Skip to comments.Why evolution is a political question
Posted on 05/08/2007 9:24:03 PM PDT by Chuckmorse
click here to read article
There are more predictions which are comming true through careful annalysis such as the following:
1: The deeper we look, the more complex and finely tuned will be the results (We are just discovering through molecular biology just how true this is)
2:Life began complex and has remained so. (We’re seeing that even the simplest of life forms (which the evolutionist would argue are the beginnings of evolution) exhibit complexities beyond what we once thought possible. They aint so imple after all, and are again irreducibly compelx)
3: ID predicted that chemical manipulation could not create all the basic building blocks needed for life to even begin to evolve- (That’s exactly what we find- While it’s true that some amino acids were produced from chemicals in a highly controlled lab, there were massive natural obstacles that simply could not be overcome such as isolating left hand amino acids from the right hand ones which would have destroyed the correct amino acids right off the bat- and, controlling the destructive forces of the energy needed to produce those amino acids. In nature, this control of energy could not happen and thus what was created would certainly have been destroyed.)
4: ID predicted there would be a record of fast recovery of species from a catyclysmic event- that is exactly what we see in the fossil records- Evoltuion requires a slow gradual process that should be replete with many small transitional evidences, yet we rarely find these small transition, and the ones that are found are open to much fierce debate and differing views within the secular science realm.
Good find. Let’s look over those tomorrow and see if we can get someone to translate for me.
ID doesn't "predict" that at all. For a scientific theory to "predict" something it has to have a mechanism or mechanisms and/or to make reasonably specific empirical claims. To "predict" means that the operation of the theory's mechanism and/or deducible implications of the theory's empirical claims entail consequences that can be observed.
ID has no mechanism. It asserts that there is, by inference, an "intelligent designer" [or designers?] but it refused to describe (or even speculate about) this designer in any way which would usefully characterize it as a theoretical mechanism. Thus ID makes no empirical claims. It won't say (or even suppose) either when, where or by what means the designer actually instantiates design events.
IOW your claim about this "prediction" is exactly backward. The existence of complexity is not an implication of ID, but simply an observed fact (and almost the only observed fact) from which ID is inferred. However proponents of ID falsely imply that these kinds of complexity uniquely implicate ID, which is false. There are well known mechanisms, for instance, whereby ordinary evolution (i.e. preceding in small, progressive steps, each individually viable) can produce "irreducibly complex" systems.
Well, that one's shot. The fossil record goes back almost 4 billion years. The first few billion it contains ONLY prokaryotes (cells without an organized nucleus) like bacteria. About a billion years ago, IIRC, nucleated cells finally make an appearance. Then it's hundreds of millions of years before the first multicellular creatures appear. Then for a long time after that it's nothing but worms and other simple invertebrates. Etc, etc. The emergence of complex animals took literally billions of years.
Since ID refuses to posit any specific claims about HOW the Intelligent Designer goes (or went) about formulating or embodying his [her? its?] designs, how can ID possibly "predict" this?
This will be long, but it covers several replies, and covers important key points/allegations brought up.
**[Well, that one’s shot. The fossil record goes back almost 4 billion years]**
That is an opinion made on assumptions based on results of dating methods whos results are only accepted by peers less than 10% of the time. One has to ask why the other 90% are rejected?
**[About a billion years ago, IIRC, nucleated cells finally make an appearance. Then it’s hundreds of millions of years before the first multicellular creatures appear. Then for a long time after that it’s nothing but worms and other simple invertebrates. Etc, etc. The emergence of complex animals took literally billions of years]**
We’re all quite familiar with what evolution teaches based on preconceived opinion. The evidence has yet to show any of this.
**[Since ID refuses to posit any specific claims about HOW the Intelligent Designer goes (or went) about formulating or embodying his [her? its?] designs, how can ID possibly “predict” this?]**
How’s the ‘origin of species’ thing going? How is it that eovlution is allowed to propose somethign that can’t be proven or even showed and ID isn’t? Infact, all the proposed methods of origins fall apart and the exhaustive testing has only left more question than it’s answered, and presented more impossibilities for hte model, and shown that perhaps their proposals weren’t the mechanism by which life supposedly arose. I also wonder how the first vertebrates ‘evolved’- did they have just one spinal joint? Several? If so, where’d the NEW information come from? And more importantly, where are the fossils of the first evolving vertebrates? Istead, we find, as predicted by ID, fully formed vertebrates in the fossil records that appeared suddenly.
[3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms]
ID proposes that the design has markers that show a designer. They have predicted that the design will be found in unrelated species and the same designs will have different purposes- Bingo- that’s what we find.
**[Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity.
ID doesn’t “predict” that at all. For a scientific theory to “predict” something it has to have a mechanism or mechanisms and/or to make reasonably specific empirical claims. To “predict” means that the operation of the theory’s mechanism and/or deducible implications of the theory’s empirical claims entail consequences that can be observed.]**
It most certainly does predict specific complexity, and it most certainly is observable in even the most ‘simplest’ of organisms.
**[There are well known mechanisms, for instance, whereby ordinary evolution (i.e. preceding in small, progressive steps, each individually viable) can produce “irreducibly complex” systems.
