Thoughts

[Whateverist]

So how important is evolution-no/creation-yes to your faith?  If very, I don't think you're building on solid ground.

It's not very important to me but you probably already knew that. I just think both sides have moved beyond what the most recent science seems to be suggesting, i.e. that there is some unknown teleological component(s) to evolutionary processes. I think the ID advocates point out serious flaws in the neo-Darwin paradigm but I also don't see a clear indication of external agency directing natural selection. On the other hand, the neo-Darwinists are ignoring that the odds are so astronomically  stacked against chance that the synthesis has become untenable.

Well I am unaware of any teleological components of evolutionary processes.  I won't say there is an ironclad case to be made for ruling them out.  But certainly the theory of evolution does not in any way depend on them and specifically is not based on them.  It is rather a theory of change over time which accounts for an organism's increasingly improved fit to its environment in the absence of any such guiding hand.

[Crossless2.0]

Neo, please link to the relevant papers that suggest teleological components of evolutionary processes.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Neo, please link to the relevant papers that suggest teleological components of evolutionary processes.

Extended Evolution (Royal Society) To me the most fascinating research has to do with niche construction and genetic plasticity.

[Harry Nevis]

 I'm supposing you have some real evidence other than an article that says it supposes that happened.

GC

Nor does neo-Darwinism account for the massive number of mutations required just to implement an opportunistic re-purposing of an existing feature. I'm not saying that it cannot happen, just that "chance-in-the-gaps" isn't even close to being plausible.

How many mutations are required in order to be deemed "plausible"?

---

Oh for fucks sake.

Mostly mutations are not beneficial or even have much of an effect but when they do there are processes that act on them making them.

A really potent positive mutation is fairly rare which was why initially it was slow, but these days evolution is mainly repurposing stuff that already exists. like the bones in the ear were once the jaw bones of plated fish.

https://www.livescience.com/558-human-ea...gills.html

 I'm supposing you have some real evidence other than an article that says it supposes that happened.

GC

Irony is really lost on you, isn't it?

[Crossless2.0]

Neo, please link to the relevant papers that suggest teleological components of evolutionary processes.

Extended Evolution (Royal Society) To me the most fascinating research has to do with niche construction and genetic plasticity.

Thanks.

I have a busy day at work but will read this when I get a chance to devote the attention it deserves.

[downbeatplumb]

Oh for fucks sake.

Mostly mutations are not beneficial or even have much of an effect but when they do there are processes that act on them making them.

A really potent positive mutation is fairly rare which was why initially it was slow, but these days evolution is mainly repurposing stuff that already exists. like the bones in the ear were once the jaw bones of plated fish.

https://www.livescience.com/558-human-ea...gills.html

 I'm supposing you have some real evidence other than an article that says it supposes that happened.

GC

I'm glad you asked that because there is the fossil record of which is replete with transitionary fossils showing all the stages.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...vograms_05

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_...y_ossicles

Notice the Wikipedia contained a list of the fossil evidence and the berkely one showed clear illustrations of the stages.

---

Nor does neo-Darwinism account for the massive number of mutations required just to implement an opportunistic re-purposing of an existing feature. I'm not saying that it cannot happen, just that "chance-in-the-gaps" isn't even close to being plausible.

How many mutations are required in order to be deemed "plausible"?

---

For every transitional found, according to creationists you create two missing ones either side. They are a simple folk, unlearned in the ways of science.

[Godscreated]

 I'm supposing you have some real evidence other than an article that says it supposes that happened.

GC

I'm glad you asked that because there is the fossil record of which is replete with transitionary fossils showing all the stages.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...vograms_05

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_...y_ossicles

Notice the Wikipedia contained a list of the fossil evidence and the berkely one showed clear illustrations of the stages.

 there are no transitional fossils, all that is only opinion read what it says. No one was there so no one can say with certainty what is what.

GC

---

 Mutation of DNA, something that was already present in the DNA.

GC

I turned 50 today, and I received my AARP membership pack yesterday.  Don't talk to me about mutations:

 Happy belated Birthday, I've got several years on you.

GC

[Ravenshire]

I'm glad you asked that because there is the fossil record of which is replete with transitionary fossils showing all the stages.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...vograms_05

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_...y_ossicles

Notice the Wikipedia contained a list of the fossil evidence and the berkely one showed clear illustrations of the stages.

 there are no transitional fossils, all that is only opinion read what it says. No one was there so no one can say with certainty what is what.GC

Willful ignorance working overtime.

[Godscreated]

 God declares who He is and I just restate them. The bold by me is your statement is backwards, I'm the one who has the greatest friend.

GC

You shouldn't sell yourself short.  You're the one who pulled together all the bits you prefer to emphasize while dropping (I hope) the parts concerning the severity of beating God would have you limit yourself to when beating your slaves.  You don't just aim to follow His word, you follow the parts that seem fitting to you.

 I do not sell myself short I realize who I am and what I need, it is a secure knowledge of life.

GC

---

 there are no transitional fossils, all that is only opinion read what it says. No one was there so no one can say with certainty what is what.GC

Willful ignorance working overtime.

 I'm over you also, you have no reasonable statements, I'm bored with your lack of knowledge. Bye.

GC

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='downbeatplumb' pid='1631012' dateline='1507127801']

I'm glad you asked that because there is the fossil record of which is replete with transitionary fossils showing all the stages.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...vograms_05

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_...y_ossicles

Notice the Wikipedia contained a list of the fossil evidence and the berkely one showed clear illustrations of the stages.

 there are no transitional fossils, all that is only opinion read what it says. No one was there so no one can say with certainty what is what.

So let me get this right, on being shown evidence for transitional fossils from respected sources you say "there are no transitional fossils"
You are the epitome of willful ignorance, you don't accept the evidence because it does not fit with your beliefs and only for that reason.
What you fail to consider is that if the evidence does don't fit what you believe then it is not the evidence that is wrong but your beliefs and that is not an opinion but a fact.

But you are too far gone in your delusions to accept it, ou are someone who will turn away from the truth at every stage because you don't like living in the real world, you prefer your fantasy of ghosts and gods