Creation vs. Evolution

[coachpill]

The reason I say incorrect is the proper way to phrase things is simple - if a god exists, and acts through natural processes, science would be unable to tell the difference. We just see the end product - i.e. the rules by which our universe runs.

Bryan

Hence your insistence that abiogenesis and evolution are separate beasties...I get it...thanks for taking the time.

 

[Warthaug]

Quote:
I'm not parroting anything but the congomeration of quotes from well-known evolutionists. Gould himself had this to say about evolution.
DAVID GERGEN: Okay. Now what is it?

STEPHEN JAY GOULD: Evolution is a process of constant branching and expansion. Life began three and a half billion years ago, necessarily about as simple as it could be, because life arose spontaneously from the organic compounds in the primeval oceans. You couldn't begin by precipitating a giraffe out of this primordial soup, so he began the history of life with the simplest possible form of cellular life, namely bacteria. And since there's no way of getting any simpler as life expanded every once in a while you get something more complex because that's the only direction open, but if you look at the full range, rather than falsely, and myopically concentrating on the history of the most complex thing through time."

Seems Gould agrees that evolution and abiogensis are also inseparable and that differs from the opinions on here.

Ahh, creationist tactic #7 - take things out of context, as to twist them to say what you want them to. I think the formal term, for this type of logical error, is a "lie by omission".

Here's the actual interview:
Online NewsHour: Conversation with Stephen Jay Gould -- November 26, 1996

As you can clearly see, Gould was talking about the inherent misunderstanding of the general public of how evolution works.

I'd also point out that even in the twisted version you provided did he did not make any sort of claim that abiogenesis and evolution were the same thing - in fact, he quite clearly delineated them as two different processes, one (evolution) occurring after, and only after, the other (abiogenesis).

Nor would anyone familiar with Goulds works, or writing, make the conclusion you came to, as Gould was one of the loudest speakers of his generation on the topics of abiogenesis and evolution, and was quite adamant they were separate things.

Now, once again I'm certain you won't read this, but if you read Goulds "Rock of Ages" you'll see several cases where he makes the distinction. Likewise, here's something else you won't read, but this page contains a large library of essays on his works and views:

Unofficial SJG Archive - Library

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

The theory of Evolution isn't just about adaptation as falsely presented on here.

Of course it isn't - its about how life changes through a mixture of process, including mutation, natural and sexual selection, punctuated equilibrium, genetic drift, and many other factors. Only natural selection would fit into the peg hole of "adaptation".

Otherwise we wouldn't have an argument. According to its most notorious supporters it does exactly what you claim it doesn't.

Yet another unsubstantiated, random claim. Strange, that you make all of these wild claims, without even being able to provide a single piece of evidence to support them.

Bryan

 

[coachpill]

I'd also point out that even in the twisted version you provided did he did not make any sort of claim that abiogenesis and evolution were the same thing - in fact, he quite clearly delineated them as two different processes, one (evolution) occurring after, and only after, the other (abiogenesisBryan

Yes. In an earlier post you stated that if God used natural processes, science wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I agree. I also spoke of interpreting evidence after gathering the data. We can get a glimpse into the worldview of Gould that he is implying there is not God creating life (not just that science can't tell the difference).

Gould, in trusting in abiogenesis, could not agree with your statement that possibly God is doing something and science can't tell the difference.

 

[Sordello]

I just saw a fox trot across the pasture across from my house. What a wonderful thing.

 

[coachpill]

Of course it isn't - its about how life changes through a mixture of process, including mutation, natural and sexual selection, punctuated equilibrium, genetic drift, and many other factors. Only natural selection would fit into the peg hole of "adaptation".Bryan

Not to be argumentative...and maybe you could possibly shed some light on this, but doesn't evolution rely most heavily on mutation? Or are we going to have to define our terms here? In other words, if you (plural, general) define evolution simply as a change in allele frequencies over time, then I would completely agree 100% that evolution has, does, is occurring. But that's not what the "debate" is about really is it?

Punctuated equilibrium has apparently fallen out of favor in recent years hasn't it? Granted it was a nice model based on the absence of evidence (fossil record), but I no longer see it touted as the best thing since sliced bread anymore in introductory college biology texts.

