Thursday, June 30, 2011

New Cambrian Arthropod Vision System: No More Shudders

Years ago physicist Riccardo Levi-Setti became fascinated with trilobites. He wrote a book about them and at one point called their 500 million year old eyes “an all-time feat of function optimization.” They were, as evolutionists admitted, “an impressive feat of early evolution.” But now a new finding shows evolution to be even more impressive.

Charles Darwin considered the eye to be an “organ of extreme perfection.” Even after writing Origins he confessed it gave him a cold shudder. He needed to focus on his theory’s fine gradations to give himself comfort. But one hundred and thirty four years later, in 1994, evolutionists laid the problem to rest. The evolution of the eye was finally understood. It turned out such evolution was no big deal after all. In fact the eye could rather easily evolve.

The only catch to the conclusion was that it was made by evolutionists. Remember that evolutionists insist evolution must be a fact for religious reasons. As such their objectivity is sometimes wanting, as in this case. With evolution taken as a fact, whether or not vision systems evolved was no longer in question—they did. The only question was how they have evolved. The 1994 paper explained that although Darwin “anticipated that the eye would become a favorite target for criticism,” the problem “has now almost become a historical curiosity” and “the question is now one of process rate rather than one of principle.” The evolutionists estimated this rate by first assuming that the eye indeed evolved. They wrote:

The evolution of complex structures, however, involves modifications of a large number of separate quantitative characters, and in addition there may be discrete innovations and an unknown number of hidden but necessary phenotypic changes. These complications seem effectively to prevent evolution rate estimates for entire organs and other complex structures. An eye is unique in this respect because the structures necessary for image formation, although there may be several, are all typically quantitative in their nature, and can be treated as local modifications of pre-existing tissues. Taking a patch of pigmented light-sensitive epithelium as the starting point, we avoid the more inaccessible problem of photoreceptor cell evolution. Thus, if the objective is limited to finding the number of generations required for the evolution of an eye’s optical geometry, then the problem becomes solvable.

The problem becomes solvable? The evolutionists skipped the entire evolution of cellular signal transduction and the vision cascade. That would be like saying you have showed how motorcycles evolved although you took the engine, drive train and wheels as your starting point.

The evolutionists then skipped all of the major problems that arise after you have a signal transduction system in place, such as the incredible post processing system and the creation of the machinery to construct the vision system. The problem they ended up solving is sometimes affectionately referred to as a “cartoon” version of the real world problem.

The research, if you can call it that, did not serve as evidence for evolution. Yet the paper became a favorite reference for evolutionists wanting to suppress scientific skepticism of evolution. Eye evolution, they insisted, was now known to be straightforward. Here, for instance, is how our tax dollars are used by PBS to promote this abuse of science:

Zoologist Dan-Erik Nilsson demonstrates how the complex human eye could have evolved through natural selection acting on small variations. Starting with a simple patch of light sensitive cells, Nilsson’s model “evolves” until a clear image is produced.

With such mythology now internalized in evolutionary lore, evolutionists will believe practically anything, including a new finding of even greater evolutionary wonders. The new paper reports on complex vision in early arthropods long predating most of the trilobites. But in order to properly “educate” the reader and prepare them for the findings, the paper begins with, yes, a reference to that 1994 Nilsson paper:

Despite the status of the eye as an “organ of extreme perfection,” theory suggests that complex eyes can evolve very rapidly. … Here we report exceptionally preserved fossil eyes from the Early Cambrian (~515 million years ago) Emu Bay Shale of South Australia, revealing that some of the earliest arthropods possessed highly advanced compound eyes, each with over 3,000 large ommatidial lenses and a specialized “bright zone.” … The eyes are more complex than those known from contemporaneous trilobites and are as advanced as those of many living forms. They provide further evidence that the Cambrian explosion involved rapid innovation in fine-scale anatomy as well as gross morphology, and are consistent with the concept that the development of advanced vision helped to drive this great evolutionary event.

With the mythological framework properly in place, the findings could then safely be presented as confirmations of evolution. As the journal’s editor added:

Charles Darwin thought that the eye, which he called an “organ of extreme perfection,” was a serious challenge to evolutionary theory — but he was mistaken. Theory predicts that eyes can evolve with great speed, and now there is support for this prediction from the fossil record.

Support for this prediction? You’ve got to be kidding. A cartoon version of reality, taking the myth of evolution as true, is considered a “prediction” and amazing early complexity in the fossils then becomes a “support for this prediction”?

What the new fossils revealed is an early Cambrian, highly advanced vision system more elaborate than any so far discovered. Its compound eyes have more then 3,000 lenses optimally arranged in the densest and most efficient packing pattern. As the paper explains:

The extremely regular arrangement of lenses seen here exceeds even that in certain modern taxa, such as the horseshoe crab Limulus, in which up to one-third of lenses deviate from hexagonal packing.

All of this is presented to the reader as merely another demonstration of how fantastic designs just happen spontaneously to arise:

The new fossils reveal that some of the earliest arthropods had already acquired visual systems similar to those of living forms, underscoring the speed and magnitude of the evolutionary innovation that occurred during the Cambrian explosion.

Ho-hum, yet more evolutionary innovation. For evolutionists it is just another day in the office. As PZ Myers explains, we already knew that complex animals appear rapidly. After all, that is why they call it the “Cambrian explosion.” Evolutionists have written “whole books on the subject.”

Myers follows this circular reasoning with yet more question begging:

The sudden appearance of complexity is no surprise, either. We know that the fundamental mechanisms of eye function evolved long before the Cambrian, from the molecular evidence;

Of course there is no “molecular evidence” that gives us such knowledge. But if you assume evolution is true to begin with, as do evolutionists who analyze the molecular patterns, then Myers’ fictional, question begging, world makes sense.

Myers follows these circular arguments with a more subtle type of fallacy. He explains that these particular findings are no big deal because both this finding and the trilobite vision systems require cellular signal transduction, development machines and so forth:

It is also the case that the measure of complexity here is determined by a simple meristic trait, the number of ommatidia. This is not radical. The hard part in the evolution of the compound eye was the development of the signal transduction mechanism, followed by the developmental rules that governed the formation of a regular, repeating structure of the eye. The number of ommatidia is a reflection of the degree of commitment of tissues in the head to eye formation, and is a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.

