Macro-evolution?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: Macro-evolution?

Post by _Markk »

honorentheos wrote:Sure.

The author of the article at the link uses the analogy of opening up an old building that has been renovated multiple times over 100 years to what someone sees in the anatomy of a human being. As with the renovated building where the layout of plumbing, electrical, and other utilities and infrastructure modifications only make sense if one understands the history of the building, the human body has similar seemingly illogical inner workings. Like indoor plumbing being added years after original construction from a certain source at one time, a new addition with new electrical another, the replacement and abandonment of corroded iron pipes for new steel or copper, rerouting the plumbing to a new City water main...it isn't anything like how a new building would be laid out.

The article goes through a few examples where examining our early fish ancestors and their modern descendants serves as a blue print for the original design. By comparing the odd loops and locations of nerves, organs, and other systems in the human body that are like the inner workings of the 100 year old building, the "renovated" human body begins to make much more sense.

The evidence for evolution is strong across the entire field of biology. Some of the most compelling comes from examining living species. The fossil record is only one part. And if one dismisses evolution as the most likely explanation for how the diversity of life we see today came to be, one then has to contend with this other evidence. There's much more to it than suggesting the gaps in the fossil record or lack of conclusive explanations for certain biological functions such as sexual reproduction are missing so the theory can be ignore due to lack of evidence. One has to then explain the positive evidence for evolution. Like the inner workings of the 100 year old building.



I don't really see it that way, maybe it is because I spend everyday of the week in old piece of crap buildings.

I see it this way, and I'll use the current project I am managing as an example.

The building/s I am restoring or not that old 1920's...they are government owned. I deal everyday with architects, engineers, inspectors, CM's, and government people. These building have every problem you can imagine.

It is a fight from the first meeting, to the last approval to move in...and most of the team are very educated folks...very "smart" (I say this with reservation) people...and lets say "very intelligent designers? There is so much intelligent design put into new construction and old from inch to inch of the building...yet it is a mess, different folks with different ideas. And with all that it is a mess and struggle at almost every point.

Yet look at life...? I can not believe it is by accident. Creation is pretty cool, and to me this demands a designer, architect, engineer... etc...I choose God?

No way is this by accident.

Your example demands intelligent design, as does life.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: Macro-evolution?

Post by _Runtu »

Markk wrote:I don't really see it that way, maybe it is because I spend everyday of the week in old piece of crap buildings.

I see it this way, and I'll use the current project I am managing as an example.

The building/s I am restoring or not that old 1920's...they are government owned. I deal everyday with architects, engineers, inspectors, CM's, and government people. These building have every problem you can imagine.

It is a fight from the first meeting, to the last approval to move in...and most of the team are very educated folks...very "smart" (I say this with reservation) people...and lets say "very intelligent designers? There is so much intelligent design put into new construction and old from inch to inch of the building...yet it is a mess, different folks with different ideas. And with all that it is a mess and struggle at almost every point.

Yet look at life...? I can not believe it is by accident. Creation is pretty cool, and to me this demands a designer, architect, engineer... etc...I choose God?

No way is this by accident.

Your example demands intelligent design, as does life.


What can't you believe is by accident? Life? Fair enough, but evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Re: Macro-evolution?

Post by _maklelan »

Markk wrote:Hope to me is faith in a intelligent creator, not a series of accidents that demand after death is nothing. I chose to have hope/faith that their is a creator of all things, I chose not to believe the amazing things in life are not a accident...I chose not to believe any of the different and changing theories of evolution.


So you never take antibiotics? You don't vaccinate? You believe lactose tolerance is a myth? You think cancer treatments are bogus? You think AIDS has been contained because of God and not because of science informed by evolution?

Markk wrote:I admitted their are arguments for evolution, and I certainly can not explain everything away, but there are equally and I believe more arguments for a intelligent designer and this was not accident.


There aren't any arguments for an intelligent designer that do not rest primarily on assumption and dogmatism, but evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe or of life. It has to do with the diversification of life.

Markk wrote:For man to come from monkeys,


That's not what evolution holds.

Markk wrote:in my pea brain, would demand such a great line of examples of the biological changes needed...that there would simply be more evidence in the fossil record than there is, much more.


I'm willing to bet that your exposure to the fossil record is staggeringly limited.

Markk wrote:Again, I chose hope and faith, and I am okay with that...I love life, I am good with it and love having fun with you guys and consider you all friends, even if you are wrong:)


Nu-uh!
I like you Betty...

My blog
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: Macro-evolution?

Post by _Markk »

maklelan wrote:
Markk wrote:Hope to me is faith in a intelligent creator, not a series of accidents that demand after death is nothing. I chose to have hope/faith that their is a creator of all things, I chose not to believe the amazing things in life are not a accident...I chose not to believe any of the different and changing theories of evolution.


So you never take antibiotics? You don't vaccinate? You believe lactose tolerance is a myth? You think cancer treatments are bogus? You think AIDS has been contained because of God and not because of science informed by evolution?