I’m afraid that’s not correct- precisely because irreducible complexity is absolutely undone by this so called ‘slow process of accumulation of mutations’ The whole premise behind irreducible complexity lies in the fact that the functioning organ in question would absolutely cease to function unless all the complex parts were inplace and operational to begin with.
When science finds all the parts lying around dormant for the Ecoli flagellum ‘motor’, please lemme know- or when science finds all the parts needed for the eye, just lying around dormant in a species- unnassembled, lemme know. ID predicted that we’ll find only completed fulyl functioning complex organs, and would not find all the parts just lying around dormant while the species waited billions of years for the improbability of accumulated mutaitons to create the last needed part before all the parts could start to migrate to the correct positions in order to ‘hook up’ so that the eye, the ecoli motor, the hearing etc, could all begin to work properly.
You showed a list of very different species with the jaw bones that when set side by side APPEARED to show a gradual movement- however, the drawings were deceitfully inept in that they didn’t mention that htese species were all so different that to suggest the ‘prediction’ that we’d see movement in the bones’ is nothing but an assumption/personal opinion, and open to MUCH fierce debate even amoungst secular scientists. Showing a hippo sized animal with the bone about mid way in the jaw, then setting that picture next to a rat sized animal with the same bone a bit further back, and suggesting that it ‘clearly shows the migration of hte bone’ is a HUGE assumption/personal opinion/leap of faith, and does nothign to undermine the equally valid view that they are nothign but two unique species with differenly positioned bones- that’s it!
**[ID has no mechanism. It asserts that there is, by inference, an “intelligent designer” [or designers?] but it refused to describe (or even speculate about) this designer in any way which would usefully characterize it as a theoretical mechanism]**
Since when do they ‘refuse’? As I mentioned, ID proposes that the designer’s fingerprint can be found in absolutely dissimiliar species sharing the same design features- it’s exactly what we find- the fingerprint of design. What we do NOT find however, (and what ID predicts) is transitional species showing the ‘evolution’ of these complex systems in the dissimiliar species. What we DO find is a very weak case for just ONE sytem- hearing, which is nothign more than assumptions based on VERY shaky evidences.
ID proposes testifiable, falsifiable predictions, nd that’s what we’ve got. Yuo test for design by observing the data- either the data supports or refutes the design proposal. Is design falsifiable? Certainly the observations will tell us.
Are Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity falisfiable? Absolutely! One can falsify intelligent design merely by showing that all the complexities of design features could arise naturally. Has science been able to do this? No. Despite having tried.
Darwinism has the magic wand of the omnipotent designer called TIME to fall back on in light of the absence of evidence, in the absence of a fingerprint. Time solves all- mention time, and the possibilities reportedly and supposedly abound. Given enough TIME we’re told, anythign could happen despite the overwhelming odds (as pointed out by ID). The lack of transitions is covered by the TIME argument despite the fact that we find fully formed, fully functional explosion of fully ‘created’ forms all at once, several times.. So tell me, which of the two models is unfalsifiable again?
You have a strong opinion about evolution, and I’m not deriding that, but I’d liek to ask that the same courtesy be afforded the science of ID as well. We may dissagree, but let’s be respectful of both sciences because both rely on testifiable models to degrees, and both are as valid an undertaking as the other.
I agree with you completely here. A mechanism in a scientific theory must describe observable, physical phenomena.
That said, and in accordance with the terms given here, what physical event does natural selection explain, that isn't already explained by other mechanisms such as mutation, drift, and recombination...each of which, in and of themselves, do not infer evoution.
The age of the earth at around 4.6 billion years, and the relative dating in that time span of it's geologic strata, is not an "assumption" within science. It is based on extremely strong, comprehensive and highly consilient evidence. (I have no idea which, of the many consilient, dating methods you're referencing with that arm waving factoid.) These ages and the relative dating are accepted, with good reason, by ALL scientists SOLEY excepting those who have an explicit basis in Biblical literalism for preemptively rejecting them.
In any case the RELATIVE dates (e.g. this strata being older than that one, as opposed to this strata being a particular number of years old) are what are operative wrt to your claim of the "rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record". These RELATIVE dates were not only accepted by pre-Darwinian creationists, they were established and confirmed by pre-Darwinian creationists. It's just that the strata they thought contained no fossils turned out, on closer examination and further prospecting, to have fossils, albeit relatively simple and/or microscopic ones.
And besides all that I thought -- indeed you specified -- that we were talking about "Intelligent Design". ID doesn't take any position on the age of the earth. Therefore since it doesn't dispute it, on a matter presumably relevant and demanding exception if any be taken, ID can only be presumed to accept the prevailing scientific view. So if you want to quibble about geologic dating you can't do so in the name of Intelligent Design.
You got it backwards. Evolution taught this long BEFORE the fossils were discovered. Late pre-Cambrian fossils weren't discovered, I believe, until the 20th Century (e.g. the Burgess Shale fauna discovered in 1909). And the microscopic, single-celled fossils that go back billions of years, as I recall those were only discovered sometime in the 1950's, and not really taken notice of by the scientific community until Tyler and Baghoorn published on the discovery of unicellular fossils in the Gunflint Chert in 1965.
