Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Evolution Professor Sets New Record With 1.5 Hits Per Minute in Debate

An Incredible Demonstration of Evolutionary Thought

Evolution is a fact, but what kind of fact? To answer this question one must listen to the evolutionists. In his recent debate versus Paul Nelson, Joel Velasco gave a nonstop version of Darwin’s one-long argument that, once again, makes clear what kind of fact evolution is. Velasco gave a rapid-fire rundown of the scientific misrepresentation, logical excursion and, most importantly, religion, that motivates and informs evolutionary thought. By our count Velasco issued 13 scientifically misleading or downright false statements, 18 bare assertions or circular statements, 5 just-so stories, 6 miscellaneous fallacies, and, of course at the top of the list, 21 non scientific, metaphysical claims. That is a total of 63 violations of science in a mere 42 minutes, for an astonishing rate of 1.5 hits per minute.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

321 comments:

  1. What else did you expect seeing that evolutionism is void of science?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Joel, like many, seems to have no clue what it means for propositions to "explain" historical events. One would think professing scientists would understand that much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff, like many, seems to have no clue as to the difference between a particular theory of epistemology, such as a particular variant of Foundationalism, and the entire field of epistemology itself. One would think those trying to use epistemology in their arguments, such as ideas about how explanations work, would understand at least that much.

      Delete
    2. Scott, what's your definition of an explanation? Telling a story? Something else? What? This is a rhetorical question, of course. You agree with Popper who admitted that definitions were unimportant to him since he never knew what he was talking about anyway.

      Delete
    3. While searching on the internet about Popper and definitions, you uncovered that Popper thought he had no idea what he was talking about, which necessarily led him to conclude definitions were unimportant? And I clearly must agree with this because, well, Popper admitted to it?

      If this wasn't false, you'd have quite the non-sequitur, Jeff. Is the best you can come up with?

      If, while trying to distract from your confusion of Foundationalism as the field of epistemology, you had actually read what Popper said about definitions, you could have answered your own question.

      From: http://ovo127.com/2010/09/01/sir-karl-popper-on-the-so-called-sources-of-knowledge-excerpt/

      "7. Clarity is an intellectual value in itself; exactness and precision, however, are not. Absolute precision is unattainable; and there is no point in trying to be more precise than our problem demands. The idea that we must define our concepts to make them ‘precise’ or even to give them a ‘meaning” is misleading. Every definition must make use of defining concepts; and so we can never ultimately avoid working with undefined concepts. Problems connected with the meaning or the definition of words are unimportant. Indeed, these purely verbal problems are tiresome: they should be avoided at all costs." - Karl Popper, University of Salsburg lecture, 27 July 1979.

      Just as I do not think there are ultimate explanations (what Popper calls essentialism), I do not think concepts can have ultimate definitions that define them. IOW, i'm not asking for Cornelius to be more precise than necessary to pragmatically distinguish between different competing philosophies of science for the purpose of criticism.

      This leads us back to your question: Explanations are not exhaustive or essentialist in nature. Furthermore, they can exist at different levels, such as emergence.

      But we've been over this before. You continue to confuse Foundationalism for the entire field of epistemology. That's the point I keep making and you keep ignoring.

      Delete
    4. Scott, when Popper says "Absolute precision is unattainable; and there is no point in trying to be more precise than our problem demands."

      Isn't he saying that in absolute terms? It reminds me of what my favorite philosopher Ravi Zacharias, says, " they use words to tell us words have no meaning."

      Delete
    5. You gotta love Popper. Clarity is important, but then again it's impossible, so surely it's not important. What a nut that man was. You can define nothing, Scott. That's why you're a hypocrite to expect CH to define. Although it's pretty obvious that CH is using words in their conventional sense; a sense which you and your ilk have rejected and replaced with absolutely nothing.

      Delete
    6. Jeff: Although it's pretty obvious that CH is using words in their conventional sense; a sense which you and your ilk have rejected and replaced with absolutely nothing.

      Actually, we'd be interested in at least a general definition of how Cornelius Hunter is using the term science. Is it animal, vegetable, or mineral? Is it bigger than a breadbox?

      Delete
    7. Marcus: Isn't he saying that in absolute terms?

      Given that Popper was a fallibilist, what do you think? If you're not familiar with fallibilism, see the following article...

      http://nautil.us/issue/2/uncertainty/why-its-good-to-be-wrong

      But, by all means, feel free to explain how absolute precision is possible, in practice.

      Delete
    8. Jeff: You gotta love Popper. Clarity is important, but then again it's impossible, so surely it's not important.

      Are you sure you actually have memories? Because, apparently, you can't even remember quotes with Popper's distinction in the very comment you were replying to. Or perhaps you have no interest in actually taking Popper seriously?

      Absolute precision is unattainable; and there is no point in trying to be more precise than our problem demands. [....] Problems connected with the meaning or the definition of words are unimportant. Indeed, these purely verbal problems are tiresome: they should be avoided at all costs.

      As I've pointed out several times before, a key part of Popper's methodology is that we start out noticing a problem. It's in this sense that quibbling over definitions is unimportant beyond the context of solving that problem.

      For example, It's not necessary to *start out* by exhaustively defining out terms. We can expand them as much as necessary to criticize ideas.

      Jeff: What a nut that man was. You can define nothing,

      This is yet another example of assuming, unless we exhaustively explain something, we know nothing. Despite having pointed out this fallacy over and over, you've trotted out it yet again. Go figure.

      Again, are you sure you actually have memories?

      Jeff: Although it's pretty obvious that CH is using words in their conventional sense; a sense which you and your ilk have rejected and replaced with absolutely nothing.

      Of course, Jeff. As a Foundationalist, it would come as no surprise that you'd think it's obvious. But, why don't you humor us poor ignorant souls. Which particular definition of "science" on this page is conventional one?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

      Delete
    9. Z: Actually, we'd be interested in at least a general definition of how Cornelius Hunter is using the term science.

      J: Why difference does it make if you can't define science as you use it? Same goes for you, Scott. If you don't think definitions of science are relevant to pontificating in the mere "name" of science, why in the world do you care if CH does the same? Get the beam out of your own eye.

      Delete
    10. Scott: Are you sure you actually have memories? Because, apparently, you can't even remember quotes with Popper's distinction in the very comment you were replying to.

      J: Unbelievable. This from the man who insists that he doesn't know whether he has memories. UNBELIEVABLE! Dude, you may believe you've adopted the LNC, but you violate it incessantly.

      Delete
    11. ... IOW, Scott, it matters not what you and Popper write. You turn right around and insist that you have no idea whether you wrote it. So how could I know whether you or Popper wrote anything? How could that inference be known to have a probability greater than zero? Am I to take you seriously in your claims or not?

      Delete
    12. Jeff: Why difference does it make if you can't define science as you use it?

      We define it methodologically, a recursive process of matching theory with observation.

      As Cornelius frequently makes claims about science, it would behoove him to tell us his basic understanding of science.



      Delete
    13. Popper: Problems connected with the meaning or the definition of words are unimportant. Indeed, these purely verbal problems are tiresome: they should be avoided at all costs.

      Jeff: What a nut that man was. You can define nothing,

      Scott: This is yet another example of assuming, unless we exhaustively explain something, we know nothing. Despite having pointed out this fallacy over and over, you've trotted out it yet again. Go figure.

      Jeff: If you don't think definitions of science are relevant to pontificating in the mere "name" of science, why in the world do you care if CH does the same? Get the beam out of your own eye.

      Note that Jeff simply refuses to actually engage the contents of my comments and take Popper seriously.

      For example, he's focusing on a purely verbal problem, rather than addressing the actual problem at hand. This is precisely Popper's point. Words will always be ambiguous to some degree. Yet, this doesn't prevent us from being only as clear as necessary to make progress. For example, despite not exhaustively defining the term "define", he still still aware of how we differ in the context of this discussion (even if he ignores it.) Apparently, this has either gone completely over his head, or he doesn't want us to make progress.

      Also note Jeff is again making the fallacious claim that unless we have exhaustive knowledge, we know nothing.

      We can make progress by using each other's terminology but in different contexts to communicate our differences. In fact, our ability to communicate despite being wrong about each other's "definitions" is consistent with Popper's theory of the universal growth of knowledge. We guess at what others mean when we hear a word, find ways to criticize it, then correct those errors.

      Nor have I been inconsistent in my approach here on Darwin's God.

      We start with a problem. There is an example on this very thread...

      Scott: Any theory about improvement raises the following question: how is the knowledge of how to make that improvement created? If it was already present at the outset, that theory is a form creationism. If it 'just happened', that theory is spontaneous generation.

      Rather than staring out by asking for a definition, I ask for a explanation for how knowledge grows, which would fall under an explanation for how human knowledge grows and include science. Again, there is an example on this very thread....

      Scott: Of course, feel freed to explain how knowledge grows, then point out how biological Darwinism doesn't fit that explanation.

      When that doesn't work, rather than throw up my hands and assume we cannot make progress, I use shared terminology. But I do so knowing full well that we will disagree on what those terms means and that difference will become more clear when used in the context of the criticizing the problem.

      I've done this with several terms, including "knowledge", "definition", etc. In fact, we all do this with all terminology because, as I indicated above, our interpretation starts out as a guess, which we criticize and refine.

      Cornelius simply refusals to even engage the issue when presented as a problem and or even when I use the same terminology. Jeff responds, but simply ignores clarifications and sometimes even outright fails to even quote key clarifications as if they simply were not provided at all. And now, he's avoiding the issue by focusing on a purely verbal problem, which Popper anticipated and criticized, and he's ignoring as well.

      Delete
    14. Jeff: Why difference does it make if you can't define science as you use it?

      Again, what is your criteria for determining which beliefs are non-basic, and require justification, and those that are basic, and therefore require no justification?

      What you will describe will be compatible with conjecture and criticism. Namely, that what you call basic beliefs will be those beliefs for which you currently have no good criticism, in practice. This is why there is a field of epistemology with multiple theories about how knowledge grows, what knowledge is, *ideas* such as warrant, justification, etc. It exists as a field because they represent ideas that are subject to criticism.

      Just as Newton's contribution was to present a unified theory for falling apples, the orbits of planets, etc. Popper's contribution was to present a unified theory for the universal growth of knowledge. Specifically, all knowledge grows though conjecture and criticism. This includes the growth of knowledge used to build improvements in biological adaptations, which is the problem I've stared out with.

      How human knowledge grows is a problem. So, why don't you start out by explaining how knowledge grows, then point out how Popper's Critical Rationalism and biological Darwinism doesn't fit that explanation. Please be specific.