Setting aside the usual evolutionary speculation about how easily designs evolve, the problem here is that the cellular signal transduction, development machines and so forth are themselves problems for evolution. Indeed, even the simplest of light detection systems sport such incredible designs for which evolution has no explanation beyond vague speculation.

Next Myers is back to question-begging. In typical fashion he attempts to shore up the evolution position with the usual reference to the mythical 1994 Nilsson paper:

And finally, there’s nothing in the data from this paper that implies sudden origins; there can’t be. If it takes a few hundred thousand years for a complex eye to evolve from a simple light sensing organ, there is no way to determine that one sample of a set of fossils was the product of millions of years of evolution, or one day of magical creation.

Next is the fallacy of credulity. If you present an evolutionist with the scientific failures of his theory, he will accuse you of basing your skepticism on your own failure to imagine a solution. As Myers puts it:

It’s a logical error and a failure of the imagination to assume that these descriptions are of a population that spontaneously emerged nearly-instantaneously.

Failure of the imagination? Indeed, we just need to do more imagining, that’s the problem.

Finally Myers reiterates the flawed Darwinian argument that whatever abruptness you see in the fossil record is, after all, merely a consequence of all those gaps in the fossils:

Darwin himself explained in great detail how one should not expect fine-grained fossil series, due to the imperfection of the geological record.

When in doubt, doubt the data. Paleontologists agree that the fossil record reveals abrupt appearances, but when convenient evolutionists can always protect their theory with those gaps in the fossil record.

Evolutionary thinking is remarkable. I am reminded of John Earman’s remarks about Hume’s arguments. For it is astonishing how well evolution is treated, given how completely the confection collapses under a little probing. And yet evolutionists are supremely confident they are right.

Evolutionists such as Myers are very book smart, but the wisdom and common sense is lacking. The evolutionist’s confidence is exceeded only by the absurdity of his theory. Religion drives science and it matters.

205 comments:

  1. You're so right. Silly scientists. Can't they see it's far more rational to just conclude that a magic man in the sky clicked his fingers and everything popped into existence with a puff of magic.
    Ironclad science, that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Exactly. It's much more rational to believe that the Universe magicked itself into existence and then everything else just spontaneously arose all by itself. Lucky us.

    See, we have stupid caricatures, too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cornelius, one thing is amazingly complex design, another is what one might call "group evolution". Features which give an evolutionary advantage for a group of animals. Such as the penguins. They go as a group a long distance where the fathers will stand through winter carrying the eggs. They keep warm by standing hurdled together all winter. The question is what possible advantage did the first penguin who decided to go the long distance all by himself get? Or did they all get the same idea simultaneously? What is the answer of biology?

    ReplyDelete
  4. e52...

    So let's put our charicatures to one side and see what remains, shall we?

    Well we are left to investigate the mysteries of life. The scientific method remains the one truly reliable way of discovering truths about the world around us. Unless of course you can suggest another...?

    And the scientific method leaves no room for miracles.

    Which leaves the Creationist/ID premise stuck at the starting blocks, basically.

    The difference between our charicatures is that science does not really infer 'magic'. ID does.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Science, real science (so called because it can only be found in books and movies) doesn't infer magic. Evolutionism does.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Could any of you IDCers please provide the 'intelligent design' explanation for the physical and temporal distribution of the fossil record, including the Cambrian and Precambrian fossils? I'd sure appreciate it. I've only been asking that same question for a decade now and never gotten even a single ID explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ritchie:

    When people talk about the Scientific Method, I get a little confused because I saw different definitions of the Scientific Method in different textbooks.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I commented earlier: vision cascade seems to work like a nano-scale tuned photon transducer-amplifier.

    I want one of those !!!

    Oh, wait – I have two already.

    Photon transducer-amplifier is just a beginning, what about processing that happens after raw data is sent via optic nerve into the brain.
    Hopefully in the next post.

    ReplyDelete
  9. nat -

    I wasn't using the term in a particularly strict sense. Just the general 'process of experimenting, hypothesis-testing and deductive reasoning'.

    When you perform an experiment, you must assume miracles don't happen. Imagine I drop a ball to see what happens. It falls. Interesting. The experiment can be repeated, and the speed, acceleration and properties of the ball can all be measured and tinkered with to find the relevant variables. But I must believe that it was a natural force which pulled the ball down rather than a miracle or magic.

    Yes this is an assumption, but one all science makes.

    'Here is a naturalistic theory which is backed up by a vast deal of evidence, though there are a few interesting odds and ends to explore' invokes no magic.

    'The gaps in our knowledge are filled by a magic man in the sky who can suspend the laws of nature and make impossible things happen' does.

    ReplyDelete
  10. natschuster said...

    When people talk about the Scientific Method, I get a little confused because I saw different definitions of the Scientific Method in different textbooks


    Why don't you list a few of these definitions you say you read and explain why you think they are fundamentally different.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Discussion of the Cambrian Explosion always exposes the non-scientific nature of evolutionists. It illustrates that they are not open to alternatives, but will go to extraordinary lengths to exaggerate and even lie about the data. At least Darwin was honest about the challenge. His disciples are in denial.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @e52, "The scientific method remains the one truly reliable way of discovering truths about the world around us. ... And the scientific method leaves no room for miracles."

    This is a contradiction... how can a way of discovering truth be reliable if it leaves no room for a vast swath of possibilities? If it cannot detect miracles, it cannot demonstrate their absence either.

    "Unless of course you can suggest another...?" A scientific method need not be closed to miracles, and certainly not to detection of purpose and design. The other obvious method you are omitting is looking at eye-witness accounts of the origins of life.

    "Which leaves the Creationist/ID premise stuck at the starting blocks, basically."

    Not at all... the creationist has revelation (eye-witness accounts of origins), and the ID theorist looks for empirical evidence of purpose and design in the natural world.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Tedford the idiot said...

    Discussion of the Cambrian Explosion always exposes the non-scientific nature of evolutionists. It illustrates that they are not open to alternatives, but will go to extraordinary lengths to exaggerate and even lie about the data.


    Well Tedford, since no one in your camp has the nads to even offer an alternative, let alone defend one, you don't have much of a point.

    Feel free to provide the 'intelligent design' explanation for the physical and temporal distribution of the fossil record, including the Cambrian and Precambrian fossils. Anytime Tedford.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Lars - I believe from the quotes, your questions were actually directed at me...?

