God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

[Seymour Flops]

So, it is true that we should not automatically assume God as the only explanation for the many gaping holes in naturalistic evolutionary theory. But, if we are intellectually hones, we must recognize that the gaps are there. We shouldn't say, "it must be God," when discussing those gaps, but we have to say, "it must be something."

Let us not forget that evolutionary theory is not in any way an experimental science. Evolutionary theory consists entirely of hypotheses and suppositions, few of which can be tested.

Evolutionary theorists have yet to come up with a plausible way that DNA could have formed without having been designed. Since it is not experimental, almost any idea for how DNA formed would be immediately accepted by the popular science media, and impossible to falsify.

 

[abu afak]

So, it is true that we should not automatically assume God as the only explanation for the many gaping holes in naturalistic evolutionary theory. But, if we are intellectually hones, we must recognize that the gaps are there. We shouldn't say, "it must be God," when discussing those gaps, but we have to say, "it must be something."

There's gaps in every science and has been forever.
God has usually been used and always failed on all on which we have a verdict. 0-fer-10,000.

Let us not forget that evolutionary theory is not in any way an experimental science. Evolutionary theory consists entirely of hypotheses and suppositions, few of which can be tested.

Wrong:

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

Evolutionary theorists have yet to come up with a plausible way that DNA could have formed without having been designed. Since it is not experimental, almost any idea for how DNA formed would be immediately accepted by the popular science media, and impossible to falsify.

Before DNA there was RNA.
google ie 'RNA world'
ie

The RNA World and the Origins of Life - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

`

 

[ding]

“Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” Charles Darwin

 

[Rigby5]

“Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” Charles Darwin

Incorrect.

We only have found fewer than 10 Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils.
Yet for them to exist at all, there had to be over half a million of them in existence, at any one time, and for them to continually exist for over at least 10 million years.
Allowing for at least a 50 year life span, that means there should be over 100 trillion Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils.
And yet we only have 10,
That means very few fossils survive, and we find very few of those even.

And that is with an obviously very successful Tyrannosaurs Rex.
With some much less successful species, like T Rex predecessors and descendants, that was a 10th in population, over a 10th the number of years, we should expect 1% of the fossils.
So what is 1% of 10?
That is 0.1, and that is about what we see and should expect for the predecessors and descendants after the successful run of Tyrannosaurus Rex.

 

[ding]

Incorrect.

We only have found fewer than 10 Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils.
Yet for them to exist at all, there had to be over half a million of them in existence, at any one time, and for them to continually exist for over at least 10 million years.
Allowing for at least a 50 year life span, that means there should be over 100 trillion Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils.
And yet we only have 10,
That means very few fossils survive, and we find very few of those even.

And that is with an obviously very successful Tyrannosaurs Rex.
With some much less successful species, like T Rex predecessors and descendants, that was a 10th in population, over a 10th the number of years, we should expect 1% of the fossils.
So what is 1% of 10?
That is 0.1, and that is about what we see and should expect for the predecessors and descendants after the successful run of Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Even Darwin recognized it. Everyone has recognized it but you.

Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin[7] is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rigby5]

Even Darwin recognized it. Everyone has recognized it but you.

Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin[7] is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wrong.
You simply did not read what punctuated equilibrium means.
It means that when changes first happen in a species, it is not likely to at first be very successful, so you should not expect a large population.
But eventually it may become very successful and then become a very large population.
But then any large population will attract predators, pathogens, etc., and eventually the large population will again drastically drop.
And obviously, when population are low, the odds are no one will find the few fossil remains there may be.
The fossil record is EXACTLY what Darwin and all anthropologists expect.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Incorrect.

We only have found fewer than 10 Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils.
Yet for them to exist at all, there had to be over half a million of them in existence, at any one time, and for them to continually exist for over at least 10 million years.

Where did you get that formula? I actually hope that you pulled it out of thin air. I hate to think that some taxpayer funded paleontologist came up with that idea.

Allowing for at least a 50 year life span, that means there should be over 100 trillion Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils.
And yet we only have 10,
That means very few fossils survive, and we find very few of those even.

How do you know there was a 50 year life span for T-Rex? How does life span affect fossilization after death?

And that is with an obviously very successful Tyrannosaurs Rex.

If we only have ten T-Rex fossils, how were they “very successful?”

So what is 1% of 10?

That is 0.1, and that is about what we see and should expect for the predecessors and descendants after the successful run of Tyrannosaur . . .