Genetic drift is really just an outcome of evolution isn't it? It doesn't explain the "how" of evolution.

Let me give you a definition of evolution that I think drives this debate...Natural selection acting on mutations of the DNA of a single-celled prokaryote over millions of years producing the complete diversity of life we see today.

I think we need to explain our definitions otherwise even a civilized debate will go round and round in circles.

Thanks, Bryan!

 

[Warthaug]

Yes. In an earlier post you stated that if God used natural processes, science wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I agree. I also spoke of interpreting evidence after gathering the data. We can get a glimpse into the worldview of Gould that he is implying there is not God creating life (not just that science can't tell the difference).

Gould, in trusting in abiogenesis, could not agree with your statement that possibly God is doing something and science can't tell the difference.

The above is 100% wrong, at every level imaginable.

In fact, many of the ideas I've brought up in this post were first explained to me in Goulds book "Rock of Ages". In that book he says everything I've said here - though be it in a much more elegant and understandable manner.

I would direct you to the webpage I poster earlier; in its library you'll find many articles on Goulds view of science verses religion. You'll find that they are nearly identical to what I've been saying. In fact, it was Gould who first coined the term "non-overlapping magisteria", which is a big word describing everything I've been saying.


Bryan

 

[Sordello]

The above is 100% wrong, at every level imaginable.

In fact, many of the ideas I've brought up in this post were first explained to me in Goulds book "Rock of Ages". In that book he says everything I've said here - though be it in a much more elegant and understandable manner.

I would direct you to the webpage I poster earlier; in its library you'll find many articles on Goulds view of science verses religion. You'll find that they are nearly identical to what I've been saying. In fact, it was Gould who first coined the term "non-overlapping magisteria", which is a big word describing everything I've been saying.


Bryan

You guys are doing such a wonderful job!!! Maybe you can eventually figure this out!

:11:

 

[coachpill]

Ahh, creationist tactic #7 - take things out of context, as to twist them to say what you want them to. I think the formal term, for this type of logical error, is a "lie by omission".

Here's the actual interview:
Online NewsHour: Conversation with Stephen Jay Gould -- November 26, 1996

As you can clearly see, Gould was talking about the inherent misunderstanding of the general public of how evolution works.Bryan

Sorry Bryan, but after reading the entire link, including the baseball analogies, you are incorrect to state that Gould was referring to "the misunderstanding of the general public of how evolution works." Clearly, Gould stated what, in his mind, evolution was not, and then went into what evolution is. And, yes, clearly Gould stated that life began "necessarily about as simple as it could be, because life arose spontaneously from the organic compounds in the primeval oceans."

Gould then goes into how the bacteria is as simple a life form as there could possibly be and that simple fluctuations would necessarily produce more complexity. It is that thought process that flies in the face of what Gould seems to think the public thinks (which is that evolution is directional, intentionally producing more complex things). Of course the end result is the same, though, isn't it...that evolution, because it supposedly started with the simplist of living things, does in fact produce more and more complexity.

Again, sorry Bryan, but you are wrong to try to spin Gould's words of stating that life arose spontaneously from organic compounds as anything other than his belief. Yes, abiogenesis and evolution were two distinct entities, but Gould himself clearly made the "necessary" connection between...no me, not any post-er on this thread.

Thanks!

 

[coachpill]

The above is 100% wrong, at every level imaginable.

In fact, many of the ideas I've brought up in this post were first explained to me in Goulds book "Rock of Ages". In that book he says everything I've said here - though be it in a much more elegant and understandable manner.

I would direct you to the webpage I poster earlier; in its library you'll find many articles on Goulds view of science verses religion. You'll find that they are nearly identical to what I've been saying. In fact, it was Gould who first coined the term "non-overlapping magisteria", which is a big word describing everything I've been saying.


Bryan

Not 100% wrong, and not on every imaginable level, except that maybe I should have said he "should" not agree with the aforementioned statement.

It is does occur that people hold to things inconsistently. Again, to claim abiogenesis does take God out of the equation, but I will grant it that some people will at least claim that God can create and that abiogenesis can occur. I'm going to leave it at that and leave you to defend the inconsistencies of others.