Markk wrote:I admitted their are arguments for evolution, and I certainly can not explain everything away, but there are equally and I believe more arguments for a intelligent designer and this was not accident.


There aren't any arguments for an intelligent designer that do not rest primarily on assumption and dogmatism, but evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe or of life. It has to do with the diversification of life.

Markk wrote:For man to come from monkeys,


That's not what evolution holds.

Markk wrote:in my pea brain, would demand such a great line of examples of the biological changes needed...that there would simply be more evidence in the fossil record than there is, much more.


I'm willing to bet that your exposure to the fossil record is staggeringly limited.

Markk wrote:Again, I chose hope and faith, and I am okay with that...I love life, I am good with it and love having fun with you guys and consider you all friends, even if you are wrong:)


Nu-uh!

LOL...did Catherine get you banned again?
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: Macro-evolution?

Post by _Markk »

Runtu wrote:
Markk wrote:I don't really see it that way, maybe it is because I spend everyday of the week in old piece of crap buildings.

I see it this way, and I'll use the current project I am managing as an example.

The building/s I am restoring or not that old 1920's...they are government owned. I deal everyday with architects, engineers, inspectors, CM's, and government people. These building have every problem you can imagine.

It is a fight from the first meeting, to the last approval to move in...and most of the team are very educated folks...very "smart" (I say this with reservation) people...and lets say "very intelligent designers? There is so much intelligent design put into new construction and old from inch to inch of the building...yet it is a mess, different folks with different ideas. And with all that it is a mess and struggle at almost every point.

Yet look at life...? I can not believe it is by accident. Creation is pretty cool, and to me this demands a designer, architect, engineer... etc...I choose God?

No way is this by accident.

Your example demands intelligent design, as does life.


What can't you believe is by accident? Life? Fair enough, but evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life.



Everything as I know it? Creation is pretty cool and amazing...I agree...like I said... I certainly cannot explain away everything, and biologists can't explain every theory they have also. There are things that really bother me and I have to take by faith, and I get that...but all the different theories of how life started are many...and just theories...that's the way I see it, and I am okay on not having it all figured out.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Re: Macro-evolution?

Post by _maklelan »

Markk wrote:LOL...did Catherine get you banned again?


I don't wanna talk about it. :cry:
I like you Betty...

My blog
_karl61
_Emeritus
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:29 pm

Re: Macro-evolution?

Post by _karl61 »

Mark - can you understand a published article written by a biologist? Do you understand the philosophy of science? Have you ever had to conduct a scientific experiment and then write up the results. Can you read a published article and understand the symbols used, the logic used and are you able to interpret the results?

What specific issue in evolution do you feel you know enough about to criticize it? What is your background in science? I posted a link to a book called Relics of Eden. Do you understand each of the issues written in the book. Can you explain the issues in the book better than the author and then explain why he is not correct.
I want to fly!
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Macro-evolution?

Post by _Darth J »

Yesterday, I got a new smart phone. I went into the store, had a sales guy explain what was different between the LG Curve and the Samsung whatever that is comparable to it. After I picked my phone, I had to sign a contract for the upgrade of the hardware on my current cell phone plan and give the cell phone service provider some money as consideration in return for the phone I was taking from their store for my own use.

It's difficult for me to imagine that processes in the natural world would work any differently than the way that artificial constructs invented by humans work. Based on common sense, I have to assume that when a Sodium ion and a Chloride ion come near each other, they negotiate the terms of their joining together, then consciously and freely agree to a contract whereby they will form an NaCl molecule, a.k.a. table salt.

Now I know some of you will say that it's fatuous to assume that a chemical reaction would work the same way as a business deal between humans utilizing social and legal constructs entirely invented by humans. But people don't just randomly come together and agree on a contract for a new cell phone, so I don't see why I should believe that chemical reactions are any different.

And anyway, which theory of chemistry are you people advocating? Ionic bonds? Covalent bonds? Hydrogen bonds? With all these different theories floating around out there, I'd say it takes a lot of faith to believe that chemical reactions happen in a way other than the way human beings buy cell phones from T-Mobile or Verizon.
_Bret Ripley
_Emeritus
Posts: 1542
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Macro-evolution?

Post by _Bret Ripley »

Darth J wrote:And anyway, which theory of chemistry are you people advocating? Ionic bonds? Covalent bonds? Hydrogen bonds? With all these different theories floating around out there, I'd say it takes a lot of faith to believe that chemical reactions happen in a way other than the way human beings buy cell phones from T-Mobile or Verizon.
This is brilliant. Being a big-picture sort of dude, I'm thinking about starting a blog dedicated to Keynesian chemistry.
_________________
Nulla e' reale; tutto e' lecito.
I'm sure that's very clever. Unfortunately, I don't speak italic.
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Macro-evolution?

Post by _Darth J »

Bret Ripley wrote:
_________________
Nulla e' reale; tutto e' lecito.
I'm sure that's very clever. Unfortunately, I don't speak italic.


Nothing is real/true; everything is licit/permitted.
Post Reply