I asked: "So, which is your explanation and on which studies it is based?" CH said: "Do you think evolution is not a fact (because of the various problems pointed out in this blog, for example)?"
So, why don't you try to answer my question instead to avoid again a direct answer?
CH said: "I'm happy to engage in this discussion and answer your question, ..." Thank you. You are a Professor (graduate in Biophysics and Computational Biology) and so you must have an opinion on the matter. From my side I am a scientist, but not a biologist. So parallel to other scientific disciplines can be usefull for me to understand your arguments.
Are there any detailed explanations at all regarding evolutionary transistions? Professor James M. Tour, one of the ten most cited chemists in the world, claims that no one really understands macroevolution.
In a previous post, I asked if there is anyone who can explain an evolutionary transistion at merely a descriptive level. I used the example of the pakicetus to whale transistion. My question was triggered by an animation I saw of a pakicetus morphing into a whale.
What I was looking for was speculation really about what the first change would look like. In other words, what would the offspring of the pakicetus look like whose subsequent progeny would go on to become a whale?
I mentioned St. George MIvart's skepticism about the incompetentcy of natural selection to preserve the incipient stages of evolution.
So the trend continues with no answers to my questions.
I am a layman (retired engineer) who has read many books and on-line articles that are really no more than very high level summaries of the evolutionary process. With what I have read so far, I can say I really don't understand how evolution works.
The answers I have gotten so far only confirm Professor Tour's observation that nobody knows how evoluton really works either at the micro level or at the macro level.
My question is not rhetorical. So there is no explanation from me. I am the student and not the teacher.
What radom mutation yields what morphological change is my question. I am not looking for a change to a specific gene. All I am looking for is conjecture (albeit informed conjecture) on what the first step in pakicetus to whale would look like.
Depending on the answer, I would want to ask some follow up questions.
"So, in other words, no explanation from your side."
"So, which is your explanation and on which studies it is based?"
So what you perceive as a lack of an alternate explanation results in the explanation you do accept being true? I'm sure there's a fallacy in there somewhere. I sure wouldn't want you to be my lawyer if I was accused of a crime.
Germanicus: "Well your honour,I know of no better explanation than my client did it, so there is no doubt he's guilty. Can I get paid now?"
First I asked: "So, which is your explanation and on which studies it is based?" And after a no answer I replied: "So, in other words, no explanation from your side." Are you interested to answer the question or not?
Nic said: "So what you perceive as a lack of an alternate explanation results in the explanation you do accept being true?" I have not said this, this is usual your argument. I asked CH which is his explanation. But no answer up to now.
"Please Nic, don't try to play word games.,...I have not said this,..."
Suppose CH, or anyone else for that matter, did not have an alternate explanation for the origin of Rays, would that in itself nullify their criticism of the belief that Rays arose spontaneously?
You may not have said it, but there is no doubt that was your implication.
Nic and Eugen, I have posed a question (to CH), and you try to put in my mouth (sentences) and head (intentions) that I have not expressed. So, have you intention to substitute CH and give me this answer, or what?
"So, have you intention to substitute CH and give me this answer, or what?"
If you want to entertain the possibility of purposeful design, the evidence is certainly there. There is zero evidence which would support the idea that theses creatures, or any other life form, arose spontaneously.
You claim to be a scientist, in what discipline would you be qualified?
Nic said: “If you want to entertain the possibility of purposeful design, the evidence is certainly there.” Thank you, I hope that CH can be more detailed and helpful than you.
For the rest: “There is zero evidence which would support the idea that theses creatures, or any other life form, arose spontaneously.” Thank you for your opinion. It was not requested, but I will consider it when I read few of the thousands papers that present an evolutionary explanations.
For the last: “You claim to be a scientist, in what discipline would you be qualified?” This refers to a courtesy answer from me to CH questions; I mean that he (CH) can use also scientific arguments and terminology but he has to consider that I am not a biologist. Your further inquiry is completely out of topic and irrelevant for our discussion.
By the way: there is still a pending question from me to you that (with several other questions of others) you have not answered in a previous post. I assume that I have not to wait for it.
Nic“There is zero evidence which would support the idea that theses creatures, or any other life form, arose spontaneously.”
Germanicus" Thank you for your opinion. It was not requested,..."
Your arrogance is duly noted. And you did ask for my opinion; Germanicus: "Are you interested to answer the question or not?" Obviously you don't like my opinion. Cest' la vie, learn to live with disappointment.
Germanicus: "but I will consider it when I read few of the thousands papers that present an evolutionary explanations."
