Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9043
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Kurieuo » Wed Jul 05, 2017 6:08 pm

The nested hierarchies we see put together, within evolutionary biology and the like, are more myth than reality. That is, such represent rather simplistic patterns humans have observed and tried to organise based upon time, similar traits and evolutionary theory. But, in reality given evolution is true, and by that I mean some Darwinian form, there's not so much a tree as a web of criss-cross matching "species". I've gone over this in previous threads, those who read those posts of mine will understand what I mean here. Given this is so, then there are no real "nested heirarchies" other than patterns identified in our minds so far as one species evolving into another is concerned.

What I say here will become apparent to anyone who tries applying "nested heirarchies" to dog evolution.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

Morny
Valued Member
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:05 pm
Christian: No

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Morny » Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:10 am

Kurieuo wrote:What I say here will become apparent to anyone who tries applying "nested heirarchies" to dog evolution.

Canis lupus (covering dog breeds, wolves, coyotes) is one specie, so the scope of the common descent hypothesis does not apply (because of a violation of the bifurcating descent assumption). "Dogs" form just one leaf node in the overall nested hierarchy.

You seem to misunderstand the common descent hypothesis.

Morny
Valued Member
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:05 pm
Christian: No

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Morny » Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:16 am

Kurieuo wrote:[Nested hierarchies] represent rather simplistic patterns humans have observed and tried to organise based upon time, similar traits and evolutionary theory.

Biological traits of living organism determine the one objective nested hierarchy. See https://dennisdjones.files.wordpress.co ... /phylo.gif. That nested hierarchy doesn't rely on anything about evolutionary theory or time - or even for that matter, fossils or DNA.

Kurieuo wrote:But, in reality given evolution is true, and by that I mean some Darwinian form, there's not so much a tree as a web of criss-cross matching "species".

Where in the referenced picture above is the "web of criss-cross matching"? I.e., where has that picture incorrectly grouped organisms based on the panoply of biological traits?

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 5912
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Philip » Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:20 am

Morny, ultimately, what is your point, as it applies to the purpose of this forum?

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4273
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby abelcainsbrother » Thu Jul 06, 2017 2:39 pm

Philip wrote:Morny, ultimately, what is your point, as it applies to the purpose of this forum?


I don't know what his purpose is but I can handle him when it comes to evolution.Because Biological traits is just another meaning for assumption based already believing life evolves but having no credible mechanism for how life evolves but making up things based on the belief life evolves.Morny may believe in evolution but can provide no evidence in all of that peer reviewed evidence that would lead a person going on evidence to believe life can evolve from simple to complex.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4273
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby abelcainsbrother » Thu Jul 06, 2017 3:09 pm

Morny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:[Nested hierarchies] represent rather simplistic patterns humans have observed and tried to organise based upon time, similar traits and evolutionary theory.

Biological traits of living organism determine the one objective nested hierarchy. See https://dennisdjones.files.wordpress.co ... /phylo.gif. That nested hierarchy doesn't rely on anything about evolutionary theory or time - or even for that matter, fossils or DNA.

Kurieuo wrote:But, in reality given evolution is true, and by that I mean some Darwinian form, there's not so much a tree as a web of criss-cross matching "species".

Where in the referenced picture above is the "web of criss-cross matching"? I.e., where has that picture incorrectly grouped organisms based on the panoply of biological traits?



If this is true then how come when we look at the evidence used as examples and evidence of life evolving it only shows kinds producing after their kind? If the evidence only shows kinds producing after their kind then why are they even building these nested hierarchy based on biological traits? How can the nested hierarchy be true when kinds only produce after their kind? Have you ever looked at the examples given for macro-evolution? Like bears producing a different kind of bear,etc? So how could a single celled organism evolve into something more complex? Because all you would get based on their own evidence is a different kind of single celled organism like with the bears? A bear is a bear and a single celled organism is a single celled organism,it does not matter if it became a different kind of these.You still have bears producing bears and single celled organisms producing single celled organisms.It is the same kind of life still of their kind. By the way I know you won't want to hear this but the bible tells us that God created kinds to produce after its own kind and the evidence in evolution proves it true. Read Genesis 1:11.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

Morny
Valued Member
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:05 pm
Christian: No

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Morny » Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:05 pm

Philip wrote:Morny, ultimately, what is your point, as it applies to the purpose of this forum?

