must believe that the changes are indeed random, which is impossible.

Believing in some intelligent guiding force that furthers evolution is a religious idea. Believing that something that is clearly impossible happened is a religious belief.

Believing in some intelligent guiding force that furthers evolution is a religious idea. Believing that something that is clearly impossible happened is a religious belief.

- that does apply to all three desert religions ...

metaphysical intelligent guiding force(s), polytheistic would not necessarily be religious if the supernatural, spiritual could be defined which is not presently a subject matter for evolution - however the spiritual content of physiology is the guiding mechanism for the changes that do occure.

 

[Seymour Flops]

the spiritual content of physiology is responsible for the progression of physical changes to a living being that do occur over time, passed from one generation to the next.

not random ...

the spiritual content of physiology is responsible for its generational progression ...

View attachment 631432

a physical example of the spiritual content of physiology that transforms the being from one physical form to another.

- that does apply to all three desert religions ...

metaphysical intelligent guiding force(s), polytheistic would not necessarily be religious if the supernatural, spiritual could be defined which is not presently a subject matter for evolution - however the spiritual content of physiology is the guiding mechanism for the changes that do occure.

Your answers intrigue me. I happen to have grown up in a sub-sect of one of the three desert religions. Mine is called American Baptist. Yes, they are different than the Southern Baptists, and yes, we disagree with them on several points, that would seem completely obscure and miniscule to non-Baptists. I'm not a religious person, but Baptist will always be the religion that I'm not, if you take my meaning.

Can you explain your theory on the spiritual content of physiology as the guiding mechanism for changes? I would normally say, "and start your own thread about it, dammit!" but this thread has been pretty predictable, with non-responses from whatever we should call people who believe in Darwin's theories.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Sigh, again, Darwinist is an asinine term.

No one is a Darwinist.

Sigh . . . fine. I will use whatever term you like for people who strongly believe in Darwin's theories, as long as it is not something like "people who are right," or "smart people," or "people who understand science" or whatever. I'm a skeptic of both Darwin's theories and of biblical or other religious creation myths. What I believe is commonly known as intelligent design theory and I'm not the least offended if people call me an intelligent designer. I also understand that it is no more a theory than Darwinism, just a belief - like Darwinism.

I suppose you are equally offended by "neo-Darwinist?" I will gladly call you a "Darwin adherent," a "Darwin believer," a "student of Darwin," or what you will. I'll even call you a "natural selectionist," though I would wonder why you would distance yourself from Darwin. I will make the effort to remember to do that if you will provide concrete examples of fact that fit Darwin's model, but do not fit a model in which a designer is responsible for the variations among and within species.

I have to say that every fact presented to me so far in my nearly forty years as a skeptic of Darwinian theory has fit in far better with intelligent design, than with natural selection.

That most changes of consequence are negative is an assertion that you have not backed up

I did not say that most changes are negative. My statement was:

But we know that most genetic changes either add nothing to survival/reproduction, or subtract from it.

I thought that was a pretty well-known fact:

Effects of Mutations​

The majority of mutations have neither negative nor positive effects on the organism in which they occur. These mutations are called neutral mutations. Examples include silent point mutations. They are neutral because they do not change the amino acids in the proteins they encode.

Many other mutations have no effect on the organism because they are repaired beforeprotein synthesis occurs. Cells have multiple repair mechanisms to fix mutations in DNA. One way DNA can be repaired is illustrated in Figure below. If a cell’s DNA is permanently damaged and cannot be repaired, the cell is likely to be prevented from dividing.

Beneficial Mutations​

Some mutations have a positive effect on the organism in which they occur. They are calledbeneficial mutations. They lead to new versions of proteins that help organisms adapt to changes in their environment. Beneficial mutations are essential for evolution to occur. They increase an organism’s changes of surviving or reproducing, so they are likely to become more common over time. There are several well-known examples of beneficial mutations. Here are just two:

1. Mutations in many bacteria that allow them to survive in the presence of antibiotic drugs. The mutations lead to antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.
2. A unique mutation is found in people in a small town in Italy. The mutation protects them from developing atherosclerosis, which is the dangerous buildup of fatty materials in blood vessels. The individual in which the mutation first appeared has even been identified.

