A list of "Scientists who are not 'evolutionists'" [Archive] - Page 4

kjkent1

31st December 2007, 10:04 PM

Translation: I will claim direct evidence of abiogenesis though I cannot provide an example. I will tag interpretative assumptions as direct evidence.The trivially simple statistical direct evidence is that there are two probabilities available within the physical universe: Life occurs, and life does not occur. Since an extra-universal designer is by definition beyond the measurement of science, the assigned probability of said designer is zero (0). As life exists, this negates the probability of no life. This leaves abiogenesis, because there is no other physical possibility.

Therefore, abiogenesis absolutely occurred. There is nothing more to consider in the absence of direct evidence of a designer. I asked you to provide some direct evidence. You respond by insulting me.

That seems mentally disturbed to me.

Translation: I prefer to believe in the highly-unlikely a long as that highly-unlikely doesn't include the ID concept. Anything and everything else is irrelevant.I don't believe in the highly unlikely. The highly unlikely is the only scientific possibility, in the absence of direct evidence of a designer.

Translation: Inductive inference is no longer permitted because if it is then I don't have a leg to stand on so it must needs be rejected.Inductive reasoning is only viable in the absence of direct evidence. Here, there is direct evidence, therefore induction is irrelevant.

Addendum:

This my friend, is called invincible ignorance and anyone trying to change invincible ignorance is a fool. Since I am not a fool I won't try. I was truly hoping for a logical reply but I guess if this is all you have then that's all you have. In any case, thanks for some of the previous replies which seemed to be leading to a logical discussion of the issue. However, from this point on there is really nothing more to be expected but the rejection of universally acceptable cogent reasoning in preference for irrationality based on a pathological aversion to ID.Ad hominem. Boring.

BTW

I do not enjoy being asked questions, answering those questions, only to be told that my answers are illogical when they are not. I also do not apreciate having patently fallacious arguments with absolutely no support handed me in response since that obviously indicates that you were not willing to reason or accept logic from the outset.

In short, that you were merely biding time. That is time-wasting and frustrating. Better to simply and briefly say that you don't agree and leave it at that. That's one of the reasons why I avoid persons who do that. It smacks of heckling and jeckling and mindless droning for which I have a very low tolerance level.Your answers aren't illogical. They're unverifiable in the absence of direct evidence. I asked for direct evidence, and you respond with ad hominem.

It's profoundly boring to engage in conversations with persons who refuse to produce evidence to support their position. Anyone can be a philosopher. It takes work to prove a point.

Prometheus

31st December 2007, 10:27 PM

I think it's unlikely that the whole likely/unlikely discussion is likely to be worthwhile.

Achán hiNidráne

31st December 2007, 10:32 PM

3) Magic. G-d, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Cthulhu... something of that sort. (Bolding mine)

Oh pish posh! Everyone one knows that Cthulhu had nothing to do with the creation of life on Earth. That was the Elder Things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elder_Things) on the Plateau of Leng who created life on Earth as a byproduct of creating the Shoggoths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoggoths).

m_huber

31st December 2007, 11:20 PM

Oh, please, everybody!

Inductive reasoning: reasoning from detailed facts to general principles. (source (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inductive%20reasoning))

Science always uses inductive reasoning.

Premise A: Life exists within the universe.
Premise B: The universe had a beginning.

Conclusion 1: Life had a beginning.

Premise C: Everything observed within the universe follows consistent rules, without apparent interference from an outside force.

Conclusion 2: The beginning of life was not due to an outside force, but rather due to the rules of the universe.

Come on, this is middle school stuff! When do scientists ever publish something that is not inductive reasoning? Show me a paper where the author does not state a question, state a means of establishing premises ("methods," usually), then establish conclusions drawn from those premises.

I can only assume that those who have stuck with Radrook have done so because of the enjoyment of the battle, because it's pretty clear he has no interest in changing his mind, even if he is shown "indisputable evidence." But don't mischaracterize science; it makes you as bad as he is.

ETA: And perhaps by "inductive evidence," some of you mean to say "empirical evidence"? "Induction" refers to a specific electromagnetic principle. "Inductive," by itself, refers to electromagnetic induction. "Inductive reasoning" refers to the thought process. Regardless, "inductive evidence" doesn't mean anything. You can have an "inductive conclusion," and you can have premises that are used in an inductive line of reasoning, but what exactly is "inductive evidence" supposed to mean?

wollery

1st January 2008, 06:13 AM

The biggest problem that Radrook has is that his entire inductive process is based on a flawed premise, that the fact that we do not observe abiogenesis today makes it impossible that abiogenesis took place at all. The flaw in this reasoning is that we live on a planet teeming with life, so where should one look to observe an abiogenesis event? The answer is that there is nowhere we can look, since any such event would take a very long time, and all the basic building blocks are already in existence, everywhere on Earth. This means that the premise, "We do not observe life coming from non-life" is not a valid one on which to base the conclusion that, "Life only comes from life". The likelihood of finding an abiogenesis event on a planet already full of life is zero, so it shouldn't be a surprise that we see no such events.

bokonon

1st January 2008, 09:46 AM

And that isn't the only problem. He is fond of saying that supporters of abiogenesis "reject a concept supported by evidence in favor of one that has none," where the "concept supported by evidence" is presumed to be a supernatural and eternal living designer. If we apply the same inductive method to his CSBE, we observe that all things which live had a beginning, and all die at some point. "Eternal life" is something for which there is no empirical evidence. His "life from life only" concept contains an inherent contradiction, as it depends on a purely hypothetical life form which has attributes unlike any life form which has ever been observed.

While neither his hypothetical "mystery life" nor abiogenesis has ever been observed, abiogenesis has the advantage of depending only on matter and chemistry, both of which are well established. The building blocks of life have been shown to be capable of self-assembling under conditions which are likely to have occurred on our planet. As far as I know, no "building blocks" for an eternal, supernatural intelligent designer have even been suggested, as those who believe in such phantoms would regard such speculation as blasphemy.

Clearly, with the empirical evidence we have to this point, and using inductive reasoning, "abiogenesis" is a more credible hypothesis than ID.

Foster Zygote

1st January 2008, 09:52 AM

The biggest problem that Radrook has is that his entire inductive process is based on a flawed premise, that the fact that we do not observe abiogenesis today makes it impossible that abiogenesis took place at all. The flaw in this reasoning is that we live on a planet teeming with life, so where should one look to observe an abiogenesis event? The answer is that there is nowhere we can look, since any such event would take a very long time, and all the basic building blocks are already in existence, everywhere on Earth. This means that the premise, "We do not observe life coming from non-life" is not a valid one on which to base the conclusion that, "Life only comes from life". The likelihood of finding an abiogenesis event on a planet already full of life is zero, so it shouldn't be a surprise that we see no such events.

Not to mention that life itself has radically altered the chemical makeup of Earth's environment so that it is likely impossible to find a place that matches the environmental conditions of the primordial Earth.

Radrook

1st January 2008, 01:34 PM

The biggest problem that Radrook has is that his entire inductive process is based on a flawed premise, that the fact that we do not observe abiogenesis today makes it impossible that abiogenesis took place at all.

Again!

You erroneously and presumptuously, for some reason, assume that I a not familiar with what can and cannot be expected from induction. To disabuse you of that unfounded delusion:

Induction provides a probabilistic inference not 100% certainty as you are accusing me of having it do in reference to abiogenesis.

The flaw in this reasoning is that we live on a planet teeming with life, so where should one look to observe an abiogenesis event? The answer is that there is nowhere we can look, since any such event would take a very long time, and all the basic building blocks are already in existence, everywhere on Earth. This means that the premise, "We do not observe life coming from nonlife" is not a valid one on which to base the conclusion that, "Life only comes from life." The likelihood of finding an abiogenesis event on a planet already full of life is zero, so it shouldn't be a surprise that we see no such events.

SIGH!

First, the premise you say is not valid is a premise which is true. Since it is true it is a perfectly good premise. In order for it to be an unacceptable or false premise leading to a false conclusion it would have to be untrue. As for validity-try and apply it only to the conclusions in order to keep things logical organized as they should be. Actually, a basic
familiarization with logic terminology would be a good idea as well as with the nature of a deductive syllogism. This would greatly increase the effectiveness of your arguments by preventing giving the impression that you don't know what you are talking about.

Along these lines and based on your comments. I also suggest you read upon what can and cannot be expected fro induction. You seem to believe that 100 percent certainty is inductively derived which proves you are totally unfamiliar with the process and are merely trying to wing it. Induction can only provide probabilistic inferences. In short, based on Induction I cannot say what you just said I said. However, based on the observation that life comes only from life we can certainly justifiably conclude that the probability of life coming from life is infinitely higher than life arising from abiogenesis.

BTW
After you have familiarized yourself with the needed concepts we can discuss the issue if you wish. But as it stands further discussion would only result in my having to point out the errors which can become tedious.

bokonon

1st January 2008, 02:17 PM

Has life ever been observed to originate from an "intelligent designer"? No. The most we have managed to do at this point is change the properties of organisms by genetic engineering.

I predict that, if it ever comes to pass that we do observe life coming from an intelligent designer, that designer will be human, and the method he or she employs will constitute a case of abiogenesis.

Until then, both abiogenesis and ID depend on something which has not been observed, and the most we can do is say which is more likely. Since chemical reactions might form the basis of abiogenesis, and chemical reactions have been observed, there is at least some evidence which can lead us to infer the possibility of abiogenesis. An intelligent designer has never been observed, and it requires a larger leap of logic to assume the spontaneous appearance of a complex life form than the spontaneous appearance of a simple one-celled life form. Thus, the ID hypothesis is less likely than the abiogenesis hypothesis.

joobz

1st January 2008, 02:32 PM

Has life ever been observed to originate from an "intelligent designer"? No.
exactly. He pretends that life only coming from life argument is only self consistent if we assume that life has always existed.

Besides, I still fail to see how this disproves evolution.

I'm left with one conclusions, Radrook is an idiot.
I'm not saying that his arguments are bad because he is an idiot.
I'm saying that he's an idiot becuase his arguments are so unendingly bad.

wollery

1st January 2008, 06:04 PM

Again!

You erroneously and presumptuously, for some reason, assume that I a not familiar with what can and cannot be expected from induction. To disabuse you of that unfounded delusion:

Induction provides a probabilistic inference not 100% certainty as you are accusing me of having it do in reference to abiogenesis.

SIGH!

First, the premise you say is not valid is a premise which is true. Since it is true it is a perfectly good premise. In order for it to be an unacceptable or false premise leading to a false conclusion it would have to be untrue. As for validity-try and apply it only to the conclusions in order to keep things logical organized as they should be. Actually, a basic
familiarization with logic terminology would be a good idea as well as with the nature of a deductive syllogism. This would greatly increase the effectiveness of your arguments by preventing giving the impression that you don't know what you are talking about.

Along these lines and based on your comments. I also suggest you read upon what can and cannot be expected fro induction. You seem to believe that 100 percent certainty is inductively derived which proves you are totally unfamiliar with the process and are merely trying to wing it. Induction can only provide probabilistic inferences. In short, based on Induction I cannot say what you just said I said. However, based on the observation that life comes only from life we can certainly justifiably conclude that the probability of life coming from life is infinitely higher than life arising from abiogenesis.

BTW
After you have familiarized yourself with the needed concepts we can discuss the issue if you wish. But as it stands further discussion would only result in my having to point out the errors which can become tedious.Nope. The premise is invalid for the reasoning you use. You cannot take a premise from one situation (a planet teeming with life) and use it to draw conclusions about another situation (a planet with no life and a totally different environment).

The only conclusion the premise can be used to draw is that where there is life we should expect it to produce life.

articulett

1st January 2008, 06:54 PM

exactly. He pretends that life only coming from life argument is only self consistent if we assume that life has always existed.

Besides, I still fail to see how this disproves evolution.

I'm left with one conclusions, Radrook is an idiot.
I'm not saying that his arguments are bad because he is an idiot.
I'm saying that he's an idiot becuase his arguments are so unendingly bad.

They're backwards, egocentric, and unfixable-- like all "cdesign porponentists". They can't figure out how this all came to be, so it must be for a "higher reason"-- you know, magic. And they make sure they can't understand how it came to be, because their ego depends on their imagined "higher reason".

articulett

1st January 2008, 07:08 PM

Not to mention that life itself has radically altered the chemical makeup of Earth's environment so that it is likely impossible to find a place that matches the environmental conditions of the primordial Earth.

But we have recreated the conditions of primordial earth in a lab... and we have a lot of information about the origin of life on our planet... even if we don't have the exact picture yet. Genomics is a relatively new science... and it turns out life is just about everywhere we look... the pieces are coming together and nothing intelligent seems to be involved.

http://www.astrobio.net/news/article332.html
http://genomics.ucla.edu/eocyte/orignucl.html

It sure the hell isn't creationist scientists coming up with this information... creation science doesn't lead to anything except looking for "magic". It's evolutionary scientists that are responsible for our increasing knowledge in this field... From genomics to paternity testing to the origins of life itself-- only evolutionists are providing real answers.

I don't think "non-evolutionary" scientists are contributing to anything--just attempting to obfuscate so their magic man looks real. If they actually cared about life's origins, they could access the above information and take that information further... but they don't want new information--they just want to believe that god is the answer.

joobz

1st January 2008, 07:40 PM

It sure the hell isn't creationist scientists coming up with this information... creation science doesn't lead to anything except looking for "magic". It's evolutionary scientists that are responsible for our increasing knowledge in this field... From genomics to paternity testing to the origins of life itself-- only evolutionists are providing real answers.

I don't think "non-evolutionary" scientists are contributing to anything--just attempting to obfuscate so their magic man looks real. If they actually cared about life's origins, they could access the above information and take that information further... but they don't want new information--they just want to believe that god is the answer.
Exactly. Radrook perfectly illustrates the silliness of their actions. IDers don't look for answers. They don't even look for evidence. They use logic games (poorly) in substitution of real debate.

Foster Zygote

1st January 2008, 08:47 PM

But we have recreated the conditions of primordial earth in a lab... and we have a lot of information about the origin of life on our planet... even if we don't have the exact picture yet. Genomics is a relatively new science... and it turns out life is just about everywhere we look... the pieces are coming together and nothing intelligent seems to be involved.

http://www.astrobio.net/news/article332.html
http://genomics.ucla.edu/eocyte/orignucl.html

It sure the hell isn't creationist scientists coming up with this information... creation science doesn't lead to anything except looking for "magic". It's evolutionary scientists that are responsible for our increasing knowledge in this field... From genomics to paternity testing to the origins of life itself-- only evolutionists are providing real answers.

I don't think "non-evolutionary" scientists are contributing to anything--just attempting to obfuscate so their magic man looks real. If they actually cared about life's origins, they could access the above information and take that information further... but they don't want new information--they just want to believe that god is the answer.

I heard about researchers going into salt mines 3 kilometers under the surface and drilling into the salt deposits to extract cores. They were looking for tiny water bubbles trapped in the salt since the evaporation of the region's inland sea some 3 million years ago. They wanted to study the bacteria trapped in these bubbles. Just out of curiosity they decided to place some of these bacteria in a nutrient solution to see what would happen. It turns out the bacteria were not dead, they had simply gone dormant for 3 million years. After coming out of their dormancy they started to reproduce again.

The chemistry of life is amazing. We may not yet know how the whole picture fits together, but we have various pieces that offer tantalizing clues. I wish I could go back in time and tell Darwin about the Urey-Miller experiment.

articulett

1st January 2008, 09:03 PM

The chemistry of life is amazing. We may not yet know how the whole picture fits together, but we have various pieces that offer tantalizing clues. I wish I could go back in time and tell Darwin about the Urey-Miller experiment.

Or even chromosomes... DNA! he never saw it. Or the ape-human chromosome #2 fusion--that is awesome... he was right in ways he could not have imagined, and opened the path for where to look to find the secrets of life... it turns out it's in ever cell in our body... in every life form there is...

I feel that one of religions greatest harms is keeping people from learning these exciting facts and tools--people who could be taking this knowledge further, instead waste their time fighting for a delusion that answers nothing and goes nowhere and makes the promoters of it stupid and arrogant in the process.

joobz

1st January 2008, 09:08 PM

Or even chromosomes... DNA! he never saw it. Or the ape-human chromosome #2 fusion--that is awesome... he was right in ways he could not have imagined, and opened the path for where to look to find the secrets of life... it turns out it's in ever cell in our body... in every life form there is...

I feel that one of religions greatest harms is keeping people from learning these exciting facts and tools--people who could be taking this knowledge further, instead waste their time fighting for a delusion that answers nothing and goes nowhere and makes the promoters of it stupid and arrogant in the process.
Couple this with the discovery of RNAi. A whole complex mechanism of protien regulation was virtually unknown for decades and now offers one of the most exciting avenues of medical therapy. And it's existence exists almost purely as a defense against viral infections. It's an evolutionary adaptation and we didn't know it was there.

articulett

1st January 2008, 09:20 PM

Couple this with the discovery of RNAi. A whole complex mechanism of protien regulation was virtually unknown for decades and now offers one of the most exciting avenues of medical therapy. And it's existence exists almost purely as a defense against viral infections. It's an evolutionary adaptation and we didn't know it was there.

I know! I think this stuff is so cool, and I feel so lucky that I can understand it and extrapolate what it means in regards to life on this earth. I love knowing that somewhere back in time my pets and I share a common ancestor--I think that's wild... yet I know it's true... I know how we know this... and the tree in my backyard and I have a common ancestor. All this stuff is amazing and true and knowable-- and yet people are afraid to learn about it or trust it because of "religion"... because of people like Radrook. This is some of the coolest stuff humans have come to know--and people spend their time looking for evidence that it isn't true or that magic is behind it. It's so... wrong. Sad. Primitive. People would rather learn the rain dances then learn irrigation and planting techniques to deal with drought it seems.

Radrook

2nd January 2008, 01:37 PM

Nope. The premise is invalid for the reasoning you use. You cannot take a premise from one situation (a planet teeming with life) and use it to draw conclusions about another situation (a planet with no life and a totally different environment).

The only conclusion the premise can be used to draw is that where there is life we should expect it to produce life.

You are limiting inferential generalizations reached on earth as applicable only to earth?
That's not how logic nor the application of it to science operates.

BTW

The inference is justified 100 percent since we are talking about the emergence of life. So it is fully relevant to the subject whether the emergence is here or anywhere else is irrelevant.
Also:

you are being inconsistent since you don't hold your evolutionist atheist scientists to the same criterion as you claim to hold me.

Second, it is common knowledge that inferences drawn here on earth are routinely applied to extraterrestrial planets, as their requirement of water as a sign of possible abiogenesis demonstrates. A generalization based on what? NOTHING! Yet, technically, it is an earth -based idea which by your own reasoning should be rejected but isn't because it doesn't smack of ID which you consider anathema.

joobz

2nd January 2008, 04:04 PM

You are limiting inferential generalizations reached on earth as applicable only to earth?
That's not how logic nor the application of it to science operates.Nope.

BTW

The inference is justified 100 percent since we are talking about the emergence of life.
No, your premise is only dealing with the propogation of life not the emergence of life. WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR LIFE EMERGENCE BY ANY MEANS.

So it is fully relevant to the subject whether the emergence is here or anywhere else is irrelevant.
nope.

Also:

you are being inconsistent since you don't hold your evolutionist atheist scientists to the same criterion as you claim to hold me.Nope.
Your argument's inconsistency was demonstrated. That's YOUR problem, no one else's. Evolutionary theory only discusses the mechanism of life diversification. It's based not pure logical arguments that support it. It has multitudes of independantly verified bits of evidence supporting it. You have merely wishes and hopes.

Second, it is common knowledge that inferences drawn here on earth are routinely applied to extraterrestrial planets, as their requirement of water as a sign of possible abiogenesis demonstrates. Not fully. We can measure things about other planets and we can make inferences on those measured properties based upon what we know about thier behavior here. We make no claims about life elsewhere, because we have no evidence for life elsewhere.

A generalization based on what? NOTHING! Yet, technically, it is an earth -based idea which by your own reasoning should be rejected but isn't because it doesn't smack of ID which you consider anathema.
This is a bunch of stupid.

Radrook

2nd January 2008, 04:10 PM

General comment about the prevalent congratulatory backslapping, vehemently expressed false accusations, imagined argumentations, and general misguided elations irrationally permeating this thread.

To Wit:

Common sense would tell a person of normal intelligence that if the argument is about presenting inductive evidence in support of an idea and the person has absolutely none to offer, to bow out with dignity from that particular argument by conceding that he hasn't a leg to stand inductively since any further attempt is futile due to lack of inductive evidence.

A person of normal intelligence would also immediately realize that deviating the subject is tantamount to buffoonery and proves absolutely nothing. In fact, it reinforces the impression that the ones using such tactics are quite ready willing and able to believe what they belief because they believe it-so there!

Which of course is perfectly OK by me since everyone has a right to his own ideas no matter how irrational the ideas might be. However, what isn't OK by me is to dignify such quackery via reading and responding to it or even leaving it visibly on my personal computer screen. Which of course should be OK with the ones quacking about irrelevancies and arguing against their own ideas. But if it isn't-well, that's where the symbolic gnawing of tongue and grinding of teeth comes in I surmise. : )

Here is some interesting info:

Improbability of Abiogenesis: Spontaneous Generation Redux and Hopeful ...
... and facts of nature come down in favor of ID, and against abiogenesis. ... Now, in the case of abiogenesis, life must result after a completed build-up, ...
www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/abiogenesis.html

Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis
Abiogenesis is the theory that under the proper conditions life can arise ... Reason in the Balance; The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education, ...
www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp

Abiogenesis
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/abiogen.htm

joobz

2nd January 2008, 04:13 PM

wollery

2nd January 2008, 05:57 PM

You are limiting inferential generalizations reached on earth as applicable only to earth? No, I'm not, as I've told you before. But we only have one data point when it comes to life supporting planets.

You are applying observations taken on one planet in a short period of its history to the entire Universe.

That's not how logic nor the application of it to science operates.Which is why I'm not saying that, never have said it, nor ever will say it.

BTW

The inference is justified 100 percent since we are talking about the emergence of life. So it is fully relevant to the subject whether the emergence is here or anywhere else is irrelevant.You are the one applying an observation about the propagation of life to the emergence of life, which is totally unjustified. You are the one taking an observation of one property in a particular situation and applying it to a different property in a different situation, which is completely unscientific.

Also:

you are being inconsistent since you don't hold your evolutionist atheist scientists to the same criterion as you claim to hold me.Nobody has any real evidence for the origin of life, other than the fact that life exists, so everyone is held to the same standard, i.e. that they must demonstrate a practical, coherent theory, with predictive power.

Abiogenesis is practical (it relies on known chemistry), coherent (it is a single definable theory) and has predictive power (it predicts some of the possible conditions under which life might emerge).

Your theory is not practical (by your own admission the mechanism is unknown and probably unknowable), incoherent (it could be transdimensional or interuniversal beings, God or, as your logic implies, an eternal Universe) and has no predictive power (it's just a statement - life begets life).

I've also bolded a very important word in your argument. You keep saying that God is irrelevant to your argument, and yet you keep talking about atheist evolutionists. There are theistic evolutionists as well. And theistic scientists who adhere to the abiogenesis theory. Just as there are atheists who believe in Alien ID. You say you want to keep God out of the argument, then stop bringing peoples' religion, or lack thereof, into the argument.

Second, it is common knowledge that inferences drawn here on earth are routinely applied to extraterrestrial planets, as their requirement of water as a sign of possible abiogenesis demonstrates.Yes, because the only planet that we know of which supports life does so based on water as a transport medium for biochemistry. Water is essential to life on Earth, so we know that life can exist on a planet with a large amount of water, as we also know that it can exist on a planet with an atmosphere like that of Earth. It's common sense to look for life on planets that are similar to those on which extant life is known to exist. We won't be looking for life on a Helium atmosphere Jupiter mass planet 0.01 AU from an early A type star any time soon, because we have no reason to believe that there will be any life there.

A generalization based on what? NOTHING!Based on the one data point we already have - Earth.

To be clear - we aren't looking for abiogenesis, we're looking for life. That's why we're looking at Solar type stars and trying to find Earth like planets. They're the best bet, based on our existing knowledge.

Yet, technically, it is an earth -based idea which by your own reasoning should be rejectedNo, applying the observations of life on Earth to Earth-like planets is a perfectly valid scientific argument. Life exists on Earth. Want to find life on other planets? Look for an Earth-like planet in an Earth-like orbit around a Solar type star. Why would you do anything else?

but isn't because it doesn't smack of ID which you consider anathema.We've covered this. It has nothing to do with ID. And I don't consider ID to be anathema. I consider the approach most ID proponents take to be unscientific, and find most of their arguments laughable, but I don't discount it as a possibility. I consider it a low probability, but not an impossibility. The problem it has is that it has to explain the origin of the 'Intelligence' behind the 'Design'.

wollery

2nd January 2008, 06:34 PM

Improbability of Abiogenesis: Spontaneous Generation Redux and Hopeful ...
... and facts of nature come down in favor of ID, and against abiogenesis. ... Now, in the case of abiogenesis, life must result after a completed build-up, ...
www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/abiogenesis.html This article conflates the terms abiogenesis and spontaneous generation for effect. They aren't the same idea at all! Spontaneous generation was the idea that lifeforms spring fully formed from nothing, instantaneously. It has been utterly discredited for over 200 years. The rest of the article has the same criticisms as the other references, so I'll address them below.

Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis
Abiogenesis is the theory that under the proper conditions life can arise ... Reason in the Balance; The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education, ...
www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp

Abiogenesis
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/abiogen.htm
The Miller-Urey experiment was never intended to show abiogenesis in action, and nobody (to my knowledge) has ever claimed that it did. It is also completely irrelevant whether or not the atmosphere of the early Earth was the same as that used in the Miller-Urey experiment. What it shows is that a mixture of basic, inorganic chemicals given an energy input, can produce some of the basic building blocks of life. That's all it shows, but it's important, because those chemicals were produced in a few days in a constant atmosphere, and the Earth had millions of years, and a changing atmosphere.

Nobody is saying that we know exactly how it happened, what the exact process was, but there is some small evidence that it could have happened. Evidence that a mixture of basic chemicals can produce biological building blocks.

arthwollipot

2nd January 2008, 08:15 PM

The Miller-Urey experiment was never intended to show abiogenesis in action, and nobody (to my knowledge) has ever claimed that it did.Creationists have, every time they cite the experiment to "prove" that abiogenesis is impossible. But I suppose that doesn't count.

UnrepentantSinner

3rd January 2008, 03:39 AM

This article conflates the terms abiogenesis and spontaneous generation for effect. They aren't the same idea at all! Spontaneous generation was the idea that lifeforms spring fully formed from nothing, instantaneously.

Slight semantic correction. Lifeforms didn't spring from nothing in Spontaneous Generation, but from things other than similar life (i.e. eggs or parents). Examples I've heard are
- mice from grain
- maggots (or flies) from meat
- geese (or goslings) from barnacles

As far as Miller-Urey goes for any lurkers out there interested in seeing how anti-evolutionists argue agains it - and how those arguments are blown apart.
Response to Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution Miller-Urey chapter (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#Miller-Urey).

wollery

3rd January 2008, 04:06 AM

Slight semantic correction. Lifeforms didn't spring from nothing in Spontaneous Generation, but from things other than similar life (i.e. eggs or parents). Examples I've heard are
- mice from grain
- maggots (or flies) from meat
- geese (or goslings) from barnacles

As far as Miller-Urey goes for any lurkers out there interested in seeing how anti-evolutionists argue agains it - and how those arguments are blown apart.
Response to Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution Miller-Urey chapter (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#Miller-Urey).Ah, yes, thanks US.