So the evidence DOES "show this" (that complex animal and plant life was preceded by a long history of simpler forms) as evolution predicted long BEFORE the evidence came to light (e.g. Darwin's own express puzzlement at the absence of pre-Cambrian fossils, and his insistence that pre-Cambrian life must have existed whatever the reason for its then apparent absence of fossils).
Fine. And anyway, once again, even professional creationists admit speciation. You have to go back to the 19th Century to find "fixed species" creationists.
In fact the origin of new species has even been observed (or can be securely inferred to have occured in historically recent instances) a number of times. See:
First of all your conception -- that evolution must have preceded from one spinal joint to two and then more -- is all bollixed up. It may help if you understand that vertebrates are not (as often assumed) a Phylum, but are (or is it Craniata, animals with cranium that are?) rather a Sub-Phylum of Chordata, animals with notochords. The notochord is a flexible rod that runs lengthwise through the body of Chordates, although in vertebrates in only exists during embryonic stages. What happened in evolution (and what happens in embryological development) is that the vertebrae (and the spinal column) are built in relation to the notochord. Therefore there was no need for vertebrae to evolve one at a time since the pre-vertebrate Chordates had notochords into their adult stages, around which the vertebrae could grow in any number.
As to transitional forms, again a successful prediction from evolution is operative here. For years and years the living lancet amphioxus was presented as a model of what the progenitor of vertibrates must have looked like. Here's a diagram of this critter:
Now obviously amphioxus itself could not have been the transitional, or near to the transition, since it is a living creature. But the point was that it must have been something very much like amphioxus. However in recent decades a pre-Cambrian Burgess shale animal -- Pikia -- that had previously been assumed to be just another worm, turned out on closer examination to have notochord, and to be very similar to Amphioxus, a proto-Chordate ancestor in just the right place.
There are a series of other transitionals which progressively add features of Chordates, craniates and vertebrates. E.g. Haikouella, Yunnanozoon, Pikaia, Haikouichthys, and Myllokumingia.
Ah, subtly but crucially you've MISDEFINED "irreducible complexity" in a way that commits the elementary fallacy of embedding your conclusion as a premise. (Don't feel bad. IDer's do this all the time.)
The definition of an IC system is one were all the parts must be present for the system to function. This is not the same as saying that all the parts must be present "to begin with", i.e. from the beginning.
If you say the latter you're simply denying, by definition, and in advance and despite of any argument and evidence, precisely what is being argued: that it is possible for an IC system to be formed in stepwise fashion from one that is not IC.
Simply as a matter of logic and adequate reflection however it's clear that there ARE ways to do exactly that.
One example is "removal of scaffolding". Consider an ordinary stone arch. Although a "simple" structure it clearly meets the definition of being "inherently complex". It must have all it's parts together at once to function as an arch (e.g. a passageway through a wall). If the sides aren't present there's nothing to hold the keystone up. If the keystone isn't present the sides will collapse. And yet it clearly IS possible to build an arch in stepwise fashion by adding single stones one at a time. All you have to do is remove some of the stones (those inside the arch) at some point.
Other possibilities are "functional shift" (parts of the system shifting from one function to another, or the whole system shifting it's function) and optional parts becoming necessary parts (something that initially merely helped becomes necessary because of other changes). I'll leave it as an exercise to you and other readers to imagine examples of these.
The point is that the claim that its impossible by the very nature of IC systems for them to form in stepwise fashion is flatly and obviously false, even before one starts looking at biological evidence.
[Fine. And anyway, once again, even professional creationists admit speciation. You have to go back to the 19th Century to find “fixed species” creationists.]
Well no- you don’t have to go backin time to find those creationists- Speciation is fact- we don’t dispute that. These aren’t examples of NEW species- they are examples of genetic variability in the SAME species KIND- As stated, species can vary widely due to mutations- however, they will always remain in the same KIND, and that’s exactly what we see in the fossil record.
Your response to Csense:
[That said, and in accordance with the terms given here, what physical event does natural selection explain, that isn’t already explained by other mechanisms such as mutation, drift, and recombination...
Actually it is called- more precisely (and honestly) Adaptive natural selection- or, microevolution. The mechanisms of natural selection are well documented and not disputed- however, when macroevolution is proposed, we leave the realm of the observable, and have to rely on subjective priori opinion. I’ll be happy to elaborate furhter, but I’ll tackle your other comments first.
[These ages and the relative dating are accepted, with good reason, by ALL scientists SOLEY excepting those who have an explicit basis in Biblical literalism for preemptively rejecting them]
You ready to wager a mars bar on that absolute statement? lol No they don’t. I’ll have to do some research to find where I found the 10% figure, but the article stated that there was a repository that anyone could look up for themselves regarding the dayes presented and or rejected. It’ll take me some time to find again- Shoulda copied the link when I found it the first time. As well, it shoudl be noted that the ‘accepted’ dates are quite often changing? Odd, I thought the dating methods were accurate?
