What Does the Religion of Darwinism actually have faith in?

[surada]

Dogmaphobe and Penelope can provide you those links since they attribute evolution to "random" and "chance" events just upthread.

If the mutations required for Darwinian evolution are not random, how are they initiated?

They are adaptive changes. Darwinism isn't a religion. It's a scientific theory. I'll send you a link.

 

[surada]

HarvardKey - Harvard University Authentication Service

scholar.harvard.edu

 

[alang1216]

I don't see anything inconsistent with believing in evolution and God. But you are vastly over simplifying "self assembly." Long chains of inanimate organic molecules must fold themselves in precisely the correct sequence. Do you understand the likelihood of that process?

No. Why must they fold?

 

[ding]

No. Why must they fold?

Good question.

Protein folding - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[alang1216]

Good question.

Protein folding - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Proteins are very complex, I was talking about simple things more like a clay.

 

[ding]

Proteins are very complex, I was talking about simple things more like a clay.

I thought we were talking about inanimate matter making the leap to living organisms. If that is what we are talking about then we are talking about long chains of organic molecules - which resemble amino acids - folding themselves in the correct sequence without any instructions to do so.

 

[BreezeWood]

Dogmaphobe and Penelope can provide you those links since they attribute evolution to "random" and "chance" events just upthread.

If the mutations required for Darwinian evolution are not random, how are they initiated?

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.

 

[Seymour Flops]

They are adaptive changes. Darwinism isn't a religion. It's a scientific theory. I'll send you a link.

I don’t know if y’all are pretending not to understand the question, or if you really don’t understand the question.

If the changes are adaptive, how do they organisms make the decision to change? If it isn’t the organism itself making that decision, who or what is deciding that an adaptation is needed and then making that change?

Read your own link before you send it to me. I believe that you will learn that Darwin’s theory is that random changes occur and that those random changes that do nothing to help the organism survive do not perpetuate, while those random changes that do help the organism survive and/or reproduce are passed on to the next generations.

I get that Darwinism seems much more plausible if it isn’t random. But if it isn’t random, some intelligence is making the decision that there needs to be a change.

Is that your assertion?

 

[surada]

I don’t know if y’all are pretending not to understand the question, or if you really don’t understand the question.

If the changes are adaptive, how do they organisms make the decision to change? If it isn’t the organism itself making that decision, who or what is deciding that an adaptation is needed and then making that change?

Read your own link before you send it to me. I believe that you will learn that Darwin’s theory is that random changes occur and that those random changes that do nothing to help the organism survive do not perpetuate, while those random changes that do help the organism survive and/or reproduce are passed on to the next generations.

I get that Darwinism seems much more plausible if it isn’t random. But if it isn’t random, some intelligence is making the decision that there needs to be a change.

Is that your assertion?

The ones who are smaller, taller, faster.... survive to reproduce.

 

[BreezeWood]

So, the mutations are deliberate and purposeful?

physiological changes are deliberate, purposeful, may occur by chance and are remediated by its spiritual content and to survive rejection by the physical to insure its acceptance to become permanent.

 

[BreezeWood]

I get that's the "theory."

I'm asking how you think that It works. You said it isnt random. So how does the mutation needed to survive happen if it isn't random?

not random ...

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

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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It isn't a faith in Darwin as a man, nor faith in "science," meaning the people who claim to practice science and get the media's attention and approval. Their dogmatic approach and exclusion of critical thinking about their religion is how they keep Darwinism propped up, but those things are not what they have faith in.

But, they must have faith in something. How else could they believe (or for many pretend to believe), that all of the design that is so clearly apparent in the universe is actually the result of no design at all? What could allow them to even consider that all the complexity of life on Earth was created by a series of random events? In what do they have faith that could have allowed such an unlikely idea to be true?

The answer is the passage of time. We now know that there is much significance to the passage of time. Our second highest elected leader explained it thusly:



No matter how impossible it seems that a single light-sensitive cell developed (by random mutations) into the sophisticated vision systems that millions of different species possess, Darwinists explain it all by saying WTTE of, "well it took a long time, of course."

That is faith. If faith is to be admired for its own sake, it is an admirable faith, because it requires the believer to exclude so much evidence that is readily available for their observation.

The thread premise is a lie.

Evolution is not ‘religion.’

 

[Seymour Flops]

The thread premise is a lie.

Evolution is not ‘religion.’

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.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don’t know if y’all are pretending not to understand the question, or if you really don’t understand the question.

If the changes are adaptive, how do they organisms make the decision to change? If it isn’t the organism itself making that decision, who or what is deciding that an adaptation is needed and then making that change?

Read your own link before you send it to me. I believe that you will learn that Darwin’s theory is that random changes occur and that those random changes that do nothing to help the organism survive do not perpetuate, while those random changes that do help the organism survive and/or reproduce are passed on to the next generations.

I get that Darwinism seems much more plausible if it isn’t random. But if it isn’t random, some intelligence is making the decision that there needs to be a change.

Is that your assertion?

They do not make a decision and you well know it. Changes are a given as no replicative system is going to be perfect. It is known that the average person is born with over a hundred of those genetic changes alone, more will inevitable accumulate and that is even before sexual reproduction is taken into the picture which will create a wide variety of variance. Those changes are then fed through the filter of natural selection which is NOT random and hence why evolution is in no way random. Sufficiently negative changes are removed by the death of the organism where those that are positive remain and thrive.

There is no intelligence there, it is a set of natural processes that ensure some genes continue and others do not.

Further, there is no such thing as a 'Darwinist.' Because you need faith for the basis of your worldview says nothing about the efficacy of evolution. Darwin's theories are but a faint basis of which current evolutionary theory grew out of. What Darwin postulated has very little to do with the current theory, as you would expect from a postulation that is over a hundred years old.