      Delete
    15. Z: We define it methodologically, a recursive process of matching theory with observation.

      J: That's what CH uses. There is no theory that supposedly explains OR models a UCA history that includes actual inferred terrestrial species (fossil and extant) than matches observations. This is all CH is saying. He's not saying UCA has been falsified.


      Delete
    16. Scott: Again, what is your criteria for determining which beliefs are non-basic, and require justification, and those that are basic, and therefore require no justification?

      J: Basic beliefs are:

      1) quite generic in their applicability
      2) are used over and over in all "sciences"
      3) are incapable of being derived from other beliefs.

      That set of beliefs is very small relative to all the beliefs you insist are "obvious." But it takes analysis to see why all those other "obvious" beliefs are actually inferences that don't satisfy the inductive criteria when all explanatory possibilities are considered.

      If all we care about is logical possibilities, then we have to allow for a-causal histories and all the permutations and combinations of caused and uncaused events one could image. There is no criteria that can get that set down to a number manageable enough to discern "progress." This is your problem. You can't discern "progress" by your methodology, because you insist that there are no non-arbitrary criteria. That leaves with an infinite set of histories for which there is ZERO positive evidence. Science isn't even definable by this approach.

      Delete
    17. Zachriel: We define it methodologically, a recursive process of matching theory with observation.

      Jeff: There is no theory that supposedly explains OR models a UCA history that includes actual inferred terrestrial species (fossil and extant) than matches observations.

      Well, that's inconsistent. Per the scientific method, if we propose a hypothesis about a history, it doesn't have to explain everything about that history. It only has to predict what it purports to predict. So common descent with modification predicts a nested hierarchy, and that is what we observe.

      Jeff: He's not saying UCA has been falsified.

      Sure he is.
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/evolution-falsified-yet-again-they-are.html

      Delete
    18. Z: Per the scientific method, if we propose a hypothesis about a history, it doesn't have to explain everything about that history. It only has to predict what it purports to predict. So common descent with modification predicts a nested hierarchy, and that is what we observe.

      J: I can posit that a nested hierarchy of Separate Ancestors that evolved in lineages with much less diversity such that the nested hierarchy is maintained. So what? That has no utility whatsoever.

      Jeff: He's not saying UCA has been falsified.

      Z: Sure he is.
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/evolution-falsified-yet-again-they-are.html

      J: All he's saying is that certain hypotheses are rejected, not UCA per se.

      Delete
    19. Jeff: I can posit that a nested hierarchy of Separate Ancestors that evolved in lineages with much less diversity such that the nested hierarchy is maintained.

      No. The nested hierarchies would be disjoint.

      Jeff: That has no utility whatsoever.

      Of course it has utility. Even if there were separate ancestors, we could still make predictions concerning individual branches. Indeed, Darwin originally posited one or a few original ancestors. He didn't have enough data at that time to resolve the issue.

      Jeff: All he's saying is that certain hypotheses are rejected, not UCA per se.

      "Evolution falsified yet again" seems rather definitive.

      Delete
    20. Scott: Again, what is your criteria for determining which beliefs are non-basic, and require justification, and those that are basic, and therefore require no justification?

      Jeff: Basic beliefs are:

      Jeff: 1) quite generic in their applicability
      Jeff: 2) are used over and over in all "sciences"

      Neither of these two properties conflict with conjecture and criticism.

      Jeff: 3) are incapable of being derived from other beliefs.

      Which is just another way of claiming a belief is basic, because it does not require justification.

      Jeff: That set of beliefs is very small relative to all the beliefs you insist are "obvious." But it takes analysis to see why all those other "obvious" beliefs are actually inferences that don't satisfy the inductive criteria when all explanatory possibilities are considered.

      The phrase "inductive criteria" doesn't explain what steps you actually make to determine if a belief is basic or not. Take any basic belief and walk me though, "as you use it", Jeff.

      Jeff: If all we care about is logical possibilities, then we have to allow for a-causal histories and all the permutations and combinations of caused and uncaused events one could [imagine]. There is no criteria that can get that set down to a number manageable enough to discern "progress."

      Except, we've been over this before, Jeff. We care about explanations, not mere logical possibilities. Are you sure you actually have memories? Or is this yet another example of refusing to take Popper seriously? To repeat a previous post.

      One of the unique things about people is that we're universal explainers. That we we can create explanations and use them as a criteria for what possibilities we test.

      For example, it's unlikely that anyone has performed research to determine if eating a square meter of grass each day for a week would cure the common cold. Why is this? Is it because it's logically impossible? No. Is it because it's unfalsifiable? No, this would be trivial to test. Is it because it's a non-natural? No. Why then is it unlikely to be the subject of research? Because we lack an explanation as to how and why eating a square meter of grass each day for a week would cure the common cold. As such, we discard it, a priori, even before we bother to test it.

      And we do this for a near infinite number of mere possibilities every day, in every field of science.


      Given that I've presented this example several times before, the question is, will you ignore it again? Or perhaps you really do not have memories and will forget about it before you get around to replying to this comment?

      Yet to be conceived explanations, well, cannot be used to explain anything. Nor do we have a great number of good explanatory theories because the overwhelming number of our conjectured theories are almost immediately discarded for lack of internal consistency or conflict with observations under even trivial criticism. Vastly fewer yet survive significant, overwhelming criticism. This leaves us with a small number of good theories, rather than an infinite number of logical possibilities, which we *can* make progress on. Nor can we prove any one theory is true from any set.

      We tentatively adopt the theory that has best survived criticism.

      Delete
    21. To repeat, Popper's position isn't that there is a logical necessity to adopt any particular theory. Rather there is a methodological tradition by which science has a moral character. This is why logical positivism is also called logical empiricism. There are no logical methods that lead scientists to the initial formulation of new theories. This reduced the scientific method to the logic of confirmation. But theories are not "out there" for us to extrapolate from observations.

      To use one of your objections, no one "knew" that Atoms were even logically possible. Nor had anyone ever experienced an atom. Yet, this did't prevent us from conjecturing them as an explanation for phenomena.

      Then again, I don't know why I bother explaining Popper's view because you seem bound and determined to be willfully ignorant of it. Or, perhaps you really do not have actual memories and respond to some comment I didn't actually write?

      Delete
    22. Jeff: I can posit that a nested hierarchy of Separate Ancestors that evolved in lineages with much less diversity such that the nested hierarchy is maintained.

      Z: No. The nested hierarchies would be disjoint.

      J: That's utterly false. The nested hierarchy is a hierarchy of organisms inferred to exist by the use of our senses. As such, it doesn't even depend on all the posited transitional species at all. Thus you're just dead wrong. It's easy to pick SA's from that tree where gaps are large and systematic. It proves nothing to do so, of course. But it can be done. The whole approach is worthless since it tells us nothing about the actual effects of historical mutations.

      Jeff: That has no utility whatsoever.

      Z: Of course it has utility. Even if there were separate ancestors, we could still make predictions concerning individual branches.

      J: OK, then. What's the utility in that? How are you going to make a different decision in your life WITH that information than you would without it?

      Jeff: All he's saying is that certain hypotheses are rejected, not UCA per se.

      Z: "Evolution falsified yet again" seems rather definitive.

      J: It is for the evolutionary hypothesis in question. There are no entailments that can be seen in the mere positing of a universal common ancestor in the Precambrian relevantly related to the subsequent evolutionary history posited by UCA'ists. That's why all these other "theories" can be shown to be false as articulated without "falsifying" UCA per se.

      Delete
    23. Scott: To use one of your objections, no one "knew" that Atoms were even logically possible.

      J: That's no objection of mine. Warranted belief criteria simply are the inductive criteria applied to the logically possible explanations we've thus far conceived of. You problem is that you don't know what an explanation even is. Hint: No event sequences are explained by supposing those events might be uncaused. Explanation just is causal accounting of events.

      Delete
    24. Jeff: The nested hierarchy is a hierarchy of organisms inferred to exist by the use of our senses.

      It's objective, meaning independent observers, even machine intelligence, will arrive at the same result.

      Jeff: As such, it doesn't even depend on all the posited transitional species at all.

      There is no reason to suppose that each of the separate ancestors would form a nested hierarchy unless they too were descended from a common ancestor.

      Jeff: What's the utility in that?

      It reveals the history of the lineage.

      Jeff: How are you going to make a different decision in your life WITH that information than you would without it?

      Scientific utility has to do with knowledge, not paying the bills. Heliocentrism didn't pay the bills either. Seriously? That's your objection?

      Delete
    25. Jeff: The nested hierarchy is a hierarchy of organisms inferred to exist by the use of our senses.

      Z: It's objective, meaning independent observers, even machine intelligence, will arrive at the same result.

      J: The point is that it isn't derived using posited characteristics of merely posited transitional organisms. As such, you can posit separate ancestry or saltationism consistent with that hierarchy. Ain't rocket science.

      Jeff: As such, it doesn't even depend on all the posited transitional species at all.

      Z: There is no reason to suppose that each of the separate ancestors would form a nested hierarchy unless they too were descended from a common ancestor.

      J: See above. You're truly confused.


      Jeff: How are you going to make a different decision in your life WITH that information than you would without it?

      Z: Scientific utility has to do with knowledge,

      J: Knowledge that can't be used practically has no utility, BY DEFINITION. "Utility" is related to "UTILIZE." So how are you gonna utilize the knowledge? I'm not saying it can't be utilized, mind you. But if you don't know how it can be, then my point is made. I.e., neither the truth of UCA nor of SA per se has any utility you have articulated THUS FAR.

      Delete
    26. Z: Heliocentrism didn't pay the bills either. Seriously? That's your objection?

      J: Heliocentrism and the related ideas about relative motion made Newton's equations conceivable. Newton's equations have plenty of utility. You're utterly clueless.

      Delete
    27. J: Heliocentrism and the related ideas about relative motion made Newton's equations conceivable.

      J2: Rather, applicable in the relevant way that rendered them useful for some of what they're useful for.

      Delete
    28. Jeff,
      J: Knowledge that can't be used practically has no utility, BY DEFINITION


      "Utility, or usefulness, is the ability of something to satisfy needs or wants. "

      It does not say those needs or wants need to be practical, by definition

      ." So how are you gonna utilize the knowledge?

      For a scientist it answers the question " how",

      But if you don't know how it can be, then my point is made. I.e., neither the truth of UCA nor of SA per se has any utility you have articulated THUS FAR.

      For the curious ,all knowledge fulfills a need, therefore has utility. I doubt Einstein knew what his curiosity about the nature of light would result in.

      What practical use is philosophy?