    "how can a way of discovering truth be reliable if it leaves no room for a vast swath of possibilities?"

    The salient point is that it filters out fact from error. It is a tool to figure out what is true and what is not. The most powerful and reliable one we possess. Take a look around you - the modern world is built on science, with all the technology, design and medical innovations we have made. Science WORKS.

    And yet it is indeed all built on the assumption that miracles do not happen. If that assumption is flawed then it is extremely odd that science is so often right, yet based on a flawed premise.

    "A scientific method need not be closed to miracles, and certainly not to detection of purpose and design."

    How would a scientific method work which did allow for miracles?

    Imagine I am investigating this force which pulls my released ball (man that sounds filthy) downwards. How can I determine whether it falls because of a genuine natural force, or whether this is a miracle?

    "The other obvious method you are omitting is looking at eye-witness accounts of the origins of life."

    An eye-witness to the origin of life? Who is this eye-witness to the origin of life? If what they were witnessing was the origin of life, then they must, by definition, not be alive.

    "the creationist has revelation (eye-witness accounts of origins),"

    Well that's an enormous leap of faith right there. I assume you are talking about the Bible? First you need to prove it is indeed an eye-witness account. At no point does any book of the Bible even claim to be written by God, or to be a verbatim dictation, as the Koran is claimed to be. Next, you must put this claim to the test. How do you differentiate a GENUINE eye-witness account of creation from a work of fiction which merely fraudilently claims to be such?

    More to the point, revelation as a source of information is not in the least scientific. It is inaccurate, unproductive and unreliable. While science can boast all the technological and medical advances of the modern age, what has revelation ever actually given us? What inventions has it brought about? What diseases has it eradicated? What achievements can we claim because of it?

    "...and the ID theorist looks for empirical evidence of purpose and design in the natural world."

    Yes. How's that going? What evidence IS there of purpose and design in the natural world?

    I imagine you'll find, when you boil it down, there isn't any. Just a few mysteries (and, more often than not, plain misunderstood IMAGINED mysteries), followed by 'God must have done it. How else did it happen?' This is pure God of the Gpas logic, and it holds about as much water as it's name implies.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ritchie said...
    "But I must believe that it was a natural force which pulled the ball down rather than a miracle or magic"

    No Ritchie, in science you do not have to believe or not believe in nothing, you have to observe and describe.

    Yes this is an assumption, but one all science makes.

    Yes science always make assumption and then his theories are truth as far as the assumptions stands. So any theory is never a fact is an explanation gived the assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Neal -

    I've no idea what about the Cambrian Explosion you imagine is at all problematic for the Theory of Evolution. But if you believe you have an alternative which explains the evidence just as well or even better, then please let's hear it.

    And I give you fair warning: if there's a whiff of 'Here's a mystery. It must have been God; how else could it possibly have happened?' then you'll impress no-one.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Blas -

    "No Ritchie, in science you do not have to believe or not believe in nothing, you have to observe and describe."

    Wrong. You absolutely do have to be able to believe what you are observing and describing are the products of natural forces at work. Otherwise your experiments count for nothing at all.

    Go back to my dropping a ball experiment. If I allow for miracles, then my experiments are useless. I could be observing natural phenomena - I could be observing a miracle (ie, a violation of natural forces). I therefore am unable to deduce anything. Do released balls fall down? Well the one I just observed did. But that could have been a miracle. In my experiments heavy balls fall faster than lighter balls. What can I deduce from that? If I allow for miracles, nothing. I cannot describe the force which pulls things down, or any of its properties, because any or all of my data could be contaminated with miracles, which would surely give me false information.

    "Yes science always make assumption and then his theories are truth as far as the assumptions stands. So any theory is never a fact is an explanation gived the assumptions."

    True, a theory is only solid for as long at the starting assumptions are valid. But, for one thing, you have not shown that this assumption is invalid. You have not shown, in short, that miracles occur. And until such a time, then we have to continue assuming they do not.

    But for another thing, this assumption underpins not only the theory of evolution, but every theory in science! Every theory in biology, chemistry and physics was drawn up and verified on the assumption that miracles do not occur. So the theory of evolution does indeed behave exactly as every other scientific theory behaves. It is a scientific theory. If you have a problem with the assumption that miracles do not occur, then you have a problem with the WHOLE of science. Not just whichever theory you want to single out and cast doubt on because it contradicts whatever unsubstanciated religious dogma you want to cling to.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ritchie said: "Wrong. You absolutely do have to be able to believe what you are observing and describing are the products of natural forces at work. Otherwise your experiments count for nothing at all."

    Science is not based on believes. You assume what are you observing are the products of natural forces.

    "True, a theory is only solid for as long at the starting assumptions are valid. But, for one thing, you have not shown that this assumption is invalid. You have not shown, in short, that miracles occur. And until such a time, then we have to continue assuming they do not."

    And as science can´t prove that miracles do not occur God remains outside the scope of science, and science is true assuming miracle do not happen and within the condition and assumption of the observations.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ritchie said, "I've no idea what about the Cambrian Explosion you imagine is at all problematic for the Theory of Evolution."

    ---

    Start with the problem Charles Darwin had with it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Tedford the idiot said...

    Ritchie said, "I've no idea what about the Cambrian Explosion you imagine is at all problematic for the Theory of Evolution."

    ---

    Start with the problem Charles Darwin had with it.


    Hey idiot, has science progressed any and/or learned anything new since Darwin's time?

    Still waiting for you to provide the 'intelligent design' explanation for the physical and temporal distribution of the fossil record, including the Cambrian and Precambrian fossils. Anytime Tedford.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Blas -

    "Science is not based on believes. You assume what are you observing are the products of natural forces."

    While it is true that we should assume as little as possible, assuming that 'miracles do not happen' is an entirely necessary assumption for performing science.

    "And as science can´t prove that miracles do not occur God remains outside the scope of science, and science is true assuming miracle do not happen and within the condition and assumption of the observations."

    That is absolutely true!! Well put, and a wonderful demonstration of exactly why ToE IS science, and why Creation Science/ID is not. I could hardly have put it better myself. Bravo.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Neal -

    "Start with the problem Charles Darwin had with it."

