Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Shifting the Burden of Proof

Evolutionists say their theory is a fact but they don't know how it happened. Beyond vague speculation about natural selection acting on blind biological variation, evolutionists have no idea how most of biology's wonders arose. Some animals are equipped with their own sonar tracking kits that outperform our best military equipment. Did this just evolve? Perhaps, but we don't have scientific evidence for it. Evolution does not seem like a good theory so evolutionists, like a good debater, shift the burden of proof.

One argument Darwin used is the anthropomorphic warning which you can read about here. Another argument Darwin used is that there really isn't any problem for evolution so long as evolution cannot be disproved.

Can you imagine a scientist proposing a dubious theory and then claiming it is true because an impossible falsification criterion has not been met? This is precisely what Darwin did. He wrote:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

This was hardly a concession. Darwin may sound generous here, allowing that his theory would “absolutely break down,” but his requirement for such a failure is no less than impossible. For no one can show that an organ “could not possibly” have been formed in such a way. So in short order Darwin reduced what seemed to be a dilemma for his theory into a logical truism.

Evolution was protected from criticism and all that was needed to explain complexity was a clever thought experiment. Darwin so lowered the requirements that anyone with a pen and a vivid imagination can now claim to have solved the problem of complexity. It is now common to see in the evolution literature vague explanations, which rely on such dubious mechanisms as “chance” or “opportunism,” put forth as though they are solutions to the problem of complexity.

26 comments:

  1. Mr. Hunter, please for once try to get this through your head. "Evolutionists" do not say their theory is a fact. Theories are not and do not ever become facts. Facts and theories are DIFFERENT THINGS. Evolutionists say EVOLUTION is a fact. It is also a theory. Theories are explanations of facts. One can state the fact of the sun rising in the east without knowing how it happens.

    Also, describing how a theory can be disproven is not the same as offering evidence for that theory, and as you well know, since you're obviously read Origin of Species, that is not what Darwin did. He lays out the evidence he knew of (which has further accumulated substantially since his time) and then states one way the theroy could be disproven. You know perfectly well his statement of how one might disprove the theory is not intended to be taken as his evidence for the theory.

    If you really want to debate this stuff, you need to do two things first: learn the basics of what you're trying to discuss, and stop lying.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Boo,

    All I can say about your post is "Booooooooooooo"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Boo:

    "Evolutionists" do not say their theory is a fact. ... If you really want to debate this stuff, you need to do two things first: learn the basics of what you're trying to discuss, and stop lying."

    Actually evolutionists do say evolution is a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Suggestion too mr Hunter. read boo's post again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "read boo's post again."

    It only gets worse.

    "Facts and theories are DIFFERENT THINGS. Evolutionists say EVOLUTION is a fact. It is also a theory. Theories are explanations of facts. One can state the fact of the sun rising in the east without knowing how it happens."

    This is the usual evolutionary canard. They make the unsupportable claim that evolution is a fact, then somehow try to back out, without really backing out.

    The sun rising in the east is an empirical observation. Evolution is not an empirical observation. Evolutionists have always claimed evolution is a fact, and they have provided abundant proof for their claim. Those proofs entail metaphysical claims. This is not controversial. Evolution has never been proved to be a fact with only the empirical evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Also, describing how a theory can be disproven is not the same as offering evidence for that theory, and as you well know ..."

    No, he was arguing for his theory. And, no, Darwin did not describe how his theory could be disproven. His criterion was impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mr. Hunter, I posted this on a different blog, and didn't get a response. I'm curious, though, if you have a answer. Here's what I wrote...

    "Have scientists ever conducted an experiment in which they take a species from one environment, dump it into another environment, and then see if it turns into another species?

    Since that's the Holy Grail of Darwinism, I would have to think that somebody somewhere tried that, right?"

    ReplyDelete
  8. To the best of my knowledge, the most scientists have ever observed is a mosquito that developed a preference for human blood, instead of bird blood, and a lizard that developed a swollen intestine in response to a changing diet. And some bacteria learned to eat nylon.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anon: "To the best of my knowledge, the most scientists have ever observed is a mosquito that developed a preference for human blood, instead of bird blood, and a lizard that developed a swollen intestine in response to a changing diet. And some bacteria learned to eat nylon."