      Delete
    29. Zachriel is lying. Unguided and gradual evolution can't even explain metazoans let alone an objective nested hierarchy. Gradual evolution predicts a smooth blending of defining traits which would violate an objective nested hierarchy.

      Delete
    30. Jeff: The point is that it isn't derived using posited characteristics of merely posited transitional organisms.

      That's right. The nested hierarchy is observed independent of any explanatory theory.

      Jeff: As such, you can posit separate ancestry or saltationism consistent with that hierarchy. Ain't rocket science.

      Sure. That is until you start looking for transitional fossils, or long lineages of evolutionary change.

      Jeff: See above.

      Ignoring the point. While you explain the nested hierarchy of the descendants of a separate ancestor as due to divergence, you leave unexplained the exact same pattern in the posited separate ancestors.

      Jeff: Knowledge that can't be used practically has no utility, BY DEFINITION.

      Scientists use knowledge to make "different decisions" than they would otherwise. Utility means useful, and scientists find knowledge useful, even if you don't.

      utility, fitness for some purpose or worth to some end.

      Jeff: I.e., neither the truth of UCA nor of SA per se has any utility you have articulated THUS FAR.

      Being able to find a transitional fossil is useful to scientists because it extends their knowledge. It fits their purpose, and achieves their end. Geez. Seriously?

      Jeff: Heliocentrism and the related ideas about relative motion made Newton's equations conceivable.

      That came much later. Meanwhile, Galileo was tried by the Inquisition. According to your strained definition, it had no 'utility'.

      Delete
    31. The nested hierarchy cannot be explained by unguided evolution and Zachriel has no idea what a nested hierarchy is.

      And transitional fossil means "it looks like a transitional to me"- that doesn't add any knowledge and could mess up our knowledge.

      And unguided evolution doesn't have any utility as it adds nothing.

      Delete
    32. Jeff: That's no objection of mine.

      From http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/01/evolutionist-science-doesnt-lie.html?showComment=1390147259678#c8816545200630374357

      Jeff: No, nothing we know about genetics indicates currently-observed fossil succession has anything to do with what historical mutations would have caused. That's you confusing your imagination with reason.

      Delete
    33. Also: Jeff: It's amazing how you neither shut up nor put up. Can you NOW articulate what you "know" that "implies [Universal Common Ancestry] [is] possible?" PLEASE?! And PLEASE be specific.

      Delete
    34. Nice projection Scott- you never shut up nor put up

      Delete
  3. CH: By our count...

    But you haven't given us a reason why we should actually care about "Your count". Specifically, you haven't explained how "your count" works or argued for whatever it's supposedly based on.

    For example, "your count" is based a phase you repeatedly use: "the science". However, this seems to be no more well defined that "your science". At best, you've mentioned positivism, but logical positivism was discarded decades ago because it makes all universal statements meaningless. So, apparently, by your count, all universal scientific theories are misrepresentations of science, including gravitational theory. But it doesn't stop there as all observations would be meaningless as well. This is because singular observations are based on universals, such as the idea that microscopes work the same regardless of the time and place they are used, who uses them, what the subject is, etc. We cannot positively prove these universals are true which, according to positivism, makes observations made though them meaningless.

    Furthermore, by "your count", what you consider religious statements appears arbitrary. For example, God wouldn't be limited to creating the world we observe either billions of years ago or 6,000 years ago. God could have also chosen to create the world we observe 30 minutes ago, complete with the appearance of age, false memories, etc. At which point, God would have been the origin of the post I'm responding to, not you. As such, the claim that Cornelius Hunter wrote the post I'm responding should, according to your count, also be a religious statement because God could have done it instead. It's unclear why this possibility isn't a religious claim.

    The same can be said about your implied validity of probability in regards to whether a theory is true or probability true vs the validity of probability in regards to intra-theory details based on tenets of that same theory, which constrain the possible outcomes. For example, can you calculate the probability of rolling a die and getting a 20 if you don't know how many sides that die has? Can you calculate the probability of rolling a die and getting a 20 if future roles are influenced by past roles?

    IOW, "your count" appears to parochial because it appears to be based on nothing more than just "your opinion". It's limited in scope.

    So, why should we care about "your count"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Funny, since I have caught Darwinists repeatedly lying to me, and Dr. Hunter highly values honesty. I trust Dr. Hunter's 'count' much more than I trust any Darwinist's objection to that count.

      Delete
    2. That's adorably loyal of you, bornagain, but it just demonstrates the uncritical, mindless, 'because-someone-told-me-so' attitude the religious so often display when it comes to the acquisition of knowledge.

      Cornelius has not revealed his count. He has not revealed what these false statements, circular arguments or metaphysical claims actually ARE. Therefore we are just taking his word for it.

      I can play that game too: yesterday I was reading the Bible and I spotted 1,065 errors of fact. So that proves the Bible is categorically wrong. I'm not going to tell you what those errors were, you'll just have to take my word for it!

      See?

      Cornelius needs to show his working or 'his count' counts for nothing.

      Delete
    3. But Ritchie, I don't care what you believe! ESPECIALLY since you are a Darwinist!

      Delete
    4. Of course you don't. You only care about the opinions of those you agree with. Everyone else you ignore.

      Because not having your opinions challenged is more important to you than being correct.

      Delete
    5. "But Ritchie, I don't care what you believe! ESPECIALLY since you are a Darwinist!"

      LOL....Easy there BA Ritchie does not get the logic of earned credibility

      Delete
    6. I get the concept. The problem is that CH doesn't really have much of it.

      You earn credibility in a scientific field by having a long and continuous record of peer reviewed papers and transparent studies where you publish your findings.

      Which is exactly what Cornelius is NOT doing here.

      Delete
    7. BA: Funny, since I have caught Darwinists repeatedly lying to me, and Dr. Hunter highly values honesty. I trust Dr. Hunter's 'count' much more than I trust any Darwinist's objection to that count.

      First, good ideas are good regardless of their source. You're confusing where an idea comes from with the content of the idea itself.

      Second, even if we are generous and assume Cornelius actually values honesty, this doesn't mean his ideas about evolution, biology, etc. are infallible. IOW, regardless of what Cornelius values, his ideas shouldn't be immune from criticism.

      Third, we've pointed out multiple instances where Cornelius not only appears to have knowingly presented falsehoods or made disingenuous arguments, but he continues to do so, despite being corrected over and over again. When we point this out, he just moves on to repeat some other disingenuous argument, etc., rather than actually address it. It's unclear how this behavior actually reflects Cornelius highly valuing honesty, in practice.

      Delete
    8. LoL! Evolutionists push falsehoods as science and their "arguments" are disingenious, and they continue to do so.

      Delete
    9. But what is that conclusion based on, Joe? I'm suggesting it's based on falsehoods and disingenuous arguments.

      Again, if by science, Cornelius means Logical Positivism, this is a disingenuous argument, as we discarded it decades ago. Cornelius is either grossly incompetent or knows this quite well. Even if the former were true at one point, I've pointed this out repeatedly. So what else are we supposed to conclude?

      Delete
    10. And if, by "Science" Cornelius doesn't mean Logical Positivism, then what does he mean?

      Note: I'm not suggesting it's necessary for Cornelius to personally commit to or believe in any particular philosophy of science for the purpose of criticism; just as it's not necessary for me to personally believe in any particular conception of God to criticize claims of theists or ID proponents.

      For example, Cornelius could walk though every specific philosophy of science and point out how evolutionary theory isn't science under the specific tenets of each philosophy as a coherent whole. However, this has yet to happen.

      Rather, I'm saying his continued naked use of the term "the science" itself has philosophical implications, which he *was* ignorant of (but has been pointed out to him) and/or disingenuously smuggles into his argument.

      IOW, it's unclear why his objection doesn't go both ways. Why do we have to personally believe a particular conception of God to criticize theists, while Cornelius apparently doesn't have to personally believe or commit to a particular philosophy of science to criticize evolutionary theory? It simply doesn't add up.

      Delete
    11. Scott: God could have also chosen to create the world we observe 30 minutes ago, complete with the appearance of age, false memories, etc.

      J: Not if you're explaining the existence of warranted belief teleologically in the first place, Scott. And that's what many theists do.

      Delete
    12. ... And how, other than teleologically, COULD you explain the existence of warranted belief, Scott? Give it a shot. On the other hand, if no belief is warranted, all your beliefs are indistinguishable from illusory/hallucinatory ones. This means you're basically "insane" by consensus definition of that term. Unfortunately for Popper etal, the legal world has to define and put on at least an appearance of regard for the LNC.

      Delete
    13. Scott my conclusion is based on the facts. Yours is a position lacking a testable model.

      Delete
    14. Scott: Furthermore, by "your count", what you consider religious statements appears arbitrary. God could have also chosen to create the world we observe 30 minutes ago, complete with the appearance of age, false memories, etc. At which point, God would have been the origin of the post I'm responding to, not you. As such, the claim that Cornelius Hunter wrote the post I'm responding should, according to your count, also be a religious statement because God could have done it instead.

      Jeff: Not if you're explaining the existence of warranted belief teleologically in the first place, Scott. And that's what many theists do.

      I'm not following you, Jeff. You'll have to explain it to me. Why couldn't God make that choice? How is that an explanation?

      For example, you do not seem to a have a problem suggesting God could have chosen to create the same world we observe in such a way that he would have been the origin of the knowledge of how to build biological adoptions. So, what's the difference between being the origin of that knowledge, and say, origin of the OP or what would only appear to be Einstein's GR, etc.?

      Furthermore, your use of the phase "the existence of warranted belief" seems to be yet another example of you confusing a particular theory of knowledge with the field of epistemology as a whole, an inability to recognize essentialism as an idea that would be subject to criticism, etc.

      Jeff: On the other hand, if no belief is warranted, all your beliefs are indistinguishable from illusory/hallucinatory ones.

      Except, as I've already pointed out, this is a false dichotomy. Your response is to essentially ignore the distinction I've made as if these are obviously to two only possible options.

      Apparently, only insane people think the field of epistemology exists.

      Delete
    15. Scott: Why couldn't God make that choice?

      J: Simple. If the vast majority of our apparent memories are false, there's no such thing as warranted belief or even such a discernible thing AS a belief. Because if the vast majority of apparent memories are false, it's just as probable as not that ALL apparent memories are false, in which case any apparent memory that there have been beliefs is false.

      Delete
    16. Scott: Apparently, only insane people think the field of epistemology exists.

      J: Not at all. But those who make up the consensus you agree with are. Luckily for insane people, even they have the same associative adaptedness as animals such that they can get around and continue to eat, etc.

      Delete
    17. Scott: Why couldn't God make that choice?