Ocelot

3rd January 2008, 04:35 AM

UnrepentantSinner

3rd January 2008, 08:13 AM

Radrock, a genetic test can present a probability the my Sister and I share a recent common ancestor. This test is reliable enough to be used in a court of law. The same technology, the same science tells us we all share a common ancestor with all other humans and gives us an estimate of the date of that common ancestor. Not only that but the same technology but it tells us that we share a common ancestor with all other great apes, another common ancestor with all primates, another with all mammals, another with all vertebrates.

Your post reminded me of the Laprey's Tale in Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale where analysis of genes coding for globins - in blood ironically, since blood is such a metaphor for common ancestry... especially in determining whether cousins could marry - determined that the split between jawless fishes and the jawed fishes which would eventually give rise to terrestrial vertebrates including humans occured about the time we'd predicted based on the fossil record.

Except for a few examples where A and C* seem to be more closely related in a particular genetic test than A and B, genes have proven wonderfully evidentiary to supporting Darwin's original theory and even flukes like Linaeus classifying chimps in genus Homo. We never find genetic analysis showing A and F or A and U* being more closely related.

*Hippos and whales f.ex.
**Cats and echidnas or ravens and corals f.ex.

**

Radrook

3rd January 2008, 09:32 AM

Creationists have, every time they cite the experiment to "prove" that abiogenesis is impossible. But I suppose that doesn't count.

There is supposed to be a clear difference beween "argues against" and "proves". There is also a difference between inferences of certainty and inferences of high probabilty which seems to be beyond the conceptual grasp of some here. A careful reading of what I am saying would prevent this constant attack upon your own ideas but that also seems to be beyond the ability of many here.

Strange!

Radrook

3rd January 2008, 10:02 AM

Radrock, a genetic test can present a probability the my Sister and I share a recent common ancestor. This test is reliable enough to be used in a court of law. The same technology, the same science tells us we all share a common ancestor with all other humans and gives us an estimate of the date of that common ancestor. Not only that but the same technology but it tells us that we share a common ancestor with all other great apes, another common ancestor with all primates, another with all mammals, another with all vertebrates.

If you do not accept the conclusions of this reproducible, reliable and legally acceptable evidence could you point to the flaw you perceive in it. I'm sure both Eddie Murphy and Boris Becker would love to know how their embarrassing paternity tests could be challenged.

Here is an interesting website which responds to your claims:

[b]Do the similarities between monkey and human DNA support evolution?[b]
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genetics.asp

Foster Zygote

3rd January 2008, 10:23 AM

articulett

3rd January 2008, 01:35 PM

Common sense would tell a person of normal intelligence that if the argument is about presenting inductive evidence in support of an idea and the person has absolutely none to offer, to bow out with dignity from that particular argument by conceding that he hasn't a leg to stand inductively since any further attempt is futile due to lack of inductive evidence.

So I presume your failure to bow out with dignity is due to your less than normal intelligence? Have you met Kleinman?

Suppose there really were no intelligent designer and that evolution was as true as gravity. How would you come to know about such things given your mindset and "less than normal" intelligence?

joobz

3rd January 2008, 03:57 PM

Here is an interesting website which responds to your claims:

[b]Do the similarities between monkey and human DNA support evolution?[b]
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genetics.asp
BWA HA HA HA HA!!!
Do you really find that site convincing?

Chimp DNA has not been anywhere near fully sequenced so that a proper comparison can be made (using a lot of computer time to do it—imagine comparing two sets of 1000 large books, sentence by sentence, for similarities and differences!).
This paper was written in 1996....too bad science didn't know it was supposed to stop looking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project

Analysis of the genome was published in Nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_%28journal%29) on September 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_1), 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005), in an article produced by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_Sequencing_and_Analysis_Consortium),ouc h..
This is where the evidence of chromosome 2 fusion is so telling. This why I included it in the list of 18 bits of evidence for evolution I gave before. Remember, when you put me on ignore when you decided I wasn't asking fair questions?

Answers in genesis has it's "answers" already. They don't want truth, they want fiction to support their beliefs. Good thing science doesn't work this way.

UnrepentantSinner

3rd January 2008, 07:04 PM

Here is an interesting website which responds to your claims:

Do the similarities between monkey and human DNA support evolution?
{snip AiG link}

The answer is yes, and even more so than before the Human and Chimp genome projects were completed.

Radrook

3rd January 2008, 11:05 PM

articulett

3rd January 2008, 11:12 PM

Here are two fallacies constantly in popular use here:

1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This fossil before that one therefore this one caused that one.

2. Fervent denial: Or denial that a clearly logical inductive inference is justified

--Said the guy who has failed to give one piece of data in support of an alternate theory.

Just because you make yourself ignorant to the facts--doesn't mean that they still are not the facts. The data that keep pouring in only supports evolution further... there is NO data for ANY alternative explanation. None. Zero. --Compare that to reams of data including databases of mapped genomes coming in at breath taking speeds that only emphasize how correct Darwin was. (Oddly enough, creationists never seem interested or up on this new data... I wonder why?)

How does your alternative hypothesis explain the Chromosome 2 fusion and the non-working vitamin C gene in primates, by the way? What about Ebola--was that part of your intelligent designer's plans? Why would any intelligent designer have a male make trillions of sperm in a life time if less than two were destined to be somebody?

You can obfuscate all you want... but it doesn't erase the facts and it doesn't cover the fact that THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION to explain what we observe (at least not one that has any evidence in support of it)... and there is no evidence which says evolution is incorrect... despite the desperate attempt of egomaniacal theists to dig up something over the eons.

I think you ought to study that word "denial" a little more closely.

What do you suppose the world would look like if evolution was correct--and how do you imagine you would come to know about it?

Shalamar

3rd January 2008, 11:16 PM

articulett

3rd January 2008, 11:19 PM

The only problem I see is that ID'ers (Creationists) have a preconceived conclusion: an intelligent designer. Any evidence that supports it is to be embraced. Everything else? thrown out.

'Evolutionists' (I hate that term), and scientists investigate the evidence. All evidence, even if it doesn't fit the hypothesis, where it is followed to a conclusion. Even if they don't like the conclusion.

ID'ers have a problem with this, because they claim that scientists keep changing their mind or the like. Well, yes. Thats science. Follow the evidence, find a conclusion, not get the conclusion, and go out to find evidence.

And I would say that scientists aren't really changing their mind--they are refining their understanding... the knowledge is evolving and the details are getting filled in. Theists would like to create the impression that scientists are changing their minds all the time... but evolution is as solid as gravity, atomic theory, and germ theory-- we just keep finding out more and more detailed information because we are on the right track.

bokonon

3rd January 2008, 11:36 PM

Here are two fallacies constantly in popular use here:

1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This fossil before that one therefore this one caused that one.

2. Fervent denial: Or denial that a clearly logical inductive inference is justified

Well, you know, with that "life from life" and "temporal priority" thing, it's hard to argue that the life forms which came later caused the ones which came earlier. Since we see simpler fossilized life forms in deeper strata, and more complex fossilized life forms in shallower strata, and deeper strata must have been deposited earlier than shallower strata, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the simpler forms may have evolved into the more complex forms. It's certainly more reasonable than "life comes only from life, so God must have started it." What fallacy is that? Post hoc ergo propter God?

Many people have noticed and commented on your fervent denial. You'd rather pretend you're the only person in the thread than deal with the arguments which show how illogical your "uncaused cause" is, and how logical and pervasive the evidence is which supports evolution. The problem with that strategy is that everybody else can still read and consider the evidence which you choose to ignore. Your policy of ignorance applies only to yourself.

Prometheus

3rd January 2008, 11:37 PM

Here are two fallacies constantly in popular use here:

1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This fossil before that one therefore this one caused that one.

2. Fervent denial: Or denial that a clearly logical inductive inference is justified

1) Can you site an example of any evolution scientist claiming that one specific fossil was caused by another one? I know I've never heard such a claim made by anyone. (Let alone that the reason we know one caused the other is merely because one of them is older!)

2) Please state any "clearly logical inductive inference" regarding evolution. After we've got one we can discuss whether or not it's justified.

joobz

3rd January 2008, 11:46 PM

Here are two fallacies constantly in popular use here:

1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This fossil before that one therefore this one caused that one.

2. Fervent denial: Or denial that a clearly logical inductive inference is justified
I think it would be fun to post my question to you that was made on page 2 and 3 of this thread.

I've followed your arguments, and I haven't seen anything presented that is a compelling argument.

perhaps you'd like to present one.

Start with how you discount
1.) the fossil record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundemental mechanism of evolution
3.) the phylogenetic tree
4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that presists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.
5.) ERVs
6.) human chromosome fusion
7.) multi drug resistent bacteria
8.) existence of RNAi
9.) Mitochondrial DNA
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques
You avoided answering the question. So I asked again.
I've given you a chance to prove this statement. I'm still waiting to see why you are doubtful.

Such as?

This is a pure assertion with no proof.

I'm giving you a chance to prove that your argument is more than just incredulity. Provide substance, and people will listen.

To discount evolution, you'll have to come up with alternative, self-consistent, rational explanations for
Start with how you discount
1.) the fossil record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundemental mechanism of evolution
3.) the phylogenetic tree
4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that presists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.
5.) ERVs
6.) human chromosome fusion
7.) multi drug resistent bacteria
8.) existence of RNAi
9.) Mitochondrial DNA
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques

This list is far from exaustive. It is purely 10 I came up with in 5 minutes.
give me another two minutes and
11.) vestigal organs
12.) prions
13.) protein multifunctionality
14.) protein polymorphisms
15.) symbiosis
16.) interspecies viable offspring
17.) nylon-eating bacteria
18.) Persistence of Sickle Cell
Suprising, you still haven't answered the question.

BenBurch

3rd January 2008, 11:51 PM

1) Can you site an example of any evolution scientist claiming that one specific fossil was caused by another one? I know I've never heard such a claim made by anyone. (Let alone that the reason we know one caused the other is merely because one of them is older!)

...

I can think of one; Fossilized meals. The fish inside only is fossilized when the fish who ate it swam off to die in a place where the conditions were just right for fossilization. (I know that is not what you meant, though.)

PixyMisa

3rd January 2008, 11:55 PM

Can anyone tell me what "inductive evidence" is?

I know what evidence is; I know what inductive logic is; I know that I can apply inductive logic to evidence to reach a (tentative) conclusion.

But from context, "inductive evidence" seems to mean "stuff I believe for no reason at all".

UnrepentantSinner

3rd January 2008, 11:56 PM

1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This fossil before that one therefore this one caused that one.

Which fallacy describes ignoring the fact that the genetic evidence matches the morphological evidence?

1) Can you site an example of any evolution scientist claiming that one specific fossil was caused by another one? I know I've never heard such a claim made by anyone. (Let alone that the reason we know one caused the other is merely because one of them is older!)

Oooo! Mr. Kotter! A fossilized nest with a proximate adult female.

Take that!

arthwollipot

4th January 2008, 12:01 AM

Inductive: of, pertaining to, or employing logical induction: inductive reasoning.

Induction:
a.any form of reasoning in which the conclusion, though supported by the premises, does not follow from them necessarily.
b.the process of estimating the validity of observations of part of a class of facts as evidence for a proposition about the whole class.
c.a conclusion reached by this process.

(dictionary.com)

Perhaps definition b. of induction is what is meant - we make observations of part of a class of facts as evidence for a proposition about the whole class. We see that birds evolved from dinosaurs (evidence) and we made an induction about the manner of evolution in general.

But I admit, this particular use of words does confuse me.

wollery

4th January 2008, 12:05 AM

Radrook, no response to my posts 777 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3297195&postcount=777) and 778 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3297326&postcount=778)?

Prometheus

4th January 2008, 12:07 AM

But from context, "inductive evidence" seems to mean "stuff I believe for no reason at all".

Evidently.

Radrook

4th January 2008, 12:48 AM

Seems to mean because you say so-but definitely not because you demonstrate it by proving my method.[ which adheres strictly to the rules of induction] false or defective. And the reason you don't, obviously, is because you can't- because if you could then you would instead of yapping without proving squat!

Here is some grist for the mill:

Evolution 'unscientific'
Subscribe today! Evolution 'unscientific' Interview with biomedical researcher Dr Eric Norman ... Evolution is just unscientific. ...
www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/evolution.asp

Is Evolution Probable?
http://www.dyeager.org/articles/evolution-probability/

Hokulele

4th January 2008, 12:57 AM

Prometheus

4th January 2008, 01:01 AM

wollery

4th January 2008, 01:28 AM

I did address your inductive argument, at the bottom of page 19, post number 759 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3292492&postcount=759). You take an observation of one situation and apply it to another, but it fails because that other situation is not analogous.

articulett

4th January 2008, 01:44 AM

I hate creationist gobbledy gook... it sounds sort of like they are saying something, but they just aren't saying anything. Their whole goal is to muck up understanding and then insert god into the miasma. I imagine that they can make individual people feel like they don't understand something... but when I'm able to understand every single post except those arguing against evolution and for some nebulous "intelligent designer" then I'm convinced that the problem is with them.

And the thing is, they don't understand each other... so they can't even get anything cohesive together... their whole goal is to just muddle understanding so everything sounds so confused that "magic" seems like a possible answer.

We should lock Kleinman, radrook, Iamme, T'ai and others of their ilk in a room and tell them not to come out until they have a coherent argument against evolution and an alternate theory that fits the facts better-- complete with evidence.

They are so repulsive... because there are a lot of smart people here who would be glad to give them a clue to some of the coolest information humans have been privileged to discover--but they are sure that they know everything there is to know on the topic and so they fling ad homs at those who deign to give them clue. They are readily identifiable by the complete lack of curiosity on new developments in the field they pretend to have expertise in.

Blecchk

wollery

4th January 2008, 01:54 AM

Oh, also Radrook, your inductive reasoning leads to one of three possible conclusions:

1. Life has always existed. For this to be true either the big bang was a living entity (try to explain how that can be true), or the Universe is infinitely old.

2. Beings from another dimension/universe travelled to this Universe and seeded life in this one. For this to be true either there are an infinite series of dimensions/universes, in all of which life has been seeded by beings from another dimension/universe, or there exists a dimension/universe where either an abiogenetic event took place or conclusion 3 applied.

3. Goddidit. A supernatural entity (not a living being) decided to create life. Said supernatural being is not bound by the laws of nature or the premise that you use for your argument.

Conclusion 1 is either untestable or ridiculous, conclusion 2 is either ridiculous, untestable or contrary to your premise, and conclusion 3 is either untestable or contrary to your premise.

The conclusion of this is that your argument is in some way faulty.

PixyMisa

4th January 2008, 04:59 AM

Seems to mean because you say so-but definitely not because you demonstrate it by proving my method.[ which adheres strictly to the rules of induction] false or defective. And the reason you don't, obviously, is because you can't- because if you could then you would instead of yapping without proving squat!
If you were adhering "strictly to the rules of induction", you wouldn't be talking about "inductive evidence" (there's no such thing) or proof (you can't prove anything about the world via induction).

Science uses inductive logic to generalise from observations to a predictive theory. You have to start with obervations, though. What are your observations, Radrook?

bokonon

4th January 2008, 05:52 AM

I hate creationist gobbledy gook... it sounds sort of like they are saying something, but they just aren't saying anything. Their whole goal is to muck up understanding and then insert god into the miasma.
Yes, that's really the whole strategy. They use "sciencey-sounding" language to impress people who don't like thinking that much, or who approve of thinking in principle, but just aren't very good at it.

Someone like that hears the evidence for evolution, and doesn't understand it, then hears the creationist explanations, and doesn't understand them, and goes with the default position of believing what they want to believe.

For them, "the great flood" is pretty much the explanation for everything. The Grand Canyon. The geologic column. Plate tectonics. I have no doubt that if Radrook were to take his fingers out of his ears long enough to hear the 2nd chromosome argument, it would be "the flood" (or maybe "the fall") which caused that fusion.

It's amazing that people in the 21st century are so comfortable with this type of non-thinking, which one is more likely to encounter in a fundamentalist Muslim society than in a convention of real scientists anywhere in the world.

Ocelot

4th January 2008, 06:31 AM

Here is an interesting website which responds to your claims:

[b]Do the similarities between monkey and human DNA support evolution?[b]
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genetics.asp (http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genetics.asp)

Radrook,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my point even if it was only a link to the website of an absurd (http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/) organisation. However to be fair to you I will discuss the content of the points they make rather than making an easy ad hominem attack on the disreputable character of Ken Ham and his organisation.

The first article in the section you mention suggests that such similarities are equally well explained by a common designer as a common ancestor. None of the other articles seem to remotely address my point.

You'll note that the point I was making was rather more sophisticated than simply that the similarities in DNA between man and chimp support evolution. Perhaps it would help to have a little common ground between us on how such genetic tests are interpretted.

In fact while certain similarities may indeed be explained by a common creator one has to be highly selective with which facts one is trying to account for, if one is to suggest that this is as predictive as evolutionary theory.

When we look at comparing the genomes of individuals and of species we do not focus solely on the similarities but also upon the differences.

The genetic recipe for each individual varies in a number of ways. Some variations produce differences in the way a gene is expressed and are thus subject to natural selection but others do not. This is either because the proteins created by the two variations are identical or because the genes are do not create proteins at all.

One might naively suggest that a common designer would use the same sequence every time for the same purpose but this clearly does not tally with empirical evidence. So one must suggest that the designer is prepared to mix it up a bit for whatever ineffable reason. This at least fits the evidence but it does raise some curious questions. Why make a protein one way in one species but make exactly the same protein a different way in another species.

The same is true on a individual level. The alleles used in human genetic fingerprinting vary a great deal amongst our population. They seem to have no function so are free to vary unconstrained by natural selection. So much so that they are expected to have few if any similarities between unrelated individuals.

When 50% similarity is found amongst these alleles we know with an extraordinarily high degree of certainty that this is not simply because they are both humans with a common designer but they must share a very recent common ancestor, e.g. brother and sister or father and daughter.

Evolutionary theory suggests that these variations are the result of mutations and just as more closely related individuals will share more of the same variations with one another also more closely related species will share more of the same variations with one another than more distantly related species. It's exactly the same technology but they simply look at more alleles where variations are less frequent.

It makes the same prediction as the single creator with his ineffable reason for "mixing it up a bit" but also a further prediction highlighting a statistical relationship between the variations observed and the relatedness of species. That is to say the time since their last common ancestor.

A belief in a common creator creating species individually would not predict that more closely related species would have more variations in common than more distantly related species - It can't make that prediction because it doesn't acknowledge "more closely related"

Empirical evidence upholds this additional prediction - there are indeed variations in the ways that common proteins are manufactured amongst different species of the animal kingdom. Grouping together those with the most number of similarities to produce clades generates a picture of common descent remarkably similar to pre existing taxonomic trees.

If I believed that all human individuals were created rather than descended from one another I’d be at a loss to explain the similarities in genetic fingerprint amongst family members. An analogous problem faces those who claim that all species were created rather than descended from one another.

So if you doubt evolutionary theory how do you account for greater number of genetic similarities between human and chimp than between chimp and baboon and the greater number of amongst those three between than between any of them with a leopard. If there was a creator he made damn sure his creation was indistinguishable from a design evolved from a common ancestor.

In short nothing you have linked to would be an acceptable reason for Eddie Murphy to explain away the apparent genetic evidence of his relatedness to Angel Iris Murphy Brown nor is it an acceptable reason for human kind to explain away the apparent genetic relatedness to all other life on earth with varying degrees of proximity.

bokonon

4th January 2008, 06:52 AM

If I believed that all human individuals were created rather than descended from one another I’d be at a loss to explain the similarities in genetic fingerprint amongst family members. An analogous problem faces those who claim that all species were created rather than descended from one another.
Excellent point. Unfortunately, if Answers in Genesis doesn't address it, chances are Radrook won't either.

Radrook

6th January 2008, 01:33 AM

The first article in the section you mention suggests that such similarities are equally well explained by a common designer as a common ancestor. None of the other articles seem to remotely address my point.

I didn't say that every single article on that website would be in reference to the point you brought up.

If I believed that all human individuals were created rather than descended from one another I'd be at a loss to explain the similarities in genetic fingerprint amongst family members. An analogous problem faces those who claim that all species were created rather than descended from one another.

Again, no one is saying that all species were individually created.

....A belief in a common creator creating species individually would not predict that more closely related species would have more variations in common than more distantly related species - It can't make that prediction because it doesn't acknowledge "more closely related"

The concept that the creator made all existing species individually is not a biblical one. The kinds mentioned in the Bible are considered to be ancestral to the many species we see today. The variations resulting from those kinds are acceptable. What isn't acceptable is a fish turning into a reptile a reptile into a pig a pig into a monkey and a monkey into a human being. That's what fairy tales are made of.
IMHO

Why make a protein one way in one species but make exactly the same protein a different way in another species.

I see absolutely no difficulty whatsoever in this.[a naive thought!]

When I play chess I reach the same positions using different techniques. If you would require that I bore myself using the exact same technique to reach identical positions then I would object because you would be hindering my enjoyment of the process. Artists use different techniques to paint similar or even identical landscapes. Why not restrict them to one technique?

Evolutionary theory suggests that these variations are the result of mutations and just as more closely related individuals will share more of the same variations with one another also more closely related species.

That leap from human applicability to animal in relation to human applicability is only made based on the assumption that evolution is true.

Also, I find the favorable mutation selection explanation unconvincing:

Exerpt
[Hermann J. Muller, Nobel Laureate and world-renowned evolutionary geneticist, stated in American Scientist some years back that

“mutations are found to be of a random nature, so far as their utility is concerned.
Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences”

Exerpt
(1950, 38:35). Dr. Muller echoed that same sentiment
in an interview in Time magazine when he said:

“Most mutations are bad; in fact, good ones are so
rare that we may consider them all as bad” (as quoted in Time, 1946, p. 96).

Excerpt:

Evolutionist C.P. Martin, writing in the American Scientist, stated:

Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely. Does not this fact show that mutations are really assaults
on the organism’s central being, its basic capacity to be a living thing (1953, p. 102).

Excerpt:

Christopher Wills, writing in Scientific American,
placed the matter in its proper perspective when he stated:

The large majority of mutations, however, are harmful, or even lethal to the individual in whom they are expressed. Such mutations can be regarded as introducing a “load” or genetic burden into the pool. The term “genetic load” was first used by the late H.J. Muller, who recognized that the rate of mutations is increased by numerous agents man has introduced into his environment, notably ionizing radiation and mutagenic chemicals (1970, 222:98).

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/NeoDarwinism.pdf

Empirical evidence upholds this additional prediction - there are indeed variations in the ways that common proteins are manufactured amongst different species of the animal kingdom. Grouping together those with the most number of similarities to produce clades generates a picture of common descent remarkably similar to pre existing taxonomic trees

Taxonomic trees prove nothing except that a taxonomic tree was built to fit the evolution concept. The relationship is acknowledged but not to the degree to which evolution takes it with its assumptions of mutations and the filling in of assumed archeological gaps in the strata via the punctuated equilibrium idea in order to circumvent the impasse as usual.

About predictability which is repeatedly mentioned. please keep in mind that inductive reasoning leads to a justifiable generalization and subsequent prediction of ID. Yet it is shunted aside as irrelevant.

================================================== ============================

Kotatsu

6th January 2008, 02:22 AM

The concept that the creator made all existing species individually is not a biblical one. The kinds mentioned in the Bible are considered to be ancestral to the many species we see today. The variations resulting from those kinds are acceptable. What isn't acceptable is a fish turning into a reptile a reptile into a pig a pig into a monkey and a monkey into a human being. That's what fairy tales are made of.
IMHO

Oh my!

Taxonomic trees prove nothing except that a taxonomic tree was built to fit the evolution concept. The relationship is acknowledged but not to the degree to which evolution takes it with its assumptions of mutations and the filling in of assumed archeological gaps in the strata via the punctuated equilibrium idea in order to circumvent the impasse as usual.

There's so much stupid in that passage that my screen actually turned red out of embarrassment for having shown me that.

Ashles

6th January 2008, 04:08 AM

The kinds mentioned in the Bible are considered to be ancestral to the many species we see today. The variations resulting from those kinds are acceptable. What isn't acceptable is a fish turning into a reptile a reptile into a pig a pig into a monkey and a monkey into a human being. That's what fairy tales are made of.
IMHO
So, Radrook, to recap.

Evolution, backed up by observation, a couple of hundred years of scientific study, fulfilled predictions, consistency in theory across multiple scientific discipline, a falsifiable (yet so far unfalsified) theory with the overwhelming support of scientists worldwide
=
A fairy tale

A single book in which an invisible being created everything in six days, communicates through burning bushes and kills every living thing in the world by flood, characters walk on water/come back from the dead/part seas, snakes talk, pi is 3, and all creatures currently on earth are implied to have developed from single breeding pairs of rather arbitrary animals
=
Scientific basis for your worldview

Is that about right?

I'm particularly curious about your species claim.
So you say the creator did NOT create every single species we see today?
So he created less species than are currently observed today?

So new species 'developed' from older species?
These new species are distinct from the older species?

Hmm, those last two points seem to remind me of something, some strange theory I once heard mentioned somewhere.. no it's gone again.

bokonon

6th January 2008, 09:14 AM

Again, no one is saying that all species were individually created.

The concept that the creator made all existing species individually is not a biblical one. The kinds mentioned in the Bible are considered to be ancestral to the many species we see today. The variations resulting from those kinds are acceptable. What isn't acceptable is a fish turning into a reptile a reptile into a pig a pig into a monkey and a monkey into a human being. That's what fairy tales are made of.
IMHO
Thanks for at least coming clean on the "intelligent designer" you obviously had in mind all along.

One problem, of course, is that "kind" is a scientifically meaningless term. You say that individual species arise from variations in "kinds," so presumably it's more general than "species." Perhaps "kind" would correspond to "genus" or "family." You offer, as examples of something, "fish, reptile, pig, monkey, human." With "fish," we jump through "genus," "family," and "order," all the way to "class." A fish becoming a reptile would involve jumping from one class to another. Pigs, monkeys, and humans all belong to the same class, since they're all mammals, so perhaps we need to dial it down a notch. Pigs belong to the order artiodactyla, while monkeys and humans both belong to the order of "primates," so I guess we need to dial it down again, and assume that by "kind" you mean something like what scientists call "family."

Of course, the theory of evolution doesn't claim that fish become reptiles, as I'm sure you know. It does say that all forms of life have a common ancestor, and in fact, the system of "clades" has in some ways superseded the species/genus/family/order system we just explored. Science marches on, it modifies and enhances theories in light of new facts (in this case, DNA sequencing). ID remains stubbornly mired in the past, trying to wrest "science" out of a book which was never written to be a science book.

When I play chess I reach the same positions using different techniques. If you would require that I bore myself using the exact same technique to reach identical positions then I would object because you would be hindering my enjoyment of the process. Artists use different techniques to paint similar or even identical landscapes. Why not restrict them to one technique?
Yet you seem to be insisting that your "intelligent designer" is forbidden to use the technique proposed by the theory of evolution: small, inheritable changes shaped by the winnowing force of natural selection.