    I think there are actually many other examples, particularly where a species has changed because of environmental pressures. They can easily be found through Google. But do you, Dr. Hunter, describe these kinds of changes - do you describe them as adaptations of some kind? Or, are they examples of "micro-evolution". It would be interesting to know. We seem to always know what you don't accept, but rarely find out what you do...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Evolution is a fact.
    Everything evolve. When I was young I had plenty of hair on my head, and now much less. I've evolve less hair. When I go to the beach I evolve a nice suntane. Given enough time, I'm probably going to evolve also some wrinkle on my face, harm and other part of my body.

    Everything evolve: my laptop has evolved recently: it got a new operating software (windows 7 64-bit). This is, by the way, an example of a gradual evolution: a bit better overall than vista but from some point of view, a bit worse too. I've got a car too that evolve: recently I've noticed that the left tire was getting flat. Well, I could carry on endlessly.

    So yes, evolution, depending on what people mean, is a fact. Everything change over time. Now it exists not ONE theory of evolution, but thousand of theory of evolution. There is one theory that is dealing with the "fact that laptop evolve", there is one dealing with the fact that "I got suntane when I stay under the sun", and there are also plenty that try to explain why animal evolve too.
    Some of them imply or at least assume it's possible that evolution might be the product of an intelligent agent (creationism, ID, etc..) and others assume that such agent doesn't exist (darwinism, neo-darwinism, Gouldism, lamarkism,etc..).
    The issue with some media is that because evolution is a fact, they would like to make us believe that some particular theory about it is the theory equivalent of a fact (in other word, that for example Darwinism is a theory that is able to account for all the aspect of the evolution of the biological entities). I think that this confusion arise because from day one, Darwin never properly defined what "evolution" he was referring to. For example, if it's the evolution of one specie to another, the least he should have done is to give an exact meaning to the word "specie". An other example is the concept of "natural selection": this is so ill-defined that absolutly everything can be taken as being a "natural selection". Even animal breeding is "natural selection" (otherwise, from the start, Darwin theory would have been refuted)
    I know that he did try to incorporate more scientific proof in his "theory of evolution" by asking a mathematicien (Darwin wasn't very good at math...), one of his best friend, Galton, to test his one aspect of his theory which involve that polygenic traits responsible for the evolution mechanism should be continuous and pass on via blood or other substance. As we know, Galton disproved Darwin's mechanism (which resulted in the end of their friendship) and what was left is a theory without distinct mechanism and without scientific definition.
    Sad indeed.
    Mannix99

    ReplyDelete
  11. It would be nice if Cornelius posted an answer to Anon at Oct 29 6:10pm above. I think it's a reasonable question. If these examples are not evolution, then what are they? Come on Cornelius, lay your cards on the table for once and tell us what you actually think is going on here.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The cases mentioned Oct 29, @ 6:10 might very well be epigenetic, or a physiological response by the individual organism to a chnage in the environment. Or they may be part of the normal variation within a species. And even if they are real examples of Darwinian evolution, they are rather trivial, and it doesn't follow from these examples that bacteria can evolve by the same process into a blue whale.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anon at Oct 31 4:27pm - thanks for that. But I'd like to hear from Dr. Hunter too. Would he agree they are epigenetic or physiological response or what??? What natural processes does he think are at work?

    Yes, maybe they are trivial, but isn't that to be expected given the short timeline involved?

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Re-posted after hilarious spelingn miskate (omitted the o from arose). Actually I love speling miskates, we make them even when trying not to, so how come blind chance writes perfect DNA?


    Evolutionists DO routinely tell us that evolution is an undeniable fact, to deny this you are either ignorant or a LIAR. Read Richard Dawkin's latest book in which he stresses this point at length. He also compares Darwin doubters to holocaust deniers, asserting that the evidence for evolution is 'at least as good' as that for the Nazi holocaust.

    Why call someone a liar or a Nazi for questioning Darwin? Is it just a tactic to cause offence and hopefully lead to a reactive loss of verbal control which will occasion another criticism?

    Anyway, although it was set up to be unfalsifiable, Darwin's challenge (see above) has been amply met by, oh, all known biochemical systems (Krebs cycle, Chlorophyll, protein synthesis, nucleotide excision repair......etc), all of which (unless you are going to assert, Darwin style, say that a cow can jump over the moon given a long enough run up, and perhaps a catastrophic exposion of rectal methane at the right moment) are too complex to have 'evolved' by 'numerous successive gradual changes' natural selection acting on random mutations of supposed common ancestor which 'arose' ultimately from hydrogen atoms derived from the supposed 'big bang', which arose from what, and why?