[These RELATIVE dates were not only accepted by pre-Darwinian creationists, they were established and confirmed by pre-Darwinian creationists. It’s just that the strata they thought contained no fossils turned out, on closer examination and further prospecting, to have fossils, albeit relatively simple and/or microscopic ones.]
Provided you ascribe to the priori beleifs and preconceptions of how old the earth ‘should be’ given that evolution needs a long time to operate. Again, all assumptions. The dating data can be run and rerun until a ‘close enough’ date is landed on- but alas, as you point out- we’re straying from topic here talking about dates.
[Were all quite familiar with what evolution teaches based on preconceived opinion. The evidence has yet to show any of this.
You got it backwards. Evolution taught this long BEFORE the fossils were discovered. Late pre-Cambrian fossils weren’t discovered, I believe, until the 20th Century (e.g. the Burgess Shale fauna discovered in 1909).]
Taught what? Preconceptions? Yes, I know- that’s why I posted what I did.
[And the microscopic, single-celled fossils that go back billions of years,]
From Wiki: [The black layers in the sequence contain microfossils that are 1.9 to 2.3 billion years in age.]
Wowsers- quite an allowance of dates concidering how accurate we’re told dating methods really are.
Billions? According to whom? According to which ‘reliable’ dating method? We have evidence to measure the accuracy of billions of years by? Sorry, but we’re simply talking assumptions/preconsceptions here once again.
[First of all your conception — that evolution must have preceded from one spinal joint to two and then more — is all bollixed up.]
No it isn’t- where’s the fossil records showing the spinal evolution? All we find are fully formed spinal columns.
[If you say the latter you’re simply denying, by definition, and in advance and despite of any argument and evidence, precisely what is being argued: that it is possible for an IC system to be formed in stepwise fashion from one that is not IC.]
Lack of evidence for this, assumptions and your ignoring the fact that supposedly evolution ‘creates’ useful things. All the seperate parts of complex systems are useless on their own, and according to Darwinian evolution would have been discarded rather than being kept as baggage while waiting for the right next part to evolve in a billion years or so through the impossible means of microevolution, which as we’ve discussed, only works on organs already present. The information for new organs is also missing and there is no means to gain this genetic information outside of lateral gene transference- but again, lateral gene transference breaks down right from the beginning, because in order to gain more complex NEW information, a species must have already gained their information from a higher species form- see the problem?
[One example is “removal of scaffolding”. Consider an ordinary stone arch. Although a “simple” structure it clearly meets the definition of being “inherently complex”. It must have all it’s parts together at once to function as an arch (e.g. a passageway through a wall).]
Yes, I know how evos propose it works, but again, this ignores the shedding of useless organs/parts in the model of Darwininian evolution.
[If the keystone isn’t present the sides will collapse. And yet it clearly IS possible to build an arch in stepwise fashion by adding single stones one at a time. All you have to do is remove some of the stones (those inside the arch) at some point.]
Assumptions. We simply do not find all the supporting stones that would be necessary in the fossil records. There are many more ‘supporting stones’ in your example than there are functional stones- if this is the case, we should see an absolute abundance of all the supporting stones, yet we don’t- all we see are the arches- whgich as you must admit, might suggest a design being created- whether you agree with it or not, it is more probable a position concidering hte lack of evidence and lack of the multitude of supporting stones for the myriad of complex organs and systems that had to evolve.
[The point is that the claim that its impossible by the very nature of IC systems for them to form in stepwise fashion is flatly and obviously false, even before one starts looking at biological evidence.]
It’s not false given the facts stated above. The evidence simply doesn’t support this.
Your post 312 I’ll have to come back to- you’ve presented too many issues to address in one go.
You admit speciation, but deny new species? Speciation IS new species! I don't understand this position.
they are examples of genetic variability in the SAME species KIND
There you go again. If you're equating "species" and "kinds" (by which creationists normally mean "created kinds") then you're denying speciation. But you say you don't deny speciation.
Provided you ascribe to the priori beleifs and preconceptions of how old the earth should be given that evolution needs a long time to operate. Again, all assumptions.
I don't think you're aware of the history the science of geology. Therefore you are entirely missing the point.
The conclusion that the earth was exceedingly ancient in comparison to the time scale of human history (albeit before "absolute" dating via radioactive isotope ratios was possible) was reached by geologists BEFORE biological evolution was at issue, BEFORE Darwin was out of knee pants, and BY GEOLOGISTS WHO WERE TO A MAN CREATIONISTS.
Many of these geologists had previously attempted to construct or apply schemes that accommodated a global flood and a young earth, or at least a young age and biblical time scale for post flood deposits. They would have been perfectly happy for the evidence to have accommodated such efforts. It did not. It was the evidence, driving them against their biases, which caused them to accept that the earth was ancient.
You want to believe that scientists only concluded that the earth is old because it "had to be" because of evolution. But your belief is wrong. It isn't merely wrong as a matter of opinion; it is wrong as a FACT OF HISTORY.
That's all I have time for now.
