Amazing Fossils: Do They Help Darwin?

So unless the Grand Canyon erosion can be replicated in the lab you claim that erosion being proposed as a cause of the canyon is an untestable or unscientific hypothesis? Wow. Too bad geologists (or any other scientists) don’t share your view on their supposed limitations.

And yes, what mechanism could stop the accumulation of a 2% genetic change and a 6% genomic change IS exactly the question.

If one wishes to distinguish “micro” evolution from “macro” evolution, then one must have a mechanism whereby “micro” cannot accumulate into “macro”; so far you have not proposed any likely mechanism whereby the observed changes from generation to generation would not accumulate to the observed differences between species of common ancestry over several thousand or millions of years.

“So unless the Grand Canyon …” [excerpt]

I never mentioned the Grand Canyon. (Opening your post with a strawman = very lame)

“Wow. Too bad geologists (or any other scientists) don’t share your view on their supposed limitations.” [excerpt]

Which is exactly why we have nutcases like Albert ‘We're all gonna melt!’ Gore, and James ‘What Al said!’ Hansen.

They think they're Superman.

“And yes, what mechanism could stop the accumulation of a 2% genetic change and a 6% genomic change IS exactly the question.” [excerpt]

Until testability is demonstrated, accumulation of change is not a question but an assumption.

“If one wishes to distinguish “micro” evolution from “macro” evolution, then one must have a mechanism whereby “micro” cannot accumulate into “macro”;” [excerpt]

Micro has never been observed to result in Macro.

“so far you have not proposed any likely mechanism whereby the observed changes from generation to generation would not accumulate to the observed differences between species of common ancestry over several thousand or millions of years.” [excerpt]

Your philosophical assumption of accumulated change is not empirically testable.

Like I said before, when you have documented amoebas evolving into i. demetis democratius and your results are repeatable (ie, testable), get back to me.

Analogy is only a strawman if you can show where the analogy breaks down. So far you have shown nothing.

Accumulation of change is measurable, just as erosion is measurable.

Still no mechanism proposed whereby small changes that we observe from generation to generation would not add up to a 2% genetic change over several million years.

Accumulated change IS empirically testable.

A population of known common ancestry, when left to diverge into different population groups, display the exact same pattern of similarity and divergence into nested hierarchies that we observe in animals of proposed common ancestry.

For example, different human groups when DNA is compared, form into the exact type of phylogenetic trees of common and divergent ancestry that we see in species of proposed common ancestry; do you think human beings are not from a common ancestor?

Bacteria when plated and allowed to diverge, form the exact same patterns.

One need not show the Earth forming from gravity to deduce that gravitation was the likely cause.

One need not show that the Grand Canyon formed from erosion over thousands of years reproducibly in the lab to deduce that erosion was the cause of the formation of this canyon.

Similarly one need not show a mouse and rat evolving from a common ancestor reproducibly in the lab to deduce from the evidence that they are related by common ancestry.

“Analogy is only a strawman if you can show where the analogy breaks down. So far you have shown nothing.” [excerpt]

I mention Mount St. Helens and you address the Grand Canyon as though it were my argument. (ie, Strawman)

“Still no mechanism proposed whereby small changes that we observe from generation to generation would not add up to a 2% genetic change over several million years.” [excerpt]

Demonstrate it.

“Accumulated change IS empirically testable.” [excerpt]

Like I said, demonstrate it.

“For example, different human groups when DNA is compared, form into the exact type of phylogenetic trees of common and divergent ancestry that we see in species of proposed common ancestry; do you think human beings are not from a common ancestor?” [excerpt]

They started out human and they still are human.

“Bacteria when plated and allowed to diverge, form the exact same patterns.” [excerpt]

They started out as bacteria and are still bacteria.

“One need not show the Earth forming from gravity to deduce that gravitation was the likely cause.” [excerpt]

A deduction based on a philosophical assumption is not empirical science.

Just because its easy to say This could have happened, so thats how it must have happened, does not make it science, and does not necessarily represent the truth.

“One need not show that the Grand Canyon formed from erosion over thousands of years reproducibly in the lab to deduce that erosion was the cause of the formation of this canyon.” [excerpt]

This is the same canard as above.

Just because something could happen a certain way, does not automatically prove that it did happen that way.

“Similarly one need not show a mouse and rat evolving from a common ancestor reproducibly in the lab to deduce from the evidence that they are related by common ancestry.” [excerpt]

Empirically speaking, yes, it must be repeatably demonstrable that they come from a common ancestor

Otherwise, it is just a deduction based on a philosophical assumption.

I first mentioned erosion as an analogy. It is a perfectly apt analogy, and you have not pointed out where the analogy breaks down. Are you unfamiliar with argumentation by use of analogy? It is not analogous to a strawman argument unless you can point out how the analogy doesn't apply. So far you have done nothing of the sort.

Deduction based upon data.

We see erosion. We see geological features. Deduction utilizing the measured rate of erosion can lead one to a conclusion as to if the observed rate of erosion is sufficient to explain the formation of the feature, and it is, given a few thousand years.

We see changes in DNA from generation to generation. We see species are separated by a small amount of DNA difference (some 2% in genes between humans and chimps). Deduction can show that given the observed rate of change, a 2% genetic change can be ascribed to the accumulation of this small amount of change, given about six million years.

We see planets forming by gravitational attraction of mass in orbit around a star. We see that we are standing on a planet. Deduction would lead one to observe that our own planet could and most likely did form from this type of process.

As I said, scientists do not recognize the idiotic limitations you wish to place upon them for religious reasons.