Thank you for so aptly demonstrating your logical shortcomings; that the papers exist in the thousands has no bearing on whether evolution is true or not; and your closed mindedness in stating you will be reading only papers that present evolutionary explanations. Such a statement certainly demonstrates your sincere interest in exploring the possibility of alternate explanations which you demanded CH and others to present. I believe there is a word for that attitude.
Nic: “You claim to be a scientist, in what discipline would you be qualified?”
Germanicus: "This refers to a courtesy answer from me to CH questions; I mean that he (CH) can use also scientific arguments and terminology but he has to consider that I am not a biologist. Your further inquiry is completely out of topic and irrelevant for our discussion."
If you're really a qualified scientist why are you opposed to simply telling us your discipline? I have my suspicions as to the reason.
Germanicus: "By the way: there is still a pending question from me to you that (with several other questions of others) you have not answered in a previous post. I assume that I have not to wait for it."
I thought you said you didn't want my opinion, care to make up your mind?
Nic said "I thought you said you didn't want my opinion, care to make up your mind?" Good Nic, you was able also this time to avoid to give an answer. It has been duly noted.
Nic said "I thought you said you didn't want my opinion, care to make up your mind?"
Germanicus: "Good Nic, you was able also this time to avoid to give an answer. It has been duly noted."
Your original question was if someone wanted to offer an alternative explanation to evolution. I did that by proposing intentional design. You responded by telling me you did not want my opinion. You did not respond to my alternative explanation, other than to claim you were going to read a few of the thousands of papers supporting evolution.
Now you're claiming I failed again to answer your question. You seem to be a very confused individual.
So, for the second time, are you going to make up your mind, or are you going to continue your pompous arrogance while offering nothing of substance?
The fundamental problem with the theory of evolution is that it is built on an empty foundation. Until the origin of life problem is solved, how can scientists honestly come up with a viable theory of evolution? They have begun with step two of the problem at hand as if step one is an independent problem.
Call this an argument from incredulity if you must, but even so, I see no problem starting there because every investigation has to begin with a question however seemingly preposterous it seems at first. (What do you mean the earth revolves around the sun?)
The origin of life problem is an origin of an information processing system problem. Atoms and molecules bumping together must somehow be able to conceive of a code that will able to be specify the information for building an organism.
Once the code is conceived, the machinery to implement that code must be constructed. All the parts have to be in place simultaneously, or you do not have a viable "life making" system.
Obviously, I would suggest that all this has to be conceived and implemented by a Mind. When scientists begin by excluding any consideration that there is a Mind behind life, they are not following evidence; they are following a restrictive, truth denying philosophy.
"So, in other words, no explanation from your side."
When my employer asked me a difficult question about how a system's math engine calculated a figure, I responded "I don't know." Under the circumstances, that was an intelligent response, and true. What would have been silly would be for me to have offered some stupid theory under the assumption that it's somehow more respectable to offer some explanation, however ridiculous it may be, just to for the sake of it.
Alethinon61 said: “When my employer asked me a difficult question about how a system's math engine calculated a figure, I responded "I don't know." Under the circumstances, that was an intelligent response, and true.” This (I don't know) is a fair and honest answer under the circumstances.
“What would have been silly would be for me to have offered some stupid theory under the assumption that it's somehow more respectable to offer some explanation, however ridiculous it may be, just to for the sake of it” I agree. You are expert in your field (and this can be measured in term of e.g. years of work and results achieved) and you can judge what response is silly and ridiculous. And I can also imagine that you can become very angry if you see such a proposal pontificated by persons that you know have no expertise in your field.
CH said:
ReplyDelete"...though they can’t explain how that could have happened."
So, which is your explanation and on which studies it is based?
Germanicus:
Delete"So, which is your explanation and on which studies it is based?"
Do you think evolution is not a fact (because of the various problems pointed out in this blog, for example)?
I asked:
Delete"So, which is your explanation and on which studies it is based?"
CH said:
"Do you think evolution is not a fact (because of the various problems pointed out in this blog, for example)?"
So, why don't you try to answer my question instead to avoid again a direct answer?
Germanicus:
DeleteI'm happy to engage in this discussion and answer your question, but I want to know where you are coming from.
CH said:
Delete"I'm happy to engage in this discussion and answer your question, ..."
Thank you. You are a Professor (graduate in Biophysics and Computational Biology) and so you must have an opinion on the matter. From my side I am a scientist, but not a biologist. So parallel to other scientific disciplines can be usefull for me to understand your arguments.
I'm happy to engage in this discussion and answer your question, but I want to know where you are coming from.