[You admit speciation, but deny new species? Speciation IS new species! I don’t understand this position]
I’m sorry- I should have been more precise- good catch. I should have stated that speciation doesn’t result in new KINDS- they are still the same species. a finch will always be a finch and never become a fly (or whatever you wish to suggest) as I metioned, there often is wildly differing variability within KINDS (I said species, but should have said KINDS), yet KINDS will remain KINDS, and we have ample proofs of KINDS varying to a great degree- even to the point of speciation- what we do NOT have however are KINDS becoming other KINDS through all these suppsoed accumulations of small mutations- the evidence simply is not there to support this hypothesis- to suggest it happens is to leave the realm of knowns and enter the realm of assumptions. Created kinds in no way denies speciation. How do you suggest it does? Speciation does nothign to undermine the created kind hypothesis.
[You want to believe that scientists only concluded that the earth is old because it “had to be” because of evolution. But your belief is wrong. It isn’t merely wrong as a matter of opinion; it is wrong as a FACT OF HISTORY.]
Symantics- As you point out folks beleivedcin old age BEFORE- meaning even before they had all these so called ‘accurate dating methods’ that we have today- so of course they HAD to rely on priori beliefs as to how old the THOUGHT the earth was. And, even though we have different measuring methods today, we still MUST go with a priori beleif of wicked old age due to the fact that the mthods have nothign with which to calibrate the methods with. The priori beleif comes into play, and simply throws out any dates given that don’t support that priori belief.
[Many of these geologists had previously attempted to construct or apply schemes that accommodated a global flood and a young earth, or at least a young age and biblical time scale for post flood deposits. They would have been perfectly happy for the evidence to have accommodated such efforts. It did not.]
Actually some indeed did support it, however, priori beleifs denied the evidences. There are evidences all over the world that suggest a global catastrophy happened, yet those who beleiuve in old age earth deny it or explain them away with more assumptions.
Lack of evidence for this, assumptions and your ignoring the fact that supposedly evolution creates useful things. All the seperate parts of complex systems are useless on their own, and according to Darwinian evolution would have been discarded rather than being kept as baggage while waiting for the right next part to evolve in a billion years or so through the impossible means of microevolution, which as weve discussed, only works on organs already present. The information for new organs is also missing and there is no means to gain this genetic information outside of lateral gene transference- but again, lateral gene transference breaks down right from the beginning, because in order to gain more complex NEW information, a species must have already gained their information from a higher species form- see the problem?
Yeah. Sure I do. So did Darwin. He thought through those problems and came up with answers in The Origin. Shifting of function for example. A body part doesn't have to evolve and then sit around waiting millions of years for other parts to evolve. It has some function (or maybe no function IF it is a physiological consequence of something else that DOES have a function) all along. But that function can change. Birds may have had feathers for insulation, for instance, or display, before they were later adpated for flight. The front limbs of their ancestors were certainly, at some point, used exclusively for walking on the ground. But the ancestors of birds developed upright postures and bidpedalism (walking on two legs instead of four) for other reasons. As a consequence of that, however, the front limbs were now available and at hand to perform a different purpose than walking on land.
There are myriad such examples. Nearly every major evolutionary innovation involves functional shifts and recruitment of parts that were present but previously serving some other function.
This is really elementary stuff. If you don't know enough to anticipate and address these kind of points then, frankly, you don't know enough about evolution to effectively critique it.
No it isnt- wheres the fossil records showing the spinal evolution? All we find are fully formed spinal columns.
O.K. Now you have me confused again. First we were talking about vertebrae specifically. Now suddenly we're talking about the much more general phenomena of a "spinal column". This leaves me without any idea of what you consider a "fully formed spinal column" to be.
So what is it? Is it a notochord with an spinal nerve column but no bone? Is that fully formed or partially formed? What about some fishes were the vertebrae aren't yet vertebrae, but are all in separate pieces just sort of vaguely surrounding the notochord? What about vertebrae that are just small slivers of bone sitting on top of the notochord, serving no function in structural support but serving only as attachment points for muscles?
to quickly clear up any confusion, Species can lose enough information that they are no longer able to breed with one another- and yes, this would make them a new subspecies, however, it does not make them another kind. It is a form of regression, not advancement, and is contrary to the macroevolutionary model.
Yuo mentioned the supposed homology of the notochord, and science has attempted to prove common homology, yet clearly homology is not seen in all species. The worm you mention has the notocord, true, however, we don’t find worms with spines- just the notochords.
“Efforts to correlate homology with developmental pathways, however, have been uniformly unsuccessful. First, similar developmental pathways may produce very dissimilar features. At the molecular level, it is well known that virtually identical inducers may participate in the development of non-homologous structures in different animals. (Gilbert, 1994) At the multicellular level, the pattern of embryonic cell movements which generates body form in birds also generates body form in a few species of frogs. (Elinson, 1987) And even at the organismal level, morphologically indistinguishable larvae may develop into completely different species. (de Beer, 1958) Clearly, similar developmental pathways may produce dissimilar results.”
Again, that just not historically true. Do you have any idea of how science works? Have you ever read a research article, attended a scientific convention or seminar, etc?