    Why would I do that? He lived a century and a half ago. We have made countless discoveries since then. He knew far less about his own theory than we do today.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ritchie, you're in denial and exaggerating the data. The problem is not any better today.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Here are some examples of different definitions for the Scientific Method:




    "Living Enviroment" by Ratzh and Colvert doesn't mention the Scientific method, but it does discuss scientific inquiry, It says scientific inquiry includes questions, observations and inference, experimentation, collecting and organizing data, repeating experiments, and peer review.

    "Biology, The Study of Life" by Sachraer and Stolzte says that the Scientific method consists of defining the problem, formulating a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, observing and measuring, analyzing and drawing conclusions, and reporting observations.

    "Biology" by Mills and Levine lalks about science and how scientists work.
    Science involves evidence based on observation, interpreting the evidence, and explaining the evidence.Scientists work by studying the evidence, forming a hypothesis, setting up a controlled experiment, recoding and analyzing the results, drawing conclusions, publishing and repeating the investigation, If a controlled experiment isn't possible, then they substitute field work.

    "Evironmental Science" by Karen Arms says that there are scientific methods.
    That is, there is more then one method. These can include observing, hypothesizing and predicting, experimenting, organizing and interpreting information, using graphs and sharing information, and communicatiing results.

    "Modern Earth Science" by Sager, Rancey, Phillips and Watenpaugh also discusses different scientific methods. They include stating the problem, gathering information, forming a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis by experiment, and stating a conclusion.

    "Earth Science" by Spaulding and Namowitz talks about scientific thinking. This includes observations, gathering evidence, formulating a hypothesis, skeptical questioning, analyzing what is known, and using math and technology. The scientific methods of inquiry involve collecting data, analyzing the data, testing the hypothesis, and peer review in scientific journals.

    "Holt Science and Technology: Earth Science" says that scientific methods do not have a set procedure, but they can include some or all of the following, asking a question, forming a hypothesis, testing by controlled experiment, making observations, keeping records, analyzing results, drawing conclusions, and communicating results.


    I tried to be as accurate as possible. I had to condense entire chapters into paragraphs.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ritchie:"That is absolutely true!! Well put, and a wonderful demonstration of exactly why ToE IS science, and why Creation Science/ID is not. I could hardly have put it better myself. Bravo."

    I´m glad you agree, but then you have to agree that evolution it is not, and will not be a fact. It is only a scientific theory.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Neal -

    I have not presented any data. So how can I be exaggerating it?

    The 'problem' is better because we have a lot more data to go on. 150 years worth, give or take.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Blas -

    "I´m glad you agree, but then you have to agree that evolution it is not, and will not be a fact. It is only a scientific theory."

    I think you are confused. The Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection is indeed, 'only' a theory. But theories and facts are different things.

    There is a very common misconception that theories are somehow proved and then become facts. This is a total misunderstanding of how science works.

    When you first have an idea about how something MIGHT work, it is a hypothesis. When this is tested and verified, it becomes a theory. A theory is, by definition, a hypothesis backed up with supporting evidence. Theories are never 'upgraded'. They remain theories no matter how much supporting evidence you acquire and no matter how long it stands.

    A fact is a single observable piece of data. Hypothesis and theories are created to explain facts. They don't ever become facts.

    The Theory of Gravity is 'only' a theory. It could conceivably be disproved, but will never be a fact. Germ Theory is 'only' a theory. It could conceivably be disproved, but it will never be a fact.

    It is, for example, a fact that life on Earth has changed. The animal species alive today are not the same as the animal species alive on the Earth 500 million years ago. Life has evolved (that is, it has changed). The question is how.

    Charles Darwin put forward a theory of how life has changed. He called it The Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection. Scientifically speaking it is a theory and will never be a fact.

    Notice, by contrast, ID and Creation Science are not 'even' theories. They are unfalsifiable, make no predictions and are unscientific. Being 'only' a theory is not a bad thing. And it does not change the fact that ToE is the ONLY workable, scientific theory which explains so much of life on Earth, and as such, is infinitely to be preferred over ID or Creation Science.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Ritchie, you're exaggerating the "countless discoveries" that you believe diminish the Cambrian fossils that Darwin had problems with. The trend in the last 150 years has been:

    1. A lessening of the Cambrian explosion timeframe.

    2. An increasingly complete picture of precambrian fossils... which don't show transitionals.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ritchie:"It is, for example, a fact that life on Earth has changed. The animal species alive today are not the same as the animal species alive on the Earth 500 million years ago. Life has evolved (that is, it has changed)"

    I agree with your description of science, but the upper paragraphe is wrong, that are not facts are hipotesis or teories based on assumptions. Facts are fossils we have, the age of that fossils are assumptions based on facts. We assume life changed because we extrapolate small changes we observe now, but we do not have observtion of the change evolution claims, and we have fossils supposed very old identicals to living forms. So facts is many live forms do not change over the time.

    "And it does not change the fact that ToE is the ONLY workable, scientific theory which explains so much of life on Earth, and as such, is infinitely to be preferred over ID or Creation Science."

    The hype of ToE as usual. The value of a thoery is his capacity of make predictions. Can predict something the ToE?

    And Creationism and ID are not the only alternatives to the ToE, one of the links of this blogs is John Davidson blog. He has another vision of evolution. Also this guy
    http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/

    has an alternative vision of evolution, and there are/was many alterntives.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Discussion about miracles and science is beside the point. Miracles are by definition outside science which is about how things happen normally; miracles are by definition abnormal.

    The scientific method is about testing hypotheses; it is applicable to what happens now. But origins is about what happened in the past. Science cannot say anything about creation because science only starts after creation is finished. Those who assume naturalism as an axiom merely substitute a hypothetical big bang -- in which the current laws of nature are not yet applicable -- for the Creator. Creation is not repeatable on either explanation, so the scientific method cannot apply. Naturalistic scientists claim that science excludes supernatural agents by definition; the problem is then one of your definition! Merely declaring that science does not allow for a supernatural creator does not stop Him existing (nor does it stop Him holding you responsible for your denial of his creating). Jesus rose from the dead. If you declare it is not so because science does not allow for such events, you are letting your investigative system substitute for thought. It is a question that science cannot handle; it is instead a historical question. Nobody supposes that the dead are habitually resurrected; when it happens, science cannot say anything about it because it is not repeatable.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "It is, for example, a fact that life on Earth has changed. The animal species alive today are not the same as the animal species alive on the Earth 500 million years ago. Life has evolved (that is, it has changed). The question is how."

    It is not a fact; it is an interpretation of evidence, based on false presuppositions. Since the world was recently created, there was no 500 million years ago, so nothing existed then.

    Evolutionists continue to invent stories about how this or that might have evolved. All this is built on the unquestioned assumption of the fact of evolution and of a huge length of time for it to operate in. The contrary evidence is ignored; for example, the pollen from flowering plants found deep in preCambrian rocks, the unfossilised tissue in dinosaur bones or the unexpected existence of C14 in supposedly ancient diamonds.

    The more we learn about the wonders of microbiology, the less feasible does chemical evolution appear. Something like the ATP motor, which is essential for all life, is simply not going to arise out of undirected chemical events. It is an obvious impossibility. The same goes for a host of highly complex interdependent processes in the cell. Divine creation is a much more reasonable assumption than spontaneous generation.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "... ToE is the ONLY workable, scientific theory which explains so much of life on Earth, and as such, is infinitely to be preferred over ID or Creation Science."

    Only in the warp worldview that prefers "scientific" to "true"...

    ReplyDelete
  33. natschuster said...

    Here are some examples of different definitions for the Scientific Method:


    That's nice. Now explain why you think those definitions somehow have fundamentally different meanings. Seems to me they are just using slightly different wording to convey the exact same meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Great observations of evolutionist, uh hum, "thinking", CH - as always.

    They can't stand seeing the glaring flaws in their own inane theory. So what do they do?

    Well just read above, Ritchie and cie.

    They attack their own childish strawman version of what they believe is YOUR theory.

    What great rebuttals guys. I'm soooooo impressed by such skill! ...
    or rather scratching my head in wide wonder at how incredibly stupid Darwinian fundamentalists can be.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Gary said...

    Great observations of evolutionist, uh hum, "thinking", CH - as always.

    They can't stand seeing the glaring flaws in their own inane theory. So what do they do?

    Well just read above, Ritchie and cie.

    They attack their own childish strawman version of what they believe is YOUR theory.


    Well Gary the yappy little puppy, since Cornelius refuses to tell us what HIS theory is despite being asked hundreds of times, maybe you could stop peeing on the rug long enough to enlighten us.

    Why don't you start with the 'intelligent design' explanation for the physical and temporal distribution of the fossil record, including the Cambrian and Precambrian fossils.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Now lets look at a nice example of Darwinian fundamentalism.

    The oh so brilliant, Peter Singer, your fave "bioethicist" - of course that's a joke, not science but hey, almost nothing in Darwinian fundamentalism is science anyway.

    Peter Singer from Princeton University. Singer is author of the article Heavy Petting in which the world's leading ethicist defends some kinds of bestiality. Singer has argued that zoosexual relations are not necessarily abusive, and that cross-species relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed. Singer was accompanied by his nervous-appearing Yorkie Terrier named "Doggiestile"

    'We need to expand our concept of love and drive away stereotypes', said Singer, smiling at his pet. 'Natural' relations doesn't necessarily mean same-species relations'. 'Speciesism is the most fundamental prejudice', Singer said, to the cheers of the MWB crowd.

    Reporters asked Singer whether his anxious 8-pound pet was a male or a female.

    'A female, of course', the famed ethicist insisted.

    Asked about whether he supported marriage between pet owners and their same-sex pet, Singer seemed shocked.

    'Not really. Marriage has to mean something. Zoophilia is beautiful, but same-sex zoophilia? That creeps me out, to be honest.'


    Well that's Darwinism for ya. "Gay" is too short a word to describe its inherently sickening logic.

    But of course, if Darwinism really were true, well he's simply taking it to it's logical conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Gary the yappy little puppy said...

    Now lets look at a nice example of Darwinian fundamentalism.


    LOL! Gary you moron, you're making Tedford look bright. That was not a true story even though you swallowed it hook line and sinker. It was a 100% fictional farce written by Creationist and homophobe Michael Egnor on his blog "Egnorance", crying about NY's new same-sex marriage law being passed.

    Egnorence

    You IDiots don't have two brain cells to rub together between you, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thorton:

    One book talks about scientifc enquiry, not the Scientific Method. One book talks about scientific thinking. One book says there is no set Scientific Method. So I'm not sure what people mean when they say that the Scientifc Method is the Way to the Truth. Which Scientific Method?

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

    ReplyDelete
  40. Thorton said...

    Gary the yappy little puppy said...

    Your sooo original, duh gee wonder where you got that from.

    LOL! Gary you moron, you're making Tedford look bright. That was not a true story

    Really? Well gee you know nothing of Singer then do you? I'll bet you agree with him though. You have no choice. Neither does any other unthinking bozo of a Darwinist.

    In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers' Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty" and that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals, and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities. The position was countered by fellow philosopher Tom Regan, who writes that the same argument could be used to justify having sex with children. Regan writes that Singer's position is a consequence of his adapting a utilitarian, or consequentialist, approach to animal rights, rather than a strictly rights-based one, and argues that the rights-based position distances itself from non-consensual sex. The Humane Society of the United States takes the position that all sexual molestation of animals by humans is abusive, whether it involves physical injury or not.
    ...
    Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural, it does not constitute a transgression of our status as human beings, because human beings are animals or, more specifically, "we are great apes".

    Doh! You lose ... again!

    Singer is so well known for this disgusting Darwinian tripe its amazing that you and your Darwhining buddies can't put 2 + 2 together to get a proper sum. Egnor is nevertheless correct in his meaning.

    Dr Singer was quoted:
    "Sex with animals does not always involve cruelty."

    And if cruelty is the problem, isn't raising them to kill them generally worse than coupling with them?

    "When it comes to bestiality, the stakes are relatively small: while factory farming kills billions of animals a year, he said, human-animal sexual interactions involve only hundreds or thousands."


    So who's the idiot here thorny? You as always.

    You IDiots don't have two brain cells to rub together between you, do you?

    2 cells? Well actually we have billions.
    But gee even if, that beats your 'no brain at all' any day.

    Homophobia?

    rotflmao - Thanks for giving us more proof of your brainwashing.

    You've been brainwashed by the gay marketing (propaganda) plan huh? "After the Ball: How America will conquer its ts Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's" -yet another example of the logical conclusions of Darwinian idiocy - and of course proves Egnor correct.

    The worst of course thorny, is that you completely miss the point - also as always.

    The point being that if Darwinism were true Singer would be right. Get over it you poor little groveler.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Gary said...

    T: " LOL! Gary you moron, you're making Tedford look bright. That was not a true story"

    Really? Well gee you know nothing of Singer then do you? I'll bet you agree with him though. You have no choice. Neither does any other unthinking bozo of a Darwinist.


    Really moron. Everything you quoted Singer as saying was 100% fabrication by Egnor. Egnor is a well known Creationist who frequently posts at the Discovery Institute's cesspool of science disinformation.

    Face it - you're so stupid you fell for a farcical phony 'interview' and are now the one with egg all over your yappy little puppy face.

    BTW, where is your ID explanation for the empirically observed distribution of the fossil record? You were so busy with your gay-bashing you completely forgot the science question.

    ReplyDelete
  42. squid ink schuster said...

    One book talks about scientifc enquiry, not the Scientific Method. One book talks about scientific thinking. One book says there is no set Scientific Method. So I'm not sure what people mean when they say that the Scientifc Method is the Way to the Truth. Which Scientific Method?


    Poor squiddy, you must be so confused! The articles use different words! There must be giant gobs of difference between a "means of inquiry" and a "method." They couldn't possibly be saying the same thing.

    I bet the difference between 'select' and 'choose' must put you into a cold panic.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The other day I was watching CNN and they showed part of the Casey Anthony trial (for those who are unfamiliar, it's a criminal trial happening in the U.S where the mother of a toddler is accused of murdering her child) The defense had an 'expert' witness on the stand (a psychologist/psychiatrist type) explaining how Casey's (the accused) attitude and actions of partying and getting a tattoo, etc while her daughter was missing and presumed dead, could be consistent with a person dealing with grief.

    When the prosecution started questioning this witness, he almost immediately got her to admit that ANYTHING between being really really sad and really really happy could be consistent with grief. In other words, there's no attitude/actions that a person could do that could be called INconsistent with grief.

    When I heard that, I rolled my eyes because it's the SAME 'logic' used by darwinists regarding their myth. ANYTHING is consistent with it, even when the evidence completely contradicts the predictions made. No matter how many times we read how evolutionists were 'shocked' or 'surprised' by new findings, it's always claimed by darwinists to be consistent with darwinism.

    At least with the grieving process we know it's not really scientific because we have no idea if the person is REALLY grieving or just claiming to be...but with darwin's myth, which is supposed to be a 'scientific' theory, it shows just how faith-based it truly is.

    Dr Hunter's motto is 100% accurate:

    Religion drives science, and it matters.

    ReplyDelete
  44. National Velour:

    When I heard that, I rolled my eyes because it's the SAME 'logic' used by darwinists regarding their myth. ANYTHING is consistent with it,...

    Some things are not particularly consistent with it. For example, evolution would have a hard time explaining the occurrence of fruit flies starting to give birth to dogs. ID, on the other hand, would have no such problem...

    ReplyDelete
  45. National Velour said...

    No matter how many times we read how evolutionists were 'shocked' or 'surprised' by new findings, it's always claimed by darwinists to be consistent with darwinism.


    Just curious National Velour - did you read any of those hundreds and hundreds of pages' worth of positive evidence for evolution? The evidence you claimed doesn't exist? Or are you still happy remaining 100% ignorant on the topic?

    It's not science's problem that all the evidence found to date is consistent with the overarching principle of common descent over deep time. People ignorant of science always start screaming if a new bit of evidence comes along that changes our understanding of some fine detail of the process, even completely reverses our understanding. But nothing in the last 150 years has been discovered that contradicts the basic principles.

    Not falsified doesn't mean not falsifiable. It's amazing how many Creationists can't grasp that important difference.

    ReplyDelete
  46. BTW National Velour, there are many things that if found would falsify the current theory of evolution. Having the phylogenetic tree formed by the genetic record be totally different that the one formed from the fossil record for instance.

    Not falsified doesn't mean not falsifiable. That bears repeating until you finally grasp the concept.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @Thornton: "Why don't you start with the 'intelligent design' explanation for the physical and temporal distribution of the fossil record, including the Cambrian and Precambrian fossils."

    The fossil record has very little temporal distribution. The vast majority of it is animals caught in sediments deposited suddenly by the global flood. It is obvious that sediments on top of other sediments are also deposited later, but this is later by hours, days or months, not millions of years. We all know the classic story of fossilisation presented to children, as it was to me: an animal dies, sinks to the bottom and is gradually covered by slowly deposited sediment. Of course this is complete nonsense, since a body lying on the sea floor would be scavenged and destroyed long before it could be covered. In fact a body found in rock must have been covered quickly. Thus we find millions of fossil nautiloids in the Grand Canyon rocks, we find fossil graveyards of land creatures unnaturally piled together and so on. Polystrate fossils (trees penetrating layers supposedly representing thousands or millions of years) are further evidences among many of the catastrophic origin of the sedimentary layers.

    Experiments have shown that sediment in fast-moving water is deposited in layers similar to those found in sedimentary rock, and the Mount St Helens eruption was accompanied by mud flows that created tens of metres of such rock in a few hours.

    The supposed geological column is built from the beginning on the false assumption of great age (which is necessary in the first place to support the whole idea of evolution). It is by no means as uniform as it is presented to the public and of course it nowhere exists as an entire unit; it is a theoretical construct. There is plenty of evidence to contradict it, including pollen from seed-bearing plants found deep inside pre-Cambrian rocks, and thus hundreds of millions of years out of sequence according to the evolutionary myth: http://creation.com/pollen-paradox

    The entire long-age structure is built not on real data but on Lyell's determination to exclude Moses from science. This was a philosophical assumption, not a scientific one, and it was imposed on the evidence, not derived from it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. As I stated, I repeat: "Really? Well gee you know nothing of Singer then do you? I'll bet you agree with him though. You have no choice. Neither does any other unthinking bozo of a Darwinist"

    So what does poor Thorny say: "Everything you quoted Singer as saying was 100% fabrication by Egnor...."