Harmful Mutations​

Imagine making a random change in a complicated machine such as a car engine. The chance that the random change would improve the functioning of the car is very small. The change is far more likely to result in a car that does not run well or perhaps does not run at all. By the same token, any random change in a gene's DNA is likely to result in a protein that does not function normally or may not function at all. Such mutations are likely to be harmful. Harmful mutations may cause genetic disorders or cancer.

4.10: Mutation Effects

bio.libretexts.org

The fact that history is littered with FAR MORE dead ends in the evolutionary past than exist today should tell you that even if the vast majority of changes were negative it would be irrelevant anyway. It only takes a small population to survive for evolution to take place. No one said it was a kind process. Another thing that points to evolution as the sheer brutality that exists in nature is blatantly evident.

Actually, it takes a large population to survive long enough and produce enough individuals for us to find fossils, since the fossilization process is dependent on so many factors occurring randomly that an extremely tiny percent of any species would be fossilized. I'm surprised you don't know that, it has always been the excuse for why we don't find many fossils transitory species. So any fossils of "dead ends," were not dead ends until after many, many generations of propagation.

It is true that each step had a survival advantage as well for a transition however it does not need to be a large one. Virtually any survival advantage will propagate when isolated and within a small population.

And, indeed, we do find each and every step in the thousands and thousands of transitory forms. We even find those steps today. Virtually each and every single step in the formation of eyes, for example, exist in one or multiple species today as the eye has evolved several times. We can track how that development happens in those multiple steps.

Further, those multiple evolutionary paths show how they were evolved along separate lines as they do not share common design. There are a limited number of options for eyes so they evolve in the same manner but show distinct differences based on the exact way the particular feature evolved. Indeed there are key differences in each of them that shows they were evolved separately alone separate paths.

That is a very good explanation, except that it completely lacks examples. They are a series of statements, which, if they were backed up by examples, would be great arguments. I think that the mistake that most people make is assuming that whoever makes that argument must have studied many examples. Not I, I'm from Missouri.

Pick an example. 96% of the animal kingdom has eyes. Did they all evolve from a single, sighted ancestor? If so, how? Be very specific, vagueness is antithetical to honest debate.

Dawkins liked to point out the pharyngeal nerve as a clear cut example of this as its rout is nonsensical if it was formed originally in any of the mammal body plans. It does, however, make perfect sense when you take into account that changes need to happen in tiny increments.

Dawkins also pointed out that life has the appearance of design, and that the origin of life on Earth might have been space aliens. He also cannot right about evolution without using the language of selection, and then quickly rationalizing that it is only an analogy. One of his books is called "The Selfish Gene." Why not simply leave out such language of selection, if there was no selection?

Because, he understands that biology makes no sense if it were random.

It is also worth noting that, while more species have died than currently exist, the diversity of life is far more prevalent now than has been in the past. The further you go back, the narrower life's diversity gets. That was is one of the problems with the 'orchard' of life example, that is simply not possible on that model. ALL forms of life would have had to start at the beginning and that has been shown to be false in no uncertain terms.

Call it what you want, the age of the earth has been established in a dozen ways.

Again, evolution is better attested than almost any theory. Do you also doubt gravity?

I don't doubt gravity, the age of the Earth, nor the roundness of the Earth. All three can be demonstrated to any fifth grader with no reliance on "what if's" and assumptions of correctness before evidence is shown. Nearly all of the so-called "evidence" of Darwinian theory is evidence that it is not impossible, not evidence that it actually happened.

For people eager to reject the possibility of a designer, showing that Darwinism might have been possible is good enough. But that isn't good enough for science.