For instance AFTER Darwin Lord Kelvin calculated an age for the earth (actually several different calculations, but they were all problematic) that was FAR too young for evolution, and even to young for conventional geology completely aside from evolution. Kelvin's calculations were based on the assumption that the earth had gradually cooled from a molten mass, using then new data about temperatures deep in the earth's crust.
Kelvin's calculations were flawed, of course, because it was then unknown that the decay of radioactive elements kept adding heat to the earth. Indeed before the existence of radioactivity was even known. So this was a puzzling and troubling result, which geologists (who, again, had been forced to conclude that the earth was old BEFORE, and DESPITE, and INDEPENDENT OF evolution on the basis of COMPELLING EVIDENCE not "assumptions") assumed would be explained somehow.
But they didn't just throw Kelvin's results out the window. They didn't deny them. They just said, basically, "well, there they are; it's a puzzle that will have to be worked out." Some geologists even tried to model speeded up geological process to imagine how the earth they observed might be only a few hundred thousand years old, but they didn't have much luck.
There are OFTEN such cross disciplinary conflicts in science. But your imagination as to how they are handled is completely divorced from all reality.
Yeah. I recognize ALL those quotes. I know for a certain fact you didn't read a one of them in context. I have them in my extensive antievolution library. (Where they occur many times over. Even the authors of the books probably didn't ever read the original source, but just got them from another creationist!)
They're all bollixed. There'll all entirely misrepresentive of both the facts and the authors' full assertions. I did so many times years ago, but I just don't have the time and energy any more to traipse down to the library, photocopy the original book or article, and come back here and type in a full explanation of how and exactly why it's all b.s. But it is.
Look. I've read hundreds of creationist books, articles, attended conventions, meetings of local creationist orgs, worked with antievolutionists digging up "mantracks" (misidentified dino tracks) in the Paluxy, etc, etc. Why don't you try reading at least one or two SERIOUS and comprehensive works concerning evolution. (Don't bother. It's obvious you haven't.)
But if not, that's fine too. Enjoy sitting in the choir listening to Henry Morris and Duane Gish preach.
I won’t keep ya much longer tonight- We’ve covered alot- my brain is frazzling (stop laughing)
[Creationists are always throwing out this “fully formed” phrase, and invariably attaching it to phenomena for which many, many stages of complexity, development and variation exist.]
Yep- many fully formed complexities exist for which we have no evidence to suggest any such accumulations of mutations could or did produce. Variation is no argument against design. Variation more so shows that design is a workable hypothesis. We know for example that entirely similiar systems arise through entirely different processes on both the biological and embryonic levels. Differing Cell structures and processes preoduce similiar results ie: Soem frogs start off as tadpoles, some are born fully formed-ready to go.
[I’ve never once heard or read a creationist to explain what “fully formed” actually meant in any particular instance.]
Well grab a beer nd get ready for the first answer ever then lol. Fully functioning. We don’t find the ecoli flagellum in bits and pieces- we see a fully formed, fully functional complex ‘motor’ with all the working parts inplace in the records. We find fully formed bats in the records, not examples of all the organs needed for echolocation scattered throughout an ‘evolving’ bat. Just as someone who found a motor in a junkyard and not taking the possibility of a designer seriously, so too, an evolutionist who rules out design (and the real reason they do, is based on a priori beleif), it would be a mistake to hold such a biased view.
[Again, that just not historically true. Do you have any idea of how science works? Have you ever read a research article, attended a scientific convention or seminar, etc?]
Sorry to do this- but a repost is warrented: Symantics- As you point out folks beleivedcin old age BEFORE- meaning even before they had all these so called accurate dating methods that we have today- so of course they HAD to rely on priori beliefs as to how old the THOUGHT the earth was. And, even though we have different measuring methods today, we still MUST go with a priori beleif of wicked old age due to the fact that the mthods have nothign with which to calibrate the methods with. The priori beleif comes into play, and simply throws out any dates given that dont support that priori belief.
[A body part doesn’t have to evolve and then sit around waiting millions of years for other parts to evolve. It has some function (or maybe no function IF it is a physiological consequence of something else that DOES have a function) all along]
And Darwin ALSO recognized that these ‘shifting functions’ have not been recorded and also ignore syatems such as the ecoli ‘motor’ in which those parts would have been useless- you’re suggesting that they remained hanging around as ‘pseudo parts’ with other functions while all the other ‘psuedo parts’ evolved until once inplace, the gene coding decided all the parts should converge and produce a whole functioning system. A motor without a piston is useless and excess baggage. A psiton in a species is uselss outside of being a part of the motor.
[Birds may have had feathers for insulation, for instance, or display, before they were later adpated for flight]
Ah, but this presumpposes all first birds had only insulation and not feathers for flight- it’s your opinion, nothing more. And even allowing this to be the case, they always remained feathers (only in your scenario, the dominent genes that produced better feathers slowly evolved overtime- but I find it odd that in the billions of years necessary for this to happen, that they were really concidered ‘better’ given the fact that the next ‘better’ feathers were still useless for flight). The rest of your bird paragraph just elaborates on your opinion.