Supposition derived from made up facts.

You and the other natural evolution proponents would have more credibility if you said something like:

“Ok, we don’t have all the answers. We have only scratched the surface and there are many huge plot holes in our narrative. But we have to keep seeking naturalistic explanations to avoid the laziness of attributing everything to God.”

If you said that, I would be perfectly willing to donate to your research. But if you are going to lie and make up facts, I don’t want to pay for that.

 

[ding]

Wrong.
You simply did not read what punctuated equilibrium means.
It means that when changes first happen in a species, it is not likely to at first be very successful, so you should not expect a large population.
But eventually it may become very successful and then become a very large population.
But then any large population will attract predators, pathogens, etc., and eventually the large population will again drastically drop.
And obviously, when population are low, the odds are no one will find the few fossil remains there may be.
The fossil record is EXACTLY what Darwin and all anthropologists expect.

Punctuated equilibrium is based upon genetic mutations.

Darwin literally argued the fossil record was imperfect which is why the fossil record did not match his theory. Darwin knew there was a gap in predicted versus observed even if you don't.

Gould noted that Darwin’s argument that the fossil record is imperfect “persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly.”

 

[Rigby5]

Where did you get that formula? I actually hope that you pulled it out of thin air. I hate to think that some taxpayer funded paleontologist came up with that idea.

How do you know there was a 50 year life span for T-Rex? How does life span affect fossilization after death?

If we only have ten T-Rex fossils, how were the “very successful?”

So what is 1% of 10?

Supposition derived from made up facts.

You and the other natural evolution proponents would have more credibility if you said something like:

“Ok, we don’t have all the answers. We have only scratched the surface and there are many huge plot holes in our narrative. But we have to keep seeking naturalistic explanations to avoid the laziness of attributing everything to God.”

If you said that, I would be perfectly willing to donate to your research. But if you are going to lie and make up facts, I don’t want to pay for that.

That is silly.
It is easy to gain a general feeling for time spans because Tyrannosaurus Rexs are so large, and so peculiar, with such small hands and big heads.
It would have taken tens of millions of years to evolve to the final form, and a long time to die out.
The 50 year life span was being generous, to estimate the number of fossils there should be.
Large animals tend to have longer life spans.
But your claims are all wrong.
It is easy to prove evolution.
All we have to do is look at tiny organisms with very short life spans, like a species of virus.
There we observe and verify evolution in less than a decade.

 

[Rigby5]

Punctuated equilibrium is based upon genetic mutations.

Darwin literally argued the fossil record was imperfect which is why the fossil record did not match his theory. Darwin knew there was a gap in predicted versus observed even if you don't.

Gould noted that Darwin’s argument that the fossil record is imperfect “persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly.”

No, punctuated equilibrium is not based on genetic mutations.
Punctuated equilibrium is the fact that in times of species failure, there is a lot more inbreeding due to the small population size.
That inbreeding rapidly increases the speed of evolution through natural selection.
The mutations can not take place when the species is low in number, and had to already have been there a long time ago, but simply recessive or lacking in manifestation for some reason.
When inbreeding takes place, then recessives come out.

And the fossil record is EXACTLY what anyone should expect.
During periods of inbreeding from low populations, there would be little or no fossil record.

 

[Seymour Flops]

That is silly.
It is easy to gain a general feeling for time spans because Tyrannosaurus Rexs are so large, and so peculiar, with such small hands and big heads.
It would have taken tens of millions of years to evolve to the final form, and a long time to die out.
The 50 year life span was being generous, to estimate the number of fossils there should be.

How does the length of the life span affect the number of fossils? You appear to be making all this up.

Large animals tend to have longer life spans.
But your claims are all wrong.
It is easy to prove evolution.
All we have to do is look at tiny organisms with very short life spans, like a species of virus.
There we observe and verify evolution in less than a decade.

What new species have we seen evolve from which existing species, and how do we know that happened via natural selection?

 

[Hollie]

So, it is true that we should not automatically assume God as the only explanation for the many gaping holes in naturalistic evolutionary theory. But, if we are intellectually hones, we must recognize that the gaps are there. We shouldn't say, "it must be God," when discussing those gaps, but we have to say, "it must be something."

Let us not forget that evolutionary theory is not in any way an experimental science. Evolutionary theory consists entirely of hypotheses and suppositions, few of which can be tested.