The theory of evolution claims that dolphins and whales are descendants of land mammals, rather than descendants of fish, even though they have similar shapes. The evidence of this is not only in their genetic code, but in their physiognomy: whales have small vestigial "hind legs," which modern fish do not. If dolphins could be explained as "variations in kind" of fishes, how is it that their DNA more closely resembles the DNA of mice than the DNA of sharks? They even have that dorsal fin in common; I've never seen a mouse with a dorsal fin.

Exerpt
[Hermann J. Muller, Nobel Laureate and world-renowned evolutionary geneticist, stated in American Scientist some years back that

“mutations are found to be of a random nature, so far as their utility is concerned.
Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences”

Exerpt
I would say the great majority are neutral, neither good nor bad. Natural selection culls the bad mutations, and multiplies the good, so even if Muller's PFA "99% bad" is accurate, it is not an indictment of evolution. 99.999% of the acorns an oak tree creates will never become 1-year-old saplings, but that hasn't made oak trees extinct. 99.999% of all the species which ever lived are now extinct, but that hasn't eliminated the amazing diversity of life on earth today. The process of evolution which has, over billions of years, taken us from mindless one-celled blobs to human beings capable of exploring and understanding the cosmos, has been a long journey of blindly feeling our way, with no particular goal. Yet here we are, standing for a moment in the light. If you'd put down the bible for a minute and look around, there might even be hope for you.

Taxonomic trees prove nothing except that a taxonomic tree was built to fit the evolution concept. The relationship is acknowledged but not to the degree to which evolution takes it with its assumptions of mutations and the filling in of assumed archeological gaps in the strata via the punctuated equilibrium idea in order to circumvent the impasse as usual.

About predictability which is repeatedly mentioned. please keep in mind that inductive reasoning leads to a justifiable generalization and subsequent prediction of ID. Yet it is shunted aside as irrelevant.
The taxonomic trees were not built to fit the "evolution concept," they were built to fit the evidence. The trees, and the corresponding timescales of geologic strata in which fossils were found, predicted that a transitional fossil would be found in a particular stratum. That's how tiktaalik was found.

Nothing "predicts" ID. ID is assumed as a given, and evidence is discarded and ignored to perpetuate the assumption, just as you're doing in this thread.

Otherwise, you'd offer an explanation of the "chromosome 2 fusion" or the fish/mouse/dolphin paradox which was consistent with ID. You don't, because you can't. ID is not science, and never will be.

rocketdodger

6th January 2008, 11:10 AM

Very early in this thread I speculated that Radrook was just another creationist coming in here to argue about things he doesn't really understand and to ignore evidence that anyone with a basic understanding of science and a little common sense would interpret rationally.

Radrook then proceeded to put me on ignore, claiming that he had no time for such accusations. Indeed, from what I can tell there are only two or three people left on this thread who he has NOT put on ignore...

After reading the last few pages, I can see that I (and many others who must have shared that speculation from the get-go) were absolutely correct. He claimed that he was just naive regarding science, and that he was trying to learn, but didn't have much time (except of course he had time to attempt writing a simulation) to read up on the issues.

Of course, that was all a lie -- he has had no intention whatsoever of learning at all, evidenced by the fact that he responds to arguments by either linking to 50 year old papers, simply dismissing the argument because "he doesn't find it convincing" (I wouldn't find basic arithmetic convincing either if I hadn't been through grade school), or laughably putting us on ignore and claiming it was because of conveniently interpreted personal attacks on him.

Sadly, this thread is even less educating than Kleinman's. At least Kleinman attempts something resembling an argument, which allows us to learn from each other's responses. Radrook doesn't even do that -- his arguments are so vague and vacuous, and since every time anyone attempts something resembling a scientific discussion Radrook manages to squash it at the source by either citing complete ignorance or putting everyone on ignore, that I have honestly learned nothing from this thread.

Actually that's a bit unfair -- the stereotypical image of creationists who think they know something was genuinely reinforced in my mind. Congratulations on proving all of us right, Radrook, and making your kind look like bigger tools than ever.

Radrook

6th January 2008, 02:00 PM

So, Radrook, to recap.

Evolution, backed up by observation, a couple of hundred years of scientific study, fulfilled predictions, consistency in theory across multiple scientific discipline, a falsifiable (yet so far unfalsified) theory with the overwhelming support of scientists worldwide

I don't consider the support overwhelming. Neither do I view the majority opinion as necessarily indicating truth. That's bandwagon and appeal to authority fallacy. I see too many ifs, "perhapses," "maybes," and "it is assumed that"-to find the evolutionist assertions convincing.

I understand and respect the fact that you are 100% convinced in the theory of evolution. However, I do not share your conviction after revision of both pro and con arguments and in the light of logic. WE both are entitled to our views I believe and there need not be any antagonism. I also find their inconsistency in reference to the application of logic to any view which might contradict evolution unethical, unprofessional and highly disturbing.
In view of such a fanatical attitude I don't see how I can be asked to trust anything they say. In any case, as I previously pointed out, I do not depend on scientific evidence to believe in ID-I depend on logic, an approach which is totally ignored and tagged as irrelevant-which again demonstrates the biased evolutionist modus operandi.

=
A fairy tale

A single book in which an invisible being created everything in six days, communicates through burning bushes and kills every living thing in the world by flood, characters walk on water/come back from the dead/part seas, snakes talk, pi is 3, and all creatures currently on earth are implied to have developed from single breeding pairs of rather arbitrary animals
=
Scientific basis for your worldview

Is that about right?

Not quite by a long shot.

Again, from the outset I have striven might and main to keep the subject purely on the philosophical level but am constantly brought back to the religious. I don't need to believe in the Bible or the God described in the Bible in order to reach the logical conclusion based on inductive reasoning that mind is the produces of the universe and that life comes only from life probability far exceeds the life came from abiogenesis one which doesn't even provide one single example.

However, since you do mention the Bible I suppose I am forced to reply religiously.

First, the majority of the universe is invisible to us because we can only perceive a limited range of light frequencies. In fact, dark-matter is assumed to exist based solely on its effect on visible matter and I don't see you or anyone else calling the belief silly.

Second: The Bible uses the word day in a temporally relative manner and uses it only in reference to the earth and not in reference to the whole universe as you chance to assume.

Third, The communication was not through a mere burning bush but through an angelic mess=enhger who used the bush to catch Moses attention.

Fourth: God did not kill every single thing in the world.

Fifth: Many of the things we do today would appear incredible to persons unable to fathom the method via which they are done. Today you see speculation about using antigravity in the far future. This isn't dismissed as silly. Why? Because science progresses and what might seem impossible now becomes possible with an increase of knowledge about how the laws of nature work and how we can harness and manipulate such forces.

The same applies to resurrecting the dead and parting the seas.

Sixth: The snake wasn't speaking. It was the rebel angel using it as a puppet that was.

BTW
Cryogenics

Seventh: There is nothing arbitrary about choosing of the animals. Noah was given precise instructions as to kind and number. Which wasn't restricted to two of a kind as you once more chance to assume.

I'm particularly curious about your species claim.

Good!

So you say the creator did NOT create every single species we see today?
So he created less species than are currently observed today?

So new species 'developed' from older species?
These new species are distinct from the older species?

There is variation within the boundaries of the Genesis kinds. Cougar, cat, lion, Lynx, Jaguar, Leopard, Tiger, might all be conceivably derived from one original kind.

However, you cannot derive a rat from a cat kind or a fish from a dog kind. That's the difference between your concept and mine. Which is OK since you are entitled to your views.

Hmm, those last two points seem to remind me of something, some strange theory I once heard mentioned somewhere.. no it's gone again.

There is a very profound difference as I explained above.

The Genesis Kinds
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html

cyborg

6th January 2008, 02:04 PM

I depend on logic, an approach which is totally ignored and tagged as irrelevant-which again demonstrates the biased evolutionist modus operandi.

Oh, if only Radrook understood the first thing about what logic is and is not.

(For those of you watching at home that refers to the fact logic will describe any world you want - but it won't tell you which one is "right", just what the consequences of those worlds are.)

Prometheus

6th January 2008, 02:27 PM

In any case, as I previously pointed out, I do not depend on scientific evidence to believe in ID-I depend on logic, an approach which is totally ignored and tagged as irrelevant-

Not "irrelevant" but illogical. One of the most important rules of logic is "gigo"--"garbage in, garbage out" Without scientific evidence logic is nearly useless. For instance, Aristotle's view of the universe as a series of 5 concentric spheres of different "elements" was dependant solely on inductive logic without scientific evidence--but it was dead wrong.

Foster Zygote

6th January 2008, 02:40 PM

The concept that the creator made all existing species individually is not a biblical one. The kinds mentioned in the Bible are considered to be ancestral to the many species we see today. The variations resulting from those kinds are acceptable.
Are you now admitting that you are a Biblical creationist? I know that you've tried to distance yourself from this, but if you're bringing the Bible into it...

What isn't acceptable is a fish turning into a reptile a reptile into a pig a pig into a monkey and a monkey into a human being. That's what fairy tales are made of.
IMHO
The fact that you speak of a "pig turning into a monkey" only demonstrates that your criticism of evolutionary theory is based on gross ignorance. The theory that you attack is made of straw and has nothing to do with the real theory. It is clear that you have gained most of your knowledge of evolutionary science from creationist websites and books.

joobz

6th January 2008, 03:11 PM

There is variation within the boundaries of the Genesis kinds. Cougar, cat, lion, Lynx, Jaguar, Leopard, Tiger, might all be conceivably derived from one original kind.

However, you cannot derive a rat from a cat kind or a fish from a dog kind. That's the difference between your concept and mine. Which is OK since you are entitled to your views.

There is a very profound difference as I explained above.

The Genesis Kinds
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html
great. You are now discussing evolution. This was the primary question. Now
If you are correct, that things don't evolve beyond thier kinds
...
then
I'm giving you a chance to prove that your argument is more than just incredulity. Provide substance, and people will listen.

To discount evolution, you'll have to come up with alternative, self-consistent, rational explanations for
Start with how you discount
1.) the fossil record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundemental mechanism of evolution
3.) the phylogenetic tree
4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that presists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.
5.) ERVs
6.) human chromosome fusion
7.) multi drug resistent bacteria
8.) existence of RNAi
9.) Mitochondrial DNA
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques

This list is far from exaustive. It is purely 10 I came up with in 5 minutes.
give me another two minutes and
11.) vestigal organs
12.) prions
13.) protein multifunctionality
14.) protein polymorphisms
15.) symbiosis
16.) interspecies viable offspring
17.) nylon-eating bacteria
18.) Persistence of Sickle Cell

articulett

6th January 2008, 03:47 PM

Religious logic means twisting the facts to convince yourself that some book you ascribe to was written by a magical invisible creator of the universe that you have managed to access through faith or divine providence or being born into the right family or whatever while ignoring all the eons of accumulated objective facts that are available to all humans equally and that are true whether you believe them or not. Amazing.

No amount of evidence can convince a creationist that evolution is a fact... and yet the scantest evidence in convinces them that the invisible magical creator of the universe inspired a book that they and their gurus have extracted the true meaning of despite the fact that nothing in the book indicates any prescience of any entity that could possibly construed as all knowing-- much less scientifically literate, all loving, or worth admiring.

Sick, sad and true. And what is equally sad is that the believers in the Quoran have people equally certain of their nuttery as do all cults... and they don't agree with each other, but all are certain they are right because an inner feeling told thems so.

CapelDodger

6th January 2008, 07:29 PM

A belief in a common creator creating species individually would not predict that more closely related species would have more variations in common than more distantly related species - It can't make that prediction because it doesn't acknowledge "more closely related"

Empirical evidence upholds this additional prediction - there are indeed variations in the ways that common proteins are manufactured amongst different species of the animal kingdom. Grouping together those with the most number of similarities to produce clades generates a picture of common descent remarkably similar to pre existing taxonomic trees.

If I believed that all human individuals were created rather than descended from one another I’d be at a loss to explain the similarities in genetic fingerprint amongst family members. An analogous problem faces those who claim that all species were created rather than descended from one another.

Well put. Excellent post all round. I intend to steal from it relentlessly :).

One way we and Radrook differ is in our understanding of what "common ancestor" means. We take a deep view, Radrook not so much.

CapelDodger

6th January 2008, 07:35 PM

CapelDodger

6th January 2008, 07:52 PM

The theory of evolution claims that dolphins and whales are descendants of land mammals, rather than descendants of fish, even though they have similar shapes. The evidence of this is not only in their genetic code, but in their physiognomy: whales have small vestigial "hind legs," which modern fish do not. If dolphins could be explained as "variations in kind" of fishes, how is it that their DNA more closely resembles the DNA of mice than the DNA of sharks?

And where did they fit in the Ark?

They even have that dorsal fin in common; I've never seen a mouse with a dorsal fin.

Eviloutionists are working on that as we speak ;).

Nice post. Nice thread generally.

Radrook's a bit of a gift, isn't he? We couldn't have designed a better foil.

articulett

6th January 2008, 08:26 PM

And he's going to have to explain mitochondrial DNA and the Neanderthals... and the "degree of relationship" thingie... rfBmFx-g13Q

Prometheus

6th January 2008, 08:48 PM

...We couldn't have Intelligently Designed a better foil.

Fixed it for you. :rolleyes:

arthwollipot

6th January 2008, 10:13 PM

It is my contention, which is now upheld by Radrook, that Intelligent Design is nothing more than creationism with a cheap tie. ID advocates constantly admonish that their "theory" has nothing to do with religion - that ID leaves "open" the question of the identity of the Designer. But each and every one of them, when pressed, has admitted that their personal view is that the anonymous Designer is in fact the God of the Bible.

So no matter how much Radrook tries to keep God out of his arguments, the fact remains that ID is a creationist theory, drawn from creationists antecedents, and advocated by creationists. ID is a sham, designed to circumvent the US First Amendment - in particular the Establishment Clause - and "wedge" religion into the public school curriculum.

ID is as much a threat to education and to science as creationism is - because there is really no difference. Creationists at least are more honest in admitting that their Designer is God. Advocates of ID try to be sneaky, obscuring the identity of the Designer in order to deflect criticism. I commend Radrook for finally being honest about his belief in creationism. It is much better to be honest about it than to try and hide one's beliefs under the bushel of ID.

UnrepentantSinner

6th January 2008, 10:14 PM

There is a very profound difference as I explained above.

The Genesis Kinds
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html

Baraminology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology) isn't science.
Baraminology is not accepted by the scientific community. It has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous tests, and post-study rejection of data to make it better fit the desired findings.[7] Baraminology has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research,[8] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany since 1924.[9]

Instead, universal common descent is a well-established and tested scientific theory[10] that proposes all life derived from a common ancestor.[10] However, both cladistics (the field devoted to investigations of common descent) and the scientific consensus on transitional fossils are rejected by baraminologists.[11]
(footnotes on Wiki page)

bokonon

6th January 2008, 10:54 PM

Baraminology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology) isn't science.
On the other hand, Dalitology (http://www.artinthepicture.com/paintings/view.php?nr=63) is widely recognized, with the glory of creation reflected in the sacred symmetry between swans and elephants. Praise father, son, and great Caesar's goats!

Ocelot

7th January 2008, 05:17 AM

Hi Radrook,

Thanks once again for your response.

I didn't say that every single article on that website would be in reference to the point you brought up.

Indeed I was just checking that I'd located the one article amongst many that you thought addressed my claim. As I detailed, it doesn't.

Again, no one is saying that all species were individually created.

The concept that the creator made all existing species individually is not a biblical one. The kinds mentioned in the Bible are considered to be ancestral to the many species we see today. The variations resulting from those kinds are acceptable. What isn't acceptable is a fish turning into a reptile a reptile into a pig a pig into a monkey and a monkey into a human being. That's what fairy tales are made of.
IMHO

Well actually some people do make that claim. I've seen much talk from various brands of creationist that claim that MacroEvolution (evolution of new taxa of the species level and above) is impossible. They use similar arguments as you do so please forgive me for my presumption. I do apologise.

Of course the fact that new species have been observed to evolve both in the lab and in the wild, make this claim one of the more ridiculous creationist claims but it is nonetheless one that I have encountered.

It's interesting to me that you have raised the bar. You accept that not all individual species need to have been created. Presumably you accept that Lions, Tigers and the domestic Cat all have a common ancestor? Am I correct in my estimation of your beliefs.

If so do you also accept the more controversial conclusion that Homo Sapiens has a common ancestor with Chimps, Bonobos, Gorillas and Orang Utans. It may be more controversial for it's broad implications to theology and philosophy but perhaps because of this added interest it is a conclusion backed by even greater quantities of genetic evidence.

Of course the genetic evidence that all placental mammals share a common ancestor more recent than the one they share with marsupials is as compelling as the evidence for a common ancestor amongst other Genus, Family, Order or Classes.

If your theory is true, it would be interesting to see if the genetic evidence could tell us what the original common ancestors were beyond which we can find no further link.

For example lets take for want of a better choice a red kangaroo named Charles. You and I both agree that Charles shares a common ancestor with all other red kangaroos, the genetic evidence backs this up.

According to the genetic evidence Charles also shares a more distant common ancestor with other species of kangaroo such as grey kangaroos, and antilopine kangaroos.

The genetic evidence suggests that further back in time these kangaroos shared a common ancestor with a variety of other species of kangaroo, wallaby and walleroo of the macropus genus. Would you agree?

If so then the genetic evidence further indicates that the macropus genus shares a common ancestor with all other members of the macropod family including various other Kangaroos and Wallabies, the quokka and pademelons. Would you agree that these are all of the same "kind" sharing a common ancestor.

If so then the genetic evidence indicates that the macropod family share a more distant common ancestor with all members of the order diprodontia. This includes possums koalas and wombats. Is it conceivable to you that the genetic evidence is correct and that these creatures all share a common ancestor with one another? Could they all be of the same "kind"?

In fact could all the australidelphia super order of marsupials share a common ancestor as the genetic evidence would suggest, if so are they collectively a "kind"

Or do they, as the empirical evidence would suggest, all share a common ancestor with all other marsupials. Are marsupials a kind?

I presume that you do not accept that some time in the cretaceous there was an early mammal type reptile or therapsid from whom both you and Charles can claim lineage. However how do you explain why when the genetic evidence is so clear?

It doesn’t matter where you place the bar, the genetic evidence is clear, there is only one "kind" currently on planet earth we are all descended from the same single common ancestor.

I see absolutely no difficulty whatsoever in this.[a naive thought!]

When I play chess I reach the same positions using different techniques. If you would require that I bore myself using the exact same technique to reach identical positions then I would object because you would be hindering my enjoyment of the process. Artists use different techniques to paint similar or even identical landscapes. Why not restrict them to one technique?

I too have no problem when seriously considering a theory of intelligent design that the designer might choose to vary their techniques. What I have a problems with is why the techniques should so closely match a picture of common descent with particular variations being more closely clustered amongst species that appear to be more closely related. Creationists did not make this prediction. Evolutionary biologists did. The examination of the evidence continues to uphold the prediction of the evolutionary biologists.

Unless Creationism can explain this remarkable coincidence it is deficient as a theory.

That leap from human applicability to animal in relation to human applicability is only made based on the assumption that evolution is true.

I'm afraid your meaning here is not entirely clear to me. However the assumption that evolution is true is rather the point. If you make that assumption you make a prediction that turns out to be true. If you don't make that assumption you need an alternative explanation for the prediction.

I offer the analogy once more. If you assume that I am related to my son you will expect a roughly 50% match between the various genes in highly variable alleles. If you do not make that assumption and otherwise find the 50% match you must find another explanation (perhaps we are brothers...)

If you find more genetic matches amongst placental mammals than between placental mammals and marsupials this is explained by assuming that placental mammals sharing a more recent common ancestor amongst themselves than the one they might share with marsupials.

If you reject that assumption then it would benefit your case to offer an alternative that fits the known facts at least as well.

Ocelot

7th January 2008, 05:47 AM

Also, I find the favorable mutation selection explanation unconvincing:

Rather irrelevent when the mutations I was refering to are neutral, neither favourable nor unfavourable. Their invisibilty to natural selection is what makes them a reliable indicator of ancestry. It discounts the possibility of genetic similarities arising through a process of convergent evolution.

However even if relevent the argument is falacious. The frequency of mutations is known and can be measured. It varies with regard to the particular allele. Favourable is a subjective term dependent upon the environment. By changing the environment of a colony of bacteria (slowing adding anti biotics) we can observe the introduction and selection of mutations to increase the thickness of the cell wall (the evolution of antibiotic resistance)

Favourable mutations are an observed empirical fact and no amount of argument to incredulity can change that.

wollery

7th January 2008, 08:08 AM

I guess I'm on ignore.

That's what I get for demonstrating where Radrook's logic inevitably leads.

bokonon

7th January 2008, 02:12 PM

articulett

7th January 2008, 05:15 PM

Ocelot... your explanation is excellent... and many people will no doubt read and learn from it... you have taken the time to carefully and politely give very detailed information directly addressing Radrook's queries, but he will not absorb it or thank you. Rest assured, others are learning. Most of us just get really annoyed and angry after a while... at first it just seems they need a clue... but they never follow up or are really interested in the facts--they are interested in maintaining their ignorance because it keeps their "god" alive for them. They think they already have the answer... and truly... no amount of evidence is never enough to change their mind... who needs evidence when you have faith?

It's really sad and pathetic... but it's so omnipresent here... whether it's creationist woo or conspiracy theory woo or new age woo... it just is very impenetrable... and you just get a feel for it--the imagined expertise, the lack of interest in current discoveries or what anyone else has to say, the self important opinion proffering, the lack of gratitude for the careful time and effort, and the utter impenetrability. They expect you to go to their links, but they will never go to yours. They won't even absorb much of what you write... they are looking to preach and bolster their "faith"--not learn. Their questions are dishonest. You are dealing with people who believe that faith is an avenue towards "higher truths"-- even salvation... and doubt is bad. As Darwin said, ignorance more often begets confidence.

They cannot even fathom that they might be the ones who are wrong. After a while, you might get tired of them-- and then you can use them for your own amusement, because they sure won't be grateful for any of your education that threatens their faith.

When you ask people what evidence would be enough to convince them, and they don't answer or answer obliquely... you've got your answer-- nothing will convince them.... i'ts a faith based notion and there is no reasoning with faith. See, Iamme, Plumjam, T'ai, DOC or Kleinman if you want to see creationist clones of radrook... and they've never "evolved" a clue.

Radrook will never thank you--but he and others are lucky for your detailed explanations.

Married2aWooster

7th January 2008, 06:27 PM

Fortunately, the handful whose arguments he still attempts to address are doing a fine job of pointing out how inconsistent and unimpressive his attempts at logic are. It isn't as though any of us is going to persuade him of the error of his ways, so we're all really just in it for the exercise and the hypothetical lurkers.

Your hypothesis was correct in predicting the existince of lurkers who found the discussion educational (although I have now technically evolved from Lurker to Marginal Thread Participant).

FWIW, I offer my thanks to those who've positively contributed here.

articulett

7th January 2008, 07:51 PM

Here are some excellent free brochures from PBS and the National Acedemy of the Sciences... very easy to understand... lots of video clips at the Nova Site too...

Also www.becominghuman.org has a great interactive for those interested in learning more.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/media/nova-id-briefing.pdf
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876

Fascinating stuff for anyone who really is interested in what we humans have been discovering about our origins

Radrook

7th January 2008, 08:58 PM

Rather irrelevent when the mutations I was refering to are neutral, neither favourable nor unfavourable. Their invisibilty to natural selection is what makes them a reliable indicator of ancestry. It discounts the possibility of genetic similarities arising through a process of convergent evolution.

However even if relevent the argument is falacious. The frequency of mutations is known and can be measured. It varies with regard to the particular allele. Favourable is a subjective term dependent upon the environment. By changing the environment of a colony of bacteria (slowing adding anti biotics) we can observe the introduction and selection of mutations to increase the thickness of the cell wall (the evolution of antibiotic resistance)

Favourable mutations are an observed empirical fact and no amount of argument to incredulity can change that.

It's not the frequency it's the mutation process itself that is a dubious choice for the organization of complex organisms.

I never denied the occurrence of neutral or beneficial mutations. It is the unlikelyhood of a mindless process with its high probability of being harmful to an organism being said to ultimately lead to the intricate organization as is evident in the human eye with its iris, to adjust the entry of light, the lens to focus that light, on a screen called the retina which is connected to an optic nerve, which reacts to the radiation by coding it into neural impulses, which in turn arrives at a specialized part of the brain which can decode those impulses and turn them into the perception of images. Sorry but in the presence of such strong evidence to the contrary, I just can't buy into the mindless mutation explanation

Also, because bacteria react in the way you say doesn't mean that it proves that the millions of others steps necessary came about. The likelihood is against their happening. That unlikelihood is ignored in favor of a likelihood that doesn't exist. Which is unscientific and irrational.

In any case, my original argument was in reference abiogenesis and it has been shunted aside along with the argument I put forth to support it. Never been observed, which means there is no inferential basis for the idea, never been demonstrated in a laboratory, yet it is used to predict life on other planets. To me that's quackery and blatant inconsistency.

Actually, the bottom line is that I have considered both sides of the argument and the ID side makes far more sense to me. I do apreciate your effort, time invested, and decent manner of your approach however.

Thanks. : )

articulett

7th January 2008, 09:08 PM

Each step only has to happen once--because if it's beneficial it reproduces exponentially... the more it is an asset to survival and reproductive fitness.. the more it spreads.... and we have trillions of cells in our own body.... there's so many chances for one step better... and what's better for a virus may not be better for humans... what's better for a cancer cell, may be the death of you. You are sooo , soooo ignorant as to what exactly natural selection is. It's like you are saying you cannot possibly imagine all the changes and growth and so forth involved in the wonders of the internet could happen without a big plan or designer or overlord... it's... backwards and egocentric in the extreme. If you are interested in the facts instead of just propping up your pet delusion... try science... try the links above... you, too, can be smart.

Radrook

7th January 2008, 09:11 PM

Hi Radrook,

Thanks once again for your response.

Indeed I was just checking that I'd located the one article amongst many that you thought addressed my claim. As I detailed, it doesn't.

Well actually some people do make that claim. I've seen much talk from various brands of creationist that claim that MacroEvolution (evolution of new taxa of the species level and above) is impossible. They use similar arguments as you do so please forgive me for my presumption. I do apologise.

Of course the fact that new species have been observed to evolve both in the lab and in the wild, make this claim one of the more ridiculous creationist claims but it is nonetheless one that I have encountered.

I asgee that speciation does and has occurred.

It's interesting to me that you have raised the bar. You accept that not all individual species need to have been created. Presumably you accept that Lions, Tigers and the domestic Cat all have a common ancestor? Am I correct in my estimation of your beliefs.

Yes.

If so do you also accept the more controversial conclusion that Homo Sapiens has a common ancestor with Chimps, Bonobos, Gorillas and Orang Utans. It may be more controversial for it's broad implications to theology and philosophy but perhaps because of this added interest it is a conclusion backed by even greater quantities of genetic evidence.

No, that's where we diverge.

Of course the genetic evidence that all placental mammals share a common ancestor more recent than the one they share with marsupials is as compelling as the evidence for a common ancestor amongst other Genus, Family, Order or Classes.

If your theory is true, it would be interesting to see if the genetic evidence could tell us what the original common ancestors were beyond which we can find no further link.

For example lets take for want of a better choice a red kangaroo named Charles. You and I both agree that Charles shares a common ancestor with all other red kangaroos, the genetic evidence backs this up.

I see no reason to object.

According to the genetic evidence Charles also shares a more distant common ancestor with other species of kangaroo such as grey kangaroos, and antilopine kangaroos.

Ok.

