On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 20:06:44 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
> On 3/27/2018 11:34 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:14:12 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/26/2018 7:20 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 21:40:03 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/25/2018 7:24 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:51:52 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/24/2018 8:28 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 20:12:39 -0400, JD Wolfe wrote:
>>>>>>>>
snip
>>> Right, but I thought that religion had an explanation. Is this not
>>> true?
>>
>>
>> Yes it is, depending on the religion.
>>
> I understand that evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of
> life, however, there is a different branch naturalism that does. The
> endeavor is called abiogenesis. >
Abiogenesis has stagnated. That is, it has generated any biologically
realistic solutions to how life originated.
snip
>>> Really, how can this be true? Evolution is about gradual,
>>> imperceptible change over huge spans of time. If the fossil record
>>> shows, what you are saying, species arise suddenly, but what about
>>> ancestors?
>>
>>
>> You get the problem exactly. If evolution explains gradual change but
>> the fossil record contradicts that explanation then the darwinian
>> explanation is wrong.
> >
> Yes, this _seems_ to indicate that the fossil record fails to conform to
> theory. But there are explanations provided which excuses the failure
> of the fossil record. IOW theory takes precedence, so where theory and
> observation conflict, observation is wrong.
I'm afraid you grossly misunderstand what it means to be a "theory."
Theories are always provisional guesses about nature. Man uses
observations to see if our theories are correct. If actual observations
in nature don't confirm what the theory predicts then the theory is
likely wrong.
>>
>> This doesn't mean that ancestors didn't exist, it just means that
>> ancestors didn't arise the way darwin (and his modern followers) think
>> they arose.
>>
> I don't know how new species could have arisen except through gradual
> change from some ancestral species.
And neither does anyone else so you're in good company.
The fossil record shows that gradualism is false. The theory of
neoDarwinian evolution is necessarily gradualistic and so the fossil
record strongly indicates that it is false. So why would you continue to
accept gradualism when observations in nature show it to be false?
Better to wait until you (or someone else) explains the pattern in the
fossil record.
>>
>> 3. The fossil record disconfirms gradualism and ID Theory disconfirms
>> that naturalistic processes have the power to explain evidence of
>> design. This leaves the possibility that the origin of life and the
>> origin of species required a designer----a God.
> >
> Well evolutionist point to the horse series and sea shells as evidence-
> and as an example of gradualism where the fossil record didn't record
> due to failure of intermediate forms to fossilize.
The horse series is generally not lined up in chronological order of
appearance in the fossil record, but by size and so the evolutionist
misleads everyone. And the creature displayed looks like a horse from
start to finish.
And shells are shells from start to finish. Minor change in shape, size
and color can result from genes already existing in the genome of the
population. The trick that evolutionists have been unable to show is
how the horse and the shell arose in the first place.
snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In what way do they conflict?
>>>>>>
>>>>> If in statement #1 I took it to mean species changing to different
>>>>> species over time, which Intelligent design doesn't bother with. But
>>>>> then in statement #2 you discuss ID examining objects, systems,
>>>>> processes or events at some time is something Intelligent design
>>>>> does bother with.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Statement #1 states that "origin of life" and "change over time" are
>>>> OUTSIDE of ID Theory's domain of interest.
>>> >
>>> I understand the origin of life position, but ID theory is not
>>> concerned with changes over time, then everything else is of little
>>> meaning.
>>
>>
>> ID theory simply does NOT study change over time. It is not a theory
>> competing with darwinism to explain "how" life arose over time. It
>> does; however, give us clues about the limitations of the darwinian
>> mechanism.
> >
> If ID doesn't attempt to explain changes over time, but rather to fault
> find darwinism, then this is not a positive movement, ID fails in this
> regard.
Again you have misunderstanding the nature of theories. Theories
frequently tell us what can not happen. For example the Theory of
Gravity tells us that two masses will never repel each other.
It is just as important to know what cannot happen. ID Theory tells us
that the neoDarwinian mechanism does not have the power to generate some
kinds attributes. When we find those attributes in nature we know the
neoDarwinian mechanism was not responsible and must look for other
explanations.