      Jeff: Simple. If the vast majority of our apparent memories are false, there's no such thing as warranted belief or even such a discernible thing AS a belief.

      First, I'd point out you're putting the cart before the horse, as you're assuming there is such a thing as warranted belief in the first place.

      William Warren Bartley compared critical rationalism to the very general philosophical approach to knowledge which he called "justificationism". Most justificationists do not know that they are justificationists. Justificationism is what Popper called a "subjectivist" view of truth, in which the question of whether some statement is true, is confused with the question of whether it can be justified (established, proven, verified, warranted, made well-founded, made reliable, grounded, supported, legitimated, based on evidence) in some way.

      A billion years from now, (assuming we don't stop creating the necessary knowledge necessary to solve problems that would result in us going extinct) the majority of human knowledge supposedly wouldn't be false and supposedly would be warranted. We cannot prove that God didn't run some kind of simulation of what could have happened, to generate constant, yet false memories as of 30 minutes ago.

      We would still have beliefs, and the best explanation would still be that they occurred.

      Note: all I've done here is move the line as to what knowledge was God supposedly created by God, and what was not. IOIW we cannot rule out God creating the universe 30 minutes ago is just another variation on the bad criticism that we cannot prove God didn't create knowledge X.

      Second, the vast majority of our apparent memories are incomplete and contain errors. So, in a sense, the vast majority are false.

      By nature of being incomplete and containing errors, everyones accounts for the same experiences will not be wrong in exactly the same way as reality. To say there is such a thing as error is to say we can make progress in the light of it.

      For example, you have yet to address the substance of the following article.

      http://nautil.us/issue/2/uncertainty/why-its-good-to-be-wrong

      So, apparently, you think it's obviously wrong and no response is necessary, which perpetuates the very thing the article criticizes.

      Third, since you haven't explained why God couldn't *necessarily* have make that choice, apparently a belief that there is such a thing as warranted belief would be yet another religious belief according to Cornelius's count. At which point, his specific objection in the case of evolutionary theory is a distinction without a difference. It's handwaving.

      Delete
    18. Scott: Apparently, only insane people think the field of epistemology exists.

      Jeff: Not at all.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

      [The field of Epistemology] is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge[1][2] and is also referred to as "theory of knowledge". It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which knowledge pertinent to any given subject or entity can be acquired. Much of the debate in this field has focused on the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification.

      But, according to you, there is no such question regarding the nature of knowledge, how its acquired, etc. They are not ideas that are subject to criticism because they are basic and obvious.

      As such, it's unclear how you this doesn't reflect a dental that the field of epistemology actually exists, in practice.

      Delete
  4. By our count Velasco issued 13 scientifically misleading or downright false statements, 18 bare assertions or circular statements, 5 just-so stories, 6 miscellaneous fallacies, and, of course at the top of the list, 21 non scientific, metaphysical claims. That is a total of 63 violations of science in a mere 42 minutes, for an astonishing rate of 1.5 hits per minute.

    I seriously doubt it, to put it mildly, but I'm willing to be persuaded. How about listing a representative sample of five, say, that we can all look at to see if we agree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian, I'm no genius, but I think Cornelius is challenging us to see if we can find the discrepancies. A sort of pop quiz if you will.

      Delete
  5. Ritchie: "You earn credibility in a scientific field by having a long and continuous record of peer reviewed papers and transparent studies where you publish your findings.

    Which is exactly what Cornelius is NOT doing here."

    Funny how in a different area of research say for example one of the fields in which the IEEE publishes its many journals, if you submit a paper to one of them filled with the phrases "could be", "may have significance", "may be" or "might be", those phrases would in themselves probably kill the chances at publication after peer review. Similarly if every feature of a theoretical advancement were said to have "evolved", instead of to just exist, that would surely doom the submission. But somehow in the science you seem to defend, everything that exists has the obligatory "has evolved", or "have evolved" right there attached to it in print without exception, whenever mentioned in the popular AND technical literature. And we are supposed to be ignorant of this doctrinaire public manipulation in the 'scientific' literature promoting the 'science' you support? Maybe a little self reflection on how one's own attitudes have been manipulated over years of education might be called for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're fudging to distract from calling Cornelius out on publishing a post with zero revealed data.

      Do you or do you not find it acceptable for Cornelius to simply declare himself to have found such such without ever having to state what they are?

      If you do then you're just a lackey who defends CH even when he is demonstrably behaving unscientifically.

      If not then get off my case.

      Delete
    2. Yet more data as evidence for the Salem Hypothesis.

      Delete
  6. A ggod point would be to stress how the fossil record does not show the glory of dead ends. If evolution is true then the years should of been full of creatures evolving this and that and then more but it fails too advance or add anything to the modern world or lineage in the fossil record(as they claim its a lineage).
    Instead the fossil record shows basic creatures, even dinos, and vert structured classifications.
    I'm making a careful point here.
    Likewise if creatures evolved then vestigial bits and pieces should be found everywhere in creatures by fossil/ or alive.
    instead its just a few and all welcome. Snakes, sightless creatures, wingless birds, marine mammals (I see as indeed land creatures originally).
    If evolutionism is wrong then debates like this should show it.
    I think it does.
    All the claims are not founded on biological scientific evidence but on lines of reasoning.
    Like equals like descent is not logically demanding.
    Like can equal like common design.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Even commenters at that den of iniquity, Uncommon descent are wondering how Cornelius justifies his count.

    Come on Cornelius, spill the beans!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Alan, we realize that you, being ignorant of science, are too dim to figure it out by yourself.

      Delete
  8. How does common descent provide a demarcation argument for evoltution as opposed to design? I am reminded of Berra's Blunder as it came to be called.

    "If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious. This is what paleontologists do with fossils, and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that it cannot be denied by reasonable people."
    T. Berra, Evolution and the myth of creationism,1990, pg 117-119

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Doublee

    What specifically was Berra's blunder?

    ReplyDelete
  10. OT

    Are there any Young Earth Creationists (maybe even Cornelius himself) interested in explaining how they reconcile their belief (if that is the case) in a 6,000 year old Earth and the evidence that the Earth is really more than four billion years old?

    Answers are sought at www.theskepticalzone.com. You will be most welcome. The moderation is as gentle as at Dr. hunters blog!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There isn't any evidence that the earth is more than 4 billion years old

      Delete
  11. @ Alan Fox

    Frankly, I am a bit puzzled by your question, because the problem I see is obvious and is posed in my opening question.

    Since common descent can be observed in both designed objects and the natural world, common descent cannot be used to rule out intelligent design. To put it another way, common descent lends support to both to the theory of evolution and intelligent design.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed.

      But what was Berra's blunder?

      Delete
    2. BTW just to help you out here, the theory of "Intelligent Design" has no entailments so obviously it can't be ruled out.

      Delete
    3. "To put it another way, common descent lends support to both to the theory of evolution and intelligent design."

      That's not actually true. ToE necessitates common descent. If common descent was NOT observed, then that would be a serious problem for ToE. Therefore it supports ToE.

      But ID does not necessitate common descent. If common descent was not observed, that would pose no problem at all for ID. So it does not really support ID.

      Delete
    4. Could someone please reference the peer-reviewed article that contains the alleged ToE?

      As far as I can tell only Darwin put forth theories of evolution

      Delete
    5. ID's entailments- easily refuting Alan's ignorance:


      ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):



      1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.


      2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.


      3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.


      4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

      Delete
    6. Alan: BTW just to help you out here, the theory of "Intelligent Design" has no entailments so obviously it can't be ruled out.

      J: BTW, neither does the positing of a universal ancestor in the Precambrian have any entailment relevantly related to the subsequent history UCA'ists posit. Guess you never think before you pontificate.

      Delete
  12. But ID does not necessitate common descent. If common descent was not observed, that would pose no problem at all for ID. So it does not really support ID.

    You could put "entail" where you have "necessitate". There is no theory of "Intelligent Design" according to prominent YEC Paul Nelson. Mind you, he got the story wrong about junk DNA so he could be wrong on the ID theory, too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There isn't any theory of unguided evolution.

      BTW Intelligent Design has entailments- Alan's ignorance means nothing

      Delete
    2. Common descent is indeed required by the theory of evolution, but common descent without a mechanism does not help the theory.

      Until scientists can describe the mechanisms of morphological change there is no theory/explanation of evolution. Then there's the problem of the fossil record itself. With the sudden appearance of some forms and otherwise large gaps in the record, common descent is open to question.

      Does mere morphological similarity demonstrate common descent? Isn't a genetic analysis required to confirm common descent?

      Delete
    3. Doublee: Until scientists can describe the mechanisms of morphological change there is no theory/explanation of evolution.

      The Theory of Common Descent stands regardless of any larger theory of evolution.

      Doublee: Does mere morphological similarity demonstrate common descent?

      No, it's the nested hierarchy, the family resemblance.

      Doublee: Isn't a genetic analysis required to confirm common descent?

      Common descent was confirmed long before genetic analysis was available. That genetics supports the same nested hierarchy, including endogenous retroviruses and synonymous substitutions, is additional, and very strong confirmation.


      Delete
    4. Common descent cannot be tested, and unguided evolution would not expect a nested hierarchy based on traits.

      Zachriel is ignorant wrt nested hierarchies. Gradual evolution would produce a smooth blending of defining characteristics which would violate objective nested hierarchies.

      Delete
    5. Joe G: Gradual evolution would produce a smooth blending of defining characteristics

      Extinction tends to create gaps between taxa. There is quite a lot of evidence concerning extinction.

      Delete
    6. Zachriel:
      Extinction tends to create gaps between taxa.

      Just-so extinctions, perhaps, but it isn't a necessary outcome of extinctions.

      A theory cannot rely on just-so extinctions to explain a pattern it could not explain otherwise. That is evidence for desperation.

      Delete
    7. Joe G: A theory cannot rely on just-so extinctions to explain a pattern it could not explain otherwise.

      Well, it turns out we don't have to rely on "just so extinctions", as we have evidence of actual extinctions.

      Delete
    8. Well, it turns out that you obviously don't know anything about science and you are desperate to be heard anyway.

      Delete
    9. Are you saying we don't have evidence of extinction?

      Delete
    10. No, I am saying that you are scientifically illiterate and apparently proud of it.

      Delete
  13. T. Berra: "If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious. This is what paleontologists do with fossils, and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that it cannot be denied by reasonable people."

    Any theory about improvement raises the following question: how is the knowledge of how to make that improvement created? If it was already present at the outset, that theory is a form creationism. If it 'just happened', that theory is spontaneous generation.