The genetic evidence suggests that further back in time these kangaroos shared a common ancestor with a variety of other species of kangaroo, wallaby and walleroo of the macropus genus. Would you agree?

Sure.

If so then the genetic evidence further indicates that the macropus genus shares a common ancestor with all other members of the macropod family including various other Kangaroos and Wallabies, the quokka and pademelons. Would you agree that these are all of the same "kind" sharing a common ancestor.

That might be acceptable.

If so then the genetic evidence indicates that the macropod family share a more distant common ancestor with all members of the order diprodontia. This includes possums koalas and wombats. Is it conceivable to you that the genetic evidence is correct and that these creatures all share a common ancestor with one another? Could they all be of the same "kind"?

If they are of the same kind.

In fact could all the australidelphia super order of marsupials share a common ancestor as the genetic evidence would suggest, if so are they collectively a "kind"

Or do they, as the empirical evidence would suggest, all share a common ancestor with all other marsupials. Are marsupials a kind?

I presume that you do not accept that some time in the cretaceous there was an early mammal type reptile or therapsid from whom both you and Charles can claim lineage. However how do you explain why when the genetic evidence is so clear?

Because I believe that the data is being interpreted to fit into a preconceived notion.

It doesn’t matter where you place the bar, the genetic evidence is clear, there is only one "kind" currently on planet earth we are all descended from the same single common ancestor.

I too have no problem when seriously considering a theory of intelligent design that the designer might choose to vary their techniques. What I have a problems with is why the techniques should so closely match a picture of common descent with particular variations being more closely clustered amongst species that appear to be more closely related. Creationists did not make this prediction. Evolutionary biologists did. The examination of the evidence continues to uphold the prediction of the evolutionary biologists.

Unless Creationism can explain this remarkable coincidence it is deficient as a theory.

I'm afraid your meaning here is not entirely clear to me. However the assumption that evolution is true is rather the point. If you make that assumption you make a prediction that turns out to be true. If you don't make that assumption you need an alternative explanation for the prediction.

I offer the analogy once more. If you assume that I am related to my son you will expect a roughly 50% match between the various genes in highly variable alleles. If you do not make that assumption and otherwise find the 50% match you must find another explanation (perhaps we are brothers...)

If you find more genetic matches amongst placental mammals than between placental mammals and marsupials this is explained by assuming that placental mammals sharing a more recent common ancestor amongst themselves than the one they might share with marsupials.

If you reject that assumption then it would benefit your case to offer an alternative that fits the known facts at least as well.

I agree that certain animals share more genetic material in common than other kinds. As I said previously, some of that sharing is due to a common ancestor called a kind in Genesis. What I don't agree with is the transformation of one kind into another or that all living things are ultimately related. Or that my ancestor was a one celled creature which slowly turned into a fish, and later into a reptile, and later into some type of piglike animal as the evolutionist interpretations of data say. Not simply because it is repulsive thought, but because it all depends on a mindless process which I and most human beings on this earth, including human beings who are scientists, find unbelievable due to its inherent improbability and based on the cause and effect phenomena we perceive which indicates that machinelike complex things do not make themselves but are the product of mind or else are programmed to replicate themselves by a mind.

arthwollipot

7th January 2008, 09:14 PM

What I don't agree with is the transformation of one kind into anotherThat's fine, because evolution doesn't suggest this.

or that all living things are ultimately related.Evolution does suggest this, so there's a problem here.

Or that my ancestor was a one celled creature which slowly turned into a fish, and later into a reptile, and later into some type of piglike animal as the evolutiunist interpretations of data say.Evolution doesn't suggest this though.

articulett

7th January 2008, 09:15 PM

So, radrook, your argument is just pretty much from design and incredulity, eh?... no facts in your favor... just indoctrination and the special feeling you get from pleasing your invisible savior, eh?

And how is that different than all the other woo proffered here? Conspiracy theories, psychics, Scientologists, etc.? eh? Because I cannot tell the difference AT ALL. And you are all equally scientifically ignorant. Why would you hang out at a skeptics forum when clearly you think faith is a means of knowing something or other nebulous and religious and magical. Why is it only religious people who can't understand evolution-- the Muslim Fundamentalists have almost as hard a time as Christian fundies. See.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v11i6f.htm
http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

Oh, that's right... you expect us to go to your religious links, but you avoid all science and academic links... but--hey-... the last one was put out by a religious institution... Disbelief in evolution is strongly associated with societal dysfunction-- who knew that scientific ignorance could lead to primitive behavior? You need to have a little talk with your invisible savior about that, don't you think?

I am so sick of the arrogant dishonesty... pretending to be skeptical and interested in the facts and science... but really just coming here to preach like every other woo certain they have a special truth that we must hear. Why don't you learn what evolution ACTUALLY teaches instead of your strawmen version taught by dishonest theists eager to have you believe they have a "higher truth"... or tell us your theory --the one about the invisible guy with a magical plan for all the special people who live in this speck of the universe in 2008--the guy who wants you to "believe" in him in exchange for "happily ever after". And give us the evidence for that, please...

You know... the Quoran has an equally lame creationist site only it has different lame arguments than the "kind" semantics. Your religion has made you nutty... you have stumbled upon a wealth of everything you need to get a clue-- the smartest and the best... but you won't... you can't imagine that you don't have a "knowingness" of the magical truth already, right?

By the way... complexity does not need a plan... cities, economies, languages, the internet, religion, genomes... all information needs is a way to get replicated. Read and learn. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94834

Oh, that's right... you came to preach at us--not learn from us.

Radrook

7th January 2008, 09:37 PM

I too have no problem when seriously considering a theory of intelligent design that the designer might choose to vary their techniques. What I have a problems with is why the techniques should so closely match a picture of common descent with particular variations being more closely clustered amongst species that appear to be more closely related. Creationists did not make this prediction. Evolutionary biologists did. The examination of the evidence continues to uphold the prediction of the evolutionary biologists.

Unless Creationism can explain this remarkable coincidence it is deficient as a theory.

To me it simply looks as if the creator chose to make different models with similar features and therefore chose to bring this about by using similar genetic material or sequences. For example, landscape paintings will have many things in common such a trees grass, rivers mountains-while city based paintings will have buildings, streets, lamposts. Water color paintings will share a distinct look while those painted in oil or pastel will all share a different look as well as be chemically similar.

This is because they are of a type and were designed similarly according to that type.

Now, if these paintings were suddenly infused with life or became living things we might conclude that they are related in acxcordance with similarities. But that would not be the case-would it?

The Eye
http://www.eyedesignbook.com/ch6/eyech6-c.html

Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God?
How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe
http://web.ecs.baylor.edu/faculty/marks/Marks/ChristainFacultyNetwork/Index/ScientEvid.htm

Hokulele

7th January 2008, 09:43 PM

Not simply because it is repulsive thought...

Why is this repulsive? I do not believe in assigning worth or value to any living thing. I would feel just as much self-esteem whether I learn that I descended from a bacteria or an angel. That you find this repulsive suggests much about your feeling of self-worth.

... but because it all depends on a mindless process which I and most human beings on this earth, including human beings who are scientists, find unbelievable due to its inherent improbability and based on the cause and effect phenomena we perceive which indicates that machinelike complex things do not make themselves but are the product of mind or else are programmed to replicate themselves by a mind.

If you do not believe in mindless processes, what do you think created the Grand Canyon in Arizona?

joobz

7th January 2008, 09:48 PM

I agree that certain animals share more genetic material in common than other kinds. As I said previously, some of that sharing is due to a common ancestor called a kind in Genesis. What I don't agree with is the transformation of one kind into another or that all living things are ultimately related. Or that my ancestor was a one celled creature which slowly turned into a fish, and later into a reptile, and later into some type of piglike animal as the evolutionist interpretations of data say. Not simply because it is repulsive thought, but because it all depends on a mindless process which I and most human beings on this earth, including human beings who are scientists, find unbelievable due to its inherent improbability and based on the cause and effect phenomena we perceive which indicates that machinelike complex things do not make themselves but are the product of mind or else are programmed to replicate themselves by a mind.
Than how do you explain
Chromosome 2 Fusion?
How do you explain ERVs?

The only ID explaination for a designer to include those things which seem so obviously a product of evolution is that he is a deceitful one.

UnrepentantSinner

7th January 2008, 11:39 PM

Than how do you explain
Chromosome 2 Fusion?
How do you explain ERVs?

The only ID explaination for a designer to include those things which seem so obviously a product of evolution is that he is a deceitful one.

Or the artery system in the giraffe's neck. Or human backs. Or human pelvises relative to birth. Or the cephalapod vs. the human eye. Or that birds have no arms. Or that every terrestrial tetrapod species ever has a common hole for ingestion of food and respiration. Etc.

Obivous indicators like Chromosome 2 and ERVs as they are for evolution, they just don't measure up to these issues when it comes to whether the "designer" was intelligent or not. When "mere" humans can realize that there were better "designs" for every one of these, it begs the question as to how intelligent the "designer" was.

Since the evolutionary answer is that beings evolved characteristics through random mutations and, even if they were imperfect, they worked, the species flourished, we don't have the metaphysical problem that IDists do.

Radrook

8th January 2008, 11:57 AM

Fitness

A very curious idea!

[He is smart because he answered the question] [He answered the question because he is smart]

[He is north European because he is Nordic] [He is Nordic because he is North European]

[He is fit because he survived.] [He survived because he is fit]

The definition is derived from the assumed condition, and the assumed condition is derived from the definition
[It is fit because it survived] [It survived because it is fit] = circular reasoning

All animals which survive were the fittest = definition
That animal survived
That animal was the fittest = condition of animal

That's nice, But is fitness, as the term is perceived, the only reason for survival?

Imagine a fine specimen of a lion. It has beaten off multiple challenges from other lions due to its physical superiority and therefore has been able to pass on its genes. Imagine now a group of three lions who are all individually inferior and who via cooperation dethrone the physically superior lion via sheer weight of numbers. They proceed to kill the lion cubs of the superior lion and pass on their inferior genes. Were they the fittest?

Or imagine a fine specimen of Gorillas who have made the mistake of living at the base of a volcano.
It erupts, they die while the physically inferior gorillas in the valley survive. So they were the fittest?

The fittest then, can suddenly become unfit and perish like the dinosaurs did and replaced by animals which were better fitted and therefore became the fittest because they survived.

In short, once fit doesn't mean always fit. It all depends on the whims of changing environment. Or the whims of being at right place at right time at visa versa.

Imagine a world where a nuclear holocaust has left only a group of weak dying mutants. These by the survival definition would be the fittest because they survived. Even if they eventually died off from the residual effect of the radiation or inherited defects, they still would have been tagged as the fittest because only they survived. Essentially then, fitness only means that an organism was able to get through an experience which others were not. Fitness, then describes not quality of the survivor or the superiority of the survivor but merely that the survivor managed to survive.

However, this is not the way fitness is perceived by the general public.

To the general public fitness is equivalent to inherent superiority over the dying organisms. Which in turn fuels their imagination to conclude that fitness inevitably leads to an upward climb or a refinement while the non-survivors were in some way not as desirable or were genetically inferior and were therefore
pruned from the tree of life via a process called natural selection which amounts to nothing more than luck.

How so? Well, consider the reason why the post dinosaur organisms are tagged as fittest.
A comet strike. Comets might or might not strike at all. A slight orbital deviation due to gravitational influence of a nearby passing star or other object could very well deflect the comet and it would totally miss the earth. If indeed the comet not need strike in order to produce the fittest, then the fittest depends on luck. Essentially, they are fittest not because they survived but they are fittest because nothing interfered with the comet's trajectory. Or better yet, because the star just so happened to nudge that particular comet at just the right angle and not a smaller comet at the same angle. Or perhaps because of an oort cloud collision among cometary bodies which by chance resulted in this particular object being hurled at the right velocity and trajectory. Fiddle with any of these essential factors and the fittest would now not be the fittest. So essentially being the fittest is only good as long as chance events are in your favor. In short, it is chance which determines fitness and not fitness itself. Which leads to the logical conclusion that fitness is merely a convenient term concocted by imaginative individuals hell bent on proving that fitness is based on some inherent superiority which is inexorably expressed via their pet evolution idea.

Double Standards

Evolution is touted as a science and since it is described that way one would expect its adherents, at least at the professional level to adhere to the required scientific objectivity. Sadly, that is not the case. Quote to the contrary, evolutionist scientists are notorious for the application of double standards whenever it is deemed convenient and unfortunately, it is always deemed convenient whenever they are required to be objective in reference to evidence which might seriously challenge their pet idea. How so you might ask? Well, let's take their standards in determining what is and what isn't
produced by intelligent design. Take an arrowhead, show it to an evolutionist, tell him it is the result of chance events and he would vehemently argue to the contrary. OR even a mere stone whose edge has been chipped away in order to turn it into a crude cutting tool. That too would vehemently be defended as irrefutably produced by intelligent design.

Ask him why and he would point out the purposeful way in which the chipping is arranged or the obvious notch in the arrowhead indication prior planning and forethought. Now, thrust such a statement aside and he will consider you irrational and unscientific.

Proceed then to tell him that the human eye shows evidence of forethought and planning and watch the transformation take place. Suddenly the objectivity disappears, the criteria is tossed aside or ignored, and he will vehemently argue that the arrangement of the eye with all its intricately cooperating parts which accomplish the purpose of giving organisms sight
is no evidence that it was produced by an intelligent designer.

Then there is the inconsistency of their application of inductive reasoning to evolution but their stubborn refusal to do so if the evidence is contrary to their pet idea. They put for observaytion of patterns as conclusive and justifiable reason to believe in their idea. But don't dare you use the same method as evidence of ID. Then they shift gears, and will accuse you of being irrational. In fact, your total argument will be cast aside and called irrelevant because science doesn't work that way.

They also say that one must never base one's conclusions on mere imagination. Yet they generously use their imaginations to put forth the abiogeneiss idea which has absolutely no inductive inference support
and is not demonstrable. In short, they accept it and put it forth as fact based on blind faith because to do otherwise would be to admit another idea which is anathema to their atheistic evolutionist sensibilities.

In short, they will be scientific and rational when it suits them and unscientific
and irrational when it doesn't. Which ultimately makes any discussion useless.
Actually, it reminds me of a certain fellow I once met who refused to admit that a train looks different if seen from different angles such as from a height of 5000 feet as compared with ground level or as viewed from the side as opposed to the front. His proud parting words were:

"Well, I guess you will never forget me!"

He was right. I never forgot his example of just how hermetically a mind can close itself when it wants to.

Here is a curious article from an American social perspective:

Survival of the Fittest
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyKCiyINHYcIAIhFrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=12kimfdbj/EXP=1199905314/**http%3a//www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp%3fARTICLE_ID=23533

joobz

8th January 2008, 12:14 PM

Fitness

A very curious idea!

IT's really just survival of the least unfit. The goal is passing on your genes. this article is antiquated in it's opinion.

Double Standards
your argument isn't any more valid because you used more words.

Than how do you explain
Chromosome 2 Fusion?
How do you explain ERVs?

The only ID explaination for a designer to include those things which seem so obviously a product of evolution is that he is a deceitful one.

m_huber

8th January 2008, 01:07 PM

Reading this thread is better than reading the daily Peanuts strip.

Foster Zygote

8th January 2008, 01:43 PM

I agree that certain animals share more genetic material in common than other kinds. As I said previously, some of that sharing is due to a common ancestor called a kind in Genesis.

What do you have to say about the fact that the Bible lists bats and birds as being of the same "kind"?

I am reasonably certain that you will ignore the above question out of intellectual cowardice, but as you and I are not the only participants in this thread, and there are certainly many others following along, I feel it important to put these matters before you. Remember that refusal to address questions is still a response, one that reflects very poorly on your arguments.

Radrook

8th January 2008, 01:45 PM

joobz

8th January 2008, 01:55 PM

Remember that refusal to address questions is still a response, one that reflects very poorly on your arguments.
I'm reminded of RUSH.
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.."

I think this is an important point and one that frequently occurs on threads. Many people seem to operate on the principle that counterarguments only exists if they choose to acknowledge them. Unfortunately, when a good counterargument is raised (and it is obvious to most people when such an argument has been put forward) and you fail to acknowledge it, you have basically admitted to 1.) losing the argument and 2.) being rather deceitful in your posts.

now, it is possible that a person could miss the argument the first time arround, and that is acceptable. However, when the same argument has been put forth multiple times by multiple people, the likelihood of points 1 and 2 both being abundantly true is approaches 100%.

joobz

8th January 2008, 01:56 PM

Actually, it seems a bit weird for people who are proud of being skeptical and not gullible to swallow so many evolutionary claims hook line ad sinker. One would expect a true skeptic to focus all his critical ability on the host of dubious claims being made.

Interestingly, in this they resemble the evolutionist scientists themselves who habitually go into a self-contradoictory modus operandi mode whenever they deem it adavantageous. This tendency, of course is a human one. However, it just seems to be more pronounced with evolutionists and unfortunately, include self-proclaimed critical thinkers and skeptics.
Physician, heal thyself.

you've put forth much anti-evolution claims but have failed to answer this one simple question:
Than how do you explain
Chromosome 2 Fusion?
How do you explain ERVs?

The only ID explaination for a designer to include those things which seem so obviously a product of evolution is that he is a deceitful one.

Prometheus

8th January 2008, 02:52 PM

....
Imagine a fine specimen of a lion. It has beaten off multiple challenges from other lions due to its physical superiority and therefore has been able to pass on its genes. Imagine now a group of three lions who are all individually inferior and who via cooperation dethrone the physically superior lion via sheer weight of numbers. They proceed to kill the lion cubs of the superior lion and pass on their inferior genes. Were they the fittest?

Yes. They were the fittest because they had the ability to cooperate for their common good. This is exactly the sort of result predicted by evolution. Read The Moral Animal, by Robert Wright (http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal-Science-Evolutionary-Psychology/dp/0679763996) for a very clear explanation of how natural selection explains psychology, behavior, and common ideas of morality.

Or imagine a fine specimen of Gorillas who have made the mistake of living at the base of a volcano.
It erupts, they die while the physically inferior gorillas in the valley survive. So they were the fittest?

Again, the answer is yes. "Fittest" in this context has nothing to do with "physical fitness". It describes an organism's likelihood of surviving the entire range of potential environmental dangers, including volcanos, by, perhaps, being smart enough not to live near one. Or for those who will point out that lot's of humans are not quite that smart, "fitness" as regards dangers like volcanos might also include the organism's penchant for influencing its children to move far away from home so that at least some of the family does not remain near the volcano.

The fittest then, can suddenly become unfit and perish like the dinosaurs did and replaced by animals which were better fitted and therefore became the fittest because they survived.

Exactly!

In short, once fit doesn't mean always fit. It all depends on the whims of changing environment. Or the whims of being at right place at right time at visa versa.

Spoken like a true "evolutionist"!

Imagine a world where a nuclear holocaust has left only a group of weak dying mutants. These by the survival definition would be the fittest because they survived. Even if they eventually died off from the residual effect of the radiation or inherited defects, they still would have been tagged as the fittest because only they survived. Essentially then, fitness only means that an organism was able to get through an experience which others were not. Fitness, then describes not quality of the survivor or the superiority of the survivor but merely that the survivor managed to survive.

And yes again, but with the qualification that the individuals must not merely, "get through an experience". They must survive long enough to reproduce, and once they're finished reproducing, and reach an age where they are no longer able to contribute to their offspring's chances of survival, they become (mostly) irrelevant.

However, this is not the way fitness is perceived by the general public.

Hence, one of the main reasons why so many members of the general public can be fooled by one of the creationists' weakest strawmen.

To the general public fitness is equivalent to inherent superiority over the dying organisms. Which in turn fuels their imagination to conclude that fitness inevitably leads to an upward climb or a refinement while the non-survivors were in some way not as desirable or were genetically inferior and were therefore
pruned from the tree of life via a process called natural selection which amounts to nothing more than luck.

.... Which leads to the logical conclusion that fitness is merely a convenient term concocted by imaginative individuals hell bent on proving that fitness is based on some inherent superiority which is inexorably expressed via their pet evolution idea.

This argument is an example of the logical fallacy known as "High Re-definition" (http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/badmovesprint.php?num=51), and your conclusion is simply false.

bokonon

8th January 2008, 08:09 PM

Imagine a fine specimen of a lion. It has beaten off multiple...
Imagine an Intelligent Designer, who has single-handedly created the universe and all the creatures in it in 6 days. Billions of trilobytes, and T-rexes, and pterodactyls, and triceratops, billions of galaxies swarming with billions of stars, carefully choosing cosmological constant after cosmological constant to keep the stegasaurs happily munching on ferns for millions of hears, and then BOOM! he drives a comet into the planet he spent all that time designing and polishing, like the Taliban blasting away at statues of Buddha. How intelligent does that sound to you?

Then, after millions of years during which life claws its way back from the brink of extinction, Man is created, found to be flawed, and demoted. Intelligently flawed design?

In spite of his flaws, man manages to breed, and blankets the earth with his second-rate presence. Finally, the designer can't stand it any more, and tries to wash it all away. Not only the people, but whole continents of plants and animals. Is that kind of temper tantrum intelligent?

Were they the fittest?
"Survival of the fittest" doesn't really describe my understanding of evolution. "Natural selection" doesn't necessarily preserve "the fittest." It tends to preserve those who reproduce. Isaac Newton's ideas may have survived, but he didn't pass his genes along to anyone.

The environment may change, eliminating lots of very fit organisms. A group of hell-bent lunatics may fly the plane you boarded into a skyscraper, killing both you and the baby within you. Natural selection is a mindless process, a product of life and environment, which is not guaranteed to converge on an optimum solution, but (so far) has managed to keep stumbling into solutions which are "good enough" to keep stumbling.

The data tells us that for billions of years, the only organisms eligible for natural selection were one-celled organisms. Maybe that was the result of an intelligent designer who liked to take his time, or (having an eternity of time to fill) wanted to think about the next step, or was inclined to procrastinate.

It certainly seems like the subsequent steps can be explained by random changes and natural selection -- no intelligent designer required. Many varieties of eyes have evolved, but not all animals have eyes. Some animals apparently got eyes and gave them back.

Designing whales with little back feet doesn't seem all that intelligent. Designing people to be susceptible to whole hordes of one-celled killers doesn't seem all that intelligent. Giving plants rather than people the ability to photosynthesize sugars doesn't seem all that intelligent. Making malaria and then giving people sickle cell anemia to help them deal with it seems like a kind of duct-tape and baling wire design.

Making billions of trilobytes procreate for millions of years and then making them go extinct seems like a complete waste of time. A mindless process like natural selection might waste time so carelessly, but would a truly intelligent designer?

arthwollipot

8th January 2008, 08:27 PM

Foster Zygote

8th January 2008, 08:38 PM

"Survival of the fittest" doesn't really describe my understanding of evolution. "Natural selection" doesn't necessarily preserve "the fittest." It tends to preserve those who reproduce. Isaac Newton's ideas may have survived, but he didn't pass his genes along to anyone.

Too many people have the erroneous idea that "survival of the fittest" means survival of the strongest, biggest, most deadly, etc. Unfortunately, it's a misconception that led the way to the pseudo-science of "social Darwinism".

Hokulele

8th January 2008, 09:00 PM

I'm reminded of RUSH.
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.."

Nah, Radrook reminds me more of Yes.

"I'll be the Roundabout, the words will make you out 'n out."

Shalamar

8th January 2008, 09:03 PM

Too many people have the erroneous idea that "survival of the fittest" means survival of the strongest, biggest, most deadly, etc. Unfortunately, it's a misconception that led the way to the pseudo-science of "social Darwinism".

More accurate would be 'Survival of the Fit Enough'.

articulett

8th January 2008, 09:27 PM

Survival of the fittest wasn't even Darwin's Term... it was Huxley's... Darwin coined "natural selection"... and fittest is just what is best at getting it's information copied into the future for whatever reasons. Viruses that irritate your nasal passages, make you sneeze-- that's a very "fit" way of getting passed on. Cancer stops natural cell death (apoptosis)--a very clever way to be eternal... until you kill your host of course... but lots of cells in their copying process get rid of tumor suppressors which would normally kill off a non-functioning cell causing aging... but if you get a double dose of such a mutation... the cells can proliferate... and the older you get and the longer cells have been multiplying, the "luckier" they can be to become "eternal"...(live even though they are mutants).

Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with what people think is the most fit... and everything to do with the DNA that has a means of getting itself passed into future generations after it's vector is gone.

Information that is good at getting ITSELF copied into the future is what drives evolution. Just as tomorrows technology is built on todays technology which is built on prior technology. All the atoms existed for today's technology eons ago... but it took a while to assimilate the information via a selection process over time to get the "wonders" and "complex miracles" we see today.

joobz

8th January 2008, 09:29 PM

More accurate would be 'Survival of the Fit Enough'.
I always liked saying "survival of the least unfit."

wollery

8th January 2008, 09:52 PM

I always liked saying "survival of the least unfit."Or, in some cases, the luckiest.

SezMe

8th January 2008, 10:01 PM

Or imagine a fine specimen of Gorillas who have made the mistake of living at the base of a volcano.
It erupts, they die while the physically inferior gorillas in the valley survive. So they were the fittest?
This is not a refutation of survival of the fittest (using that term, as has been noted, displays some ignorance of evolution). It is a perfect example of the contingent nature of the evolutionary process. Those "fine specimen Gorillas" did dominate on the next island where the volcano did not erupt.

Biological evolution is set in the context of the physical environment. When the environment changes drastically as in the case of, say, a volcano or slowly as in the case, say, of sedimentation of a lake then the course of evolution is affected.

arthwollipot

8th January 2008, 10:13 PM

Or, in some cases, the luckiest.Possibly, but those of us who argue with creationists usually prefer not to introduce an element of luck, or chance, in our discussion, because that opens the door to the "evolution is random" canard.

UnrepentantSinner

8th January 2008, 10:27 PM

My favourite example of unintelligent design is the mammalian eye, with its backwards retina. Especially when compared to the eye of the cephalopod, which has its retina the right way round.

Yes, the "intelligent designer" is an idiot.

Or the artery system in the giraffe's neck. Or human backs. Or human pelvises relative to birth. Or the cephalapod vs. the human eye. Or that birds have no arms. Or that every terrestrial tetrapod species ever has a common hole for ingestion of food and respiration. Etc.

Obivous indicators like Chromosome 2 and ERVs as they are for evolution, they just don't measure up to these issues when it comes to whether the "designer" was intelligent or not. When "mere" humans can realize that there were better "designs" for every one of these, it begs the question as to how intelligent the "designer" was.

Since the evolutionary answer is that beings evolved characteristics through random mutations and, even if they were imperfect, they worked, the species flourished, we don't have the metaphysical problem that IDists do.

:)

So joobz's examples for evolution have gone unanswered as have my list of flawed design for two days now. I wonder when Radrock will step up to the plate.

As far as fitness goes, there's a great example in blind cave fish. If, as per the Creationist straw man, fitness means things getting better or more superior, blind cave fish should have evolved an organ to paint their environment with infrared and eyes that could see in that spectrum. But that's not how evolution works. It's expensive to develop and utilize eyes. Calories and nutrients that could be used for other organs are wasted in a completely dark environment if a being has eyes.

Therefore the environment (natural selection) means fish that don't develop eyes (random mutation) are more fit for a dark environement than fish that develop worthless eyes.

Prometheus

8th January 2008, 10:38 PM

:)....Calories and nutrients that could be used for other organs are wasted in a completely dark environment if a being has eyes....