DeleteAlternatives:
I'm happy to engage in this discussion and answer your question, but it is raining outside.
I'm happy to engage in this discussion and answer your question, but I am being held incommunicado
I'm happy to engage in this discussion and answer your question, but , hey look there is an elephant!!!
Are there any detailed explanations at all regarding evolutionary transistions? Professor James M. Tour, one of the ten most cited chemists in the world, claims that no one really understands macroevolution.
ReplyDeleteIn a previous post, I asked if there is anyone who can explain an evolutionary transistion at merely a descriptive level. I used the example of the pakicetus to whale transistion. My question was triggered by an animation I saw of a pakicetus morphing into a whale.
What I was looking for was speculation really about what the first change would look like. In other words, what would the offspring of the pakicetus look like whose subsequent progeny would go on to become a whale?
I mentioned St. George MIvart's skepticism about the incompetentcy of natural selection to preserve the incipient stages of evolution.
I got no direct answer to my question.
Doublee said:
Delete"Are there any detailed explanations at all regarding evolutionary transistions?"
So, in other words, no explanation from your side.
So the trend continues with no answers to my questions.
DeleteI am a layman (retired engineer) who has read many books and on-line articles that are really no more than very high level summaries of the evolutionary process. With what I have read so far, I can say I really don't understand how evolution works.
The answers I have gotten so far only confirm Professor Tour's observation that nobody knows how evoluton really works either at the micro level or at the macro level.
My question is not rhetorical. So there is no explanation from me. I am the student and not the teacher.
What radom mutation yields what morphological change is my question. I am not looking for a change to a specific gene. All I am looking for is conjecture (albeit informed conjecture) on what the first step in pakicetus to whale would look like.
Depending on the answer, I would want to ask some follow up questions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGermanicus,
ReplyDelete"So, in other words, no explanation from your side."
"So, which is your explanation and on which studies it is based?"
So what you perceive as a lack of an alternate explanation results in the explanation you do accept being true? I'm sure there's a fallacy in there somewhere. I sure wouldn't want you to be my lawyer if I was accused of a crime.
Germanicus: "Well your honour,I know of no better explanation than my client did it, so there is no doubt he's guilty. Can I get paid now?"
Please Nic, don't try to play word games.
DeleteFirst I asked: "So, which is your explanation and on which studies it is based?"
And after a no answer I replied:
"So, in other words, no explanation from your side."
Are you interested to answer the question or not?
Nic said:
"So what you perceive as a lack of an alternate explanation results in the explanation you do accept being true?"
I have not said this, this is usual your argument. I asked CH which is his explanation. But no answer up to now.
Germanicus,
Delete"Please Nic, don't try to play word games.,...I have not said this,..."
Suppose CH, or anyone else for that matter, did not have an alternate explanation for the origin of Rays, would that in itself nullify their criticism of the belief that Rays arose spontaneously?
You may not have said it, but there is no doubt that was your implication.
Everything arose by series of fortunate accidents that happened in fortunate order at fortunate time. Would that be OK answer for Germanicus?
DeleteEugen,
Delete"Everything arose by series of fortunate accidents that happened in fortunate order at fortunate time."
Sea Gulls probably arose when a flying Ray just decided to keep on going.
Nic and Eugen,
DeleteI have posed a question (to CH), and you try to put in my mouth (sentences) and head (intentions) that I have not expressed. So, have you intention to substitute CH and give me this answer, or what?
Nic
Delete"Sea Gulls probably arose when a flying Ray just decided to keep on going."
Believe it or not, when you read on evolution of flight it's pretty close to that :)
Germanicus,
Delete"So, have you intention to substitute CH and give me this answer, or what?"
If you want to entertain the possibility of purposeful design, the evidence is certainly there. There is zero evidence which would support the idea that theses creatures, or any other life form, arose spontaneously.
You claim to be a scientist, in what discipline would you be qualified?
Eugen,
DeleteNic: "Sea Gulls probably arose when a flying Ray just decided to keep on going."
Eugen: "Believe it or not, when you read on evolution of flight it's pretty close to that :)"
Seriously, there have been times when I've been reading articles or books promoting evolution that I have found myself laughing out loud.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNic said:
Delete“If you want to entertain the possibility of purposeful design, the evidence is certainly there.” Thank you, I hope that CH can be more detailed and helpful than you.
For the rest:
“There is zero evidence which would support the idea that theses creatures, or any other life form, arose spontaneously.” Thank you for your opinion. It was not requested, but I will consider it when I read few of the thousands papers that present an evolutionary explanations.