    Distinct from either of these, biological Darwinism is the theory that the knowledge of how to make improvements in biological adaptations in nature was genuinely created over time through a process of variation that is random *to any specific problem to solve* and criticism in the form of natural selection. It genuinely did not exist before then.

    Human designers are good explanations for human designed things precisely because of our human limitations. For example, even with advances in computer added design, automotive manufactures do not release entirely new vehicles every year because they are time consuming and expensive to design, prototype, test, obtain necessary regulatory approval, etc. Even then, new models often leverage existing power trains which are refined and tested both on the test track and on the road over many years. Features represent trade-offs specific to human limitations, such as performance, efficiency, convenience, cost, etc.

    Biological adaptations superficially appear similar to human designs because biological Darwinism falls under the same umbrella as our current, best explanation for the growth of human knowledge. In both cases, the knowledge of how to make improvements grows through a error correcting process. The sort of common decent observed in human designed things is of a marked difference from that observed in biological organisms. For example, there are a number of biological adaptations from common ancestors for which there is simply no explanation as to why they would remain in place. Especially since changing them would be trivial should we take seriously the claim that this same designer knew how to make those same adaption in the first place. This would be analogous to how re-routing a brake line that went significantly out of its way would be trivial for human designers.

    However, ID's designer is abstract and has no defined limitations. This is by design, as it does not limit said designer from possessing the knowledge of how to build any organism that has, does or could exist, at the outset. Unless you're willing to propose limits for your designer, ID is a form of creationism.

    To return to my automobile example, ID's designer wouldn't be constrained from knowing how to build any automobile that has, does or could exist at the outset. As such, it could release a completely new model for every single customer because it already would know exactly how each design would behave in an accident, over the long term, etc.. It could start out with the most advanced car logically possible to build, rather than the least advanced, or release every possible model simultaneously, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whatever Scott- You can attack ID with your ignorance and it ain't going to help unguided evolution.

      Natural selection doesn't do anything. Genetic drift isn't og any help. Yours lacks a mechanism for design.

      Delete
    2. As you do Joe for how the design is implemented

      Delete
    3. Well vel, how the design was implemented comes AFTER determining design and studying it, whereas unguided evolution is the one that sez it has a step-wise process yet no one can model it.

      You lose, again

      Delete
    4. Joe: Whatever Scott- You can attack ID with your ignorance and it ain't going to help unguided evolution.

      Can you point out exactly what parts of the above comment represents "my ignorance"? Please be specific.

      Joe: Natural selection doesn't do anything. Genetic drift isn't og any help. Yours lacks a mechanism for design.

      By "isn't any help", don't you mean biological Darwinism isn't an authoritative source, so it couldn't possibly be the origin of the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations?

      After all, "mechanisms for design" are always authoritative sources, right?

      If not, where did I get is wrong? If not an authoritative source, how does your view about "mechanisms for design" differ in detail? Please be specific.

      Delete
    5. 1- ID is not about the designer
      2- Your strawman about a new car for each customer
      3- knowledge only exists in designers
      4- unguided evolution only breaks things and perhaps gathers junk

      Delete
    6. Scott: Can you point out exactly what parts of the above comment represents "my ignorance"? Please be specific.

      Joe: 1- ID is not about the designer

      Which is precisely why ID's designer is abstract and has no defined limitations. No ignorance here. Perhaps you mean ID claims we cannot know anything about the designer. But that is a claim about the designer, which contradicts your statement.

      Joe: Your strawman about a new car for each customer

      If ID's designer is abstract and has no defined limitations, such as access to resources, what it knows, when it knew it, etc. It would not be limited from creating a new car for each customer, creating vehicles in the order of most advanced to least, or even all at once. Unless you're suggesting ID's designer would or could not do this, then it's unclear how this represents a strawman. However, in making this suggestion, this too would contradict your statement.

      Joe: knowledge only exists in designers

      And you know this how, Joe, by definition? We gave atoms the name "Atom" when we thought they could not be split. But we've since learned otherwise.

      Joe: unguided evolution only breaks things and perhaps gathers junk

      If, by unguided, you mean completely random, biological Darwinism isn't complexly random. So, no ignorance here either.

      Delete
    7. Scot- your ignorance is thinking that non-random natural selection actually means something. NS is unguided even though it is non-random. It is only non-random in the sense that not every individual in the populations has the same probability of surviving/ being eliminated.

      Natural selection is still blind and mindless- it doesn't guide anything.

      Unguided evolution includes NS. You have serious ignorance issues.

      Delete
    8. Joe G: Natural selection is still blind and mindless- it doesn't guide anything.

      A river bed is "blind and mindless", but guides water to the sea.

      Delete
    9. Joe: Scot- your ignorance is thinking that non-random natural selection actually means something.

      Of course it means something Joe. If it was meaningless, we couldn't talk about it, you couldn't be confused about it, etc. Perhaps you mean that natural selection doesn't exhibit intent or see meaning in solving problems, etc.? If so, we're in agreement. No ignorance here.

      Joe: NS is unguided even though it is non-random. It is only non-random in the sense that not every individual in the populations has the same probability of surviving/ being eliminated.

      Where we disagree is whether intent or meaning is necessary to create knowledge though an error correcting process. I'm suggesting it doesn't.

      Again, any theory about improvement raises the following question: how is the knowledge of how to make that improvement created? If it was already present at the outset, that theory is a form creationism. If it 'just happened', that theory is spontaneous generation.

      Both people and biological Darwinism can create Non-explanatory knowledge. It's part of our current, best explanation for the universal growth of knowledge.

      Of course, feel freed to explain how knowledge grows, then point out how biological Darwinism doesn't fit that explanation.

      Delete
    10. Zachriel:
      A river bed is "blind and mindless", but guides water to the sea.

      Or not- wow that is really some guidance- to the sea or not

      Delete
    11. Scott- Darwinism doesn't explain anything. It is useless as a heuristic. It cannot be tested. And has only been known to break things and collect junk.

      Delete
    12. Joe G: Or not

      The Mississippi River bed is "blind and mindless", but guides water to the sea.

      Delete
    13. No, water carved the Mississippi River bed on its way to the sea thanks to gravity and the line of least resistance.

      Grow up

      Delete
    14. Actually, a river is quite a good metaphor for the concept of how adaptive evolution flows through a fitness landscape. Rain falling on a perfect cone and draining in to a perfectly flat plain has an astronomical number of possible courses to follow. In the real world, the number of possible courses is closely constrained by the geology and topography of the landscape over which the water must flow. The result is a main course and tributary structure which is highly complex and changing constantly over time but there is no reason to think it was carved out by the hand of God or any other highly-advanced alien. Natural processes can account for it quite well even if they cannot predict its exact course over time.

      Delete
    15. Actually, a river is quite a good metaphor for the concept of how adaptive evolution flows through a fitness landscape.

      Only to mental midgets who don't know any better.

      Delete
  14. My favorite error by Velasco is affirming the consequence.

    if Q then B, B exists therefore Q is false.

    This logic error is taught in elementary logic, yet a biology professor doesn't get it.

    If evolution, then trends in the fossil record.
    Trends in the fossil record, therefore evolution is true.
    False, you fail introductory, undergrad philosophy. That's why biologists are the low man in the science totem pole.


    Incredible.

    This is not proof of evolution as Paul briefly touched upon. I don't know why he didn't point this out. It destroys Velasco's whole argument.

    The same fossil record could have been created by space aliens, or an inter-dimensional super-being (Jesus). Velasco offers no proof to distinguish between these possibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Peter Wadeck: if Q then B, B exists therefore Q is {true}.

    That's not quite correct. In science, it should be

    If Q then B, B, so Q is consistent with the evidence (supported).
    or
    If Q then B, ~B, therefore ~Q (falsification)

    A good hypothesis, Q, will divide the universe in such a way as to exclude other proposed hypotheses, therefore confirmation can provide strong support or falsification for Q.

    Peter Wadeck: This is not proof of evolution

    Science doesn't deal in proof, but evidence.

    Peter Wadeck: False, you fail introductory, undergrad philosophy. That's why biologists are the low man in the science totem pole.

    Other scientists use the same construction. If the Earth rotates, the pendulum should be retarded at the equator. As the pendulum is retarded, the hypothesis is consistent with the evidence (supported), and the hypothesis of a non-rotating Earth is not consistent (falsified).

    Peter Wadeck: The same fossil record could have been created by space aliens, or an inter-dimensional super-being (Jesus).

    Or just poofed into existence Last Thursday! However, it has all the appearance of common descent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except is doesn't have the appearance of common descent. And unguided evolution is untestable.

      Delete
    2. Joe G: Except is doesn't have the appearance of common descent.

      Of course it does. Just ask Peter Wadeck.

      Peter Wadeck: If evolution, then trends in the fossil record.
      Trends in the fossil record


      He points out that trends in the fossil record are consistent with evolution. He just thinks there are other possible explanations.

      Delete
    3. I don't have to ask anyone- the appearance of common descent doesn't exist.

      Trends in the fossil record don't support unguided evolution.

      Delete
    4. Joe G: Trends in the fossil record don't support unguided evolution.

      Peter Wadeck has said it is consistent with evolution. What do you think is his source of confusion?

      Delete
    5. Zachriel- The confusion is all yours. Peter didn't say any such thing and supporting evolution isn't the same as supporting unguided evolution.

      Delete
    6. Joe G: Peter didn't say any such thing and supporting evolution

      Peter Wadeck: If evolution, then trends in the fossil record. Trends in the fossil record

      Delete
    7. He was paraphrasing the evo argument. Nice own goal, chief.

      That means he wasn't saying it, in case you didn't know...

      Delete
    8. Joe G: He was paraphrasing the evo argument.

      It was clear he was accepting the observation, otherwise, there would be no reason to provide alternative explanations.

      Peter Wadeck: The same fossil record could have been created by space aliens, or an inter-dimensional super-being (Jesus). Velasco offers no proof to distinguish between these possibilities.

      Delete
    9. I was only being generous showing that even if the fossil record supported evolution his argument fails. However, there is fossil evidence which contradicts evolution. One example is the Cambrian explosion that blows evolution out of the water.

      Delete
    10. Peter Wadeck: One example is the Cambrian explosion that blows evolution out of the water.

      1. That wouldn't undermine the evidence concerning events after the Cambrian Explosion.
      2. The Cambrian Explosion is consistent with evolutionary theory. There is ample evidence of simpler life before, and more complex life after.

      You might want to be more specific.

      Also, you might want to address our comments above about your misunderstanding of the scientific method.

      Delete
    11. Zachriel, evolutionism shuns science and its methodology. So perhaps you should address that. However it is a given that you won't.

      Delete
  16. @ Zachriel
    "The Theory of Common Descent stands regardless of any larger theory of evolution."