    My my my. Not quite.
    This must apply to all the other info I posted on Singer, which sadly - for you that is - is all true and concords exactly with what Egnor said anyway. LOL

    You haven't got a bloody clue on anything do you.

    How did you ever get a degree?
    Oh let me guess, by chanting "Darwin is my god and no facts or evidence will ever change that, so help me Richard Dawkins!" to your profs, right?

    Singer is notorious for his Darwinism-based views on bestiality.
    And if that fool hardy theory were true, he'd be right.
    You avoid this little tidbit of fact I see. Because you agree with him at heart don't you?
    Can't answer honestly on this either huh.

    To quote an old movie, "You can't handle the truth!", Thorny.
    This is why you're forced to respond with more missing the point diatribe - as you always do.

    " Face it - you're so stupid you fell for a farcical phony 'interview' and are now the one with egg all over your yappy little puppy face."

    ROTFLMAO - again.
    You can't even insult me with any originality.

    And btw, I'd rather have a little egg in my face than the shit that's all over yours.

    Nevertheless Singer is exactly as portrayed by Egnor, parody or not. Of course now, you'll have to deny this.

    " BTW, where is your ID explanation for the empirically observed distribution of the fossil record? You were so busy with your gay-bashing you completely forgot the science question."

    Gay-bashing? Telling the simple empirical facts is more like it. But you are immune to that I see.

    You have the nerve to call yourself a scientist all while denying every scrap of evidence that goes against your inane world-view-based metaphysical Darwinian fundamentalism. Shame on you.

    The fossil record?!

    You're serious aren't you!?

    If it tells us anything at all it's that Darwin got it wrong.

    As CH is constantly attempting to get into the Darwinistas incredibly (evolved) thick skulls: when the evidence goes against your risible Darwinian fundamentalist bantha dung philosophy, you all deny it.

    Or worse, you get together and do the magical shake-a-rubber-chicken dance, chanting, "Oh ye gods of magical evolution! Help us to find a way to make this contradictory evidence fit with our precious theory! In Darwin's name we ask thee. ... PLEASE hurry!"

    Then you go around yelling, "The theory predicted this contrary evidence too, so it isn't really contradictory."

    As much as you wish it wasn't true, bestiality, and anything else you care to imagine in your twisted mind, is all ok under this sick excuse for science called materialist neo-Darwinism.

    You've been had bad thorny.

    Worse, you can't even understand plain English and you prove it every time you attempt rebuttal.

    Of course that's why I usually don't even bother attempting to answer the ubiquitous codswallop you spew forth, or attempt to get any sense into that MIND ON HOLD of yours.

    Same goes for all the other inane drone Darwhiners here: always proving CH right by insisting on revealing just how blind they are.

    Well gee, guess that'll teach me to stop trying to wake the "dead from the neck up" here -again.

    Logic don't work, insults don't work, reason does even exist under Darwinian theory, nor does free will, and Darwinists are all immune against common sense and facts anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Gary the yappy little puppy said...

    yap! yap! yap! yap! yap! yap!


    LOL! Keep yapping there Gary. You fell for a phony 'interview' and now you look like a complete jerk. Now your squirming and twisting only makes you look dumber.

    You still haven't given us the ID explanation for the physical and temporal distribution of the fossil record. We both know you don't have one, but I was hoping you'd amuse us by making up some more Creationist gibberish.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Oliver said...

    @Thornton: "Why don't you start with the 'intelligent design' explanation for the physical and temporal distribution of the fossil record, including the Cambrian and Precambrian fossils."

    The fossil record has very little temporal distribution.


    I won't deal with your other Gish Gallop nonsense, but this is a demonstrable falsehood right off the bat. Trilobites for example are never found in strata younger than the Permian. Theropod dinosaurs like velociraptors are never found above the KT boundary while bivalve mollusks like clams are found from today all the way back to the Cambrian. Did the clams outrun the raptors to higher ground during DA FLUD?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Thorton said...

    Gary the yappy little puppy said...

    yap! yap! yap! yap! yap! yap!

    LOL! Keep yapping there Gary. You fell for a phony 'interview' and now you look like a complete jerk. Now your squirming and twisting only makes you look dumber.

    =============================

    Well, Gary is incredibly thick!

    ReplyDelete
  52. Thorton: Well Gary the yappy little puppy, since Cornelius refuses to tell us what HIS theory is despite being asked hundreds of times, maybe you could stop peeing on the rug long enough to enlighten us.

    Thorton,

    Essentially, Cornelius has assumed the role of a modern day shaman, claiming to interpret divinely revealed heavenly secrets that explain earthly realities of biological complexity.

    To meet this goal Cornelius selectively communicates with his audience. In particular, to point out specific scientific observations they should and should not accept, as they supposedly represent conflicting evidence against evolutionary theory and support their world view. Apparently, they can't think for themselves, and need him to "interpret" these things for them.

    However, Cornelius does *not* need to communicate his world view, shared presuppositions, justificationalism, etc., to his audience. He's preaching to the choir. As such, these assumptions are implicitly smuggled into his arguments.

    Furthermore, it would clearly NOT in Cornelius' best interest to explicitly reveal these shared presuppositions as they would unnecessarily expose his arguments to rational criticism that they cannot withstand. This includes the same sort of epistemological criticism he makes of evolution.

    As such, it's no surprise that Cornelius has not come clean to disclose his position on several key question he has been asked time and time again. He simply doesn't need to disclose to meet his goal, as they are accepted and shared by his target audience.

    In other words, it appears that Cornelius willing to do whatever's necessary to meet that goal - including dishonestly failing to disclose assumptions and presuppositions he smuggles into his arguments, despite multiple, clear, direct requests for clarification.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Thorton said...

    Gary the yappy little puppy said...

    yap! yap! yap! yap! yap! yap!

    LOL! Keep yapping there Gary. You fell for a phony 'interview' and now you look like a complete jerk. Now your squirming and twisting only makes you look dumber.


    Gee thorny do you think you can make yourself look even more childish and moronic? I'm positive you can so keep going please, I'm really enjoying irking you to such a point.

    Every response you give lowers the collective IQ average of the whole Internet by at least 20 points.

    You still haven't given us the ID explanation for the physical and temporal distribution of the fossil record. ... blah blah blah

    And all of us that are still using our brains are still amused that you're assuming the fossil record supports Darwinian pseudo-science.