[This is really elementary stuff. If you don’t know enough to anticipate and address these kind of points then, frankly, you don’t know enough about evolution to effectively critique it.]
easy now- Your ‘elementary’ stuff is assumption based and biased and lacks evidence. Deriding the opposition does nothing to strengthen your position.
[So what is it? Is it a notochord with an spinal nerve column but no bone? Is that fully formed or partially formed?]
Spinal nerve column? In a worm? With no spine? Ah- I see. I’m going out on a limb here and suggest that they are indeed fully formed species specific and necessary for the notochord worm. Have we found worms with evolving spinal vetebrea? Or will you present a unique centepede, point out some semi similiar system and suggest the two are related despite the immense intermediary fossils being absent in the records?
[What about some fishes were the vertebrae aren’t yet vertebrae, but are all in separate pieces just sort of vaguely surrounding the notochord?]
The vertebra are all formed and free floating and non functioning? Examples?
[What about vertebrae that are just small slivers of bone sitting on top of the notochord, serving no function in structural support but serving only as attachment points for muscles?]
They are... attachment points for muscles. Can you show the ‘slivers’ evolving into vertebre? And ‘no function’? You immediately provide a function right after claiming there is no function.
[There are OFTEN such cross disciplinary conflicts in science. But your imagination as to how they are handled is completely divorced from all reality.]
No- it’s divorced from your priori belief. Stultis, I aint stating that evolutinists are divorced from reality because they beleive in macroevolution that has no biological possibility of happening, please return the favor and refrain from petty insinuations. For hte most part you have, and I thank you- but every now and again you seem to siezure and do so.
[They’re all bollixed. There’ll all entirely misrepresentive of both the facts and the authors’ full assertions. I did so many times years ago, but I just don’t have the time and energy any more to traipse down to the library, photocopy the original book or article, and come back here and type in a full explanation of how and exactly why it’s all b.s. But it is.]
You don’;t have to do so. Tell me, did they make those statements and contradict themselves later? Because they would have to have IF, they didn’t mean what they said as you contend. Taken out of context? How in the heck do you take “And even at the organismal level, morphologically indistinguishable larvae may develop into completely different species.” out of context so that it means anythign other than “And even at the organismal level, morphologically indistinguishable larvae may develop into completely different species.”? Sorry but the ‘taken out of context’ doesn’t work here unless you can show that the original words meant somethign different back then than they do today.
[Why don’t you try reading at least one or two SERIOUS and comprehensive works concerning evolution. (Don’t bother. It’s obvious you haven’t.)]
Oh really? Ok- I have and I’ve also read the counter arguments and refutations and seen that the refutations and competing hypothesis are ALSO absolutely plausible- infact even more plausible due to the biological impossibility of descent from common design hypothesis. Have I read every ‘serious’ (a term used by evos meaning ‘books that agree completely without question that evolution did happen) book? No, because most are nothign more than rehashing points that have already been rebuttled effectively. You want to talk ‘serious-ness’? How bout not simply dismissing different hypothesis’ simply because they don’t fit a priori belief? How about allowing that assumptions play a HUGE part in explaining a process that has scant little to factually back it up? How about admitting that putting a hippo sized animal next to a rat sized one and claiming their jaws show the evolution of the hearing bones is a HUGE stretch of the imagination? How about at least ceeding that a notochord and a sinal column are completely different and that presenting a worm with a notochord and claiming it shows the evolution of the spine, and hten claiming that splinters of muscle attachment bones are both examples of the evolution of the spine is a HUGE assumption? Serious? Yes, let’s do get serious. I’m not suggesting that these aren’t plausible, I’m simpyl pointing out that deriding a differing hypothesis and deriding the one presenting it is shallow-unproductive- and quite frankly imature.
Adaptive evolution is just another way of saying natural selection, without ever describing anything physical. It's circular reasoning at best.
With all the overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution supposedly has at it's disposal, you offer this as evidence that natural selection is a valid mechanism in a scientific theory, per your own terms.
No offense, but that's simply pathetic if you ask me.
Don't feel bad though, no one, in the years that I've been asking this question, has ever been able to answer it, and the reason is because evolution is not a valid scientific theory. If it was, then the question would easy to answer and demonstrate. It's that simple...or should I say, it's that fundamental.
annecdotal evidences are a dime a dozen. Cold hard facts are scant and elusive. A thousand people can claim the chickory plant cured their aching back, however, what they don’t tell you is that while they were takign the plant extract, they were also subcionciously more concerned about their health and took up walking, stretchign and eating right- any number of which could JUST as plausibly have ‘cured’ their aching back. The herbalist won’t admit this and will continue to claim the herb is the agent through which the good health arose. And the person ‘cured’ will be convinced that nothign else came into play. At least ceede the fact that there might be mechanisms at work that we know nothign about and they might have been the agents through which processes arose. To do otherwise is to adopt a narrow priori and is unscientific.
to be fair, he’s offered a number of models, but to be equally fair, these models are based on assumptions without enough evidences/transitions/intermediary examples to concretely state the processes happened such and such a way. The evidences he’s presented are intriguing, and present a semi plausible mechanism provided the major hurdles facing evolution in other areas can be explaiend away- which biologically, they can’t unfortunately- or at least without itnroducing lateral gene transference, which I might add has it’s own insurmountable problems
Everybody that had a decent education in science and mathematics knows that
"You argue like a typical arrogant leftist."