    That's what I am in effect asking. What is the larger theory of evolution? You know, the theory that actually explains how evolution works?

    Is James M. Tour correct when he says that there is no scientist that knows how evolution really works?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doublee: You know, the theory that actually explains how evolution works?

      Well, let's start with branching descent. Are you okay with the evidence for that?

      Doublee: Is James M. Tour correct when he says that there is no scientist that knows how evolution really works?

      James M. Tour: I do not have anything substantive to say about it {the evolution vs. creation debate}. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation.

      In any case, we know a great deal about evolution, but certainly not everything. It's a contingent process, and much of it occurred in the distant past, so it can be difficult to unravel all its mysteries.

      Historians are still discovering new things about Custer's Last Stand, but that doesn't mean we don't know anything.

      "Applying forensic science techniques to examine tell-tale marks on spent cartridges and bullets, researchers were even able to track individual warriors and troopers across the field of battle."
      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/custers-heroic-image-collapses-under-investigation-archaeologists-have-demolished-the-myths-surrounding-a-legendary-american-battle-david-keys-reports-1461081.html

      Delete
    2. Unguided evolution can't even get past populations of prokaryotes starting with populations of prokaryotes. You don't have a mechanism capable of explaining anything.

      That would be a problem.

      Delete
    3. Joe G: Unguided evolution can't even get past populations of prokaryotes starting with populations of prokaryotes.

      Not knowing everything doesn't mean not knowing anything. In any case, see Sagan, On the origin of mitosing cells, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1967.

      Delete
    4. @ Zachriel
      "In any case, we know a great deal about evolution, but certainly not everything."

      So the one word answer to the question, "Does anyone know how evolution really works?" is "No."

      For me the fundamental questions that need to be answered are these.

      How was the four letter code that is the basis for life created?

      How was the machinery that translates that code into a sequence of amino acids created?

      Where did the information come from that specifies the creation of functional proteins?

      What is the system for organizing proteins into tissues and organs and organs and tissues into body plans?

      Information concepts abound in living organisms. How can scientists assert that random processes can change that information such that a new body plan is created from an existing body plan?

      That is equivalent to asking how can random changes to a computer program create new functional code?

      Delete
    5. Zachriel:
      Not knowing everything doesn't mean not knowing anything. In any case, see Sagan, On the origin of mitosing cells, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1967.

      Read it. It doesn't help you at all. Nice bluff.

      Delete
    6. Doublee: So the one word answer to the question, "Does anyone know how evolution really works?" is "No."

      It's yes and no. We know some things well, some things not so well, and some things not well known at all. Not knowing everything is not the same as not knowing anything. If we had to have perfect knowledge, then science could never progress.

      Doublee: How was the four letter code that is the basis for life created?

      This is still somewhat enigmatic, but there is evidence it evolved from a simpler genetic code. See Knight, Freeland & Landweber, Selection, history and chemistry: the three faces of the genetic code, Trends in Biochemical Sciences 1999.

      Doublee: How was the machinery that translates that code into a sequence of amino acids created?

      The evidence suggests coevolution of tRNA synthetase and tRNA. See Caetano-Anollés. Wang, Caetano-Anollés, Structural Phylogenomics Retrodicts the Origin of the Genetic Code and Uncovers the Evolutionary Impact of Protein Flexibility, PLOS ONE 2013.

      Doublee: Where did the information come from that specifies the creation of functional proteins?

      Evolution. You might want to be more specific.

      Doublee: What is the system for organizing proteins into tissues and organs and organs and tissues into body plans?

      There's a number of mechanisms, including DNA methylation.

      Doublee: Information concepts abound in living organisms. How can scientists assert that random processes can change that information such that a new body plan is created from an existing body plan?

      Adaptation isn't random, but random variation couple to non-random environmental factors. With computers, it's simple to model how this works.

      Doublee: That is equivalent to asking how can random changes to a computer program create new functional code?

      It's called an evolutionary algorithm.

      In any case, let's assume we know nothing about the origin of the genetic code, or Caesar's ancestors. That doesn't mean we can't know about the history of life after the origin of the genetic code, or about Caesar's life. Nor does it justify the claim that the genetic code was explicitly created by an intelligent agent, or that Caesar was descended from Venus.

      Delete
    7. Joe G: It doesn't help you at all.

      You've spent the entire thread waving your hands. Please explain why Sager doesn't provide an explanation for the origin of mitosing cells.

      Delete
    8. Zachriel, bluffer extraordinaire. Nice job. Too bad unguided evolution cannot be modeled and doesn't make any testable predictions.

      It is untestable pseudoscience.

      Delete
    9. beautiful Zachariel, so evolution is responsible for evolution. now we all understand perfectly well that evolution need not be explained just nvoked.

      but just for giggles, how about trying to explain evolution to Doublee without invoking evolution?

      A word of caution. Heavy lifting takes some serious skill to avoid throwing your back out.

      Noone here really wants to see you on your back flaying because you couldn't use the word evolution in your explanation.

      ...but such is the work of logic and reason.

      Delete
    10. Steve: so evolution is responsible for evolution

      No. Evolution is responsible for adaptation, including increases in complexity.

      Delete
    11. Doublee: So the one word answer to the question, "Does anyone know how evolution really works?" is "No."

      The features of biological organisms are the result of adaptations of matter. These adaptations represent transformations of the type that occur when the requisite knowledge is present. In the case of the biosphere, the knowledge of how to build those adaptations is found in the genome of each organism.

      As such, the origin of those features is the origin of that knowledge. So is the origin of improvements of those features. This is the subject of evolutionary theory. While you might want more from evolutionary theory, that's your problem, not mine.

      Specifically, any theory about improvement raises the following question: how is the knowledge of how to make that improvement created? If it was already present at the outset, that theory is a form creationism. If it 'just happened', that theory is spontaneous generation.

      In contrast to either of these, our current, best explanation for the universal growth of knowledge falls under the umbrella that knowledge emerges from forms of conjecture and criticism.

      In the case of the biosphere, variation that is random to any problem to solve and natural selection creates the knowledge of how to build these improvements. Since only people can create explanations, biological Darwinism creates only non-explanatory knowledge, which has limited reach and represent essentially useful rules of thumb. This is in contrast to explanatory knowledge, which only people can create by conjecturing explanatory solutions to specific problems, and has significantly greater reach. For example, this explains why the great majority of all species that have existed have gone extinct. The knowledge they possess didn't have enough reach to be applicable when their environment changed significantly. On the other hand, ID has no explanation for this extinction rate other than,"that's just what some designer must have wanted."

      Nature cannot transform matter into adaptations until the requisite knowledge of what transformations are necessary has been created. This explains why organisms appear in the order of least complex to most, rather than most complex to least, or even all at once. However, no such limitation would be necessary for some designer that "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build any organism that has, does or could possibly exist. Again the only explanation ID has for this specific order is "that's just what some designer must have wanted."

      However, if you want to artificially limit us to one word, the answer would be "No" - but not just for evolutionary theory, This is because all theories contain errors to some degree and are incomplete.

      For example, we will discover new ways in which variations occur that are random to any problem to solve (how evolution really works), just as we will discover new ways in which self-powered four-wheel vehicles will really work. The absence of exhaustive knowledge in either case doesn't mean we know nothing about how evolution or four wheel vehicles work. Nor would being surprised to because one had hypothetically never seen an El Cameo or horizontal gene transfer. Rather, both theories will become more accurate.

      Delete
    12. Zachriel:
      No. Evolution is responsible for adaptation, including increases in complexity.

      Unguided evolution can't do that and you cannot model unguided evolution doing that.


      Delete
    13. Zachriel:
      You've spent the entire thread waving your hands.

      Nice projection.

      Please explain why Sager doesn't provide an explanation for the origin of mitosing cells.

      1- It has nothing to do with unguided evolution

      2- It only deals with mitochondria and chloroplasts- not the nucleus, which is the man-stay of eukaryotes

      3- The onus is on YOU to show how it does explain the origin of mitosing cells

      Delete
    14. Joe G: 1- It has nothing to do with unguided evolution

      The proposed mechanism is endosymbiosis.

      Joe G: 2- It only deals with mitochondria and chloroplasts- not the nucleus, which is the man-stay of eukaryotes

      You asked about prokaryotes.

      Joe G: 3- The onus is on YOU to show how it does explain the origin of mitosing cells

      See Sagan, On the origin of mitosing cells, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1967.

      Delete
    15. Endosymbioisis is NOT unguided evolution and it can't even be tested wrt the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts.

      You asked about prokaryotes.

      I asked about them becomong something other than prokaryotes. And you failed.

      I read the paper Zach, it doesn't help you. You are just a bluffing fool.

      Delete
    16. What I said:

      Unguided evolution can't even get past populations of prokaryotes starting with populations of prokaryotes. You don't have a mechanism capable of explaining anything.

      That would be a problem.


      And it still stands

      Delete
    17. Joe G: I asked about them becomong something other than prokaryotes.

      Yes, they become mitosing cells through endosymbiosis.

      Joe G: I read the paper Zach, it doesn't help you.

      That's called hand waving. If you dispute the paper, you have to discuss the details of the paper.

      Delete
    18. Zachriel:
      Yes, they become mitosing cells through endosymbiosis.

      That is the untestable propaganda.

      If you dispute the paper, you have to discuss the details of the paper.

      If you think the paper supports you then YOU need to discuss the details, yet you refuse to. All you do is reference it again and again. That proves that you have no udea and just searched for titles hoping no one will notice.

      Delete
    19. Joe G: That is the untestable propaganda.

      Hand waving.

      Delete
    20. Hand waving is all you do, Zachriel. And it is very telling that you cannot refute what I said by actually showing how it is testable.

      Delete
    21. Joe G: And it is very telling that you cannot refute what I said by actually showing how it is testable.

      Is your claim that Sagan 1967 is untestable?

      Delete
    22. My claim is the an endosymbiotic origin for mitochondria and chloroplasts is untestable. All they have is "it looks like it was prokaryotes"- tat ain't science- even thoughj you may beg to differ.

      My claim is also mitochondria and chloroplasts do not make a prokaryote an ekaryote, which relates to my original claim.

      Delete
    23. Joe: Unguided evolution can't do that and you cannot model unguided evolution doing that.

      Ok, let's start there.

      Why don't you explain how, as apposed to unguided evolution, guided evolution could have done it, then point out how biological Darwinism can't mimic it because it doesn't fit that very same explanation.

      Specifically, what form does this supposed guidance take? Where and when is it applied given what you would consider uncontroversial aspects of biology, such as reproduction? How does it work?