 

[surada]

I don’t know if y’all are pretending not to understand the question, or if you really don’t understand the question.

If the changes are adaptive, how do they organisms make the decision to change? If it isn’t the organism itself making that decision, who or what is deciding that an adaptation is needed and then making that change?

Read your own link before you send it to me. I believe that you will learn that Darwin’s theory is that random changes occur and that those random changes that do nothing to help the organism survive do not perpetuate, while those random changes that do help the organism survive and/or reproduce are passed on to the next generations.

I get that Darwinism seems much more plausible if it isn’t random. But if it isn’t random, some intelligence is making the decision that there needs to be a change.

Is that your assertion?

Darwinism isn't a religion. That's really an idiotic joke.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Except it is not.

Your assertion that it is the case is belied by the MOUNTAINS of facts we have already gathered about life and the origin of diversity on this planet. Evolution is likely the most well attested theory in existence. Stating it is 'religion' is no more or less ridiculous than stating that 'Globe Earthers' are religious in the assertion that the earth is a globe.

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.

No, they do not.

As pointed out by several, it is not guided but rather filtered through natural processes.

 

[Seymour Flops]

They do not make a decision and you well know it. Changes are a given as no replicative system is going to be perfect. It is known that the average person is born with over a hundred of those genetic changes alone, more will inevitable accumulate and that is even before sexual reproduction is taken into the picture which will create a wide variety of variance. Those changes are then fed through the filter of natural selection which is NOT random and hence why evolution is in no way random. Sufficiently negative changes are removed by the death of the organism where those that are positive remain and thrive.

There is no intelligence there, it is a set of natural processes that ensure some genes continue and others do not.

Further, there is no such thing as a 'Darwinist.' Because you need faith for the basis of your worldview says nothing about the efficacy of evolution. Darwin's theories are but a faint basis of which current evolutionary theory grew out of. What Darwin postulated has very little to do with the current theory, as you would expect from a postulation that is over a hundred years old.

I have to say that is one of the more reasonable and lucid answers I've seen from a Darwinist. I respect your belief, even if I don't agree with it, so I will give my reasons.

The very fact of sexual reproduction creating imperfect, but functional, copies of individual species means that each individual will have changes from its parents. Could such accumulated changes lead to a useful adaptation? It could if it were random; random changes can bring about any random result. But it is not possible if it were only possible if guided by natural selection. Why?

Because for natural selection to be the explanation for say, a bat having wings unlike it's mouse-like ancestor, not only must it's wings be more useful for survival and/or reproduction than the mouse-like front legs, but each and every step in the transition from front legs to wings would have to have added to each individual's survival and/or reproduction. Not just a little bit, but significantly enough that the descendants of all individuals who did not have that genetic change dies off while the descendants of the animal with the first tiny step from front leg to wing thrive and take over the niche.

The results of each and every one of the hundreds, if not thousands, or tens of thousands of genetic changes needed to go from front leg to wing must each have had that effect. But we know that most genetic changes either add nothing to survival/reproduction, or subtract from it.

I know what you will say here: that given a sufficient amount of time, so many changes are possible. That is the real answer to the question of what Darwinists have faith in: the passage of time. I call it the Kamala Harris Theory.

 

[FA_Q2]

I thought we were talking about inanimate matter making the leap to living organisms. If that is what we are talking about then we are talking about long chains of organic molecules - which resemble amino acids - folding themselves in the correct sequence without any instructions to do so.

No, that is only the case if you demand that the very firs rudimentary forms of life resemble what we have today. Clearly that is not the case.

It has already been shown that RNA will form and begin to replicate on its own on clay. This is currently the most likely scenario though not the only one postulated. The complexities of life would have followed later, possibly much later. There is indications that life began quite early on the surface of the planet but remained fairly simple for a very, very, very long time.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Except it is not.

Your assertion that it is the case is belied by the MOUNTAINS of facts we have already gathered about life and the origin of diversity on this planet. Evolution is likely the most well attested theory in existence. Stating it is 'religion' is no more or less ridiculous than stating that 'Globe Earthers' are religious in the assertion that the earth is a globe.

No, they do not.

As pointed out by several, it is not guided but rather filtered through natural processes.

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.

 

[FA_Q2]

I have to say that is one of the more reasonable and lucid answers I've seen from a Darwinist. I respect your belief, even if I don't agree with it, so I will give my reasons.

Sigh, again, Darwinist is an asinine term.

No one is a Darwinist.

The very fact of sexual reproduction creating imperfect, but functional, copies of individual species means that each individual will have changes from its parents. Could such accumulated changes lead to a useful adaptation? It could if it were random; random changes can bring about any random result. But it is not possible if it were only possible if guided by natural selection. Why?

Because for natural selection to be the explanation for say, a bat having wings unlike it's mouse-like ancestor, not only must it's wings be more useful for survival and/or reproduction than the mouse-like front legs, but each and every step in the transition from front legs to wings would have to have added to each individual's survival and/or reproduction. Not just a little bit, but significantly enough that the descendants of all individuals who did not have that genetic change dies off while the descendants of the animal with the first tiny step from front leg to wing thrive and take over the niche.

The results of each and every one of the hundreds, if not thousands, or tens of thousands of genetic changes needed to go from front leg to wing must each have had that effect. But we know that most genetic changes either add nothing to survival/reproduction, or subtract from it.

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

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.

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.

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.

I know what you will say here: that given a sufficient amount of time, so many changes are possible. That is the real answer to the question of what Darwinists have faith in: the passage of time. I call it the Kamala Harris Theory.

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?