Intelligent debate

August 10, 2008 ^ | Roger Palfree

[Soliton]

Gods, fairies, magic and the like are ways of saying "we don't know," and one simply can't base a scientific theory on a set of assumptions that includes "and something we don't know, but you can imagine it to be anything you like, happens here."

Science is a discipline, a rewarding endeavour to understand things in relation to other things and their interactions. The theory of evolution is not a belief; it is a scientifically useful model. As more data support it, it might be a threat to certain beliefs, but it is not a threat to belief in a creator, because science can never explain existence itself.

[Soliton]

(So how about a prediction, or two? Isn't that what models are good for?)

Evolution has been the basis of many predictions. For example:

Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).

Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).

Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).

Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).

Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella “fit these predictions closely” (Mallatt and Chen 2003).

Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).

Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

[ClearCase_guy]

I support government schools presenting Evolution in science class, along with material that criticizes Evolution and explains why some people don't accept it. Example: evolution of the blood-clotting mechanism, evolution of the eye, issues involving probability of random mutations creating the world we see within the stated time-frame. There are criticisms that can be levied against Evolution. I want them to be included in Biology classes.

Do you support that?

[ml/nj]

You're talking about conclusions made about old stuff which have been made to fit the model. Predictions are about things that happen after after such statements are made.

ML/NJ

[LeGrande]

Sorry, but horizontal natural selection does not falsify creation/ID, nor does horizontal natural selection provide positive evidence for evolution.

It does unless you can show a production of a clone.

Creationism and ID is clear that there can be no change, like begats like, exactly. So unless you can show clones then creationism and ID has been falsified.

[Soliton]

Your complaints have been addressed over and over again. They aren’t serious scientific problems. They are designed to give comfort to true believers. It is to innocuculate you against the truth.

The eye
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Blood clotting
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

Time and math behind mutations
http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/media/pocket_mouse_predation-lg.mov

[Coyoteman]

Evolution is all supposition and conjecture.

And your religious belief is...?

[hellbender]

You are so right. The book The Black Swan discusses how easily events in the past can be retroactively "explained," and "confirmatory" evidence discovered, by people who are wedded to a theory.

Regardless of the truth of evolution, the attitude of many fanatical evolutionists is not one of people seeking new truth, but one of people trying to enforce conformity and suppress challenge...much like the Anthropogenic Global Warming cult, or the priestly hierarchy in the Middle Ages.

[elfman2]

"I support government schools presenting Evolution in science class, along with material that criticizes Evolution and explains why some people don't accept it. Example: evolution of the blood-clotting mechanism, evolution of the eye, issues involving probability of random mutations creating the world we see within the stated time-frame. There are criticisms that can be levied against Evolution. I want them to be included in Biology classes. Do you support that?"

That's reasonable. There should be no problem with that, as long as it doesn't misrepresent evolutionary theory.

And ID (or divine intervention) has its place in sociology or philosophy classes, but not in the hard sciences. Do you support that?

[Coyoteman]

"I support government schools presenting Evolution in science class, along with material that criticizes Evolution and explains why some people don't accept it. Example: evolution of the blood-clotting mechanism, evolution of the eye, issues involving probability of random mutations creating the world we see within the stated time-frame. There are criticisms that can be levied against Evolution. I want them to be included in Biology classes. Do you support that?"

That's reasonable. There should be no problem with that, as long as it doesn't misrepresent evolutionary theory.

But it misrepresents biology, both theory and fact. That is what those links posted a few posts upthread tell you.

Why should the false claims made by religious believers be included in any science classes when the findings of science directly contradict them?

[elfman2]

Kook nonsense. I don’t have time for this today.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

we associate the production of useful complex things with intelligent design and craft, typically by humans. It is a simple-minded extrapolation to imagine some deity creating, in a "hands-on" way, the wonderfully complex systems in our world.

Interesting choice words. "Hands on way". How about in an a "hands off way"? Humans design complex adaptive systems that change automatically i.e. "in a hands off way" all the time.

God lives outside our four dimensional world. I am sure he is capable of designing complex adaptive systems in a "hands off way".

This author should try and think "outside the box" .

[beefree]

what does born again again mean?

[mrjesse]

Creationism and ID is clear that there can be no change, like begats like, exactly. So unless you can show clones then creationism and ID has been falsified.