The title contains "science", and the Forum Policy states: "[...] serves to provide a defense and persuasive case for Christianity as well as encouragement and instruction for Christian people and seekers. How can that happen, when painfully many science-related posts disagree with scientific consensus?

Put the shoe on the other foot. What if a science-biased forum named "Science And God" regularly presented historical or hermeneutical misconceptions about the bible? Then after you post evidence pointing out problems with those claims, a moderator asks you what your point is.

I suspect that your answer would be to ask him how he could have an informed view on "Science And God" without at least first understanding the evidence regarding his misconceptions about the bible. Yes? Surely you have a duty to at least try with gentleness and respect?

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 5912
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Philip » Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:41 pm

Morny, I'm merely being direct - I'm not trying to be rude. Truly. But as you are an unbeliever, and as this forum relates to God AND science - I just wonder how this relates, going on about theorized evolutionary scenarios? As there is a Creator, with what I would say are multiple avenues of evidence - particularly in regards to origins and the incredible fine-tuning and design found throughout the universe. I'm a realist - I don't believe blind, unguided processes so stupendously developed by themselves. That such things exist - and that ALL things are dependent upon what emerged immediately at the BB event's beginning, implies there is an Intelligence behind it. I don't believe a universe can emerge from nothingness - particularly not one showing amazing designed things, immediately showing obedience to laws with strict parameters. So, what science can know and measure ends at the beginning of the physical universe's very beginning. Science doesn't do metaphysics! And yet, there was clearly some Source of the universe that was eternal and that preceded all physical things. So, there is something more, that preceded the universe, but "Whatever" that is, science is not equipped to find it with examinations of physical things and processes - or, at least, only indirectly so. Beyond that, science can merely speculate upon the source of all physical things. But, perhaps, you're just chiming in on evolution, as that is a passion of yours?

Oops, I stand corrected - as apparently there IS a University of Metaphysical Sciences: https://metaphysicsuniversity.com/

"Earn Your Bachelors, Masters, Ph.D. or D.D. in Metaphysics" y:O2

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9043
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Kurieuo » Thu Jul 06, 2017 9:00 pm

Morny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:What I say here will become apparent to anyone who tries applying "nested heirarchies" to dog evolution.

Canis lupus (covering dog breeds, wolves, coyotes) is one specie, so the scope of the common descent hypothesis does not apply (because of a violation of the bifurcating descent assumption). "Dogs" form just one leaf node in the overall nested hierarchy.

You seem to misunderstand the common descent hypothesis.

Coyotes are a separate species related to the grey wolf -- coyotes aren't Canis lupus species but rather classified as Canis latrans. If you think canids ("dogs") are just one leaf node, then that is a rather complex leaf possessing a network of many internal relations within itself for each "dog".
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9043
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Kurieuo » Thu Jul 06, 2017 9:42 pm

Morny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:[Nested hierarchies] represent rather simplistic patterns humans have observed and tried to organise based upon time, similar traits and evolutionary theory.

Biological traits of living organism determine the one objective nested hierarchy. See https://dennisdjones.files.wordpress.co ... /phylo.gif. That nested hierarchy doesn't rely on anything about evolutionary theory or time - or even for that matter, fossils or DNA.

Kurieuo wrote:But, in reality given evolution is true, and by that I mean some Darwinian form, there's not so much a tree as a web of criss-cross matching "species".

Where in the referenced picture above is the "web of criss-cross matching"? I.e., where has that picture incorrectly grouped organisms based on the panoply of biological traits?

Nested hierarchies, are like I said, patterns our minds construct of lifeforms we uncover or observe. Our minds are quite good at identifying patterns, constructing stories and meaning, even where none otherwise actually exists.