Calories and nutrients that could be used for other organs are wasted in a completely Dark Ages perspective if a creationist has a brain.

bokonon

8th January 2008, 11:49 PM

Calories and nutrients that could be used for other organs are wasted in a completely Dark Ages perspective if a creationist has a brain.
History is replete with examples of organisms which persist for millions of years without the ability to "inductively" reason beyond "If it's small enough to eat, eat it." Unfortunately, we can't count on natural selection to eliminate ignorance. Education is effective in some cases, but it doesn't work well on cabbages or creationists.

arthwollipot

8th January 2008, 11:51 PM

History is replete with examples of organisms which persist for millions of years without the ability to "inductively" reason beyond "If it's small enough to eat, eat it." Unfortunately, we can't count on natural selection to eliminate ignorance. Education is effective in some cases, but it doesn't work well on cabbages or creationists.Especially if ignorant people are more likely to not use birth control...

SezMe

9th January 2008, 01:09 AM

Education is effective in some cases, but it doesn't work well on cabbages or creationists.
There's a difference?

UnrepentantSinner

9th January 2008, 01:33 AM

There's a difference?

One's a plant and the other's a mammal, but apart from that...

godless dave

9th January 2008, 01:50 AM

Radrook

9th January 2008, 03:51 AM

This is not a refutation of survival of the fittest (using that term, as has been noted, displays some ignorance of evolution). It is a perfect example of the contingent nature of the evolutionary process. Those "fine specimen Gorillas" did dominate on the next island where the volcano did not erupt.

Biological evolution is set in the context of the physical environment. When the environment changes drastically as in the case of, say, a volcano or slowly as in the case, say, of sedimentation of a lake then the course of evolution is affected.

The ignorannce opinion is mutual but from different perspectives-of course.

BTW

The gorillas which survived in my example were the inferior ones. The lions which procreated in the lion example were the inferior ones as well. Why did they survive? Right place right time.

Radrook

9th January 2008, 03:54 AM

There's a difference?

Tell that to all the creationist scientists with full-fledged scientific credentials. Actually, the very founder of this pet idea admitted
it was founded on very shaky ground.

Excerpt

“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.

Now if Mohammed or Jesus had said that in refereence to their own teachings-how many would have put faith in their words?

BTW

Here is a tidbit of info for your edification:

Darwin was a creationist:

In The Origin of Species, p. 649, Dawrwin says, "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;....."

Ocelot

9th January 2008, 04:31 AM

Hi again Radrook,

It's good to hear back from you.

This appears to be a derail from my original question of how do you account for the genetic evidence of common descent if not through common descent.

It's not the frequency it's the mutation process itself that is a dubious choice for the organization of complex organisms.

I never denied the occurrence of neutral or beneficial mutations. It is the unlikelyhood of a mindless process with its high probability of being harmful to an organism being said to ultimately lead to the intricate organization as is evident in the human eye with its iris, to adjust the entry of light, the lens to focus that light, on a screen called the retina which is connected to an optic nerve, which reacts to the radiation by coding it into neural impulses, which in turn arrives at a specialized part of the brain which can decode those impulses and turn them into the perception of images. Sorry but in the presence of such strong evidence to the contrary, I just can't buy into the mindless mutation explanation

First let me congratulate you on your acceptance of the existence of small positive mutations. This is a major step towards your understanding of what evolution is truly about. It is a step that some creationists are not prepared to make even in the face of reproducible empirical evidence.

It appears that you are not sufficiently aware of the intricate complexity that can be produced by undoubtedly mindless processes. Snowflakes, have complexity, a rock arch has irreducible complexity, the water cycle is a steam engine. There is nothing you have demonstrated to be beyond the reach of a mindless process.

Are you familiar with John Conway's Game of Life (http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/). Draw a random pattern in this very simple purely mechanical 2D universe. The odds that within a few generations you'll see a small glider pattern. It looks designed but you know that you didn't design it.

Genetic recipes for life allow new increases in complexity to build upon previous ones. This allows many small mutations to add up to a bigger one. As such it offers us the possibility for a pinnacle of "mindless design"

It is in fact so good at design that genetic algorithms have been put to good use by human designers in computer simulations. For example a genetic algorithm produces a shape which is tested virtually for various structural properties. Those algorithms which produce the best designs are then used as the seeds for the next generation of designs. It is not uncommon for such a mindless process to produce "designs" superior in structural efficiency to any of intelligent origin.

What evolutionary theory accepts can never evolve is a feature than cannot be broken down into many small neutral or positive stages.

The discovery of such a feature would indeed be a problem for evolution. However it is difficult to demonstrate that a feature could not be the result of an appropriate evolutionary path. To do so would probably require examination of an infinite number of possible paths.

Instead we get argument for incredulity: "I cannot see how this feature could have evolved, therefore it could not have evolved." I'm sure you don't need me to point out the flaw in this logic.

In all cases that I'm aware of, biologists have made progress in discovering possible evolutionary paths for the formation of seemingly problematic features.

You bring up the example of the eye as one candidate.

This has of course been much discussed and I'm surprised that you do not acknowledge that the solution to this apparent conundrum has already been provided.

In fact it was a topic discussed by Darwin himself, who also provided a solution.

From here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html) The gradual steps listed are briefly...

· photosensitive cell
· aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
· an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
· pigment cells forming a small depression
· pigment cells forming a deeper depression
· the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
· muscles allowing the lens to adjust

From the same page (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html) you can find links detailing how each stage has been observed in the natural world.

Since you accept that small positive mutation can occur and be subject to natural selection it should now be clear to you that the evolution of the eye can be broken down into a series of such steps.

Also, because bacteria react in the way you say doesn't mean that it proves that the millions of others steps necessary came about. The likelihood is against their happening. That unlikelihood is ignored in favor of a likelihood that doesn't exist. Which is unscientific and irrational.

The example given doesn't prove that millions of other steps happen, merely that single positive mutations do happen. A fact which I am now happy that you accept.

The example also suggests a frequency with which such mutations my occur. Coupled with an estimation of the opportunities for mutations to occur in the trillions of trillions of trillions of cells that have existed in the billions of years since life began on this planet we can start to estimate the probability for the series of mutations which lead to the variety of life we see today.

You say that the likelihood is against. I suggest that this can only be because you have underestimated the sheer magnitude of the opportunities for these mutations to occur. Scholarly attempts to quantify these estimates suggest the exact opposite. That the time required for the evolution of the eye is far shorter than our best estimate for the time that it actually took.

In any case, my original argument was in reference abiogenesis and it has been shunted aside along with the argument I put forth to support it. Never been observed, which means there is no inferential basis for the idea, never been demonstrated in a laboratory, yet it is used to predict life on other planets. To me that's quackery and blatant inconsistency.

I'll happily concede to you that we don't know exactly how life first began on earth. You must accept that at one point in time there was no life on earth, now there is. At some point this must have changed. That is all I infer. It's is inferred from our own existence and the knowledge that at one time life did not exist.

The genetic evidence of common decent is that we're all descended from a single celled organism. It offers no clue as to how that organism came into being nor does it in any way depend upon any particular theory being true.

For the believer in a creator God there is room here for him to step in and no evidence to contradict that this original single cell was created by divine spark. Personally I find this a "God of the Gaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)" and worry that it is a lazy man's way of avoiding further research. However I’m tolerant of those who choose to believe otherwise. They are not rejecting evidence to do so.

For the non-believer and believer alike there are alternative explanations. For the believer these are simply a theories of how God might have accomplished his task, for the non-believer they are an alternative to any divine input.

Life may conceivably have originated through purely mechanical methods such as clay theories, RNA world theories perhaps round a geothermal vent. Panspermia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia) theories suggest it may have originated elsewhere in the universe and taken root on earth. Of course this simply postpones the inevitable question of how that alien life originated in the first place. In fact such a regression is also applicable to Theistic creation which is another reason I have for being uncomfortable with that theory.

Actually, the bottom line is that I have considered both sides of the argument and the ID side makes far more sense to me. I do apreciate your effort, time invested, and decent manner of your approach however.

Thanks. : )

I'm glad to hear that you have considered both sides of the argument. I do hope you continue to do so. It is my desire to test my beliefs against contradictory ones that makes such debates worthwhile to me even if neither of us substantially change our positions.

May I ask what sources you have used to consider the pro-evolution side of the debate. Dawkins "the blind watchmaker" and his "the ancestor's tale" are both very accessible and entertaining and cover many of the apparent difficulties you seem to express with evolution.

Ocelot

9th January 2008, 04:56 AM

Tell that to all the creationist scientists with full-ledged scientific credentials. Actually, the vewry founder of this pet ide admitted
it was founded on very shaky ground.

Excerpt

BTW

Here is a tidbit of info for your edification:

Darwin was a creationist:

It is a crying shame that this debate so often descends away from an honest analysis of the evidence. As the wedge document (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy) reveals there are those who would use dishonest strategies to discredit evolution.

Radrook, I would hope that you would want to appear to be above such shenanigans. If so it would be of benefit if you were aware of a dishonest tactic used by some creationists to make their point. Quote mining, as it is called, is the practice of taking the words of eminent scientist out of context so as to pervert their intended meaning.

The full context of the quote you provide can be found here (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.html#quote2.1)

I would appreciate it if you could read the quotation in it's true context and let me know if it changes your opinion.

That asside even if this outdated appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority)were to be considered both true and relevent to today's definition of science, even if creationist lies (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html) about Darwins deathbed recantation were upheld, such musings do not overturn the undeniable genetic evidence for common descent.

plumjam

9th January 2008, 05:50 AM

I don't think any of the evolutionists here has yet addressed Radrook's point about applying double standards.
You wouldn't all be studiously avoiding it would you?
Here it is again in case anyone feels they'd like to step into the breach.

Double Standards

Evolution is touted as a science and since it is described that way one would expect its adherents, at least at the professional level to adhere to the required scientific objectivity. Sadly, that is not the case. Quote to the contrary, evolutionist scientists are notorious for the application of double standards whenever it is deemed convenient and unfortunately, it is always deemed convenient whenever they are required to be objective in reference to evidence which might seriously challenge their pet idea. How so you might ask? Well, let's take their standards in determining what is and what isn't
produced by intelligent design. Take an arrowhead, show it to an evolutionist, tell him it is the result of chance events and he would vehemently argue to the contrary. OR even a mere stone whose edge has been chipped away in order to turn it into a crude cutting tool. That too would vehemently be defended as irrefutably produced by intelligent design.

Ask him why and he would point out the purposeful way in which the chipping is arranged or the obvious notch in the arrowhead indication prior planning and forethought. Now, thrust such a statement aside and he will consider you irrational and unscientific.

Proceed then to tell him that the human eye shows evidence of forethought and planning and watch the transformation take place. Suddenly the objectivity disappears, the criteria is tossed aside or ignored, and he will vehemently argue that the arrangement of the eye with all its intricately cooperating parts which accomplish the purpose of giving organisms sight
is no evidence that it was produced by an intelligent designer.

Then there is the inconsistency of their application of inductive reasoning to evolution but their stubborn refusal to do so if the evidence is contrary to their pet idea. They put for observaytion of patterns as conclusive and justifiable reason to believe in their idea. But don't dare you use the same method as evidence of ID. Then they shift gears, and will accuse you of being irrational. In fact, your total argument will be cast aside and called irrelevant because science doesn't work that way.

They also say that one must never base one's conclusions on mere imagination. Yet they generously use their imaginations to put forth the abiogeneiss idea which has absolutely no inductive inference support
and is not demonstrable. In short, they accept it and put it forth as fact based on blind faith because to do otherwise would be to admit another idea which is anathema to their atheistic evolutionist sensibilities.

In short, they will be scientific and rational when it suits them and unscientific
and irrational when it doesn't. Which ultimately makes any discussion useless.
Actually, it reminds me of a certain fellow I once met who refused to admit that a train looks different if seen from different angles such as from a height of 5000 feet as compared with ground level or as viewed from the side as opposed to the front. His proud parting words were:

"Well, I guess you will never forget me!"

He was right. I never forgot his example of just how hermetically a mind can close itself when it wants to.

Here is a curious article from an American social perspective:

Survival of the Fittest
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyKCiyINHYcIAIhFrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=12kimfdbj/EXP=1199905314/**http%3a//www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp%3fARTICLE_ID=23533

Henners

9th January 2008, 06:35 AM

Tell that to all the creationist scientists with full-fledged scientific credentials.

Unfortunately, the NoneSuch is a fictional monster created by Larry Niven.

What you do is close your eyes and think: "You are not real", and it vanishes.

...in much the same manner as the so-called scientists who work for political lobby groups, and who entertain each other by holding little confabs where their mutual self-abuse looks intelligent only to the other confabulists.

Foster Zygote

9th January 2008, 06:38 AM

I don't think any of the evolutionists here has yet addressed Radrook's point about applying double standards.
You wouldn't all be studiously avoiding it would you?
Here it is again in case anyone feels they'd like to step into the breach.

What breach? I see a lot of histrionic accusations without any actual evidence.

For nearly the whole of this thread Radrook has avoided addressing any of the following issues, despite repeated inquiry.
1.) the fossil record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundemental mechanism of evolution
3.) the phylogenetic tree
4.) How the fact that an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that presists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.
5.) ERVs
6.) human chromosome fusion
7.) multi drug resistent bacteria
8.) existence of RNAi
9.) Mitochondrial DNA
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques
11.) vestigal organs
12.) prions
13.) protein multifunctionality
14.) protein polymorphisms
15.) symbiosis
16.) interspecies viable offspring
17.) nylon-eating bacteria
18.) Persistence of Sickle Cell

Would you care to step into the breach and address them?

Henners

9th January 2008, 06:39 AM

I don't think any of the evolutionists here has yet addressed Radrook's point about applying double standards.
You wouldn't all be studiously avoiding it would you?
Here it is again in case anyone feels they'd like to step into the breach.

Easy.

The allegation that evolutionary scientists are notorious for their application of double standards is a big fat lie.

Telling a wee, made up story to support that lie is not "evidence", but "fantasy".

It was pretty obvious to everyone else.

I wonder how thick you need to be to think that there was anything to it?

wollery

9th January 2008, 07:05 AM

I don't think any of the evolutionists here has yet addressed Radrook's point about applying double standards.
You wouldn't all be studiously avoiding it would you?
Here it is again in case anyone feels they'd like to step into the breach.You mean aside from the fact that it's made up of a stupid strawman and an attack on the messenger?

Arrowheads cannot procreate, therefore they must be designed by a mind. The eye is part of a being which procreates and mutates, and is therefore subject to change over time, which is the definition of evolution.

Lack of inductive reasoning? There's plenty, all based on tangible evidence, such as the fossil record, genetics, observations of evolution of flies and bacteria.

Abiogenesis? Yes, it requires a little imagination, but is also based on observations of actual phenomena and known science and arrived at through inductive reasoning.

In short, Radrook's point is pointless.

plumjam

9th January 2008, 07:13 AM

Easy.

The allegation that evolutionary scientists are notorious for their application of double standards is a big fat lie.

Telling a wee, made up story to support that lie is not "evidence", but "fantasy".

It was pretty obvious to everyone else.

I wonder how thick you need to be to think that there was anything to it?

Observation of the evidence, dear chap.
It's easy to see that on this forum, on both sides, the substantive points that are most ignored are usually the strongest.
The double standards points were completely ignored because they are valid, and quite strong. Radrook is correct about the application of double standards. If someone can't see that then... well.. not much hope. If you aren't convinced go and read a few hundred posts here on the topic of evolution/ID.

I notice you didn't address any of his specific points.

bokonon

9th January 2008, 07:19 AM

You bring up the example of the eye as one candidate.

This has of course been much discussed and I'm surprised that you do not acknowledge that the solution to this apparent conundrum has already been provided.

In fact it was a topic discussed by Darwin himself, who also provided a solution.

From here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html) The gradual steps listed are briefly...

· photosensitive cell
· aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
· an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
· pigment cells forming a small depression
· pigment cells forming a deeper depression
· the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
· muscles allowing the lens to adjust

From the same page (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html) you can find links detailing how each stage has been observed in the natural world.

Considering how often creationists invoke this and other arguments from incredulity, it amazes me that they can regard something like an eye as so complex that it can't arise naturally (even though processes which could have led to eyes are both natural and observed), but an all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the universe, who can bring whole galaxies into material existence with nothing more than a thought (something which is neither natural nor observed) never triggers the "incredulity" reaction.

To add another observation to the list, volume 317 of Science magazine (2007), on pages 1090-1093, describes a light-sensing enzyme that helps plants turn to face the sun, which has been found in four species of bacteria, including a human pathogen. The enzyme, called histidine kinase, is triggered by blue light.

Roberto Bogomolni, at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and his colleagues scanned bacterial genomes for similar enzymes and identified contenders in a marine bacterium, in a plant pathogen, and in two species of Brucella (a pathogen of cows and humans).

Brucella that lack the enzyme or that have been kept in the dark are more likely to be killed by immune cells than normal Brucella. It may be that the advantage this "natural selection" confers on bacteria with the enzyme has nothing to do with sensing light directly, but the light-sensing capability is nevertheless preserved from generation to generation, ready to be activated in the service of eye-building when multi-cellular organisms with the same genetics undergo additional random mutation.

So on the one hand, you have real scientists doing real science, publishing their results in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and each tiny, incidental sand-grain of a new fact adds to the mountain of evidence which is consistent with the theory of evolution.

On the other hand, you have "creation" scientists doing no science, who simply parrot the same tired objections which have been discredited for years, decades, waving their hands and croaking "Unbelievable!" for the faithful who have no interest in understanding science at all.

wollery

9th January 2008, 07:20 AM

Observation of the evidence, dear chap.
It's easy to see that on this forum, on both sides, the substantive points that are most ignored are usually the strongest.
The double standards points were completely ignored because they are valid, and quite strong. Radrook is correct about the application of double standards. If someone can't see that then... well.. not much hope. If you aren't convinced go and read a few hundred posts here on the topic of evolution/ID.

I notice you didn't address any of his specific points.I did.

plumjam

9th January 2008, 07:28 AM

You mean aside from the fact that it's made up of a stupid strawman and an attack on the messenger?

Arrowheads cannot procreate, therefore they must be designed by a mind.
So you'll be happy to accept then, that electrons, protons, atoms, amino acids etc.. are also designed by a mind?

Or will you now apply the double standard Radrook pointed out?
It's either choose the double standard or choose to be shown to be wrong.

The eye is part of a being which procreates and mutates, and is therefore subject to change over time, which is the definition of evolution.
Did you ever see someone have a random mutation of the eye that improved the eye?

Lack of inductive reasoning? There's plenty, all based on tangible evidence, such as the fossil record, genetics, observations of evolution of flies and bacteria. I think Radrook was saying that inductive reasoning was viewed as ok for one side, but not for the other.

Abiogenesis? Yes, it requires a little imagination, but is also based on observations of actual phenomena
you mean some amino acids, and then making the vast mental leap from those to life forms?

and known science and arrived at through inductive reasoning yes, so if inductive reasoning is ok for amino acids to life, do you accept it's ok for the jump from the improbability of the complexity of life.. to accepting the design theory?

Foster Zygote

9th January 2008, 07:32 AM

Observation of the evidence, dear chap.
It's easy to see that on this forum, on both sides, the substantive points that are most ignored are usually the strongest.
Yes, Radrook has ignored many a substantive point throughout this entire thread.

The double standards points were completely ignored because they are valid, and quite strong. Radrook is correct about the application of double standards. If someone can't see that then... well.. not much hope. If you aren't convinced go and read a few hundred posts here on the topic of evolution/ID.
Please provide specific evidence. Without such evidence all we see is two posters who level accusations to avoid admitting that their beliefs do not show any merit under scientific scrutiny.

I notice you didn't address any of his specific points.
Wollery did.

Ocelot

9th January 2008, 07:51 AM

Of course the fact that new species have been observed to evolve both in the lab and in the wild, make this claim one of the more ridiculous creationist claims but it is nonetheless one that I have encountered.

I asgee that speciation does and has occurred.

It's interesting to me that you have raised the bar. You accept that not all individual species need to have been created. Presumably you accept that Lions, Tigers and the domestic Cat all have a common ancestor? Am I correct in my estimation of your beliefs.

Yes.

If so do you also accept the more controversial conclusion that Homo Sapiens has a common ancestor with Chimps, Bonobos, Gorillas and Orang Utans. It may be more controversial for it's broad implications to theology and philosophy but perhaps because of this added interest it is a conclusion backed by even greater quantities of genetic evidence.

No, that's where we diverge.

Interesting, you accept the one claim regarding feline speciation but reject another for which there is identical evidence in greater quantity.

It begs the obvious question why is that?

Some might suggest that the evidence conflicts with the bible account of creation and hold the bible to be inerrant in this respect. As such I would point to inconsistencies in the bible that demonstrate it cannot be inerrant. One such inconsistency is debated here.

http://jonecc.koolhost.com/index.php?p=1_1_Home

Of course one may not need to insist that the whole bible is inerrant to hold that god created man separate from other life as a matter of faith. I wouldn’t want to debate the pros and cons of hold faith over reason here in this thread.

However it seemed to me that you are attempting to provide a scientific rationale for your beliefs. As such I’d be interested to know whether you start with your beliefs and attempt to find a rationale that either appears or actually is scientific or whether you examine the evidence and let that take you to the logical conclusion.

In either case do you have a scientific rational for this apparent discrepancy?

Or to put it another way. I will accept all rational argument based upon empirical evidence. However as a non believer I cannot accept the word of the bible alone. What have you got that can convince me that the genetic evidence that chimps and humans share a common ancestor is incorrect?

Of course the genetic evidence that all placental mammals share a common ancestor more recent than the one they share with marsupials is as compelling as the evidence for a common ancestor amongst other Genus, Family, Order or Classes.

If your theory is true, it would be interesting to see if the genetic evidence could tell us what the original common ancestors were beyond which we can find no further link.

For example lets take for want of a better choice a red kangaroo named Charles. You and I both agree that Charles shares a common ancestor with all other red kangaroos, the genetic evidence backs this up.

I see no reason to object.

According to the genetic evidence Charles also shares a more distant common ancestor with other species of kangaroo such as grey kangaroos, and antilopine kangaroos.

Ok.

The genetic evidence suggests that further back in time these kangaroos shared a common ancestor with a variety of other species of kangaroo, wallaby and walleroo of the macropus genus. Would you agree?

Sure.

If so then the genetic evidence further indicates that the macropus genus shares a common ancestor with all other members of the macropod family including various other Kangaroos and Wallabies, the quokka and pademelons. Would you agree that these are all of the same "kind" sharing a common ancestor.

That might be acceptable.

If so then the genetic evidence indicates that the macropod family share a more distant common ancestor with all members of the order diprodontia. This includes possums koalas and wombats. Is it conceivable to you that the genetic evidence is correct and that these creatures all share a common ancestor with one another? Could they all be of the same "kind"?

If they are of the same kind.

I must confess to a certain amount of frustration with that response. It appears to me that you are saying that they are of the same kind if they are of the same kind. That’s a rather circular argument.

In fact could all the australidelphia super order of marsupials share a common ancestor as the genetic evidence would suggest, if so are they collectively a "kind"

Or do they, as the empirical evidence would suggest, all share a common ancestor with all other marsupials. Are marsupials a kind?

I presume that you do not accept that some time in the cretaceous there was an early mammal type reptile or therapsid from whom both you and Charles can claim lineage. However how do you explain why when the genetic evidence is so clear?

Because I believe that the data is being interpreted to fit into a preconceived notion.

The fact that the data can be interpreted to fit the preconceived notion is a rather important point.

I agree that this by no means guarantees on an absolute scale that an alternative explanation cannot be made to fit better but the onus is upon others to provide such an explanation. Until then common descent remains the best fit to the evidence. Not only that but the only self declared contender to common descent, Intelligent Design, fails to explain the genetic similarities and variations clustered about clades.
You have provided a possibility of a reason why the genetic interpretations may be skewed towards common descent but that in itself is no reason to reject the interpretation outright.

For Intelligent Design to prosper over evolution it must either provide an alternative explanation as to why similar variations cluster around clades or find an exception that demonstrates that common descent is impossible.

Evolutionary theory is not static, whilst no reason has yet been found to challenge common descent, a readiness to revise the phylogenetic tree of life has been demonstrated time over time. It appears that any theory that suggests evolutionary biologists always find according to their preconceptions is undermined by this.

If studies, for example, indicated that a species was so genetically divergent from the rest of the tree of life to give a data of common descent in excess of the 3.9 billion years since the earth was formed then I have no doubt that subject to confirmation we would have to accept that it was rooted in different stock.

It doesn’t matter where you place the bar, the genetic evidence is clear, there is only one "kind" currently on planet earth we are all descended from the same single common ancestor.

I agree that certain animals share more genetic material in common than other kinds. As I said previously, some of that sharing is due to a common ancestor called a kind in Genesis.

Once again I congratulate you on being in tune with the evidence.

What I don't agree with is the transformation of one kind into another or that all living things are ultimately related. Or that my ancestor was a one celled creature which slowly turned into a fish, and later into a reptile, and later into some type of piglike animal as the evolutionist interpretations of data say.

Well if a kind is simply a group of species who share a common ancestor then what is stopping you from believing that all life is one kind? You accept the genetic evidence that all felines are of the same kind why stop there?

Not simply because it is repulsive thought, but because it all depends on a mindless process which I and most human beings on this earth, including human beings who are scientists, find unbelievable due to its inherent improbability and based on the cause and effect phenomena we perceive which indicates that machinelike complex things do not make themselves but are the product of mind or else are programmed to replicate themselves by a mind.

I personally find nothing repulsive about that thought. I’d be more inclined to feel repulsed by the idea that I’m of the same stock as Harold Shipman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Shipman)) but as you rightly imply, sheer repulsion is not sufficient reason to deny the truth. That would be appeal to emotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion)

I’ve already discussed the power of mindless processes and evolution in particular, to produce complex machine like designs. You apparently accept that a mindless process produce the differences between the various feline species over a period of 10 million years. Why would it be so hard to imagine that over the course of a period at least 15 times longer the differences between all mammals could be produced by the same process.

I don’t much care what the majority opinion is. Conformism is no reason to reject evidence. Such appeals to popularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) cut little ice with me. However I fear you may have been mislead. The ill repute of evolution is peculiar to the US and Turkey with the rest of the western world emphatically supporting the theory. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html I must say that the rest of the world rather looks down on the US in this respect. Whilst those who reject evolution do indeed include scientists, and even some such as Dr Behe who aren’t obviously working outside of their field there’s an ambiguity in your statement that suggests that a majority of scientists reject evolution. If you’ve been told this I’m afraid it is out and out propaganda. Irrelevant though the proportion is, to suggest that it is anything other than the overwhelming majority of scientists who accept evolution is an out and out lie of the sort that was exposed in the OP.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4540_not_just_in_kansas_anymore_5_5_2000.asp

The degree of public acceptance of evolution is differs sharply from that within the scientific community. In a 1996 survey of a sample selected from American Men and Women of Science, Witham and Larson asked scientists the same Gallup poll questions regularly asked of the general public.1 Whereas in 1997, 47% of Americans answered "agree" to Gallup's question about the special creation of humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, only 5% of scientists did.

I’d far rather convince you by discussion of the evidence than by holding evolution up to a popularity contest but just in case your opinion is influenced by a false idea of the scientific and popular consensus it’s best that I disabuse you of this crazy notion.

Anyway, thanks once again for your continued responses. It's clear that you've been exposed to much anti-evolution propaganda and I hope to help you to recognise it as such.