Evolutionary theorists have yet to come up with a plausible way that DNA could have formed without having been designed. Since it is not experimental, almost any idea for how DNA formed would be immediately accepted by the popular science media, and impossible to falsify.

It is not true that anyone should automatically assume one or more Gods as the only explanation for the many gaping holes in naturalistic evolutionary theory. If we are to be intellectually honest, we can agree that the hyper-religious are the last people who are either intellectual or honest.

What is this 'naturalistic evolutionary theory' taught at your ID'iot creationer ministry? Most of know of the Theory of Evolution. It is among the best supported theories in science. Evolution by natural selection is supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology. it appears that being hyper-religious requires one to be a science denier.


Scientists already have a plausible theory for the formation of DNA. Had you taken biology courses in school, you would know that. I guess the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah is not real proactive with science.

On the other hand, we have yet to see a plausible theory for any of the gods.

Why Darwin Was Right and Creationists Are Wrong

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Richard Dawkins. Free Press, 2009. 480 pp., illus. $30.00 (ISBN 9781416594789 cloth).

academic.oup.com

Over the past three decades, biologists and then scientists more generally have become increasingly aware of the threat that creationism, in its many guises, poses not only to science but also to rationalism and evidence-based decisionmaking. The intention of “intelligent design” advocates, as revealed in the “wedge” document (www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf), was to replace evolution in science curricula and to recast the sciences generally in a theological framework (Forrest and Gross 2003). The conflict between evolutionary science and creationism is the front line in the defense of science

 

[ding]

No, punctuated equilibrium is not based on genetic mutations.
Punctuated equilibrium is the fact that in times of species failure, there is a lot more inbreeding due to the small population size.
That inbreeding rapidly increases the speed of evolution through natural selection.
The mutations can not take place when the species is low in number, and had to already have been there a long time ago, but simply recessive or lacking in manifestation for some reason.
When inbreeding takes place, then recessives come out.

And the fossil record is EXACTLY what anyone should expect.
During periods of inbreeding from low populations, there would be little or no fossil record.

Punctuated equilibrium originated as a logical consequence of Ernst Mayr's concept of genetic revolutions by allopatric and especially peripatric speciation as applied to the fossil record.

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In punctuated equilibrium, change comes in spurts. There is a period of very little change, and then one or a few huge changes occur, often through mutations in the genes of a few individuals. ...

Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium — New England Complex Systems Institute

necsi.edu

 

[Rigby5]

How does the length of the life span affect the number of fossils? You appear to be making all this up.

What new species have we seen evolve from which existing species, and how do we know that happened via natural selection?

To figure out how many fossils one should expect, you take the duration of the species, multiply by the number of the population, and divide by the life span.
That is simple.
The reality is more complex because the population is not going to be constant, but start out small, grow large, and end up small again.

Since most evolution takes on the order of a million years or so, and we do not have history going back that far, the only way to actually see any evolution is going to be with very short lived organisms like viruses. And I think ever one has heard that viruses mutate and evolve?

But natural selection is NOT the main part of evolution.
The main part if mutation.

 

[Rigby5]

In punctuated equilibrium, change comes in spurts. There is a period of very little change, and then one or a few huge changes occur, often through mutations in the genes of a few individuals. ...

That is not correctly worded.
They did not mean to imply that the mutations happened during or causing the decrease or increase in population.
The mutations are so slow, they always happened far earlier.
The whole point of punctuated equilibrium is that for a successful and large population, then mutations won't manifest.
They either will not be selected for by mates, or they will be recessive alleles.
Change can only rapidly take place when population are so low that inbreeding becomes common.
That brings out recessive mutations that have been around for a long time, but unable to manifest.
The mutations allow for the differences to exist in the genes, but you won't see them until there is inbreeding.

 

[ding]

That is not correctly worded.
They did not mean to imply that the mutations happened during or causing the decrease or increase in population.
The mutations are so slow, they always happened far earlier.
The whole point of punctuated equilibrium is that for a successful and large population, then mutations won't manifest.
They either will not be selected for by mates, or they will be recessive alleles.
Change can only rapidly take place when population are so low that inbreeding becomes common.
That brings out recessive mutations that have been around for a long time, but unable to manifest.
The mutations allow for the differences to exist in the genes, but you won't see them until there is inbreeding.