      IOW, if you don't know how guided evolution works, then it's unclear how you know it cannot be mimicked.

      Delete
    24. Scott, you couldn't be any more of a baby if you tried. Why can't you just ante up and demonstrate that unguided evolution is up to the task?

      As for guided evolution genetic and evolutionary algorithms demonstrate the power of guided evolution.

      Delete
    25. Joe: Scott, you couldn't be any more of a baby if you tried. Why can't you just ante up and demonstrate that unguided evolution is up to the task?

      Don't you mean, why don't I ante up and demonstrate that your strawman of evolution isn't up to the task? Why would I do that, Joe?

      Scott: Why don't you explain how, as apposed to unguided evolution, guided evolution could have done it, then point out how biological Darwinism can't mimic it because it doesn't fit that very same explanation.

      Joe: As for guided evolution genetic and evolutionary algorithms demonstrate the power of guided evolution.

      Yes, Joe. We know you think guided evolution has power, just as if someone said driving a car on the road demonstrates that automobiles have power. But we've already established that.

      However, cars are not "magic". We can explain how they work. They require fuel, maintenance, operate under specific conditions and temperature ranges, have parts interface with the vehicle at specific places and times, etc.

      In the same sense, if guided evolution "had power" in the development of our biosphere it would have a similar explanation, which would include answers to the specific questions I asked.

      For example, let's take the journey of a fertilized egg which eventually turns into a toddler. What role and form does "guided evolution" take as part of this tranisiton? Where and when is it applied given what you would consider uncontroversial aspects of biology, such as reproduction? How does it work?

      Again, if you don't know how it works, it's unclear how you know it cannot be mimicked.

      Delete
    26. Scott:
      Don't you mean, why don't I ante up and demonstrate that your strawman of evolution isn't up to the task?

      It isn't a strawman- you are just ignorant. But make your case if you can I know I can refute anything you say.

      Again, if you don't know how it works,

      I told you how it works. Your ignorance is noy my fault.

      Delete
    27. Scott:
      For example, let's take the journey of a fertilized egg which eventually turns into a toddler. What role and form does "guided evolution" take as part of this tranisiton?

      LoL! That's DEVELOPMENT not evolution. As I said you are just ignorant.

      BTW both natural selection and drift are blind and mindless. They do not plan ahead. They offer no guidance other than whatever survives to reproduce, which is whatever is good enough. All mutations related to them are purely chance events. Again unguided.

      BTW your position cannot account for reproduction- it has to start with it.

      Delete
    28. Scott: Don't you mean, why don't I ante up and demonstrate that your strawman of evolution isn't up to the task?

      Joe: It isn't a strawman- you are just ignorant. But make your case if you can I know I can refute anything you say.

      The question I've asked is my case, so why don't you refute it by answering it.

      Scott: Again, if you don't know how it works, it's unclear how you know it cannot be mimicked.

      Joe: I told you how it works. Your ignorance is noy my fault.

      No, all you've said is it's "guided." But you haven't said what that form that guidance takes, what specific impact that guidance has in the appearance of concrete biological features, etc.

      Delete
    29. Scott: For example, let's take the journey of a fertilized egg which eventually turns into a toddler. What role and form does "guided evolution" take as part of this tranisiton?

      Joe: LoL! That's DEVELOPMENT not evolution. As I said you are just ignorant.

      So nothing "guided evolution" did results in the development of concrete biological additions of a toddler? If not, then why do toddlers start out as a single fertilized egg, but end up with feet, hands, toes, eyes, etc.? No reason at all?

      IOW, if the "guided" part of "guided evolution" adds nothing to the development process, it does't actually guide anything and explains nothing.

      To rephrase, what did guided evolution leave behind that plays a role in the development of those specific features, as opposed to some other specific features?

      Or are you suggesting "guided evolution" provides some kind of external assistance that guides every fertilized egg to exhibit those features during development?

      Delete
    30. Scott:
      So nothing "guided evolution" did results in the development of concrete biological additions of a toddler?

      What does that mean? Development of an individual is NOT evolution, period.

      As for guided evolution again it is exemplified with genetic and evolutionary algorithms. Why do you ignore that part?

      Do you understand how those algorithms work or are you ignorant of that too?

      Delete
    31. Scott:
      If not, then why do toddlers start out as a single fertilized egg, but end up with feet, hands, toes, eyes, etc.?

      By design. Blind and mindless processes definitely had nothing to do with it. Blind and mindless processes can't even get beyond populations of prokaryotes starting with populations of prokaryotes.

      Delete
    32. And I am still waiting for evidence of this alleged strawman you accused me of. That you refuse to produce any proves that you are clueless and a tad dishonest.

      Delete
  17. What if there is another explanation for the trends in the fossil record? Don't things made by humans trends. Even paleolithic flint tools show trends in development

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. natschuster: What if there is another explanation for the trends in the fossil record?

      That's fine. You need to propose a theory that entails the nested hierarchy, the succession of fossils over deep time, and a lot of other evidence. Go for it!

      Delete
    2. Well unguided evolution requires special pleading to explain nested hierarchies, and the alleged succession of fossils is an artifact of your belief system.

      Delete
    3. Joe G: Well unguided evolution requires special pleading to explain nested hierarchies ...

      That wasn't the question.

      Delete
  18. Okay. I'll try. If the designer is something like ahumna designer, meaning that he has constraints like humans, then I would expect life to appear something like the way it does now. We see change over time the same way we see change over time in the "evolution" of technology And just like artifacts can be arranged onto a nested hierarchy so to organisms can be arranged into a nested hierarchy.
    If the Designer is the God of Abraham. the He might have chosen to create life over time because he wants to show how important humans are. He created and destroyed worlds until he "got it right.' Or maybe it took all that time to make a world that humans can live in. For example humans need petroleum. It takes time for petroleum to form. Of course, not being omniscient and omnipotent myself, I relay don;t know how an Omniscient and omnipotent being would do things.
    Anyway, I think a series of creations and destructions fits the fossil record better than evolution. It doesn't require apologetic like punctuated equilibrium or the incompleteness of the fossil record. Why not just take the fossil record at face value?









    of

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. natschuster: And just like artifacts can be arranged onto a nested hierarchy so to organisms can be arranged into a nested hierarchy.

      Human artifacts do not arrange into a single nested hierarchy. There are normally many ways they can be arranged into nested hierarchies.

      Delete
    2. Natschuster: Okay. I'll try. If the designer is something like ahumna designer, meaning that he has constraints like humans, then I would expect life to appear something like the way it does now.

      You're significantly underestimating the role that knowledge plays in design. Human beings can create explanatory knowledge, which has significantly greater reach than non-explanatory knowledge. Biological Darwinism can only create non-explanatory knowledge, which explains a great deal more about biological adaptations.

      Furthermore, It's trivial for human beings to reroute brake lines that end up going far out of their way in new, derived designs since they we designed brake lines in the first place. In the same sense, it would be trivial for the designer of the laryngeal nerve to reroute it when it ended up going far out of its way in derived designs, such as the Giraffe, since it too supposedly designed the laryngeal nerve in the first place. Yet, this didn't occur. So, you do not seem to be taking a "human-like designer" theory seriously.

      Natshuster: If the Designer is the God of Abraham. the He might have chosen to create life over time because he wants to show how important humans are. He created and destroyed worlds until he "got it right.' Or maybe it took all that time to make a world that humans can live in.For example humans need petroleum. It takes time for petroleum to form. Of course, not being omniscient and omnipotent myself, I relay don't know how an Omniscient and omnipotent being would do things.

      An omniscient and omnipotent being doesn't have any limitations other than what is logical possible. This includes needing time to form petroleum out of dinosaurs. It could simply make petroleum in final form. Nor would it be limited to creating organisms in the order of most complex or from creating a biosphere that humans can live in all at once.

      Note: the claim that it's logically possible a designer wanted it that way for some reason we cannot explain is a logical possibility, not an explanation. We discard an infinite number of logical possibilities every day, in every field of science.

      Natschuster: Anyway, I think a series of creations and destructions fits the fossil record better than evolution. It doesn't require apologetic like punctuated equilibrium or the incompleteness of the fossil record. Why not just take the fossil record at face value?

      Because we cannot take fossilization at face value. You need some kind of explanatory theory to extrapolate the data.

      For example, we accept Dinosaurs as the explanation for fossils because we have a hard to vary set of conditions for which we think fossilization actually occurs, which includes the existence of previous organisms, such as dinosaurs, being buried under specific conditions, etc.. We cannot just replace any of the necessary conditions for fossilization and expect to get fossils - any more than we would replace any key part of a microscope, such as a lens with a roll of quarters, and explicit to see bacteria.

      Furthermore, we cannot rule out that some designer didn't directly intercede to change fossils in some way for some good reason we cannot simply cannot comprehend, either. IOW, it's unclear why you do not consider this a problem for taking fossils "at face value".

      So, apparently, you think fossils can be taken at face value, not because we have good, hard to vary explanations for how fossilization occurs, which would necessarily make it incomplete, but because "that's just what God must have wanted."

      Delete
    3. Scott:An omniscient and omnipotent being doesn't have any limitations other than what is logical possible.

      I'd also point out that more solar energy strikes the earth's surface in a day than we globally used in all other forms of energy in an entire year in 2001.

      Since plants can efficiently convert the sun into energy, we know this isn't prohibited by the laws of physics. As such, the only thing preventing us from doing so just as efficiently is knowing how.

      So, we do not need fossil fuels in the sense you're implying. God could simply give us the knowledge of how to covert the sun's energy efficiently. No miracles required.

      Delete
  19. You can arrange organism in different ways, also. And, IMHO most people tend to think of, pretty much one basic hierarchy. If you interpret things in different ways, you might get different groupings, but the same thing might be said about organisms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. natschuster: You can arrange organism in different ways, also.

      No. It can be shown objectively that there is just one nested hierarchy for most taxa. That is not true of artifacts.

      Delete
    2. ZAchriel:
      No. It can be shown objectively that there is just one nested hierarchy for most taxa.

      Then gradual descent with modification is not the mechanism that produced those taxa.

      Nice own goal.

      Delete
    3. Joe G: Then gradual descent with modification is not the mechanism that produced those taxa.

      We already addressed this point.

      Delete
    4. LoL! You "addressed" it with just-so extinction events- events that in no way support your claims.

      Ya see Zach, you still need to account for ALL transitional forms as they need a place in our classification schemes too. And once you do that your objective nested hierarchy bites the dust.

      Delete
    5. Joe G: you still need to account for ALL transitional forms as they need a place in our classification schemes too.

      It's clades that constitute the nested hierarchy, not every organism.