In examining the evidence and various arguments over the years I've encountered many such lies. There may indeed be rational debate based upon scientific evidence that questions evolution and the theory wouldn't be much of a science if it rejected the possibility of such challenges but the prepoderance of dishonest propaganda on the creationist side is a stain upon the fine traditions of scientific discourse. With reference to your sig, let the stains become a warning.

Moving on with the main thrust of our dialogue you have at least parially responded to my repeated question. How do you account for the genetic evidence for common descent if not though actual common descent.

You have offered the possibility that the evidecne has been misinterpretted by researchers biased towards their own preconcieved notions.

I would ask you to flesh this out with an alternative analysis of the genetic evidence, and explain how this differs from the genetic evidence that you are apparently prepared to accept, that leopards share a common ancestor with the domestic house cat and that kangaroos share a common ancestor with the possum.

Wolverine

9th January 2008, 07:52 AM

Telling a wee, made up story to support that lie is not "evidence", but "fantasy".

It was pretty obvious to everyone else.

Perhaps this explains it.

I've only recently started looking into all this. My main area of interest is more religion/philosophy/politics... not biology.

But hey, why bother actually studying a topic before attempting to argue against it? That's no fun! :dig:

bokonon

9th January 2008, 07:58 AM

So you'll be happy to accept then, that electrons, protons, atoms, amino acids etc.. are also designed by a mind?
Is the electron the new champion for irreducible complexity?

Foster Zygote

9th January 2008, 08:02 AM

So you'll be happy to accept then, that electrons, protons, atoms, amino acids etc.. are also designed by a mind?
Life is merely the arrangement of these natural elements. When life reproduces it rearranges matter in the environment. Matter cannot reproduce and it cannot be created or destroyed. Without humans, protons, atoms, amino acids etc. would still exist and interact. Without humans arrowheads would not form naturally by any known means. Yet life consists of this same matter.

Or will you now apply the double standard Radrook pointed out?
It's either choose the double standard or choose to be shown to be wrong.
There is no double standard. Your analogy of arrowhead = atoms is invalid.

Did you ever see someone have a random mutation of the eye that improved the eye?
This is like the young Earth creationist standing on a fault for five minutes and then rejecting continental drift because he didn't see any movement while he was standing there. But there are examples of evolution occurring in our lifetime. Bacteria have evolved that can metabolize nylon for example. New species of fruit flies have been bred in laboratories.

I think Radrook was saying that inductive reasoning was viewed as ok for one side, but not for the other.
If he was saying that inductive reasoning is used in science but absent from intelligent design then yes, I agree.

you mean some amino acids, and then making the vast mental leap from those to life forms?
I thought you were ignorant of evolutionary theory. You did state this, yes? You've certainly demonstrated this on many occasions. Why then do you keep arguing against it as though you know what you are talking about?

yes, so if inductive reasoning is ok for amino acids to life, do you accept it's ok for the jump from the improbability of the complexity of life.. to accepting the design theory?
"Improbability of life" is a rather vague statement. Do you have anything specific to offer about the improbability of life? Are you still laboring under the delusion that evolutionary theory claims that complex structures like eyes and brains evolve by random collisions of matter, the "747 assembled by a tornado" fallacy? Evolution is not random in this sense.

Abiogenesis is of indeterminate probability as yet, simply because we do not yet understand all the steps. But even if it is exceedingly improbable, the universe is unimaginably vast and old. Even exceedingly improbable things are to be expected in such an environment.

wollery

9th January 2008, 08:45 AM

So you'll be happy to accept then, that electrons, protons, atoms, amino acids etc.. are also designed by a mind?An arrowhead has a specific definable, and rather obvious, purpose. What purpose do electrons and protons have? Atoms are collections of electrons, protons and neutrons, the result of what happens when they interact. Amino acids are collections of atoms, the result of what happens when they interact. All of this occurs due to the nature of the Universe. Were the intrinsic properties of the Universe set by a controlling mind? I have no idea. But as an argument against evolution it sucks like a vacuum pump.

Or will you now apply the double standard Radrook pointed out?
It's either choose the double standard or choose to be shown to be wrong.No, as I said, I have no idea if the Universe had a designer or creator, but if it did then s/he/it certainly hasn't been needed since the Big Bang.

Did you ever see someone have a random mutation of the eye that improved the eye?Way to misunderstand the evolutionary process! It's a slow gradual process, taking place over thousands of generations.

I think Radrook was saying that inductive reasoning was viewed as ok for one side, but not for the other.Radrook seems to have this strange idea that inductive reasoning in isolation trumps any evidence.

you mean some amino acids, and then making the vast mental leap from those to life forms?Amino acids were already known to be some of the basic building blocks of life. That the Miller-Urey experiment created any at all in such a simple experiment was a complete surprise.

[/quote]yes, so if inductive reasoning is ok for amino acids to life, do you accept it's ok for the jump from the improbability of the complexity of life.. to accepting the design theory?[/QUOTE]Nope. Radrook's argument against abiogenesis is fundamentally flawed. He takes an observation of one phenomenon under one set of conditions to make an inductive inference of a different phenomenon under different conditions. Induction doesn't work that way.

ArmillarySphere

9th January 2008, 08:52 AM

That's nice, But is fitness, as the term is perceived, the only reason for survival?
The reason for any organism to keep living is either to achieve bodliy immortality (which seems impractical), or to propagate. Any organism that chooses otherwise is not going to be around very long. It's not an imposed "demand", just a logical consequence - propagate or become extinct. And that leads directly to the principles of natural selection.

Imagine a fine specimen of a lion. It has beaten off multiple challenges from other lions due to its physical superiority and therefore has been able to pass on its genes. Imagine now a group of three lions who are all individually inferior and who via cooperation dethrone the physically superior lion via sheer weight of numbers. They proceed to kill the lion cubs of the superior lion and pass on their inferior genes. Were they the fittest?
Yes. Their cooperation was superior to the physical prowess of a single individual.
Or imagine a fine specimen of Gorillas who have made the mistake of living at the base of a volcano.
It erupts, they die while the physically inferior gorillas in the valley survive. So they were the fittest?
As has been stated, if there was a similar but "inferior" species living next to the volcano but who encouraged their offspring to migrate, they would indeed be better equipped to handle changes in the environment. Overspecialisation leading to extinction is well established.

In short, once fit doesn't mean always fit. It all depends on the whims of changing environment. Or the whims of being at right place at right time at visa versa.
Exactly. However, "luck favours the prepared mind", as the saying goes.

Imagine a world where a nuclear holocaust has left only a group of weak dying mutants. These by the survival definition would be the fittest because they survived. (...) Fitness, then describes not quality of the survivor or the superiority of the survivor but merely that the survivor managed to survive.

Fitter than their now-dead brethren, yes. "Quality", "Fitness" and so forth, is the same thing as "being able to survive and reproduce". However, the supposed circularity ends in that the characteristics (genes) of those individuals of the better fitness will with time spread through the population. That is what the theory of evolution is all about.

However, this is not the way fitness is perceived by the general public. To the general public fitness is equivalent to inherent superiority over the dying organisms. Which in turn fuels their imagination to conclude that fitness inevitably leads to an upward climb or a refinement (...)
This view was argued by Orthogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis) and Lamarckism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism). It has long since been falsified. If the "general public" has perceived this differently, that's a problem of public education, not for the theory in itself.

Double Standards
(...)
Well, let's take their standards in determining what is and what isn't
produced by intelligent design. Take an arrowhead, show it to an evolutionist, tell him it is the result of chance events and he would vehemently argue to the contrary. OR even a mere stone whose edge has been chipped away in order to turn it into a crude cutting tool. That too would vehemently be defended as irrefutably produced by intelligent design.
No, it would be argued to be the result of a human being. Where and when we have evidence of humans existing, we can assume their existance. Where we don't, there's no justification to assign them as the cause of anything. "Intelligent Designer" is too vague a term to deserve anything but ridicule.

If, by any chance, you would find an arrowhead-shaped rock dated to the Mesozoic era, a conscentious scientist would start by rechecking the dating, secondly to look for fossils of creatures capable of creating (or leaving behind - think shells) such a rock, or lastly to tentatively conclude that it has to be the result of natural erosion. The difference is that unless you can tell who or what the designer is, you have no call to blithely assume his existence. At some point you might find enough arrowheads, flint axes and coke bottles to start hypothesising intelligent beings (and to outline their characteristics, mind you), but without supporting evidence their existance must remain a hypothesis.

They also say that one must never base one's conclusions on mere imagination. Yet they generously use their imaginations to put forth the abiogeneiss idea which has absolutely no inductive inference support and is not demonstrable. In short, they accept it and put it forth as fact based on blind faith because to do otherwise would be to admit another idea which is anathema to their atheistic evolutionist sensibilities.
It's still in the hypothesis stage, if that's what you're asking. It will remain a working hypothesis, up until we can either conclusively disprove it, or find plausible mechanisms for all the necessary stages. That doesn't preclude us from assuming its validity to look for evidence for it. Isn't that more or less the definition of prediction? And by the by, we have found some of the mechanisms involved, just not all of them. What's the actual evidence for that designer guy?

So you'll be happy to accept then, that electrons, protons, atoms, amino acids etc.. are also designed by a mind?
For the first three, we can demonstrate processes are involved in their interactions, and predict where and when they change from one form to the other. Electrons and protons can indeed be "created" from other matter, as part of particle physics processes. Atoms we now know aren't immutable, and can watch their interactions and transformations. What part of this requires a designing mind? Amino acids - slightly more complicated as the right circumstances need to be in place. Fortunately, this seems to happen in quite a few places in the universe (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite). No designer required.

Did you ever see someone have a random mutation of the eye that improved the eye?
Tetrachromacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy) - see the section on possible human tetrachromacy.

I think Radrook was saying that inductive reasoning was viewed as ok for one side, but not for the other.
Inductive reasoning is fun, as a starting point. You still need the evidence to have a theory. Where's the copyright label in the DNA? Or whatever your predictions are. You do have some... right?

joobz

9th January 2008, 09:21 AM

Observation of the evidence, dear chap.
It's easy to see that on this forum, on both sides, the substantive points that are most ignored are usually the strongest.

Exactly. Which is why Radrook's whole argument is nonsense. I've presented the 18point argument that he's failed to address.

The double standards points were completely ignored because they are valid, and quite strong. Radrook is correct about the application of double standards. If someone can't see that then... well.. not much hope. If you aren't convinced go and read a few hundred posts here on the topic of evolution/ID.
The only double standard that I've witnessed here has been those who demand openmindedness in others are the least likely to practice what they preach.

Cuddles

9th January 2008, 09:35 AM

So you'll be happy to accept then, that electrons, protons, atoms, amino acids etc.. are also designed by a mind?

Electrons procreate? Wow, this job just got a whole lot more interesting.

I never denied the occurrence of neutral or beneficial mutations. It is the unlikelyhood of a mindless process with its high probability of being harmful to an organism being said to ultimately lead to the intricate organization as is evident in the human eye with its iris, to adjust the entry of light, the lens to focus that light, on a screen called the retina which is connected to an optic nerve, which reacts to the radiation by coding it into neural impulses, which in turn arrives at a specialized part of the brain which can decode those impulses and turn them into the perception of images. Sorry but in the presence of such strong evidence to the contrary, I just can't buy into the mindless mutation explanation.

Firstly, I have to make the obvious point of what evidence? You don't have any. There isn't any that supports you and you haven't even pretended to show any. The eye example is a few hundred years out of date. Surely you know that you're supposed to complain about the flagelum now? Of course, that irreducibly complex part has been reduced now as well, but at least most creationists have managed to get that far. You're way behind.

That aside, you have another, much bigger problem. You accept that beneficial mutations occur. You even appear to accept that these have led to the formation of different species, like lions and tigers (Oh my!). The problem you have is that you don't have any reason to stop here. Given that one type of cat has changed into many different types of cat, ranging from hundreds of kilograms of killing machine to a couple of pounds of purr, why would it stop there?

For arguments sake, let's pretend that creationism is true. God made the world in however many days you like with however many species or kinds you like. Evolution still happens. We can see mutations happening, and we can see that some are beneficial. We can see selection, both natural and forced, happening. We can see species splitting apart into similar, but different enough, species. Even if everything in the Bible is literally true, even the bits that contradict the other bits, you still have to explain all the observations that show evolution happening right now, and you have to explain how and/or why God stopped evolution from happening for the past billion years.

Ocelot

9th January 2008, 10:10 AM

Hi again Radrook,

I know that this wasn't a direct response to our conversation but I hope you will appreciate my response nonetheless.

Fitness

A very curious idea!

[He is smart because he answered the question] [He answered the question because he is smart]

[He is north European because he is Nordic] [He is Nordic because he is North European]

[He is fit because he survived.] [He survived because he is fit]

The definition is derived from the assumed condition, and the assumed condition is derived from the definition
[It is fit because it survived] [It survived because it is fit] = circular reasoning

Just to be pedantic I'm north European but not Nordic. Please excuse my pedantry but precision can be important in discussions such as these.

Survival of the fittest is a sound byte. Proper examination of evolutionary theory gives us this.

An adaptation which increases its relative probability of being passed on to subsequent generations is more likely to be found in subsequent generations.

Rather than considering it circular reasoning, consider it a tautology. A logical construct incapable of being wrong.

A implies A even if you phrase A in two different ways.

No-one denies the influence that blind luck can play. However blind luck is just that, blind. It has equal chance of destroying the fit as the unfit. Over time it cancels itself out. Natural selection of the other hand is cumulative.

All animals which survive were the fittest = definition
That animal survived
That animal was the fittest = condition of animal

Actually I must disagree. That would appear to be a misinterpretation of evolutionary theory. An oversimplification which brief exposure to evolutionary biology should correct.

Evolution does not say that all animals which survive are the fittest. There are two distinct errors which I've addressed below. Firstly it is perhaps better to look at this with regard to adaptations rather than animals. Secondly we must allow for chance.

Evolutionary theory simply states that if an inheritable adaptation leads to an increased chance of survival then that adaptation is more likely to be found in increasing numbers of subsequent generations of the population.

As you say this is tautological. We simply state the same thing in different ways. It cannot be denied.

That's nice, But is fitness, as the term is perceived, the only reason for survival?

Imagine a fine specimen of a lion. It has beaten off multiple challenges from other lions due to its physical superiority and therefore has been able to pass on its genes. Imagine now a group of three lions who are all individually inferior and who via cooperation dethrone the physically superior lion via sheer weight of numbers. They proceed to kill the lion cubs of the superior lion and pass on their inferior genes. Were they the fittest?

An interesting example. Lions are unusual in living in prides, their social nature distinguishes them from most other felines. In as much as behaviour is considered an inheritable trait, this is a behaviour that evolved in lions but not other felines.

Such polymamous mating strategies seem to correlate with sexual dimorphism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#Polygamy). Thats to say that the evolutionary consequences are that the male lion is significantly different from the female. Males a benfited less by an ability to care for their young and more by an ability to out muscle competitor males.

Typically a pride is controlled by a single male who reserves mating rights over the females in the pride. Other males are kicked out of the pride once they reach breeding age and go off to find another pride to challenge for leadership. If they succeed they will be rewarded with many offspring. If they fail they'll most likely be killed. Its a high risk, high reward game for the male but for the female it guarantees access to the highest quality breeding stock.

You suggest a behavioural adaptation where three lions cooperate to oust a sitting lion from a pride. On the face of it this would have certain obvious advantages. It increases their chance of becoming a breeding male. However it also has disadvantages. Sharing the females with two other males results in less offspring is perhaps the obvious one but it is surprisingly irrelevant. We must look at the fitness not of the individual but of the adaptation. Since all three males carry the adaptation the chance of subsequent offspring carrying it is 50%. In fact we must look forward a few generations. At this point some prides are led by three cooperative males (the descendants of our original three) and others are led by single males. The variation will have started to drift over the population being most concentrated at the centre. Here, males with the gene for this brand of cooperation start to lose their advantage, they are more likely to encounter equivalent resistance. Furthermore the prides will be burdened with three times as many non productive males. The hunting females having to provide food for these males will have less resources to put into child rearing. You are correct that when deposing a male from a pride the victor attempts to kill off any cubs still being nursed. This asserts dominance over the females and without a cub to nurse the females will be more receptive to breeding. However the previous male will most likely have sired some young that have already been nursed and rather than being considered a threat to the victor are a positive boon to the harem, an additional mating opportunity once they mature. It should be little surprise that the females seek to protect their young and typically only one out of four cubs will be killed. With increased numbers of males killing cubs this is likely to increase the proportion of cubs being killed. Thus a male that carries this adaptation is more likely to live in an area where their reduced number of cubs, are more likely to be killed by their eventual usurpers. Furthermore females that carry the unexpressed gene for this behaviour are more likely to live in such an area and do not have access to the best quality breeding stock. They get to rear less cubs to maturity as more of their hunt goes to supporting an increased number of males and even those are less likely to come from the most superior physical specimen available.

Evolutionary biologists run population dynamics simulations to test under what parameters similar adaptations will thrive or collapse. I don't have the time or resources to tell you under what conditions the variation you suggest will thrive.

I can however tell you that very accurate experiments have been running for many thousands of years: real life. In one example Lions have not adopted the adaptation you suggest though one feels it must surely have cropped up. In another the trait similar to the one you suggest has persisted and dominates the population of langurs (http://www.howardbloom.net/chimpanzees_and_romans.htm)

I am not in a position to tell you what differences between these two populations account for the fact that in one population a variation is fit but not in another. However one notable difference with the langurs is that once the young bucks have cooperated to oust a physically more developed male they duke it out amongst themselves to leave just one breeding male again.

Anyway I hope you've found this diversion both interesting and informative.

rocketdodger

9th January 2008, 10:14 AM

I think Radrook was saying that inductive reasoning was viewed as ok for one side, but not for the other.

Except the evolution side is the only one that bases their conclusion on inductive reasoning.
Unless you want to claim that I.D. merely supposes a super-advanced species guiding the formation of life on our planet. Is that the extent of the supposition?

you mean some amino acids, and then making the vast mental leap from those to life forms?

I suppose it would be a vast mental leap if, for instance, all life forms were made of silicon. However, since all life forms are mostly made of... amino acids......

yes, so if inductive reasoning is ok for amino acids to life, do you accept it's ok for the jump from the improbability of the complexity of life.. to accepting the design theory?

If the design theory limits its conclusions to what can be arrived at using inductive reasoning on the evidence, then absolutely.

The problem evolutionists have with I.D. is that it does not stop there. If it did, the conclusions would be identical to those reached by evolution theory.

Henners

9th January 2008, 10:24 AM

Observation of the evidence, dear chap.

I haven't been patronised by the filling of a fruitcake all week.

So, thanks.

Foster Zygote

9th January 2008, 11:32 AM

If he was saying that inductive reasoning is used in science but absent from intelligent design then yes, I agree.

Readers please note that I meant to type "deductive", not "inductive" in the above sentence.

Ocelot

9th January 2008, 11:56 AM

Carrying on if you don't mind there's a few other points which may be worthy of addressing.

Or imagine a fine specimen of Gorillas who have made the mistake of living at the base of a volcano.
It erupts, they die while the physically inferior gorillas in the valley survive. So they were the fittest?

You have stated that the gorillas in the valley are physically inferior. Such physicality is a genetically inheritable trait. This would suggest that the gorillas at the base of the volcano were fitter, more likely to pass on their genetic inheritance. Being eliminated by a volcanic eruption is not an inheritable trait. Over the course of gorilla evolution volcanoes had equal chance of eliminating the physically superior as the inferior. Such effects cancel themselves out. For evolution to be a successful theory it is not necessary for the fittest to out perform the less fit on each an every occasion. The fit merely have to have slightly better odds than the unfit.

The fact that I have won money at the roulette table doesn't discount the fact that the odds are stacked in favour of the house. Much less does it mean that I'm the house.

The fittest then, can suddenly become unfit and perish like the dinosaurs did and replaced by animals which were better fitted and therefore became the fittest because they survived.

In short, once fit doesn't mean always fit. It all depends on the whims of changing environment. Or the whims of being at right place at right time at visa versa.

You're in absolute agreement with the theory of evolution here. This is an important point which many creationists don't realise is already accepted by evolutionary biologists.

Imagine a world where a nuclear holocaust has left only a group of weak dying mutants. These by the survival definition would be the fittest because they survived. Even if they eventually died off from the residual effect of the radiation or inherited defects, they still would have been tagged as the fittest because only they survived. Essentially then, fitness only means that an organism was able to get through an experience which others were not. Fitness, then describes not quality of the survivor or the superiority of the survivor but merely that the survivor managed to survive.

Well not exactly. Fitness as I have explained above is best thought of as relating to inheritable adaptations that increase the probability of survival.

If there is an adaptation that improves the chances of surviving a such a holocaust this is of course more likely that the survivors would have it than not. The proportion of survivors who inherited and will pass on that adaptations has increased over the proportion who had it prior to the holocaust. Of course if there is no such adaptation then it is just blind luck who survives and who doesn't and there is not fitness distinction between the pre and post holocaust populations. They are likely to have the same balance of variations as each other.

However, this is not the way fitness is perceived by the general public.

To the general public fitness is equivalent to inherent superiority over the dying organisms. Which in turn fuels their imagination to conclude that fitness inevitably leads to an upward climb or a refinement while the non-survivors were in some way not as desirable or were genetically inferior and were therefore pruned from the tree of life via a process called natural selection which amounts to nothing more than luck.

Well, I can't speak for the general public but that's not what it means to me and from research I believe that I’m in accordance with the scientific consensus. Natural selection is much more than just luck. Luck plays a part. It adds noise but it is just as likely to favour the fit as the unfit. Natural selection speaks to the increased probability of an adaptation being passed on inherent in its effects on the organism who carry it.

How so? Well, consider the reason why the post dinosaur organisms are tagged as fittest.
A comet strike. Comets might or might not strike at all. A slight orbital deviation due to gravitational influence of a nearby passing star or other object could very well deflect the comet and it would totally miss the earth. If indeed the comet not need strike in order to produce the fittest, then the fittest depends on luck. Essentially, they are fittest not because they survived but they are fittest because nothing interfered with the comet's trajectory. Or better yet, because the star just so happened to nudge that particular comet at just the right angle and not a smaller comet at the same angle. Or perhaps because of an oort cloud collision among commentary bodies which by chance resulted in this particular object being hurled at the right velocity and trajectory. Fiddle with any of these essential factors and the fittest would now not be the fittest. So essentially being the fittest is only good as long as chance events are in your favour. In short, it is chance which determines fitness and not fitness itself. Which leads to the logical conclusion that fitness is merely a convenient term concocted by imaginative individuals hell bent on proving that fitness is based on some inherent superiority which is inexorably expressed via their pet evolution idea.

You raise an interesting issue. Evolution is not the only player in town. For the Gorilla's a chance event trumped their evolutionary fitness. Had the situations been different their evolutionary less fit valley cousins suffered their fate instead. Were it not for the chance event of the KT extinction evolution would have taken a totally different path and who knows if intelligent life like us might have evolved. If you want to assume that outside influences held a divine plan with us at the end of it then here's a place where such a belief might fit. If you want to say that God sent the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs with the express intent that we should evolve in their place then I can find no evidence one way or the other.

And by the way the best available evidence (http://www.sdnhm.org/exhibits/mystery/fg_ktrock.html) suggests a meteorite rather than a comet. A star passing close enough to knock comets or meteoroids off course would have catastrophic effects for the rest of the solar system. Oort cloud and Kuiper belt collisions can result in comets being sent into the inner solar system and asteroid belt collisions can result in meteoroids taking on similar if smaller orbits. Either type of body may persist in such orbits for many millions of years before coming close enough to a planet to either be captured or collide.

Pedantry aside adaptations that are likely to equip an organism to survive such an event can only be considered subject to natural selection if such events are frequent enough to be expected. Otherwise we just have blind luck.

The precise combination of factors that allowed some species to survive the event, leaving others to perish is as yet unknown. We do know that the earth lost 50% of its biodiversity, not just Dinosaurs but plants, fish, birds, and mammal each to varying degrees. Again, dumb luck played its part but two things are beyond doubt. There are some factors that made it more likely that a species would survive the event. 60% of coral species died off but of the colonial species of coral inhabiting warm tropical shallows 98% were lost. This indicates fitness to survive the changed environment. However once the immediate effects of the impact were cleared the shallows were re-colonised from the surviving stock.

Also certain species were able to evolve to fill the ecological niches. Certain species are more "evolvable" than others. Short life cycle's and sexual selection would be assumed to be a boon in producing descendants that could evolve to fit the newly vacated environmental niches. You should find this confirmed. Species that survive today are more likely to have been descended from organisms which had with these characteristics 65 million years ago than from organisms that didn't. However that doesn’t necessarily mean that these characteristics will have been preserved as they evolved to fit new niches.

Anyway real life calls and I have to sign off here.

Looking forward to reading your further thoughts on the subject.

rocketdodger

9th January 2008, 12:33 PM

Well not exactly. Fitness as I have explained above is best thought of as relating to inheritable adaptations that increase the probability of survival.

I think it is important to mention two things about "fitness."

1) Fitness is relative, thats why typically it is called "relative fitness."

2) "Relative fitness" is generally, in evolutionary biology, referring to the probability that one individual will pass their genes on to future generations. Simple survivability is of course a subset of this, but the notion includes much more. Even in a population living in relative prosperity where each individual has no problems producing offspring, I.E. everyone has infinitely high survivability, the notion of fitness still applies. For whatever reason, if an individual has a higher chance of passing on their genes, that individual has more "relative fitness." That is why usually people also add the term "reproductive" to the mix, making fitness == relative reproductive fitness.

CapelDodger

9th January 2008, 05:14 PM

So you'll be happy to accept then, that electrons, protons, atoms, amino acids etc.. are also designed by a mind?

Arrowheads are made for a purpose, specific designs of arrowhead for different purposes. Humans are clever like that.

Your list is of things that weren't produced for a purpose - unless you've evidence to the contrary. I've never heard of any. Once you have electrons and quark flavours the rest (such as amino acids) simply follows.

Purpose is a very important distinction. Humans leave evidence of purposeful action - arrowheads, for instance, or Mirved ICBM's. Electrons are not evidence of purposeful action.

bokonon

9th January 2008, 09:15 PM

Harking back to the OP, I got my MP3 CD of the "debate" at Oxford. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3245599#post3245599) Arthur Wilder-Smith's position is essentially that abiogenesis is impossible because the chemistry of polymers makes it impossible for nucleotides to arise that way, along with the "DNA is a code, therefore contains information, therefore must have been created by a mind" argument. No real quarrel with the theory of evolution itself, which makes him perfect for Radrook's list.

UnrepentantSinner

9th January 2008, 10:14 PM

Unfortunately, the NoneSuch is a fictional monster created by Larry Niven.

What you do is close your eyes and think: "You are not real", and it vanishes.

...in much the same manner as the so-called scientists who work for political lobby groups, and who entertain each other by holding little confabs where their mutual self-abuse looks intelligent only to the other confabulists.

Actually there are a number of people with scientific credentials working for C/ID organizations, they've (as you noted) long given up doing science and no longer deserve the appellation "scientist." That doesn't make their training/degree go away though.

godless dave

9th January 2008, 10:21 PM

The gorillas which survived in my example were the inferior ones. The lions which procreated in the lion example were the inferior ones as well. Why did they survive? Right place right time.

So what?

And I ask again, what are the "kinds" described in Genesis?