You are arguing with the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI). An independent academic research and educational institution. In addition NECSI has affiliates from MIT, Harvard and Brandeis.

And here's a paper on it.

Evolution in the weak-mutation limit: Stasis periods punctuated by fast transitions between saddle points on the fitness landscape

The gradual character of evolution is a key feature of the Darwinian worldview. However, macroevolutionary events are often thought to occur in a nongradualist manner, in a regime known as punctuated equilibrium, whereby extended periods of evolutionary stasis are punctuated by rapid transitions...

www.pnas.org

 

[Seymour Flops]

To figure out how many fossils one should expect, you take the duration of the species, multiply by the number of the population, and divide by the life span.
That is simple.
The reality is more complex because the population is not going to be constant, but start out small, grow large, and end up small again.

So why only ten T-Rex fossils?

If D(uration of the species) X P(population)/L(ife span) = E(expected fossils), then even if only a thousand T-rexes were on the Earth for one thousand years and they lived on average fifty years:

---

1,000 X 1,000/50 = 20,000
​

So your evidence is about 19,990 T-rex fossils short.

Since most evolution takes on the order of a million years or so, and we do not have history going back that far, the only way to actually see any evolution is going to be with very short lived organisms like viruses. And I think ever one has heard that viruses mutate and evolve?

Well, they mutate. I see no evidence that they "evolve." They've been around for at least thirty million years and there they are: still viruses. Not very impressive "evolution."

But natural selection is NOT the main part of evolution.
The main part if mutation.

So, is natural selection essential to your view of evolution?

If not, we really don't disagree much. I still think you make up numbers and facts, but I don't doubt that species may have evolved.

Just not via natural selection.

 

[Rigby5]

You are arguing with the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI). An independent academic research and educational institution. In addition NECSI has affiliates from MIT, Harvard and Brandeis.

And here's a paper on it.

Evolution in the weak-mutation limit: Stasis periods punctuated by fast transitions between saddle points on the fitness landscape

The gradual character of evolution is a key feature of the Darwinian worldview. However, macroevolutionary events are often thought to occur in a nongradualist manner, in a regime known as punctuated equilibrium, whereby extended periods of evolutionary stasis are punctuated by rapid transitions...

www.pnas.org

Wrong.
You are just misunderstanding.
Darwin assumed evolution was slow and little increments.
That is not the case.
Evolution stops with large populations, but accelerates incredibly when there are small populations that cause a lot of inbreeding.
And your link agrees with me, so I am not arguing with anyone.

 

[Rigby5]

So why only ten T-Rex fossils?

If D(uration of the species) X P(population)/L(ife span) = E(expected fossils), then even if only a thousand T-rexes were on the Earth for one thousand years and they lived on average fifty years:

---

1,000 X 1,000/50 = 20,000
​

So your evidence is about 19,990 T-rex fossils short.


Well, they mutate. I see no evidence that they "evolve." They've been around for at least thirty million years and there they are: still viruses. Not very impressive "evolution."

So, is natural selection essential to your view of evolution?

If not, we really don't disagree much. I still think you make up numbers and facts, but I don't doubt that species may have evolved.

Just not via natural selection.

The point is that we are very bad at finding fossils.
We are not looking very hard, don't look in the right places, and natural processes may be destroying most of the fossils.

Viruses are doing fine, so there is no reason for them to become more complex.
Evolution does not mean they have to become more complex.
Evolution is not about impressing anyone.
It is just about survival.

And yes, natual selection is essential.
Without natural selection, nothing would change.
Natural selection means the weak or least fit are destroyed by natural forces, such as predators, weather, disease, etc.
If nothing was destroyed and all propagated equally, then you would have homeostasis and not evolution.

 

[Hollie]

The point is that we are very bad at finding fossils.
We are not looking very hard, don't look in the right places, and natural processes may be destroying most of the fossils.

Viruses are doing fine, so there is no reason for them to become more complex.
Evolution does not mean they have to become more complex.
Evolution is not about impressing anyone.
It is just about survival.

And yes, natual selection is essential.
Without natural selection, nothing would change.
Natural selection means the weak or least fit are destroyed by natural forces, such as predators, weather, disease, etc.
If nothing was destroyed and all propagated equally, then you would have homeostasis and not evolution.

This might suggest that as magical designers, the various gods are really incompetent at doing their jobs. That they designed disease, for example, suggests poor design or perhaps cruelty and vindictiveness.