>>> Is the "slice of time" then, about your report concerning the fossil
>>> record and trying to determine the cause of what you assert. It seems
>>> to me, this if true is something that would be unwelcome and no
>>> interest to naturalist.
>>
>> I agree, but it also means that the naturalist cannot explain every
>> object found in nature via naturalistic processes. It means that the
>> origin of some objects are beyond the power of naturalistic processes
>> and the naturalist.
>>
> You continually use the word "objects", in connection with this subject
> the meaning of the word is not clear in this context, at least to my
> simple way of thinking.
An "object" is simply any real, physical thing: a rock, a mountain, a
chair, a strand of hair, a frog, a human heart, etc.
snip
>>
>> I, more or less, agree with your understanding. Nonetheless neither
>> Darwin nor anyone else have observed the creation of a new biological
>> structure, system or creature "today." Since such occurrences are not
>> at work today naturalists are unable to justifiably claim they occurred
>> back in history.
>>
> I remember reading that during the Cambrian more than a dozen animal
> phylum came into existence and no new phylum have arisen since. However,
> where the Cambrian animals came from, already in broad categories,
> called the Cambrian explosion, is still a mystery. They had to have had
> a very long history, to have differentiated into so many phylum.
All the basic body plans appeared suddenly in the Cambrian stratum. And
it is a mystery that evolutionary gradualism cannot explain. Gradualism
is disconfirmed in all of the layers of the Earth where fossils are found.
Gradualism is false.
>
>
>>> "Random Chance" would be the cause of new information.
>>> He knew nothing of genetics and had never heard of random mutations,
>>> which is really the source of new information. What I attempted to
>>> describe is a - c.
>>
>> Unfortunately this isn't true.
> >
> Well yes it is, a source of new information according Darwinist ever
> since the discovery of a genetic defect in evening Penrose by Hugo de
> Vries. This discovery gave rise to NeoDarwinism.
Evolutionist have to failed explain how genes arose in the first place.
Genetic changes are almost always neutral (produces no change),
deleterious (harms the creature) or results in the damage to existing
functions. In no instance have evolutionists ever observed genetic
mutations result in progressive, positive change. Never.
>
> The study of genetics shows that random
>> mutations are mostly neutral (they result in NO change) or they are
>> harmful to living things. There has NEVER been an instance where
>> random changes results in a progressive, biological change. New
>> information is never created.
>>
> There are thousands of genetic disorders and diseases caused by
> detective genes passed on to offspring. But these are a comparative few
> compared to the numbers of genetic mistakes and errors that are weeded
> out by natural selection.
This is an example of deleterious mutations.
> >
> I think we have to disagree that new information never created.
> The history of life on this planet, indicates that new species such as
> homo sapiens are the result of information that did not exist during the
> early history of life. This is new information that was created.
This is a leap of faith you make because you assume that gradualistic
change is true, but the fossil record shows that gradualistic change is
false.
Can you cite an experiment where new information arose and was observed
to arise as the result of mutation?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think I understand, ID accepts regularity in nature. How else could
>>> it be? The laws of nature, that is, the laws of physics, chemistry and
>>> mathematics are constant and restrict the extent to which change can
>>> exist. Everything is confined restricted to these boundaries. This
>>> differentiates ID from evolution in that, with Darwin, random chance
>>> and given enough time anything is possible.
>>
>> ID Theory recognizes the following modes of causation:
>>
>> 1. regularities of nature: given a set of conditions an effect will
>> *always* occur.
>> 2. random chance: given a set of conditions sometimes a *limited set*
>> of events might occur.
>> 3. intelligent design: given a set of conditions design, in
>> principle, can generate anything not prohibited by the laws of nature.
> I agree including where you say "in principle" can generate anything,
> but does it? I honestly think evolution sitting with the hand up with
> answers where ID is just sitting.
ID theory studies the limits of natural processes. It shows that the
neoDarwinian process cannot generate certain kinds of design. No one has
shown where ID Theory is wrong. No one.
NewDarwinian processes are necessarily gradualistic but the fossil record
shows that life did NOT arise gradualistically.
Believe what you like. However, when nature tells us that the theory is
wrong then continuing to believe isn't science but blind faith.