And of what relevance is the fact that Darwin, at one time, believed in the Christian God? Lots of biologists are religious.

arthwollipot

9th January 2008, 11:51 PM

The gorillas which survived in my example were the inferior ones. The lions which procreated in the lion example were the inferior ones as well. Why did they survive? Right place right time.Clearly not. As others have been pointing out, "inferior" and "superior" in evolutionary context refer solely to the organism's ability to produce offspring that carry that organism's genes. A particular gorilla or lion may be physically weaker, or slower, or stupider, but if that's the gorilla or lion that mates and produces offspring, then that's the superior specimen.

Henners

10th January 2008, 04:11 AM

Actually there are a number of people with scientific credentials working for C/ID organizations, they've (as you noted) long given up doing science and no longer deserve the appellation "scientist." That doesn't make their training/degree go away though.

...thus outlining the difference between training and education.

ThatSoundAgain

10th January 2008, 06:38 AM

No, it would be argued to be the result of a human being. Where and when we have evidence of humans existing, we can assume their existance. Where we don't, there's no justification to assign them as the cause of anything. "Intelligent Designer" is too vague a term to deserve anything but ridicule.

Good point. Plus, I haven't seen the easiest refutation of this supposed double standard in this thread. It's two words:

Tool marks.

Get back to us, Plumjam, when you can show us the tool marks on either electrons or life as we know it. Along with an example of the tools that made said marks, and a demonstration of their application. Thank you.

UnrepentantSinner

10th January 2008, 08:51 AM

...thus outlining the difference between training and education.

Not really, since they are pretty much one in the same. Jonathan Well's didn't get seperate training and education for his PhD... the difference was his religious indoctrination and how immune to his training and education in biology it made him. On the flip side we have Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, Bob Bakker and the author of the "29 Evdiences for Evolution" essays Douglas Theobald, who despite their religious indoctrination (well maybe not Miller since he is a Catholic) accepted the realities of their training and education and either inculcated them into their beliefs or reconciled the former with the latter.

Whatever criticisms we atheists have of believers when it comes to Crevo, scientifically trained believers accept evolution because of the evidence and scientifically trained deniers reject it despite (or even in spite) of the evidence.

Cuddles

10th January 2008, 09:15 AM

A star passing close enough to knock comets or meteoroids off course would have catastrophic effects for the rest of the solar system.

I haven't looked into this recently so I could be wrong, but I thought the idea of a possible brown dwarf, or even a dwarf star, disrupting the outer Solar system was still taken seriously. Such a body would be essentially undetectable with current technology, and would be small enough that the inner Solar system with all the planets would remain undisturbed. Obvioously there isn't any direct evidence for this, but the apparent periodic nature of mass extinctions along with the fact that the majority of stars appear to be twin systems is certainly suggestive. It may have been ruled out mathematically, but if it has, I missed it.

Henners

10th January 2008, 09:19 AM

Not really, since they are pretty much one in the same. Jonathan Well's didn't get seperate training and education for his PhD... the difference was his religious indoctrination and how immune to his training and education in biology it made him. On the flip side we have Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, Bob Bakker and the author of the "29 Evdiences for Evolution" essays Douglas Theobald, who despite their religious indoctrination (well maybe not Miller since he is a Catholic) accepted the realities of their training and education and either inculcated them into their beliefs or reconciled the former with the latter.

Obviously, not outlining it as clearly as I thought.

My point was the more basic one: that one can undergo successful training and emerge utterly uneducated from the process.

Ocelot

10th January 2008, 10:12 AM

I haven't looked into this recently so I could be wrong, but I thought the idea of a possible brown dwarf, or even a dwarf star, disrupting the outer Solar system was still taken seriously. Such a body would be essentially undetectable with current technology, and would be small enough that the inner Solar system with all the planets would remain undisturbed. Obvioously there isn't any direct evidence for this, but the apparent periodic nature of mass extinctions along with the fact that the majority of stars appear to be twin systems is certainly suggestive. It may have been ruled out mathematically, but if it has, I missed it.

I'll happily defer to your greater knowledge on the subject. My thought was that a stellar sized object capable of deflecting one comet or asteroid would more than likely deflect a huge number. (And potentially some planets too) My thoughts were that such an event might be called upon to explain something like the late heavy bombardment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_heavy_bombardment) but occams razor removes it from the equation when considering a single impact.

bokonon

10th January 2008, 10:31 AM

When you think about it, don't the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud argue against the hand of an "Intelligent Designer"? Sure, maybe creatures as shortsighted as humans can dump their industrial waste into the river and forget about it, but the industrial waste doesn't subsequently rise out of the river and destroy all the circuit boards they created. Leaving all that litter lying around a lovingly designed solar system, just asking to be perturbed into a mass extinction event, doesn't seem like the best plan. Especially if, being an omnipotent spirit who just poofed it all into existence, you could just poof it back out again when you realized you didn't need it. Divine recycling!

If we're going to have to answer every "argument from incredulity" the flagella-waving hairy eyeball people toss at us, might as well keep a couple of "arguments from bad design" in the back pocket to toss back.

skepHick

10th January 2008, 12:51 PM

When you think about it, don't the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud argue against the hand of an "Intelligent Designer"? Sure, maybe creatures as shortsighted as humans can dump their industrial waste into the river and forget about it, but the industrial waste doesn't subsequently rise out of the river and destroy all the circuit boards they created. Leaving all that litter lying around a lovingly designed solar system, just asking to be perturbed into a mass extinction event, doesn't seem like the best plan. Especially if, being an omnipotent spirit who just poofed it all into existence, you could just poof it back out again when you realized you didn't need it. Divine recycling!

Well, perhaps the Designer wants to keep a handy supply of ammo for the next time he feels like smiting his creations on Earth. I bet that the whole flood and ark thing was a logistical nightmare.

bokonon

10th January 2008, 02:40 PM

I might suggest that an omnipotent creator could poof his flawed creations out of existence as easily as he could dispose of unwanted space trash. While destruction due to asteroids, comets, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. might be morally neutral if one is dealing with a mindless universe, if one proposes that such events happen "by design," it's hard to avoid concluding that any all-powerful designer who would deliberately inflict them on the weak and sentient is cruel and sadistic.

arthwollipot

10th January 2008, 08:11 PM

I might suggest that an omnipotent creator could poof his flawed creations out of existence as easily as he could dispose of unwanted space trash.But instead he seems to require all that stuff with angels and seals and trumpets and whores riding seven-headed beasts.

Anyone else find that odd?

Prometheus

10th January 2008, 08:19 PM

But instead he seems to require all that stuff with angels and seals and trumpets and whores riding seven-headed beasts.

Anyone else find that odd?

Actually, it sounds kind of like a frat party I went to once.... :cool:

Hawk one

10th January 2008, 08:25 PM

Actually, it sounds kind of like a frat party I went to once.... :cool:

So God is a college freshman?

That explains a lot...

articulett

10th January 2008, 08:59 PM

In response to Radrook's strawman about Darwin being a creationist... I will point out that Behe, a known creationist, accepts common descent--though when the facts are staring you in the face like the chromosome 2 fusion, it's hard to deny. Moreover, most religious people do not have a problem with evolution--just the fundies seem to have a hard time wrapping their head around the concept... their minds seem to be stuck about 2000 years ago... they haven't kept up with Darwin's 19th century discoveries, much less the overwhelming and ever continuing stream of data coming in which support Darwins theory in stunning and overwhelming detail. They don't seem interested in these new discoveries... they are too busy trying to pretend god "magicked" humanity into existence.

flume

10th January 2008, 09:37 PM

Foster Zygote

10th January 2008, 09:55 PM

So God is a college freshman?

That explains a lot...

Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just God when he's drunk.

Tom Waits, Heart-attack and Vine.

UnrepentantSinner

10th January 2008, 10:42 PM

Obviously, not outlining it as clearly as I thought.

My point was the more basic one: that one can undergo successful training and emerge utterly uneducated from the process.

Ah, we were talking past each other. I think that we're on the same page that Creationists are so blinded by their religion that they can persue a PhD but come away from it completely cognitively disonnant.

Henners

11th January 2008, 12:17 AM

Perhaps it is unfair to describe them as being "blinded by their religion", when the truth is that they are lying about reality.

Their puerile ICR papers are like an exercise in nonsense for anyone who has passed the same exams as they have, but are clearly designed to fool more innocent souls.

There's a name for that.

Prometheus

11th January 2008, 01:09 AM

(bold added)

Perhaps it is unfair to describe them as being "blinded by their religion", when the truth is that they are lying about reality.

Their puerile ICR papers are like an exercise in nonsense for anyone who has passed the same exams as they have, but are clearly designed to fool more innocent souls.

There's a name for that.

FOX News?

Henners

11th January 2008, 09:49 AM

No idea.

I don't subscribe to it. I have heard of it, but didn't realise it was spelled like that.

Did you know (an aside) that the late great playwright Dennis Potter, who died of cancer, name his tumor "Rupert" in honour of the great man?

That's good enough for me.

Radrook

11th January 2008, 12:34 PM

Though I remain unconvinced,
Thanks to all who have decently replied.

joobz

11th January 2008, 12:58 PM

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T. N. Tahmisian Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes by N.J. Mitchell (United Kingdom: Roydon Publications, 1983), title page.
Why don't you take the full quote, as mined and posted in a creationist page
http://www.creationism.org/articles/quotes.htm

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page.
So, what are we supposed to learn from this?

That a guy working at the Atomic energy commission 48 years ago said that evolution wasn't real?

You understand that the last 40 years of biology have only confirmed evolution, and your willingness to quote something erroneous from half a century before is one of the most dishonest and disreputable things you've done.

ETA: I see you have changed the post.

Please realize that you being unconvinced is simply a nice way of saying that you are willing to reject truth if it suites your needs.

bokonon

11th January 2008, 02:59 PM

Please realize that you being unconvinced is simply a nice way of saying that you are willing to reject truth if it suites your needs.
Well, we've known for some time that Radrook wasn't going to be convinced, but this withdrawal seems to me to be an admission that the evidence he's been confronted with is persuasive, and that his creationist websites don't offer a convincing rebuttal for it. That's more than I thought we'd get. Between that, and learning that there ARE actually lurkers reading some of these threads, I think it may have been a worthwhile exercise.

Foster Zygote

11th January 2008, 03:02 PM

ETA: I see you have changed the post.

Indeed, little doubt due to your exposition. Good catch.

joobz

11th January 2008, 03:25 PM

Indeed, little doubt due to your exposition. Good catch.
No, He changed the text between the time I was writing and the time I posted. You can see that by the time stamps.

I was debating on simply deleting the whole text, but decided to leave it "for the record" and simply post an addendum.

His retraction is respectable and I apologize for my statement that that was the most dishonest thing he's done.

CapelDodger

11th January 2008, 05:45 PM

When God made the cat 'kind' and the dog 'kind', God apparently decided that cats being obligate carnivores would not need to be attracted by the taste of sugar. So he did not give them a receptor for sweet taste. He did give the opportunistic carnivorous dog 'kind' a taste for sugar. But in one of those decisions inexplicable to mere mortals he decided that the cat 'kind' needed a broken pseudogene of the sugar receptor stuck in their DNA.

http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010003&ct=1

And what's more, an active gene producing a partner with nobody to dance with. Doesn't look intelligent from where I'm standing, unless that gene-product serves another purpose ( as yet undetermined). But that would bring into question the irreducible complexity of the sugar-receptor dimer ...

It's all very complicated, isn't it :)?

Married2aWooster

11th January 2008, 06:29 PM

Why don't you take the full quote, as mined and posted in a creationist page
http://www.creationism.org/articles/quotes.htm

So, what are we supposed to learn from this?

That a guy working at the Atomic energy commission 48 years ago said that evolution wasn't real?
...{snip}

For what it's worth:
Years ago, I worked at a major site run by the U.S. Dept. of Energy (todays incarnation of the AEC). Many PhD's and scientists were employed there. As a coincidence of geography, a significant proportion of the employees & bordering population were members of the Latter Day Saints church. Assuming my experience is representative, should anyone ever want to formally study this scientist-woo hybrid phenomenon, that still-in-operation D.O.E. site would be a fertile pasture.

Foster Zygote

11th January 2008, 07:19 PM

No, He changed the text between the time I was writing and the time I posted. You can see that by the time stamps.

I was debating on simply deleting the whole text, but decided to leave it "for the record" and simply post an addendum.

His retraction is respectable and I apologize for my statement that that was the most dishonest thing he's done.

Ah yes, I stand corrected.

articulett

11th January 2008, 07:25 PM

For what it's worth:
Years ago, I worked at a major site run by the U.S. Dept. of Energy (todays incarnation of the AEC). Many PhD's and scientists were employed there. As a coincidence of geography, a significant proportion of the employees & bordering population were members of the Latter Day Saints church. Assuming my experience is representative, should anyone ever want to formally study this scientist-woo hybrid phenomenon, that still-in-operation D.O.E. site would be a fertile pasture.

Yes, I've always wondered about this hybrid. Mormons encourage education... They are also very good for genetic studies because they have large families and keep extensive family trees... but their religion is very dodgy when it comes to religion... not just creationism-- that whole Indians were Jews thing--

When a woo believes in a text-- no evidence is needed to swallow it as "the truth"-- and no amount of science or opposing evidence is enough to get them to see the other side. I think this is just because they have been inculcated (as most of us are) to believe that faith and feelings are actual methods of finding truth.

Most Cosmologists are Atheists, I read today.http://richarddawkins.net/article,2122,Why-Almost-All-Cosmologists-are-Atheists,Sean-Carroll Science just offers so much more-- and it works. I know a lot of Mormons and I'm interested in the coming years, the internet, and the schisms created as faith runs in head on conflict with the facts. It's weird because they are offended if you ask, would you rather know the truth even if you meant finding out you were wrong-- because in their head, they "know the truth", and they "know" they can NOT be wrong. And I think that is true of every woo.

Prometheus

11th January 2008, 07:50 PM

Well, we've known for some time that Radrook wasn't going to be convinced, but this withdrawal seems to me to be an admission that the evidence he's been confronted with is persuasive, and that his creationist websites don't offer a convincing rebuttal for it. That's more than I thought we'd get. Between that, and learning that there ARE actually lurkers reading some of these threads, I think it may have been a worthwhile exercise.

I can say without reservation, that this entire thread has been a worthwhile exercise for me. I learned a lot from all the scientists here, even though I was already aware of the truth of evolution, I had no idea how much has been learned since I left school. I also learned a lot about how those who deny evolution think, how to talk to them, and what misapprehensions they labor under. This is of immeasurable value to me because many of the people whom I love dearly fall into this category.

I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed here.

Achán hiNidráne

11th January 2008, 09:15 PM

Thanks to all who have decently replied.

By "decently replied" you mean everyone who didn't point out that you were a lying sack of supersticious woo?

Good riddance and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, Christer.

please remember your membership and try to remain civil and polite, this post was neither

Foster Zygote

11th January 2008, 10:19 PM

I also learned a lot about how those who deny evolution think, how to talk to them, and what misapprehensions they labor under.

Sometimes it seems to me as though there are a small handful of archetypes that the self-deluding are sourced from. I see the same logical fallacies and cognitive dissonance repeated in an almost literary, thematic manner. It's, as you said, really a fascinating insight into the workings of certain psychologies.

Prometheus

12th January 2008, 12:15 AM

Sometimes it seems to me as though there are a small handful of archetypes that the self-deluding are sourced from. I see the same logical fallacies and cognitive dissonance repeated in an almost literary, thematic manner. It's, as you said, really a fascinating insight into the workings of certain psychologies.

Which archetype do you think is the most fascinating?

joobz

12th January 2008, 01:00 AM

Which archetype do you think is the most fascinating?
The Flying Buttress

m_huber

12th January 2008, 01:08 AM

I suppose the real question is, how do we change the perceptions? Or, is it possible to take someone from being a CDesign Proponentist to being a reasonable scientist?

For me, it took two years of boarding school where I was exposed to evolutionary thought, then another two years of college where I was totally immersed in a geology program that required understanding of evolution in order to be functional. If I had been in a situation with less exposure, or if I had been an English major (nor offense, English majors), I might still be a creationist. It makes sense to a philosopher or mathematician.

But when someone is totally convinced that their idea is right, absolutely right, how can someone else change that person's mind? Different approaches to the world result in different conclusions about the world: a true Rationalist doesn't even accept any empirical evidence as being valid.

So, gentlemen like Radrook (I assume male) have worldviews that don't permit the idea that we might have evolved. As the old adage goes, if the right answer is not permitted, any alternate answer is acceptable. So if we didn't evolve, any old substitute will do.

Henners

12th January 2008, 02:31 AM

...I remain unconvinced...

I see no ships.

Foster Zygote

12th January 2008, 08:42 AM

Which archetype do you think is the most fascinating?

That's a good question. I hadn't actually even gone so far as to label them. But after being here about a year and a half I've seen a number of people with very familiar behaviors. I've seen a couple of the classics too. Lifegazer and DavidJayJordan both come to mind. And I don't even spend much time on the CT sub-forum so there are lots of train wrecks there that I haven't witnessed or only saw in part, but I see those same familiar patterns of debate and justification/apologetics in Apollo hoax CTers and orbital particle death-beam "experts", as I do in young Earth creationists and self-styled prophets. Let's see, then there's the "free energy machine" guy...

I'll be a bit busy today but I think that this would make for a very interesting discussion in its own thread (that will probably burst into flames by post 20). Meanwhile I'll be thinking about it and taking mental notes.

Foster Zygote

12th January 2008, 08:44 AM

The Flying Buttress

My brother-in-law had a calender with drawings of outhouses as designed by famous architects. It gave me a laugh.

joobz

12th January 2008, 09:10 AM

My brother-in-law had a calender with drawings of outhouses as designed by famous architects. It gave me a laugh.
That's funny.

I am not certain if the flying buttress is a true arch. But since it has Butt in the name, It has an inherently higher humor value (at least 2-3 ISHUs*) than had I answered parabolic.

So really, I sacrificed accuracy for the inclusion of implied potty humor.

*International Standard Humor Unit, where 1 ISHU equals the number of Gaffaws generated by a pretty woman farting in an elevator. This standard helps normalize against cultural variations.

Achán hiNidráne

12th January 2008, 11:36 AM

I nominate Mark A. Siefert for the following post:
By "decently replied" you mean everyone who didn't point out that you were a lying sack of supersticious woo?

Good riddance and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, Christer.

please remember your membership and try to remain civil and polite, this post was neither

Oh, boo hoo! :mad:

Honestly, why the hell should we be "civil" and "polite" to the scum who are trying to destroy civilization?

Yet again. Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.

bokonon

12th January 2008, 11:40 AM

International Standard Humor Unit, where 1 ISHU equals the number of Gaffaws generated by a pretty woman farting in an elevator. This standard helps normalize against cultural variations.
If a woman farts in a burka, and nobody sees her, does she make you laugh?

brodski

12th January 2008, 11:47 AM

Honestly, why the hell should we be "civil" and "polite"

because it is a part of the membership agreement which you must follow whilst you post here.
Forum management issues should be posted in the correct forum.

Achán hiNidráne

12th January 2008, 12:24 PM

because it is a part of the membership agreement which you must follow whilst you post here.

Yes, I'm well aware of the membership agreement and the rules that seek to render everyone toothless and/or spineless for the sake of political correctness.

I'll shut up for now and attempt to cool down before posting again. In the future, I'll try to spout the drab, emotionless, milquetoast, baby-talk that everyone seems to want to hear when faced with the unspeakable stupidity from the in the woos who want to drag our society back the the Dark Ages instead of the verbal beating they so richly deserve.

I'll try to be "polite and civil," but I sure as hell won't like it.

Foster Zygote

12th January 2008, 08:43 PM

That's funny.

I am not certain if the flying buttress is a true arch. But since it has Butt in the name, It has an inherently higher humor value (at least 2-3 ISHUs*) than had I answered parabolic.

So really, I sacrificed accuracy for the inclusion of implied potty humor.

*International Standard Humor Unit, where 1 ISHU equals the number of Gaffaws generated by a pretty woman farting in an elevator. This standard helps normalize against cultural variations.

Huh-huh-huh! He said "butt-dress".

Ocelot

14th January 2008, 03:23 AM

I nominate Mark A. Siefert for the following post:

Oh, boo hoo! :mad:

Honestly, why the hell should we be "civil" and "polite" to the scum who are trying to destroy civilization?

Because it works better, some may be actively engaged in deceit and others may merely be unwitting vectors for the lies. The latter may be converted by patient explanation of the evidence. The former will be empowered by aggressive responses.

bokonon

14th January 2008, 12:54 PM

Because [...] some may be actively engaged in deceit and others may merely be unwitting vectors for the lies. The latter may be converted by patient explanation of the evidence.
Morton's Demon (http://www.answersincreation.org/mortond.htm)

This may be well known among those who've been engaged in YEC discussions longer than I have, but it was unknown by me until today.

From a former YEC who now believes in evolution:

Morton's demon makes it possible for a person to have his own set of private facts which others are not privy to, allowing the YEC to construct a theory which is perfectly supported by the facts which the demon lets through the gate. And since these are the only facts known to the victim, he feels in his heart that he has explained everything.

It seems that this perfectly describes our friend Radrook, who uses the "ignore" function to implement the demon's gate for him.

Even though, in general, YECs will not visit the sites which detail the evidence that refutes their YEC misconceptions, it's important to keep putting it out there. As Glenn Morton demonstrates, sometimes the evidence sneaks past even the most vigilant demon.

articulett

14th January 2008, 04:18 PM

Yes, I'm well aware of the membership agreement and the rules that seek to render everyone toothless and/or spineless for the sake of political correctness.

I'll shut up for now and attempt to cool down before posting again. In the future, I'll try to spout the drab, emotionless, milquetoast, baby-talk that everyone seems to want to hear when faced with the unspeakable stupidity from the in the woos who want to drag our society back the the Dark Ages instead of the verbal beating they so richly deserve.

I'll try to be "polite and civil," but I sure as hell won't like it.

I try not to start it and not to escalate it beyond the progenitor of the insults... but I'm not always successful... so then I use the ignore button. I can't help it-- I get so peeved at the ignorance and arrogance displayed by the woo crowd and the way they never thank those who are carefully giving them tailor-made detailed bonifide fantastic state-of-the-art scientifically verifiable true information in a civil manner for free upon request --only to be spat upon.

I'm prejudice against woos... at least the ones that preach on a skeptics forum. Do they ever ever ever say anything of value? I think this forum has some brilliant and funny trustworthy people with a thousand times more to offer than any woo-- but the woo prattle on and on and flatter themselves and remind me how repulsive faith can make a person. And how entitled and insincere such people can behave. And it so seldom changes. Look at Kleinman. Toe er I mean, Plumjam. Iamme. Tai. They are always so sure they have something to teach and nothing to learn.

My sig study is correct-- the stupidest people always seem to imagine themselves the smartest... the arrogant ones imagine themselves humble-- the social incompetents imagine themselves diplomats... and the rest of us wonder if the failure at communication is due to us. The woo never wonder if it's them. Anosognosia. Arrogance coupled with ignorance.

In any case... I feel your pain. Try talking over their heads. They're woo, after all-- and they can't perceive that which negates their woo. They don't read much anyhow... and so long as you are attacking their "argument" (do they ever really have one) and not the arguer... If you can't converse with them, you can always talk about them... use them for entertainment value... support those who are stuck in the miasma with them... or put them on ignore. You should see how brilliant the forum looks when you put a few choice tards on "ignore". I encourage them to do the same to me.

kleinman

14th January 2008, 05:07 PM

I'm prejudice against woos... at least the ones that preach on a skeptics forum. Do they ever ever ever say anything of value? I think this forum has some brilliant and funny trustworthy people with a thousand times more to offer than any woo-- but the woo prattle on and on and flatter themselves and remind me how repulsive faith can make a person. And how entitled and insincere such people can behave. And it so seldom changes. Look at Kleinman. Toe er I mean, Plumjam. Iamme. Tai. They are always so sure they have something to teach and nothing to learn.
When are you going to post some of your arti-culett-facts on the Annoying Creationist thread? Or is the only thing you have to offer is mothering naïve laymen on the thread? I’ll show you how to do the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and show you how much of your irrational and illogical theory of evolution is silly superstition and why your irrational and illogical interpretation of this process contributes to the premature death of millions of people with diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. Next time, don’t attend Mathishard University. You might have become a scientist.

m_huber

15th January 2008, 02:17 AM

I try not to start it and not to escalate it beyond the progenitor of the insults... but I'm not always successful... so then I use the ignore button. I can't help it-- I get so peeved at the ignorance and arrogance displayed by the woo crowd and the way they never thank those who are carefully giving them tailor-made detailed bonifide fantastic state-of-the-art scientifically verifiable true information in a civil manner for free upon request --only to be spat upon.

I'm prejudice against woos... at least the ones that preach on a skeptics forum. Do they ever ever ever say anything of value? I think this forum has some brilliant and funny trustworthy people with a thousand times more to offer than any woo-- but the woo prattle on and on and flatter themselves and remind me how repulsive faith can make a person. And how entitled and insincere such people can behave. And it so seldom changes. Look at Kleinman. Toe er I mean, Plumjam. Iamme. Tai. They are always so sure they have something to teach and nothing to learn.

My sig study is correct-- the stupidest people always seem to imagine themselves the smartest... the arrogant ones imagine themselves humble-- the social incompetents imagine themselves diplomats... and the rest of us wonder if the failure at communication is due to us. The woo never wonder if it's them. Anosognosia. Arrogance coupled with ignorance.

In any case... I feel your pain. Try talking over their heads. They're woo, after all-- and they can't perceive that which negates their woo. They don't read much anyhow... and so long as you are attacking their "argument" (do they ever really have one) and not the arguer... If you can't converse with them, you can always talk about them... use them for entertainment value... support those who are stuck in the miasma with them... or put them on ignore. You should see how brilliant the forum looks when you put a few choice tards on "ignore". I encourage them to do the same to me.

When are you going to post some of your arti-culett-facts on the Annoying Creationist thread? Or is the only thing you have to offer is mothering naïve laymen on the thread? I’ll show you how to do the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and show you how much of your irrational and illogical theory of evolution is silly superstition and why your irrational and illogical interpretation of this process contributes to the premature death of millions of people with diseases subject to the principles of mutation and selection. Next time, don’t attend Mathishard University. You might have become a scientist.

Isn't this funny?

"Woos come here and offer nothing but arrogance and ignorance."

"Oh yeah, well you're not a good scientist!"

Otherwise, I can't make sense of Kleinman's post. But then, that's the point, isn't it?

Stitch

15th January 2008, 03:22 AM

articulett

15th January 2008, 07:28 AM

Isn't this funny?

"Woos come here and offer nothing but arrogance and ignorance."

"Oh yeah, well you're not a good scientist!"

Otherwise, I can't make sense of Kleinman's post. But then, that's the point, isn't it?

To me, Kleinman is the prototype creationist woo. T'ai is pretty good too. But they all sound the same after a while. They don't seem to understand each other, and I get lost in the woo miasma... but they also seem to be winning points in a game that seems to only exist in their head. It's as if they can keep themselves from understanding the robustness of the evolution, they win the golden ticket to happily ever after land.