What you provide above and in your link appears to support my claim that nested hierarchies are nothing more than "patterns humans have observed", even if you remove "time" from the equation which seems would be erroneous for any taxonomologist to do. Creatures are often nested together based upon similar phenotypical patterns we observe and conclusions being drawn which may/may not be correct in actuality.

Sadly, often what looks good theoretically doesn't match up to reality or what actually was/is the case. For one, nested hierarchies depend upon "species" being clearly defined and it seems you like classifying by shared morphological phenotypes. Yet, concepts of what is a "species", often seen as leafs on the evolutionary tree are far from clear, is often conflicted -- hence your apparent mistake with classifying coyotes above.

Nonetheless, "species" classifications are helpful theoretical constructions, useful for many in trying to make sense of or explain certain realities witnessed around us, or just in communication. Whether or not such patterns fit in with a story that is more real rather than wishful is another question. I can see a pattern with fork, spoon and spork, yet I'd draw very different conclusions from how they came to be than many evolutionary biologists do with observed biological life.

To elaborate a little more on the "species problem", let me quote conclusions with in an article written elsewhere:

    Several years ago, I personally attempted to discover the “current definition” of species being used by academic biologists. I had foolishly believed that they must have one, by this time, 40 years after my university education. My search finally ended when I had a protracted email conversation with a well-respected, well placed academic biologist, whom I had approached based on my digging deep into some journal article of his. We had quite an extensive discussion only to arrive at his admission that “biology, as a subject, does not have a firm definition of species – never has – and may never have.” (The Gray, Gray World of Wolves - this is obviously just a concluding statement, read the fuller article first before commenting)
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

thatkidakayoungguy
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 792
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby thatkidakayoungguy » Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:22 am

There can still be a designer in all this. Assert how life began: seeing how DNA is, the chance for non life to make life, etc, we see there's a good chance there was a designer to kickstart it. So like the first life form (lets say cell) was given the power to survive and thrive, then over time life evolved and conquered the land. Then this creator would or could tweak life along the way, then we see mankind arriving and they're formed in the image of God. Basically this is what evolutionary creationism, and in a limited sense progressive creationism, says.

Morny
Valued Member
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:05 pm
Christian: No

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Morny » Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:02 pm

thatkidakayounguy wrote:There can still be a designer in all this.

Of course - as I've said many times.

Morny
Valued Member
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:05 pm
Christian: No

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Morny » Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:03 pm

Philip wrote:But as you are an unbeliever, and as this forum relates to God AND science - I just wonder how this relates, going on about theorized evolutionary scenarios?

Not sure what you mean. My "going on" about science's consensus evidence (viz., the one objective nested hierarchy supporting the common descent hypothesis) emphasizes how this topic is one of just a few central pillars of science. The posts here seem to either deny or ignore this monumental significance.

Again, put the shoe on the other foot - claiming science but denying or ignoring common descent, is comparable to claiming Christianity but denying or ignoring the bible.

Morny
Valued Member
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:05 pm
Christian: No

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Morny » Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:04 pm

Philip wrote:I'm a realist - I don't believe blind, unguided processes so stupendously developed by themselves.

I never have a problem with that - I'm skeptical of many things that I haven't had time to investigate. (I'm working on the backlog.) The problem only begins with ignoring, or a priori rejecting, the scientific evidence regarding common descent.

Morny
Valued Member
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:05 pm
Christian: No

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Morny » Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:05 pm

Kurieuo wrote:Creatures are often nested together based upon similar phenotypical patterns we observe and conclusions being drawn which may/may not be correct in actuality.

According to whom? The nested hierarchy picture I posted is the scientific consensus based on the panoply of objective traits of living organisms. So again - where do you disagree with the scientific consensus on this grouping? E.g., do hog-nosed bats group with blue whales, instead of robins, or not?

The implications are enormous, because the observed one objective nested hierarchy, by itself, is strong evidence that living organisms share a common ancestor.


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests