By setting up the premise that, starting at point A, it is almost impossible to arrive at a predetermined point B, while ignoring the fact that we already are at one of an almost infinite number of point Bs that can result by random progression from point A, central va set up a huge straw man. Refuting someone else's straw man does not constitute making a straw man of my own.
There is no theory of science that requires that a challenge of the theory must offer an alternative theory, yet you persist in attacking an alternative of your choice as if its either a choice between evolution or the alternative. I may have missed one or two, but I haven't seen any posting questioning evolution on the basis of some other theory. Most of the challenges are based on mathematics, information theory and a sprinkling of good old common sense. If one branch of science is inconsistent with another, only one can be right and I have lot more faith in the integrity of mathematics and information theory than evolution. It seems to be your belief that if someone believes in a different theory to explain the origin of species, that disqualifies from making any criticism of evolution and worse, makes their motives immoral. Wow! When does the heretic burning start?
I'm sorry, but that is so convoluted as to almost make no sense at all. Are you really trying to say that if one does not like a theory, they do not have any responsibility to propose what they think is a better, more explanatory/predictive theory? If a theory is rejected, and there is no alternate theory to take its place, how can scientists possibly continue to do research? In any case, whether they explicitly say so or not, the literal creationists are, in fact, claiming that there are two competing theories here--evolution, and literal creationism. I'm pointing out that, scientifically, there really is no credible or usable alternative to the theory of evolution. It is the scientific framework within which investigation in the life sciences proceeds. Neither version of the story of creation as presented in Genesis provides a good theoretical framework with which to interpret the voluminous fossil record or the current diversity of living organisms, nor do they provide any theoretical basis with which to formulate working hypotheses which guide research. The challenges which are, in your words, "based on mathematics, information theory and a sprinkling of good old common sense," are, in reality, based on a fundamental lack of understanding of biology and the nature and purpose of scientific theory. Not one challenge has been based on a legitimate science-based argument. For all of the supposed math-based challenges, I have yet to see a single mathematical formula, much less a description of the assumptions used to derive the formula.
Behe's work raises serious questions about the viability of evolution just as a mathematician's would, yet you dismiss them as somehow unqualified because they don't have your understanding, or shall we say belief, in evolution or training in the life sciences. And of course, you use math, and that is supposed to cover the mathematical objections to evolution?
Behe's work raises no questions. As I have already pointed out, he has very few scientific publications, and the few he does have display a very limited and incorrect understanding of evolutionary processes, if they address evolution at all. None of his original research articles address evolution at all--they examine physicochemical reactions. On the actual subject of evolution, he has published a review (which is not original research), two letters to the editor, a Time article (which I do not count as a scientific publication despite its listing in PubMed), and an article where he used some completely erroneous assumptions about evolutionary processes to calculated completely erroneous probabilities about protein changes(1). No doubt, he sounds like he knows what he's talking about to people who have no scientific training whatsoever--but he's not convincing to the scientific community.
By the way, I did a lot more reading about horse evolution and found most of the disputes are within the evolutionist community. How many times do species need to be reclassified, trees redrawn and pictures arranged to fix what was supposed to be "settled?" It has become so ludicrous that even species names are changed to fit the evolutionary model. Eohippus is a great example of name tampering that may eventually backfire anyway. At least there are some evolutionists with enough integrity to admit the answers are missing or there are some major problems to be solved.
Your objections here are to the nature of science. It is true that scientists often disagree with each other on the details, and spend inordinate amounts of time discussing those disagreements. It is a fact of life that new research often reveals flaws in older research that necessitates revising details and even renaming species. As I've pointed out before, science is an iterative process. That's the nature of science. What you should have noticed is that, even though specific details of horse evolution are unclear and still the topic of a great deal of discussion, no one disagrees on the big picture--that horses evolved from a small dog-like mammal that existed ~52 million years ago.
I don't have a degree in the life sciences, thank God, or I might be in that universe of small minds that defend their theories by devious and disingenuous means. Shall I dare say such behavior is that of a charlatan?
What a shame that you've never had enough curiosity about the natural world to be motivated to pursue an education in the life sciences. How sad that you must narrow your world-view so that you won't encounter anything that contradicts your belief that a creation story from the Bible is meant to be believed as a literal account, instead of being taken as a moral lesson. I wouldn't give up being a life-scientist for anything.