    If chorophyll evolved by 'numerous successive gradual changes' each of which arose from a mutation, worked, and conferred selective advantage over its predecessor molecule (bearing in mind that Darwinian natural selection only occurs at the level of the whole organism, or phenotype), it ought to be possible to plot this, not with artist's impressions of fish growing legs, but with actual biochemical cycles which can be checked. It isn't possible, and ID woudl predict this because there are no 'simple' biochemical systems. It all has to be there or its a zero, its called Irreducible Complexity. Setting this principle out through his published work is why they hate Michael Behe so much.


    Google or search YouTube on any of the biochemical systems listed above (nucleotide excision repair is my favourite, since DNA can't exist without it yet it has no relevance apart from DNA) or inded any other and try to plot a neo-Darwinian course from zero to fully functioning that exludes a Designer.

    The Apostle Paul wrote truly in Romans 1 that men who deny the Creator have no excuse because His wisdom and power are clearly seen through then things which have been made.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dissenter: "The Apostle Paul wrote truly in Romans 1 that men who deny the Creator have no excuse because His wisdom and power are clearly seen through then things which have been made."

    RIght. And ID has nothing to do with religion or christianity? It's just a coincidence that 99% (I'm estimating) of ID proponents are born-again Christians? And they were all believers before 'discovering' ID, right? Stop the pretending please, we don't buy it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. anonymous at 12:20

    The problem is that I don't know if it is possible to say that enough trivial changes can create a new species, even given lots of time. I can make random changes to my car. One of them migh timpirve performance. I might just happen to install a bigger gas tank. But I don't think that making random changes will ever turn my car into a truck.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anon at 1:45pm: "I can make random changes to my car. One of them migh timpirve performance. I might just happen to install a bigger gas tank. But I don't think that making random changes will ever turn my car into a truck."

    Sure, random changes alone will not turn your car into a truck. But random changes + natural selection + long time, might just. And the evidence seems to point rather compellingly in that direction.

    ReplyDelete
  19. That means that I would have to take any change I make to the car, and decide if it might have a benefit in the future when coupled with another random change. But that means using intelligence, which nature doesn't have.

    And if the change does not improve the car, I junk the car and start over. It would take a really long time to turn a car into a truck that way.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Still waiting for Cornelius to answer the question posed at Oct 29 6:10pm. Why, Cornelius, are you so evasive in answering what I think is quite a basic question? Tell us not just what you don't believe, but tell us what you do believe...(and if your goal is to help people better understand this stuff, answering a few questions would be a good place to start...)

    ReplyDelete
  21. The Debate of the Century:

    Anonymous vs. Anonymous!

    (SFX: crowd cheering)

    Cornelius, have you considered requiring commenters to register? It would certainly make the debates easier to follow.

    It is very easy to do:

    Customize -> Settings -> Who Can Comment? -> "Registered Users" vs. "Users with Google Accounts"

    ReplyDelete
  22. More to the point, when is Cornelius going to answer the question??????

    ReplyDelete
  23. Forgive my interjection about the anonymous comments. Just a pet peeve of mine.

    For my clearer understanding, could you rephrase the question? I know you are not asking me (and perhaps you are not the same Anonymous who originally asked), but I don't understand what you are asking Cornelius, despite repeatedly re-reading the comment.

    Are you asking Cornelius, for instance, if he believes in speciation, or are you asking if he believes our observations of speciation support the concept of Universal Common Descent? Or something else? It's not clear.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Abschaum: "For my clearer understanding, could you rephrase the question?"

    The original question is Oct 28 6:04pm. The question was in response to statements that there have been several observed examples of "micro-evolution".

    My question for Cornelius is really a simple one. I'd just like to know what he things is happening here - what are the processes and mechanisms at play? Is it adaption to envrionmental pressure, speciation, some form of micro-evolution? It's quite clear that these changes are occurring, so it's reasonable to ask him what he thinks is the process/mechanism.

    ReplyDelete
  25. KTaylor:

    "I'd just like to know what he things is happening here - what are the processes and mechanisms at play? Is it adaption to envrionmental pressure, speciation, some form of micro-evolution? It's quite clear that these changes are occurring, so it's reasonable to ask him what he thinks is the process/mechanism."

    I don't think there is a one-size fits all answer, but you did not even mention what is increasingly looking like an important cause (or should I say set of causes), namely, epigenetics. See:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/epigenetic-inheritance-can-evolution.html

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous:

    "More to the point, when is Cornelius going to answer the question??????"
    ===

    Probably when you take off that cowardly anonymous cloak.

    ReplyDelete