Actually, when it comes to "Proofs" it is in my experience that Math & Logic (Philosophy) are the only areas where these concepts (proof & truth) come into the Science arena.
In math and logic, one assumes that an assertion is "false" and then does what is important in order to prove it is actually not false. (Or is it the other way around?) In any case, a logical proof is done in a systematic fashion, and if something cannot be "proved" to be false, then it is considered true. It has been a long time since I was personally engaged in any such Courses, and the Proofs that are part of getting a passing grade, but it was a lot of fun working on the material back in the day.
Scientific Theory, on the other hand deals with I believe to be an accumulation of data that provides support for the particular theory. The idea being that "Science" is not etched in stone, Unlike for example the "Law" of Moses. In Science, Theories can always be "modified" in order to accommodate new information or data.
There will never be a Law of Evolution, because the concept has to be constantly modified as new information becomes available.
It is all a lot of fun in my opinion, but in the end, my opinion is that TOE is nothing but a bunch of egghead ideas that have been put together in a desperate attempt by really intelligent folks who are determined to show off their smarts while at the same time undermining the education processes all over the world by denying people the opportunity to have their children exposed to real knowledge and a path to potential wisdom.
The Evos are probably all fine people in real life, but when they go out of their way to make my children and grandchildren ignorant, then they become something less than fine people.
They become religious zealots, with an agenda.
Natural Selection is not a metric, since it has no mathematical value, therefore, it must be a mechanism, which it is according to the theory, and as such, it is required to describe and explain physical phenomena. This is simply fundamental to a scientific theory.
I don't care how much supposed evidence there is for this or that, or what reasonable intuition may tell one about the state of affairs of biological entities on this planet. The bottom line is, if you can't even establish the fundamental requirements of the structure of a scientific theory, then you just don't have one, it's that simple.
sorry for all the replies- I post then something else pops into my mind.
[Enjoy sitting in the choir listening to Henry Morris and Duane Gish preach.]
Lemme just quickly address this- I will enjoy it as do other scientists who aren’t biased enough to simply dismiss them and their science and who honestly address what they say and attempt to give coutner points, and to get respectful rebuttles in return and who will then respectfully re-rebuttle. Healthy discovery debates take place this way and should never be shunned or dismissed simply based on bias.
You know, we’re shown two species KINDS that might have similiar features, and we’re shown something like the ‘earlier’ species (I use quotes because it is assumed- based on subjective evidences and interpretation of processes), having two less toes, and we’re told that the later species ‘evolved’ the extra toes. What we’re not told is that it is JUST as plausible that the ‘ealier’ species was a product of their own KIND who gradually lost two toes, and we’re not told how the loss of the two toes advantaged the species. We’re just supposed to take it on faith that somehow two less toes was an advantage. We’re also supposed to take it on faith that the two different KINDS were somehow related, and we’re not to assume that there wasn’t a relative of the the earlier species simply because no fossils have been found.
I’m simplifying of course, but you see the problem I’m laying out here, and the assumptions that we’re taold to accept. And, again what we’re not told, is that it is equally as probable that given the fact that the earlier specimen could have had a TRUE relative with two more toes, that the species shows nothign more than information loss.
The way the media and science present the case thoguh suggests that the later differing species that has two more toes was related to the earlier species and shows a ‘gain of information’ which really isn’t the case. To explain this- I’ll go back to the two-less toed species, and use their TRUE relative and explain.
The two-less toed species shjows a loss of information, however, the coding is still available, and at any time, the two missing toes could come back- There is no ‘gain of information- only a resoration of the information that was originally present. This would entail hidden infromation which we know exist throguh exhaustive observations. The two toes mgith croip up in a KIND TRUELY related to the ealier two-toe-less species KIND, yet we’re not presented with that TRUE later relative because it would simply show that the process of simple natural selection was at work and was not infact a true macroevolutionly process. No NEW information was obtained.
While it’s intriguing to think the two original different species KINDS presented might somehow be realted, we can NOT rule out hte possibility that they are infact not related, and that there very plausibly might be a TRUE relative to the two-toe-less species. (I nkow that’s kinda confusing to follow, but my mind is tired, and is does illustrate an entoirel;y plausible possibility)
Now, we can iether express bias and rule out what I suggested, or we can take the possibiltiy seriously and conceed that the original statement that the two different KINDS of species might not be realted after all, and keep searching for better examples of what we think might be a more appropriate process between different KINDS. Seems to me that an objective scientist would at least ceede the latter, and refrain from belittling those who present the posssibility. Just a thought.
Ah thanks for clearing that up- Hadn’t thought about that line of reasoning before- interesting- will have to give it more thought
I stop arguing with evo folks when it becomes a religious discussion (ie, they aren’t arguing based on evidence and repeatable experimentation) or, like weaponeer did, go to the arrogant leftist tactic of assuming some sort of superiority on their own part.