Neither Creationism nor ID make any such claim. To do so would be absurd since we all know that an offspring will not be perfectly identical to either of its parents. Genesis 1 says that kind begats kind. Now maybe when your dog has puppies by the normal method and the puppies will be different colors and so on or even different shapes and sizes - they are still the same kind of animal - dogs!

So your statement is a strawman, right? Or do you really believe that Creationism and ID claim that all reproduction reproduces exact genetic copies?

Remember, there are two kinds of evolution -- that kind which I have seen

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

So your statement is a strawman, right? Or do you really believe that Creationism and ID claim that all reproduction reproduces exact genetic copies?

No. Like begats like, implies no change between offspring and their parents. It is static, essentially the same as cloning.

That is what you creationist and ID'ers are implying, that change can't occur.

So all us enlightened evolutionist have to do is show a change between parents and offspring and we disprove your theory : )

[mrjesse]

No. Like begats like, implies no change between offspring and their parents. It is static, essentially the same as cloning.

That is what you creationist and ID'ers are implying, that change can't occur.

So all us enlightened evolutionist have to do is show a change between parents and offspring and we disprove your theory : )

Straw man alright! I haven't talked to any creationist or IDer who says or even implies that changes cannot occur. I've seen them occur myself, having grown up on a small family farm. Even if you can find some Creationist or IDer who says that no change can occur, most don't say that and to say that in general they do say so is a lie, then to attack them as having said that is a straw man.

Furthermore, you're relying on the logically bankrupt idea that if something can happen a little ways it can and did happen a long ways. But such an assumption is just not true!

It is entirely plausible that God created different kinds of creatures with built-in quality control (in other words the ones that aren't as healthy die off, leaving the less genetically corrupted ones) which is exactly what we see. The fact that they are influenced by genetic drift and different looking varieties of each kind emerge is not proof that they were not created as distinct fully developed kinds.

It would help you if you were to get over this "All or nothing" mentality. To you it looks like either offspring are absolute perfect copies of their parents or everything evolved - and of course you look at it in this light because it makes the one view look absurd - but in reality, there is no reason whatsoever that there isn't a third option, which is that God did create them, and they are influenced by genetic drift. It's not "ID or Change." Both ideas allow for the kind of evolution I've seen (some call it microevolution). If one wishes to divide it into a mutually exclusive scene, then it would be "It is ID or ASBE." (where ASBE means All Species By Evolution).

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

I haven't talked to any creationist or IDer who says or even implies that changes cannot occur. I've seen them occur myself, having grown up on a small family farm.

So you agree with the Theory of Evolution then, good.

Furthermore, you're relying on the logically bankrupt idea that if something can happen a little ways it can and did happen a long ways. But such an assumption is just not true!

Why do you think that small changes over a long period of time can't add up to large changes?

It is entirely plausible that God created different kinds of creatures with built-in quality control (in other words the ones that aren't as healthy die off, leaving the less genetically corrupted ones) which is exactly what we see. The fact that they are influenced by genetic drift and different looking varieties of each kind emerge is not proof that they were not created as distinct fully developed kinds.

Isn't that just another way of saying that God can do anything?

It would help you if you were to get over this "All or nothing" mentality. To you it looks like either offspring are absolute perfect copies of their parents or everything evolved - and of course you look at it in this light because it makes the one view look absurd - but in reality, there is no reason whatsoever that there isn't a third option, which is that God did create them, and they are influenced by genetic drift.

So you do believe in evolution? Why the debate?

Both ideas allow for the kind of evolution I've seen (some call it microevolution). If one wishes to divide it into a mutually exclusive scene, then it would be "It is ID or ASBE." (where ASBE means All Species By Evolution).

So you believe in evolution within a species. How about evolution within a Genus or Family? Would you agree that is possible? Where do you draw the line?

The only real difference between you and a true evolutionist is where they draw the line. A true creationist must draw the line at no change and a true evolutionist doesn't draw a line at all.

[Soliton]

what does born again again mean?

I was lost and then I was found then I got lost and then I was found again.

[Radix]

"If things are always improving, then where are all the new 400 hitters in baseball?"

Paraphrased

Steven J. Gould. Inventor of the "puntuated equilibrium" nonsense.

[Grizzled Bear]

Evolution is all supposition and conjecture.

And your religious belief is...?

When Edwards was asked about his affair he said (and I paraphrase), so did McCain.

Coyoteman, your response is just like the Silky Pony's!

[Soliton]

God lives outside our four dimensional world. I am sure he is capable of designing complex adaptive systems in a "hands off way".

Please supply some supporting evidence for this statement