“I first mentioned erosion as an analogy.” [excerpt]

Doesn't change the fact that you Strawmanned my argument. (You still have not addressed my original point regarding Mount St. Helens)

“We see erosion. We see geological features. Deduction utilizing the measured rate of erosion can lead one to a conclusion as to if the observed rate of erosion is sufficient to explain the formation of the feature, and it is, given a few thousand years.” [excerpt]

You have failed to empirically demonstrated the evolution of amoebas into mammals, therefor, I deduce that such evolution is impossible.

I never said deduction wasn't useful.

“Deduction can show that given the observed rate of change, a 2% genetic change can be ascribed to the accumulation of this small amount of change, given about six million years.” [excerpt]

I don't need any deductions to know that you will never be able to demonstrated the testability of your millions of years.

“We see planets forming by gravitational attraction of mass in orbit around a star.” [excerpt]

Video at eleven.

“Deduction would lead one to observe that our own planet could and most likely did form from this type of process.” [excerpt]

‘Could’ and ‘most likely did’ does not constitute scientific evidence.

“As I said, scientists do not recognize the idiotic limitations you wish to place upon them …” [excerpt]

Scientists shunning the empirical methodology and embracing their own touchy feely pat my own back methodology is exactly the reason for all the crackpottery and hoaxes in science today.

“… for religious reasons.” [excerpt]

Is asking that science be held to the standard of testability a religious reason?

No, your standard is not “testability”, your standard apparently is “exactly reproduced in the lab”.

I say a wound is consistent with a bullet hole.

You say that unless I put that exact bullet into that exact person in that exact place and get exactly that wound, I cannot conclude that the wound is consistent with a bullet hole.

What we observe among species and their DNA is entirely consistent with them evolving from a common ancestor.

We don’t need to reproduce species evolving from a common ancestor exactly as they did in the past in order for us to make a statement as to the measured and observed rate of evolution to be consistent with the observed differences between species.

In science we use the term “necessary and sufficient”. The observed rate of change from generation to generation is both “necessary” to explain the divergence of populations, and it is “sufficient” to explain the difference, given a few million years in the case of humans and chimps.

“No, your standard is not “testability”, your standard apparently is “exactly reproduced in the lab”.” [excerpt]

If the claimed results are not repeatably reproducible in the lab, then the claim is either not testable or is falsified.

“I say a wound is consistent with a bullet hole.

You say that unless I put that exact bullet into that exact person in that exact place and get exactly that wound, I cannot conclude that the wound is consistent with a bullet hole.” [excerpt]

Strawman. (you are distorting my position)

“What we observe among species and their DNA is entirely consistent with them evolving from a common ancestor.” [excerpt]

That is simply an assertion based on a biased interpretation of the evidence that has been finely tuned to agree with the priori assumption of common decent.

Go ahead, empirically demonstrate soup to sucker evolution.

“We don’t need to reproduce species evolving from a common ancestor exactly as they did in the past in order for us to make a statement as to the measured and observed rate of evolution to be consistent with the observed differences between species.” [excerpt]

Neither evidence nor testability are a prerequisite to making a statement.

Democrats make statements all the time without anything to back up what they are saying.

“In science we use the term “necessary and sufficient”. The observed rate of change from generation to generation is both “necessary” to explain the divergence of populations, and it is “sufficient” to explain the difference, given a few million years in the case of humans and chimps.” [excerpt]

An ad hoc explanation that is not empirically testable.

Absolutely it as testable as the conclusion that erosion caused major geographic features, that gravity caused planetary and stellar formation, that continental drift moved Antarctica from temperate climes to polar climes, etc, etc.

Evolution is testable, and it passes the test.

Antibiotic treatment evolves antibiotic resistance.

Heat treatment evolves heat resistance.

The observed rate of change within human and chimp generations is both necessary and sufficient to explain the degree of difference in chimp and human DNA, given some seven million years at the current rate.

“Absolutely it as testable as the conclusion that erosion caused major geographic features,” [excerpt]

Interestingly, your conclusion about micro-erosion being sufficient to explain the macro-erosion of geographic features, was dead wrong when applied to Mount St. Helens.

Rationalizing that micro-effects could cause macro-results (and therefor must have) does not guarantee that your conclusions will be accurate.

In fact, it increases the probability that they will be inaccurate.

“Evolution is testable, and it passes the test.” [excerpt]

Micro-evolution(aka, variation within a kind), yes, Soup-to-sucker Macro-evolution, no.

“Antibiotic treatment evolves antibiotic resistance.

Heat treatment evolves heat resistance.” [excerpt]

That is adaptation, not frogs evolving into tigers.

“The observed rate of change within human and chimp generations is both necessary and sufficient to explain the degree of difference in chimp and human DNA, given some seven million years at the current rate. ” [excerpt]

And then comes along genetic entropy and KaBlam, you're extinct. (hey, the loss of genetic information is change)

The assertion that, given millions of years, pond scum will evolve into democrats, is as of yet empirically untestable.

No amount of arm waving, strawmen, or untestable assertions will change that.

To believe that humans evolved from the same slime that all life evolved from is simply a matter of religious faith.

“Speaking of strawmen, you are apparently incapable of differentiating evolution of already existing life and the principles of how life could form from unliving material.” [excerpt]

You are incorrect.

Also, I have not addressed the transition of non-living mater to living mater.

“You do know that evolution isn't the same as abiogenesis, don't you?” [excerpt]

Well, according to Berkeley University:

Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from. [link]

I am, however, well aware that there are more than a few Evo's who are to chicken to toe the line.

I think your attempt at accusing me of using a strawman is on fire.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.