For the last:
“You claim to be a scientist, in what discipline would you be qualified?” This refers to a courtesy answer from me to CH questions; I mean that he (CH) can use also scientific arguments and terminology but he has to consider that I am not a biologist. Your further inquiry is completely out of topic and irrelevant for our discussion.
By the way: there is still a pending question from me to you that (with several other questions of others) you have not answered in a previous post. I assume that I have not to wait for it.
Germanicus,
DeleteNic“There is zero evidence which would support the idea that theses creatures, or any other life form, arose spontaneously.”
Germanicus" Thank you for your opinion. It was not requested,..."
Your arrogance is duly noted. And you did ask for my opinion; Germanicus: "Are you interested to answer the question or not?" Obviously you don't like my opinion. Cest' la vie, learn to live with disappointment.
Germanicus: "but I will consider it when I read few of the thousands papers that present an evolutionary explanations."
Thank you for so aptly demonstrating your logical shortcomings; that the papers exist in the thousands has no bearing on whether evolution is true or not; and your closed mindedness in stating you will be reading only papers that present evolutionary explanations. Such a statement certainly demonstrates your sincere interest in exploring the possibility of alternate explanations which you demanded CH and others to present. I believe there is a word for that attitude.
Nic: “You claim to be a scientist, in what discipline would you be qualified?”
Germanicus: "This refers to a courtesy answer from me to CH questions; I mean that he (CH) can use also scientific arguments and terminology but he has to consider that I am not a biologist. Your further inquiry is completely out of topic and irrelevant for our discussion."
If you're really a qualified scientist why are you opposed to simply telling us your discipline? I have my suspicions as to the reason.
Germanicus: "By the way: there is still a pending question from me to you that (with several other questions of others) you have not answered in a previous post. I assume that I have not to wait for it."
I thought you said you didn't want my opinion, care to make up your mind?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNic said
Delete"I thought you said you didn't want my opinion, care to make up your mind?"
Good Nic, you was able also this time to avoid to give an answer. It has been duly noted.
Germanicus,
DeleteNic said
"I thought you said you didn't want my opinion, care to make up your mind?"
Germanicus: "Good Nic, you was able also this time to avoid to give an answer. It has been duly noted."
Your original question was if someone wanted to offer an alternative explanation to evolution. I did that by proposing intentional design. You responded by telling me you did not want my opinion. You did not respond to my alternative explanation, other than to claim you were going to read a few of the thousands of papers supporting evolution.
Now you're claiming I failed again to answer your question. You seem to be a very confused individual.
So, for the second time, are you going to make up your mind, or are you going to continue your pompous arrogance while offering nothing of substance?
Thanks Dr. H,
ReplyDeleteThat's a beautiful clip.
They are marvelously designed creatures.
The fundamental problem with the theory of evolution is that it is built on an empty foundation. Until the origin of life problem is solved, how can scientists honestly come up with a viable theory of evolution? They have begun with step two of the problem at hand as if step one is an independent problem.
ReplyDeleteCall this an argument from incredulity if you must, but even so, I see no problem starting there because every investigation has to begin with a question however seemingly preposterous it seems at first. (What do you mean the earth revolves around the sun?)
The origin of life problem is an origin of an information processing system problem. Atoms and molecules bumping together must somehow be able to conceive of a code that will able to be specify the information for building an organism.
Once the code is conceived, the machinery to implement that code must be constructed. All the parts have to be in place simultaneously, or you do not have a viable "life making" system.
Obviously, I would suggest that all this has to be conceived and implemented by a Mind. When scientists begin by excluding any consideration that there is a Mind behind life, they are not following evidence; they are following a restrictive, truth denying philosophy.
"So, in other words, no explanation from your side."
ReplyDeleteWhen my employer asked me a difficult question about how a system's math engine calculated a figure, I responded "I don't know." Under the circumstances, that was an intelligent response, and true. What would have been silly would be for me to have offered some stupid theory under the assumption that it's somehow more respectable to offer some explanation, however ridiculous it may be, just to for the sake of it.
Alethinon61 said:
Delete“When my employer asked me a difficult question about how a system's math engine calculated a figure, I responded "I don't know." Under the circumstances, that was an intelligent response, and true.”
This (I don't know) is a fair and honest answer under the circumstances.
“What would have been silly would be for me to have offered some stupid theory under the assumption that it's somehow more respectable to offer some explanation, however ridiculous it may be, just to for the sake of it”
I agree. You are expert in your field (and this can be measured in term of e.g. years of work and results achieved) and you can judge what response is silly and ridiculous. And I can also imagine that you can become very angry if you see such a proposal pontificated by persons that you know have no expertise in your field.