      Let's try it this way. IF we have diversification from common ancestors, and we organize by the traits of the descendant organisms, what pattern do we observe?

      Delete
    6. Zachriel:
      It's clades that constitute the nested hierarchy, not every organism.

      No Zachriel. Only the tips of the branches of clades form a nested hierarchy.

      Why don't you try to learn what nested hierarchies actually are? Tat would be the best way to go yet you don't want any of part of that.\

      IF we have diversification from common ancestors, and we organize by the traits of the descendant organisms, what pattern do we observe?

      Not a nested hierarchy.

      Delete
    7. Every species of organisms must be accounted for in the nested hierarchy. That means transitional forms must be included. To exclude them proves ignorance.

      Delete
    8. Joe G: Only the tips of the branches of clades form a nested hierarchy.

      Good start. So if there is common descent, then extant organisms should form a nested hierarchy. They do.

      Joe G: Not a nested hierarchy.

      You didn't answer. Is that because you can't? IF we have diversification from common ancestors, and we organize by the traits of the descendant organisms, what pattern do we observe?

      Delete
    9. Zachriel:
      So if there is common descent, then extant organisms should form a nested hierarchy.

      Just about anything can form a nested hierarchy. Nested hierarchies are purely artificial constructs.

      Family trees have exant organisms that do NOT form a nested hierarchy based on traits.

      You lose.

      You didn't answer.

      Yes I did. Obviously you are just being an ass.

      A family tree is a diversification from common ancestors.

      Delete
    10. Ya see Zach, you still need to account for ALL transitional forms as they need a place in our classification schemes too. And once you do that your objective nested hierarchy bites the dust.

      Zacho just ignores that because Zacho is willfully ignorant.

      Delete
    11. Joe G: Just about anything can form a nested hierarchy.

      Anything can be put into a nested hierarchy, but organisms naturally order into a nested hierarchy.

      Joe G: Yes I did.

      We asked what pattern, and you said "not a nested hierarchy". IF we have diversification from common ancestors, and we organize by the traits of the descendant organisms, what pattern do we observe?

      Delete
    12. No one cares what you ask, Zachriel. You have already been refuted and proven ignorant.

      Delete
    13. Joe G: No one cares what you ask

      Perhaps not. But you keep taking the time to respond, but won't answer a simple question about your position.

      Delete
    14. Ya see Zach, you still need to account for ALL transitional forms as they need a place in our classification schemes too. And once you do that your objective nested hierarchy bites the dust.

      Deal with that or shut up. IOW stop being such a cry-baby.

      Delete
    15. Zachriel:
      But you keep taking the time to respond, but won't answer a simple question about your position.

      Nice projection you big baby.

      You refuse to deal with the facts. That says it all regarding your position.

      Delete
    16. Joe G: Deal with that

      Be happy to, but first we have to establish some terminology. IF we have diversification from common ancestors, and we organize by the traits of the descendant organisms, what pattern do we observe?

      Delete
    17. No, we don't have establish any termionology. The facts speak for themselves and they refute you ignorant spewage.

      The answer to your question is:

      I don't know and neither do you. According to evolutionism traits can be lost, gained or stay the same. That would mean just about any pattern except an objective nested hierarchy would be expected, especially given a gradual mechanism.

      You lose, again, as usual.

      Delete
  20. Zachriel:
    Anything can be put into a nested hierarchy, but organisms naturally order into a nested hierarchy.

    Only if organisms were designed via a common design would they fit into an objective nested hierarchy.

    And stop ignoring everything that refutes your ignorance. It only proves that you are an ignorant ass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe G: Only if organisms were designed via a common design would they fit into an objective nested hierarchy.

      IF we have diversification from common ancestors, and we organize by the traits of the descendant organisms, what pattern do we observe?

      Delete
    2. Zachriel:
      IF we have diversification from common ancestors, and we organize by the traits of the descendant organisms, what pattern do we observe?

      I don't know and neither do you. According to evolutionism traits can be lost, gained or stay the same. That would mean just about any pattern except an objective nested hierarchy would be expected, especially given a gradual mechanism.

      Delete
    3. Joe G: That would mean just about any pattern except an objective nested hierarchy would be expected

      No, it can't be just any pattern. For instance, we wouldn't expect to see centaurs or griffins. So you can't give the pattern a name?

      Delete
    4. Zachriel:
      No, it can't be just any pattern

      I didn't say that, asshole. Try reading for comprehesion.

      For instance, we wouldn't expect to see centaurs or griffins.

      What does that have to do with a pattern? And what prevents centaurs and griffins, besides your ignorance?

      Delete
    5. Joe G: And what prevents centaurs and griffins, besides your ignorance?

      Because they have no plausible ancestor given the model of diversification from common ancestors.

      Take a simplified model with no overlap of traits. IF we have diversification from common ancestors, and we organize by the traits of the descendant organisms, what pattern do we observe?

      Delete
    6. Zachriel:
      Because they have no plausible ancestor given the model of diversification from common ancestors.

      Nice non-answer.

      Take a simplified model with no overlap of traits.

      That leaves out evolutionism. So any point you are trying to make is moot.

      IF we have diversification from common ancestors, and we organize by the traits of the descendant organisms, what pattern do we observe?

      No one knows given your vague "criteria". So why don't you answer your question and support your answer. Or refuse to and prove that you are a confused coward.

      Delete
    7. Joe G: Nice non-answer.

      No. It's a valid answer based on the proposed model. ID has no similar answer. Centaurs might or might not exist in an ID world.

      Joe G: So why don't you answer your question and support your answer.

      We just want to give the pattern a name, so we can discuss that pattern.

      Delete
    8. Zachriel:
      No. It's a valid answer based on the proposed model.

      There isn't any model.

      We just want to give the pattern a name, so we can discuss that pattern.

      I have already answered. Your turn.

      Delete
    9. Joe G: There isn't any model.

      Yes, diversification from common ancestors.

      Delete
    10. Zachriel:
      Yes, diversification from common ancestors.

      Baraminology is your model then. Cool.

      Delete
    11. Joe G: Baraminology is your model then.

      Baraminology posits separate ancestry for kinds. Are you really interested in a discussion?

      Delete
    12. Baraminology posits diversification from common ancestors.

      And yes I am interested in a discussion. However you are just a bloviating ignoranus with nothing to say.

      Delete
    13. Joe G: Baraminology posits diversification from common ancestors.

      Baraminology "claims that kinds have no evolutionary relationship to one another."

      Zachriel: Are you really interested in a discussion?

      Joe G: you are just a bloviating ignoranus with nothing to say.

      So, no.

      Delete
    14. Zachriel:
      Baraminology "claims that kinds have no evolutionary relationship to one another."

      So what? It still posits posits diversification from common ancestors.

      Each organism within the Kind is a modified descendent of the original, ie diversified from common ancestors..

      And don't blame me because you are a bloviating ignoramus who cannot make a point and who has to ignore reality.

      Delete
    15. So once again Zachriel eats it wrt nested hierarchies and is forced to babble incoherently to try to salvage something.

      Nice of you to run away from endosymbiosis too.

      Delete
    16. Joe G: So once again Zachriel

      Sorry, Joe G. You have repeatedly indicated you have no intention of engaging in a civil conversation.

      Delete
    17. Yes, you are sorry, Zachriel. YOU have repeatedly indicated that you have no intention of engaging in a civil conversation. You ignore everything that refutes you and prattle on like a child. You are unable to make a point and unable to support your bald links to references that actually don't support you.

      You are a pathetic little person.

      Delete
  21. Are you sure organism can be arranged into only one nested hierarchy? Aren't there so many anomalies that we have to say things like convergent evolution, deep homology, and horizontal gene transfer? Don't we get conflicting signals from DNA and such. I'm nit sure that evolution is the best answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. natschuster: Are you sure organism can be arranged into only one nested hierarchy?

      For most taxa and traits.

      natschuster: Aren't there so many anomalies that we have to say things like convergent evolution

      Dolphins have hydrodynamic shapes, but is it more rational to group them with trout or with cats? Look at their skeleton. Their brains. Even their blood. And this sort of reasoning applies throughout most taxa.

      Nor is this a trivial consideration. From a few traits, we can often correlate with many seemingly unrelated traits. Dolphins have mammaries, so they have eukaryotic cell structure, a head with an array of sense organs, bony vertebrae protecting a nerve cord, lungs, four-chambered heart, hind limbs during development, and so on.

      natschuster: deep homology,

      Not sure why you consider that a problem. That just shows the importance of common descent; the most basic structures have roots in the deep past.

      natschuster: and horizontal gene transfer

      We observe horizontal gene transfer. Endogenous retroviruses are an example, an exception which illustrates the rule. Once inserted into the genome, they were transmitted through the lineage, forming a nested hierarchy in the descendants.

      Delete
    2. Zachriel is a liar who couldn't grasp the concept of nested hierarchies if its life depended on it. ERVs do NOT form a nested hierarchy- BTW no one even knows if they are ERVs. They just "look like" ERVs

      Delete
  22. But sometimes when we look at the panoply of traits, it doesn't match the hypothesized relationships. For example, the trout is more closely related to us than to the shark. The Crocodile is more closely related to the sparrow than it is to the kimono monitor. So the panoply of traits shows relationships except where it doesn't.

    Deep homology is sometimes use to explain why for example, some of our genes are closer to the gorilla than to the chimpanzee. We all inherited them form the common ancestor of all three species. they were lost in the chimpanzee. It is an attempt to explain away an anomaly.

    ReplyDelete
  23. natschuster: the trout is more closely related to us than to the shark.

    If you look closely, you would see why. For instance, the shark has a cartilaginous skeleton.

    natschuster: The Crocodile is more closely related to the sparrow than it is to the kimono monitor.

    This one is hard to unravel, birds are highly derived, but birds and crocodiles are archosaurs. Keep in mind that the superficial features don't always tell use what is really going on.

    But even if there are problems, there's still only one overall pattern. Crocodiles and birds and kimonos are still amniotes with all that entails.

    natschuster: Deep homology is sometimes use to explain why for example, some of our genes are closer to the gorilla than to the chimpanzee.

    You're probably thinking of incomplete lineage sorting, which is what is expected when speciation occurs over a period of time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LoL! Unguided evolution can't account for birds nor crocs, nor any metazoans. It doesn't have any explanatory beyond disease and death.

      Delete
  24. But what about the panoply of traits? Doesn't the trout have more in common with the shark than it does with us? And doesn't the lungfish have more in common with the trout than with us? But it is considered more closely related to us. So the panoply of traits works except where it doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you mean by "panoply of traits"?

      Delete