(1) The erroneous assumption that Behe made is that of "irreducible complexity", although he did not specifically use that term. That is the false idea that a new function can only evolve by springing forth in its final fully functional form. He used that false idea to then calculate the probability of the "correct" two mutations occurring simultaneously, and concluded that the probability is once in every 10^9 generations. GIGO. Actual observation tells me that a single mutation within a protein occurs at a rate of about 1 per 11 offspring. If a second, complementary mutation is required for that mutated protein to change function, then, for a protein of size 500 amino acids, a complementary mutation would occur once in every 11 X 500, or 5500 offspring--which is trivial. This is the mutation rate I have observed in bacteria that were genetically engineered to be unable to rearrange their DNA; in organisms that have the ability to rearrange their DNA, the mutation rate would be much higher. Most organisms, humans included, rearrange their DNA extensively in the germ cells. Aside from the Y or X chromosome in the sperm, a child does not receive one single chromosome that is identical to any of its mother's or father's chromosomes.
How did I know this was coming? So typical.
I wrote “There is no theory of science that requires that a challenge of the theory must offer an alternative theory, yet you persist in attacking an alternative of your choice as if its either a choice between evolution or the alternative.”
You responded “I'm sorry, but that is so convoluted as to almost make no sense at all. Are you really trying to say that if one does not like a theory, they do not have any responsibility to propose what they think is a better, more explanatory/predictive theory?”
I said “challenge a theory” which you turned into “like a theory”. A challenge is evidence, regardless of the source or motive, that a theory has a flaw, one that may be sufficient to overthrow the theory. No one has an obligation after demonstrating the flaw to offer a correction to the theory or an alternative theory.
There are three experiments that challenge the invariance of the speed of light (Fermi Lab, Rio and CERN). Other researchers revisiting the Michelson-Morely data believe they may have been too ruthless eliminating data as background noise and may have reached a wrong conclusion as a result. If any one of the experiments can be reproduced and no systemic or logical flaws are found, then it can be proved that the speed of light is not invariant. If any one or all three experiments do the same, the General Theory of Relativity will either need a major overhaul or replacement. None of the experimenters is required to do the overhaul or propose the alternative. That would be a ridiculous burden. Science doesn't work that way and you should know better. Yet I see you repeat this claim in a later post.
You go on to say “If a theory is rejected, and there is no alternate theory to take its place, how can scientists possibly continue to do research?”
Rejection of a theory does not bring research to a halt and in fact, has exactly the opposite effect. From the description of some work you did, you said you had to account for the effects of evolution on a cell line. Actually, you were accounting for the fact the cells would mutate. A mechanism, or theory explaining the reason for the mutation was irrelevant as long as you had a sound method based on experimental data to account for those mutations.
You later assert “The challenges which are, in your words, “based on mathematics, information theory and a sprinkling of good old common sense,” are, in reality, based on a fundamental lack of understanding of biology and the nature and purpose of scientific theory. Not one challenge has been based on a legitimate science-based argument.”
Quite the contrary. A mathematician is not required to have an understanding of the physics behind the development of the Field Equations to validate or invalidate a particular solution of those equations. In fact, the prediction of the existence of blacks holes was based on a purely mathematical solution. It is astronomers, not physicist that are turning up the evidence to support the mathematical solution. Whether the astronomers have training is theoretical physics or not is irrelevant to their discoveries and only relevant when they try to explain the nature of what they observe. Biology is no different because if it were, it wouldn't be a science. Trying to shield a theory from scrutiny on the pretense you suggest is anti-scientiffic.
I said “By the way, I did a lot more reading about horse evolution and found most of the disputes are within the evolutionist community.”
You turned that to “Your objections here are to the nature of science. It is true that scientists often disagree with each other on the details, and spend inordinate amounts of time discussing those disagreements.”
I wasn't objecting to anything but making an observation. Again, you deliberately misrepresent what I said. I was illustrating how science works and that some people involved in the development of evolutionary theory were sincere in the pursuit of science while others were playing games. The point was evolution is not a “settled science.”
You continued with “It is a fact of life that new research often reveals flaws in older research that necessitates revising details and even renaming species. As I've pointed out before, science is an iterative process. That's the nature of science.”
No kidding. I would never have known that unless you said it [sarc].
I said “I don't have a degree in the life sciences, thank God, or I might be in that universe of small minds that defend their theories by devious and disingenuous means.”
That was sarcasm if you didn't get it, but you responded “What a shame that you've never had enough curiosity about the natural world to be motivated to pursue an education in the life sciences. How sad that you must narrow your world-view so that you won't encounter anything that contradicts your belief that a creation story from the Bible is meant to be believed as a literal account, instead of being taken as a moral lesson.”
Considering you have no idea of who I am, my education, experience, interests and beliefs, you prove exactly what I stated, that you are a narrow minded person who, if you cannot defend the criticism of the science, attack the critic, making up whatever you want about them as you go. That is being devious and disingenuous.