 

[BreezeWood]

Your answers intrigue me. I happen to have grown up in a sub-sect of one of the three desert religions. Mine is called American Baptist. Yes, they are different than the Southern Baptists, and yes, we disagree with them on several points, that would seem completely obscure and miniscule to non-Baptists. I'm not a religious person, but Baptist will always be the religion that I'm not, if you take my meaning.

Can you explain your theory on the spiritual content of physiology as the guiding mechanism for changes? I would normally say, "and start your own thread about it, dammit!" but this thread has been pretty predictable, with non-responses from whatever we should call people who believe in Darwin's theories.

Can you explain your theory on the spiritual content of physiology as the guiding mechanism for changes?

that was already included in this thread -

a physical example of the spiritual content of physiology that transforms the being from one physical form to another.

physiology itself is a metaphysical substance not native to planet Earth as the the physical component of life that is guided by a similar metaphysical spiritual content unique to that being that if removed will cause the physiology of the being to dissolve into the atmosphere.

for which it can only be concluded the heavens are polytheistic by the multitude of variables and variety required to sustain life as presently known.

 

[ChemEngineer]

"In China, we can criticize evolution but not the government. In America, you can criticize the government but not evolution." - Chinese Paleontologist

Any scientific paper contradicting Darwinism and pointing out its egregious errors is blackballed.

I've assembled a very great deal of damning scientific information and quotes which expose
The Great Darwinian Fraud.

 

[Hollie]

"In China, we can criticize evolution but not the government. In America, you can criticize the government but not evolution." - Chinese Paleontologist

Any scientific paper contradicting Darwinism and pointing out its egregious errors is blackballed.

I've assembled a very great deal of damning scientific information and quotes which expose
The Great Darwinian Fraud.

The ''quotes'' you have assembled are those typically found on ID'iot creationer websites and on the most notorious fundamentalist xtian ministries.

It's a part of The Great Hyper-Religious Fraud.

 

[Hollie]

Sigh . . . fine. I will use whatever term you like for people who strongly believe in Darwin's theories, as long as it is not something like "people who are right," or "smart people," or "people who understand science" or whatever. I'm a skeptic of both Darwin's theories and of biblical or other religious creation myths. What I believe is commonly known as intelligent design theory and I'm not the least offended if people call me an intelligent designer. I also understand that it is no more a theory than Darwinism, just a belief - like Darwinism.

I suppose you are equally offended by "neo-Darwinist?" I will gladly call you a "Darwin adherent," a "Darwin believer," a "student of Darwin," or what you will. I'll even call you a "natural selectionist," though I would wonder why you would distance yourself from Darwin. I will make the effort to remember to do that if you will provide concrete examples of fact that fit Darwin's model, but do not fit a model in which a designer is responsible for the variations among and within species.

I have to say that every fact presented to me so far in my nearly forty years as a skeptic of Darwinian theory has fit in far better with intelligent design, than with natural selection.

I did not say that most changes are negative. My statement was:


I thought that was a pretty well-known fact:

Effects of Mutations​

The majority of mutations have neither negative nor positive effects on the organism in which they occur. These mutations are called neutral mutations. Examples include silent point mutations. They are neutral because they do not change the amino acids in the proteins they encode.

Many other mutations have no effect on the organism because they are repaired beforeprotein synthesis occurs. Cells have multiple repair mechanisms to fix mutations in DNA. One way DNA can be repaired is illustrated in Figure below. If a cell’s DNA is permanently damaged and cannot be repaired, the cell is likely to be prevented from dividing.

Beneficial Mutations​

Some mutations have a positive effect on the organism in which they occur. They are calledbeneficial mutations. They lead to new versions of proteins that help organisms adapt to changes in their environment. Beneficial mutations are essential for evolution to occur. They increase an organism’s changes of surviving or reproducing, so they are likely to become more common over time. There are several well-known examples of beneficial mutations. Here are just two:

1. Mutations in many bacteria that allow them to survive in the presence of antibiotic drugs. The mutations lead to antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.
2. A unique mutation is found in people in a small town in Italy. The mutation protects them from developing atherosclerosis, which is the dangerous buildup of fatty materials in blood vessels. The individual in which the mutation first appeared has even been identified.