If only they were as likable and comprehensible as they imagine themselves to be. Or, if only they would speak with each other so we could enjoy the parallel conversations. But I guess they all think they are much smarter than the other woos in addition to thinking they are smarter than all the other people on this forum and scientists in general.

billydkid

15th January 2008, 08:09 AM

Wow, lots of responses. I will add my tiresome 2 cents which I have added numerous times before. I would like someone to ask what type of mechanism could possibly prevent the development of new species over a vast expanse of time. To me we always come at this backward. In my mind - if you discount evolution - you have to come up with some rational explanation of how evolution could possibly be prevented over many hundreds of millions of years? How on earth could you possibly maintain the integrity of a genetic pool over such a huge amount of time? The real question is - how is it plausible that evolution would not happen? It's absurd. I'm not addressing religious people who oppose evolution since reason does not enter in. I would be talking to supposedly rational and scientific people who doubt evolution. I guess crocodilians have stayed pretty much the same for a long time and I don't know if any species very different from them evolved from them, but you can easily trace their non-crocodile ancestors.

Kotatsu

15th January 2008, 08:42 AM

I would like someone to ask what type of mechanism could possibly prevent the development of new species over a vast expanse of time.

I know this isn't really what you were after, but Kleinman has elegantly showed that extinction is such a mechanism...

Well, maybe "elegantly" isn't the correct word, really. "Inadvertently" is perhaps a better word.

Prometheus

15th January 2008, 09:07 AM

....I would like someone to ask what type of mechanism could possibly prevent the development of new species over a vast expanse of time.....

Celibacy.

kleinman

15th January 2008, 10:13 AM

Otherwise, I can't make sense of Kleinman's post. But then, that's the point, isn't it?If only they were as likable and comprehensible as they imagine themselves to be.
Of course you mathematically incompetent evolutionists don’t comprehend what I’m saying. If you did understand the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, you wouldn’t be making such irrational and illogical speculations about what this process can and does do. Of course, what can you expect when you evolutionists give a sigh of relief when you barely pass the last mathematics course you ever have to take and then are free to make up what ever story you want about how mutation and selection works.

Ocelot

15th January 2008, 10:31 AM

Shalamar

15th January 2008, 10:38 AM

Hi K,

I'm not afraid of a bit of maths, care to point me in the direction of your argument...

If you want to bang your head against a wall..

Visit the 'Annoying Creationist' topic. Kleinman is the annoying creationist. His claim is that Evolution is mathematically impossible. He claims it is irrational, and illogical, and has submitted no math. At all. None. Zip. Zilch. If people ask for the math, he points people to look at the code, and math behind an evolution simulator called 'ev', which doesn't simulate what he claims it does.

kleinman

15th January 2008, 10:47 AM

Of course you mathematically incompetent evolutionists don’t comprehend what I’m saying. If you did understand the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process, you wouldn’t be making such irrational and illogical speculations about what this process can and does do. Of course, what can you expect when you evolutionists give a sigh of relief when you barely pass the last mathematics course you ever have to take and then are free to make up what ever story you want about how mutation and selection works.Hi K,

I'm not afraid of a bit of maths, care to point me in the direction of your argument...
Glad to oblige you. Take a look at the Annoying Creationist thread; I’m going through the mathematics—again right now. You don’t have to read all 190+ pages of the thread, you can check out the last couple of days worth of posts. I’m showing how Dr Tom Schneider’s peer reviewed a published simulation of random point mutations and natural selection shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. Much of the rest of the thread shows citations of real empirical examples of mutation and selection which substantiates the results of Dr Schneider’s computer model.

kleinman

15th January 2008, 10:55 AM

kleinman

15th January 2008, 10:56 AM

joobz

15th January 2008, 10:57 AM

Hi K,

I'm not afraid of a bit of maths, care to point me in the direction of your argument...
Ah, don't even bother. His argument is dumb and logically flawed. It will take you all but two minutes to see through his games.

People have stopped paying attention to his thread, so Kleinman's simply posting hear in an attempt to get people to visit his annoying creationist thread. Sadly, it seems all he wants is attention.

kleinman

15th January 2008, 11:04 AM

Ah, don't even bother. His argument is dumb and logically flawed. It will take you all but two minutes to see through his games.
Now joobz logic is that chemicals cooperate to generate life by abiogenesis and the weather evolves Wookies.

Now when the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process shows that combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process and hundreds of real examples of mutation and selection substantiates this finding, joobz has trouble with this logic.

Shalamar

15th January 2008, 11:11 AM

Remember Folks, According to Kleinman:

Wookies are Real
Weather does not exist
Slow=stop
All selection pressures are known
All selection pressures are constant
All selection pressures are of equal strength

There's more, but you get the idea. Just ignore him. He'll go away.

billydkid

15th January 2008, 11:13 AM

If you want to bang your head against a wall..

Visit the 'Annoying Creationist' topic. Kleinman is the annoying creationist. His claim is that Evolution is mathematically impossible. He claims it is irrational, and illogical, and has submitted no math. At all. None. Zip. Zilch. If people ask for the math, he points people to look at the code, and math behind an evolution simulator called 'ev', which doesn't simulate what he claims it does.
Yes, evolution is mathmatically impossible, but it's entirely reasonable to suppose a Fairy God Father created man out of mud and went on to create the hundreds of millions of other species living and extinct out of the same materials. It amazes me that people attempt to use reason to debunk science and offer as a plausible alternative a magical, omnipotent creator.

m_huber

15th January 2008, 11:21 AM

kleinman

15th January 2008, 11:24 AM

Visit the 'Annoying Creationist' topic. Kleinman is the annoying creationist. His claim is that Evolution is mathematically impossible. He claims it is irrational, and illogical, and has submitted no math. At all. None. Zip. Zilch. If people ask for the math, he points people to look at the code, and math behind an evolution simulator called 'ev', which doesn't simulate what he claims it does.Yes, evolution is mathmatically impossible, but it's entirely reasonable to suppose a Fairy God Father created man out of mud and went on to create the hundreds of millions of other species living and extinct out of the same materials. It amazes me that people attempt to use reason to debunk science and offer as a plausible alternative a magical, omnipotent creator.
It is you mathematically incompetent evolutionists who claim your theory is “science”. Why does the mathematical and empirical data of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process contradict your irrational and illogical “scientific” theory? You evolutionists have managed to gain control of the field of biology and your contribution is an idiotic explanation of how mutation and selection works. The net result of this irrationality is that it contributes to the premature death of millions of people with diseases subject to the mutation and selection phenomenon.

Mister Earl

15th January 2008, 11:29 AM

Again with the math. I've asked Kleinman, along with probably ten others, for him to post his math saying that evolution isn't possible. He still hasn't. That tells me everything I need to know.

Mister Earl

15th January 2008, 11:38 AM

Ashles

15th January 2008, 11:42 AM

Even if you get the maths requested (which doesn't seem likely) it is worth bearing in mind the bumble bee example in my sig.

When maths 'proves' something different to what we observe in reality, your assumptions or models are incorrect.

kleinman

15th January 2008, 11:42 AM

Again with the math. I've asked Kleinman, along with probably ten others, for him to post his math saying that evolution isn't possible. He still hasn't. That tells me everything I need to know.
I’m doing a step by step description of the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process right now on the Annoying Creationists thread right now. I’m making it simple enough that even a naïve layman like Shalamar should understand it, assuming that Shalamar took and passed Algebra 1.

Don’t let this stop you evolutionist experts on this forum from giving a better description of the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. I’d particularly like to see some empirical examples of your non-existent mathematics.

Shalamar

15th January 2008, 11:46 AM

Oh yes. Let us not forget that Kleinman loves.. and I do mean LOVES to insult people who don't hold to his magical world views. After all, we're all evil evolutionist murderers.

Mister Earl

15th January 2008, 11:47 AM

Evolution is the currently accepted scientific model. If you are stating otherwise, the burden of proof is on you. You've been here longer than I have, Kleinman, so you should know this better than I do.

But I'll give you the benefit of a doubt. I eagerly await your proof.

#EDIT: Once you are done with that, I'd also like some documentation showing that belief in evolution is responsible for millions of deaths. If you cannot furnish proof, would you be willing to retract that statement?

m_huber

15th January 2008, 11:49 AM

You evolutionists have managed to gain control of the field of biology and your contribution is an idiotic explanation of how mutation and selection works. The net result of this irrationality is that it contributes to the premature death of millions of people with diseases subject to the mutation and selection phenomenon.

1) This is funny.
2) How exactly does irrational notion of mutation lead to anyone's death?

It seems pretty clear that Kleinman is either looking for a fight or looking for new material for a best-selling science joke book.

And I thought Radrook was amusing..

m_huber

15th January 2008, 11:51 AM

I’d particularly like to see some empirical examples of your non-existent mathematics.

What exactly is an empirical example of mathematics? I was under the impression that numbers have no physical form..

kleinman

15th January 2008, 12:17 PM

Oh yes. Let us not forget that Kleinman loves.. and I do mean LOVES to insult people who don't hold to his magical world views. After all, we're all evil evolutionist murderers.
Don’t forget you are also mathematically incompetent whining crybabies.
Evolution is the currently accepted scientific model. If you are stating otherwise, the burden of proof is on you. You've been here longer than I have, Kleinman, so you should know this better than I do.
The theory of evolution is only accepted by mathematically incompetent evolutionists and naïve laymen. I’m laying out the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process right now on the Annoying Creationist thread. I have already posted hundreds of real examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works, now I’ll hold your hand and show you how the mathematics works.
2) How exactly does irrational notion of mutation lead to anyone's death?
Edward Tatum in his 1958 Nobel Laureate speech laid out exactly how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process empirically. If this empirical fact of life had been acknowledged and taught by evolutionists then 30 years later when HIV appeared on the scene, it wouldn’t have taken David Ho (Time Magazine Man of the Year 1995), 5 years to relearn this fact of life and that combination therapy was required to treat HIV. The net result of this bungled evolutionist teaching of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works had led to the introduction of huge numbers of resistant HIV viruses into the viral gene pool. This is the evolutionist contribution to science.
I’d particularly like to see some empirical examples of your non-existent mathematics.What exactly is an empirical example of mathematics? I was under the impression that numbers have no physical form..
I see that I have my work cut out in teaching another mathematically incompetent evolutionist how computer simulations of real systems work and are used to understand reality. You evolutionists really need to leave the 19th century and enter the 21st century.

Attack the argument not the arguer, and try to remain civil and polite

joobz

15th January 2008, 12:22 PM

When maths 'proves' something different to what we observe in reality, your assumptions or models are incorrect.
Quoted for truth. Nicely said.

m_huber

15th January 2008, 12:26 PM

Edward Tatum in his 1958 Nobel Laureate speech laid out exactly how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process empirically. If this empirical fact of life had been acknowledged and taught by evolutionists then 30 years later when HIV appeared on the scene, it wouldn’t have taken David Ho (Time Magazine Man of the Year 1995), 5 years to relearn this fact of life and that combination therapy was required to treat HIV. The net result of this bungled evolutionist teaching of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works had led to the introduction of huge numbers of resistant HIV viruses into the viral gene pool. This is the evolutionist contribution to science.
So, let me get this straight: you think that because 'evolutionists' didn't recognize mutation, HIV spread? You don't think it might be because it is a sexually transmitted disease that rapidly spreads and takes various forms that are difficult to produce universal antibodies to? Or perhaps because it was already widespread before mainstream science was concerned with the problem?

Ok. Whatever you say.

I see that I have my work cut out in teaching another mathematically incompetent evolutionist how computer simulations of real systems work and are used to understand reality. You evolutionists really need to leave the 19th century and enter the 21st century.

Wait. Computer simulations are empirical evidence now?! And here I thought observable reality was the thing science was based on. Guess I'll just have to go burn my degree and get another one. No, I'll just write a program to simulate getting a degree. Then it will be more real. That way it can go on my resume.

Prometheus

15th January 2008, 12:37 PM

...and I thought this thread would be boring without Radrook! :popcorn1

kleinman

15th January 2008, 12:46 PM

When maths 'proves' something different to what we observe in reality, your assumptions or models are incorrect.Quoted for truth. Nicely said.
Ashles, Dr Schneider, head of computational molecular biology has written a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection and his model agree with what is observed in the reality of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and shows why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. Now here’s joobz’s idea of the truth:
Envision a system of millions of forming and destructive chemical reactions. Now, envision that intermediates of there reactions associate through non-covalent means and that this complex becomes protected against the destructive reactive pathway, perhaps by a reversible precipitation. These new complexes result in a localized increased of new chemical species. These chemical species then progress in a new series of reaction... that is what I mean through cooperative means. I acknowledge this is complete speculation, but well within the range of chemical possibility. As long as there was enough free energy for these reaction to occur.
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Joobz, if the sun shines on lead long enough does it turn into gold?
Edward Tatum in his 1958 Nobel Laureate speech laid out exactly how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process empirically. If this empirical fact of life had been acknowledged and taught by evolutionists then 30 years later when HIV appeared on the scene, it wouldn’t have taken David Ho (Time Magazine Man of the Year 1995), 5 years to relearn this fact of life and that combination therapy was required to treat HIV. The net result of this bungled evolutionist teaching of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works had led to the introduction of huge numbers of resistant HIV viruses into the viral gene pool. This is the evolutionist contribution to science.So, let me get this straight: you think that because 'evolutionists' didn't recognize mutation, HIV spread? You don't think it might be because it is a sexually transmitted disease that rapidly spreads and takes various forms that are difficult to produce universal antibodies to? Or perhaps because it was already widespread before mainstream science was concerned with the problem?
No m_huber, what evolutionists have to relearn over and over is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. A population can only quickly adapt to a single selection pressure targeted at a single gene by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. As soon as a second selection pressures is applied to a population, this sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed. Despite this, evolutionists claim that this is the process which transforms reptiles into birds. This is a joobzian magnitude irrational and illogical speculation. The mathematics and empirical evidence of how mutation and selection works does not support this irrationality.
I see that I have my work cut out in teaching another mathematically incompetent evolutionist how computer simulations of real systems work and are used to understand reality. You evolutionists really need to leave the 19th century and enter the 21st century.Wait. Computer simulations are empirical evidence now?! And here I thought observable reality was the thing science was based on. Guess I'll just have to go burn my degree and get another one. No, I'll just write a program to simulate getting a degree. Then it will be more real. That way it can go on my resume.
Not at all m_huber, empirical evidence is the measured data in real systems which substantiates what a computer simulation shows and I have posted hundreds of examples of empirical evidence which substantiates what Dr Schneider’s mathematics shows and what it shows is that the theory of evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is mathematically impossible. Anything more than a single selection pressure targeting a single gene profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. This is why combination therapy works with HIV, TB, Malaria, cancer,… and why monotherapy has led to MRSA, multi-drug resistant gonorrhea, multi-herbicide resistant weeds…

Mister Earl

15th January 2008, 01:05 PM

Don’t forget you are also mathematically incompetent whining crybabies.

The theory of evolution is only accepted by mathematically incompetent evolutionists and naïve laymen. I’m laying out the mathematics of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process right now on the Annoying Creationist thread. I have already posted hundreds of real examples of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works, now I’ll hold your hand and show you how the mathematics works.

Edward Tatum in his 1958 Nobel Laureate speech laid out exactly how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process empirically. If this empirical fact of life had been acknowledged and taught by evolutionists then 30 years later when HIV appeared on the scene, it wouldn’t have taken David Ho (Time Magazine Man of the Year 1995), 5 years to relearn this fact of life and that combination therapy was required to treat HIV. The net result of this bungled evolutionist teaching of how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works had led to the introduction of huge numbers of resistant HIV viruses into the viral gene pool. This is the evolutionist contribution to science.

I see that I have my work cut out in teaching another mathematically incompetent evolutionist how computer simulations of real systems work and are used to understand reality. You evolutionists really need to leave the 19th century and enter the 21st century.

When I joined this thread, I gave you the benefit of a doubt and asked you for specific details. I asked you to specifically state what you believe is wrong, and where I can find documentation to support it. I treated you the exact same way I'd treat any other rational person in this thread. And how do you respond? With childish, irrational, and above all, arrogant remarks and personal attacks. Forgive me if I don't take what you say as gospel or fact without proof.

- Don't get angry with me if I don't accept your without evidence and without question.
- Don't get angry with me when I see problems with the data you present.
- Don't get angry with me when I cite specific statements in the documentation you provide that refutes your own points.

Above all, you claim to be a Doctor. Please act like one. We may disagree with you, but keep at least a small amount of decorum and bearing. If your theories have any root in fact, then tests and evidence will support it. Personal attacks and insults don't support anything.

Ashles

15th January 2008, 01:07 PM

kleinman

15th January 2008, 01:23 PM

When maths 'proves' something different to what we observe in reality, your assumptions or models are incorrect.So anyone who peer reviewed Dr Schneider's calculations and ignored all the available evidence gathered over hundreds of years that has never shown inconsistency or any sign of being falsified, and ignored the accurate predictions made by evolutionary theory, and chucked this all out the window because the great Dr Schneider calculated it was impossible... is an idiot.
Don’t let me stop you from posting all your evidence for your irrational and illogical theory. Tell us how a gene evolves de novo.

Mister Earl

15th January 2008, 01:23 PM

Ashles, Dr Schneider, head of computational molecular biology has written a peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection and his model agree with what is observed in the reality of the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process and shows why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. Now here’s joobz’s idea of the truth:
Yet, the paper states nowhere in any of its pages that "Evolution is impossible". This is your interpretation and speculation alone. I've read the same paper you have. It says on the paper itself that it doesn't factor in a great deal of other variables that you would have to, in order to accurately model life. You ignore this of course, because it conflicts with your theory.

[/COLOR]
Joobz, if the sun shines on lead long enough does it turn into gold?

No m_huber, what evolutionists have to relearn over and over is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. A population can only quickly adapt to a single selection pressure targeted at a single gene by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. As soon as a second selection pressures is applied to a population, this sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed. Despite this, evolutionists claim that this is the process which transforms reptiles into birds. This is a joobzian magnitude irrational and illogical speculation. The mathematics and empirical evidence of how mutation and selection works does not support this irrationality.

Not at all m_huber, empirical evidence is the measured data in real systems which substantiates what a computer simulation shows and I have posted hundreds of examples of empirical evidence which substantiates what Dr Schneider’s mathematics shows and what it shows is that the theory of evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is mathematically impossible. Anything more than a single selection pressure targeting a single gene profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. This is why combination therapy works with HIV, TB, Malaria, cancer,… and why monotherapy has led to MRSA, multi-drug resistant gonorrhea, multi-herbicide resistant weeds…

Hundreds of examples? I've seen two that only model tiny parts of the evolutionary process, which you take out of context and twist to support your views. One of the papers you cited specifically stated that a large number of biological processes were not factored in and not used. Let me give you an example why this is wrong.

Say I had a paper, peer-reviewed and published, that detailed the inner workings of the radial tire. By applying the method you've used, I could claim that your standard automobile is impossible, because any internal combustion engine would quickly blow apart at high speeds, and then discount any mention of a transmission.

You claim the two papers you constantly mention say that evolution is impossible. I am not seeing the same thing you are.

kleinman

15th January 2008, 01:32 PM

Hundreds of examples? I've seen two that only model tiny parts of the evolutionary process, which you take out of context and twist to support your views. One of the papers you cited specifically stated that a large number of biological processes were not factored in and not used. Let me give you an example why this is wrong.
Mister Earl, how many pages have you read in the Annoying Creationist thread? There is a reason why it is 190+ pages long. Do you want me to start posting citations here as well?

Ashles

15th January 2008, 01:34 PM

Don’t let me stop you from posting all your evidence for your irrational and illogical theory. Tell us how a gene evolves de novo.

Hang on... Are we talking about the same Dr Schneider? Dr Tom Schneider?

Author of this anti creationist, pro evolution website? (http://www.fred.net/tds/anti/anticreationist.html)

The same Dr Schneider who states:

As the summer of 1999 Kansas incident shows, the creationists have some sway in our society. They publish books and papers that convince people that evolution is not a reasonable explanation of life, but those works are deeply flawed. I am collecting here arguments that show their egregious errors.

Am I missing something here? Because if it is the same guy, then the Tom Schneider who has written this model you keep referring to believes evolution is the most reasonable explanation of life.

Are you saying he is absolutely right in his calculations, but completely wrong in how he views their interpretation with regard to evolution?

Seriously, is that what you are saying?

It seems to be like quoting Origin of Species to demonstrate why evolution is impossible.

I am really confused now.

m_huber

15th January 2008, 01:37 PM

No m_huber, what evolutionists have to relearn over and over is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. A population can only quickly adapt to a single selection pressure targeted at a single gene by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. As soon as a second selection pressures is applied to a population, this sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed. Despite this, evolutionists claim that this is the process which transforms reptiles into birds. This is a joobzian magnitude irrational and illogical speculation. The mathematics and empirical evidence of how mutation and selection works does not support this irrationality.

Be that as it may, empirical evidence of the fossil record, DNA similarities, migration paths, and modern microevolution point to the existence of evolution being a fact. That's the exceptionally short list. The 18 point list has been posted on this thread about a dozen times.

What you are arguing against is the mechanism of evolution. You are saying that mutations of a particular sort do not affect evolution in large populations over a long period of time. This is interesting science. It tells us what doesn't work, which can be almost as useful as what does. I haven't seen any mathematics yet, or a simulation, but assuming that you are right that mutations of a particular sort don't affect evolution, you still haven't disproven evolution. You have disproven one possible mechanism for evolution.

Not at all m_huber, empirical evidence is the measured data in real systems which substantiates what a computer simulation shows and I have posted hundreds of examples of empirical evidence which substantiates what Dr Schneider’s mathematics shows and what it shows is that the theory of evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process is mathematically impossible. Anything more than a single selection pressure targeting a single gene profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. This is why combination therapy works with HIV, TB, Malaria, cancer,… and why monotherapy has led to MRSA, multi-drug resistant gonorrhea, multi-herbicide resistant weeds…

I can't match you in medical terminology, but I know what I'm doing when it comes to empirical evidence.

You stated: I’d particularly like to see some empirical examples of your non-existent mathematics.
Mathematics is not empirical. You gather data, then mathematics come in. Empirical research is before math (and after).

I made a joke about this, and then another... Now you have made a different statement that is much more correct. Your first sentence in the above quote is fairly well stated.

Well, Alan, I'll have to reiterate my above argument. Evolution is observed to happen; the mechanisms are disputed somewhat. If you have something that says that a particular mechanism doesn't affect evolution, then that's great. It doesn't disprove evolution.

Mister Earl

15th January 2008, 01:44 PM

Mister Earl, how many pages have you read in the Annoying Creationist thread? There is a reason why it is 190+ pages long. Do you want me to start posting citations here as well?

Quite a few, actually. Some I've skimmed over, such as snide remarks from both sides. Neither creationists, nor evolutionists have total claim for arrogant behavior, but I'm sure you'd agree with me that a great deal of those pages are not conducive towards the topic in question.

I am, for the time being, only interested in what evidence you specifically have. You've made the claim that evolution is impossible, and I'm calling your bluff. I want to see your evidence.

joobz

15th January 2008, 01:47 PM

Morton's Demon (http://www.answersincreation.org/mortond.htm)

This may be well known among those who've been engaged in YEC discussions longer than I have, but it was unknown by me until today.

From a former YEC who now believes in evolution:

It seems that this perfectly describes our friend Radrook, who uses the "ignore" function to implement the demon's gate for him.

Even though, in general, YECs will not visit the sites which detail the evidence that refutes their YEC misconceptions, it's important to keep putting it out there. As Glenn Morton demonstrates, sometimes the evidence sneaks past even the most vigilant demon.
that's a great concept. I could think of a few others on this site who have a morton's demon of their own.

Mister Earl

15th January 2008, 01:53 PM

Say I synthesize a new compound not found in nature. It's never existed anywhere, except for on my desk. I then introduce varying quantities of this material into a natural environment over varying periods of time. Will species currently present ever manage to deal with that compound? Will they ever make beneficial use of this compound? Would its effect only ever be detrimental? Why or why not?

Would any adaptations or failures of adaptation be proof for or against evolution?

rocketdodger

15th January 2008, 02:04 PM

Are you saying he is absolutely right in his calculations, but completely wrong in how he views their interpretation with regard to evolution?

Yes that is what he is saying.

He furthermore claims that because Scheider's work is peer reviewed Schneider must be absolutely right in his calculations, yet Schneider and all the peers reviewing him are still wrong in the interpretation.

kleinman

15th January 2008, 02:08 PM

Don’t let me stop you from posting all your evidence for your irrational and illogical theory. Tell us how a gene evolves de novo.Hang on... Are we talking about the same Dr Schneider? Dr Tom Schneider?
That’s right Ashles, the very same Dr Schneider, whose peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection which shows how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. Have you noticed that Dr Schneider who used to publicly discuss his more than 20 year old computer simulation no longer publicly discusses his model? We now know what his model shows.
As the summer of 1999 Kansas incident shows, the creationists have some sway in our society. They publish books and papers that convince people that evolution is not a reasonable explanation of life, but those works are deeply flawed. I am collecting here arguments that show their egregious errors.Am I missing something here? Because if it is the same guy, then the Tom Schneider who has written this model you keep referring to believes evolution is the most reasonable explanation of life.
Yes it is, isn’t it a hoot that it is Dr Schneider’s own model which proves him wrong?
Are you saying he is absolutely right in his calculations, but completely wrong in how he views their interpretation with regard to evolution?
Yes indeed and I can show you exactly where he makes his blunder in his interpretation.
Seriously, is that what you are saying?
Yes, and I have the mathematical and empirical data to back up my claim. Why do you think that Dr Schneider has been quiet as a church mouse for more than a year about his model? Dr Schneider has written a good computer simulation of random point mutations and natural selection but has made a gross blunder in his interpretation of his model from his single published case.
I am really confused now.
If you want this confusion lifted, study Dr Schneider’s model and you will find that it properly models how the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process actually works and that it shows that the theory of evolution by mutation and selection is mathematically impossible and the empirical evidence of mutation and selection substantiates the mathematical results shown by his model.
No m_huber, what evolutionists have to relearn over and over is that combination selection pressures profoundly slow evolution by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. A population can only quickly adapt to a single selection pressure targeted at a single gene by the mutation and selection sorting/optimization process. As soon as a second selection pressures is applied to a population, this sorting/optimization process is profoundly slowed. Despite this, evolutionists claim that this is the process which transforms reptiles into birds. This is a joobzian magnitude irrational and illogical speculation. The mathematics and empirical evidence of how mutation and selection works does not support this irrationality.Be that as it may, empirical evidence of the fossil record, DNA similarities, migration paths, and modern microevolution point to the existence of evolution being a fact. That's the exceptionally short list. The 18 point list has been posted on this thread about a dozen times.

What you are arguing against is the mechanism of evolution. You are saying that mutations of a particular sort do not affect evolution in large populations over a long period of time. This is interesting science. It tells us what doesn't work, which can be almost as useful as what does. I haven't seen any mathematics yet, or a simulation, but assuming that you are right that mutations of a particular sort don't affect evolution, you still haven't disproven evolution. You have disproven one possible mechanism for evolution.
You can make all the lists you want, but evolutionbymutationandselectiondidn’tdoit. The empirical evidence show that it doesn’t matter what kind of mutation is involved or whether there is recombination, combination selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process. That is the mathematical and empirical fact of life you evolutionists are having difficulty understanding.
I’d particularly like to see some empirical examples of your non-existent mathematics.Mathematics is not empirical. You gather data, then mathematics come in. Empirical research is before math (and after).
That may be the case with inductive logic but deductive logic works the opposite to what you are saying. The vast number of real, measurable and repeatable empirical examples of mutation and selection substantiates Dr Schneider’s model of random point mutations and natural selection.