Harmful Mutations​

Imagine making a random change in a complicated machine such as a car engine. The chance that the random change would improve the functioning of the car is very small. The change is far more likely to result in a car that does not run well or perhaps does not run at all. By the same token, any random change in a gene's DNA is likely to result in a protein that does not function normally or may not function at all. Such mutations are likely to be harmful. Harmful mutations may cause genetic disorders or cancer.

4.10: Mutation Effects

bio.libretexts.org

Actually, it takes a large population to survive long enough and produce enough individuals for us to find fossils, since the fossilization process is dependent on so many factors occurring randomly that an extremely tiny percent of any species would be fossilized. I'm surprised you don't know that, it has always been the excuse for why we don't find many fossils transitory species. So any fossils of "dead ends," were not dead ends until after many, many generations of propagation.


That is a very good explanation, except that it completely lacks examples. They are a series of statements, which, if they were backed up by examples, would be great arguments. I think that the mistake that most people make is assuming that whoever makes that argument must have studied many examples. Not I, I'm from Missouri.

Pick an example. 96% of the animal kingdom has eyes. Did they all evolve from a single, sighted ancestor? If so, how? Be very specific, vagueness is antithetical to honest debate.

Dawkins also pointed out that life has the appearance of design, and that the origin of life on Earth might have been space aliens. He also cannot right about evolution without using the language of selection, and then quickly rationalizing that it is only an analogy. One of his books is called "The Selfish Gene." Why not simply leave out such language of selection, if there was no selection?

Because, he understands that biology makes no sense if it were random.



I don't doubt gravity, the age of the Earth, nor the roundness of the Earth. All three can be demonstrated to any fifth grader with no reliance on "what if's" and assumptions of correctness before evidence is shown. Nearly all of the so-called "evidence" of Darwinian theory is evidence that it is not impossible, not evidence that it actually happened.

For people eager to reject the possibility of a designer, showing that Darwinism might have been possible is good enough. But that isn't good enough for science.

From the part of your link you hoped to edit-out:

Summary​

• Mutations are essential for evolution to occur because they increase genetic variation and the potential for individuals to differ.
• The majority of mutations are neutral in their effects on the organisms in which they occur.
• Beneficial mutations may become more common through natural selection.
• Harmful mutations may cause genetic disorders or cancer.

The hyper-religious tend to be the most ignorant / most dishonest when it comes to science matters they don't understand .

 

[Seymour Flops]

From the part of your link you hoped to edit-out:

Summary​

• Mutations are essential for evolution to occur because they increase genetic variation and the potential for individuals to differ.
• The majority of mutations are neutral in their effects on the organisms in which they occur.
• Beneficial mutations may become more common through natural selection.
• Harmful mutations may cause genetic disorders or cancer.

The hyper-religious tend to be the most ignorant / most dishonest when it comes to science matters they don't understand .

Unlike you, Hollie, FA_Q2 is one of those rare posters who can argue in favor of his Darwinist position using some kind of logic and reasoning. I "edited out" the summary, on the assumption that FA_Q2 doesn't need a simplified summary.

Did you have to skip to it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Unlike you, Hollie, FA_Q2 is one of those rare posters who can argue in favor of his Darwinist position using some kind of logic and reasoning. I "edited out" the summary, on the assumption that FA_Q2 doesn't need a simplified summary.

Did you have to skip to it?

He literally just exposed you as both wrong and a liar with a simple copy paste from your own link. I can see how that might sting a bit.

 

[Seymour Flops]

He literally just exposed you as both wrong and a liar with a simple copy paste from your own link. I can see how that might sting a bit.

"He?"

Hollie is a dude?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"He?"

Hollie is a dude?

Sockpuppet troll trolls own thread

 

[BreezeWood]

Sockpuppet troll trolls own thread

whatever could that mean - - per hollie, others have said before as being male - in disguise by name ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

whatever could that mean - - per hollie, others have said before as being male - in disguise by name ...

Referring to seymour