    How do you Darwhiners do this?
    Oh right, by believing Darwinism is true and then shoehorning the data into it - as always.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Oliver:
    The vast majority of it is animals caught in sediments deposited suddenly by the global flood.

    That would one of an infinite ways the designer(s) could have done things. Others include using numerous floods or creating the look like there was a flood(s). ID gives you no clue as to how to differentiate between these alternatives, meaning that ID gives no explanations at all regarding the distribution in the fossil record.

    You know, Oliver, there is a reason why people keep asking for ID explanations from ID supporters and there is a reason why so few of them are offered.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Scott:

    I see you're joined the Thorny Club.

    Have a great time missing the point.
    That's Thorny's prime reason for existence as he demonstrates here every single day. (He has nothing better to do)
    Seems its yours too, by the looks of that last entry there.

    "Because of their commitment to an obsolete theory, most molecular biologists operate under the assumption that DNA is the secret of life, whereas the careful observation of the hierarchy of living processes strongly suggests that it is the other way around: DNA did not create life; life created DNA" - Barry Commoner, Unraveling the DNA Myth

    Get over it before it runs all of you Darwinians down like dogs in the street.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Ritchie,

    "And the scientific method leaves no room for miracles."

    It would be interesting to watch you use the scientific method to prove miracles do not happen. Good luck with that one Ritchie.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Gary,

    Thorton, myself and others have asked Cornelius direct, relevant questions which he has failed to respond. And he has done so consistently, despite repeated requests for clarification. These are facts.

    Furthermore, it's not that Cornelius has responded by indicating how these questions are irrelevant. He's simply dodges them.

    Do you deny this? It's all there in black and white on this blog.

    For example, I've asked Cornelius if there is a solution to the problem of induction. If so, what is it? Without such a solution, then he's merely waving his hands over a theory that he personally objects to, as no such confirmation is possible in regard to any scientific explanation. I've also asked, as a confessing Christian, where Cornelius puts divine revelation in the traditional hierarchy of deduction, induction and philosophy. Again, no clear response.

    This is despite the fact that Cornelius has, on multiple occasions, criticized evolution on grounds of epistemology.

    Of course, Cornelius need not actually disclose this view or convince his audience on his position because he's preaching to the choir. As such, he does not need to disclose this information publicly.

    Instead, he smuggles these assumptions into his arguments, shielding them from rational criticism.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Thornton: "[quoting me:] The fossil record has very little temporal distribution.

    I won't deal with your other Gish Gallop nonsense, but this is a demonstrable falsehood right off the bat. Trilobites for example are never found in strata younger than the Permian. Theropod dinosaurs like velociraptors are never found above the KT boundary "

    Trilobites were plainly sea-bottom creatures, so they are found under almost everything else. Whether your second statement is actually true, I don't know. Quite possibly the KT boundary is not evident in all places where they are found, in which case your claim would be unprovable.

    What does "Gish Gallop" mean? Is it an Americanism?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Hawks: "You know, Oliver, there is a reason why people keep asking for ID explanations from ID supporters and there is a reason why so few of them are offered."

    I'm not an ID supporter, but a creationist. I agree that ID cannot give the truth about these things, because it does not look at all the data. We have the history of these things recorded in the bible.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Gerry -

    "It would be interesting to watch you use the scientific method to prove miracles do not happen. Good luck with that one Ritchie."

    A swing and a miss.

    I did not say we can prove miracles do not happen. Since, by definition, a miracle could allow ANYTHING to happen, we can never disprove them. Just like we can never disprove that the world around us is actually an illusion and we are in the Matrix.

    But to peform any kind of science we must ASSUME miracles do not happen. If we allow they do happen, then performing science is impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Neal -

    "Ritchie, you're exaggerating the "countless discoveries" that you believe diminish the Cambrian fossils that Darwin had problems with."

    I don't see why. These 'countless discoveries' involve virtually everything in the field of genetics which shows us very clearly that creatures predated the Cambrian Explosion by millions of years.

    "The trend in the last 150 years has been:

    1. A lessening of the Cambrian explosion timeframe."

    Currently we put it in the region of 15 million years. You talk as if this was a negligible amount of time.

    "2. An increasingly complete picture of precambrian fossils... which don't show transitionals."

    Transitionals? What do you mean transitionals? Every species is transitional - between its ancestors and its descendants.

    Or do you perhaps mean precursors or ancestors? It's true we rarely find them in the fossil record. But we have a likely explanation for that - the Cambrian Explosion marks the appearance of hard body parts such as teeth, bones and armour. Parts which fossilize! Jellyfish, for example, hardly ever leave fossils because they simply don't have any parts which fossilize. What we find at the level of the Cambrian Explosion is fossils of teeth, and armour. It is not that creatures didn't exist before this - it's that they didn't have fossilizing parts.

    This 'explosion' does not mark the sudden appearance of creatures on Earth - it marks their sudden appearance in our fossil record.

    And do we have any evidence to back up this hypothesis? Yes we do. Genetic evidence tells us creatures lived, and evolved, well before the Cambrian Explosion.

    ReplyDelete
  62. cdesign proponentists are so fond of copypasta...

    Gary quoted:

    "Because of their commitment to an obsolete theory, most molecular biologists operate under the assumption that DNA is the secret of life, whereas the careful observation of the hierarchy of living processes strongly suggests that it is the other way around: DNA did not create life; life created DNA"
    - Barry Commoner, Unraveling the DNA Myth

    I took a look to that article. The author misrepresents a lot of things, most notably, Crick's "central dogma". But the interesting thing is that it says nothing against universal common descent or the mechanisms of evolution. The article is a criticism of DNA-centrism in modern biology. Such kind of criticism can have some merit, but this particular article is clearly an exaggeration. But never mind that. I wonder if Gary could explain what the author meant in that quote and why it is relevant as an argument against evolution. What's the logic behind the sound bite, Gary?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Blas -

    "I agree with your description of science, but the upper paragraphe is wrong, that are not facts are hipotesis or teories based on assumptions. Facts are fossils we have, the age of that fossils are assumptions based on facts. We assume life changed because we extrapolate small changes we observe now, but we do not have observtion of the change evolution claims, and we have fossils supposed very old identicals to living forms. So facts is many live forms do not change over the time."

    I must admit I am having trouble working out what you're saying here. But life on Earth has changed. We have a huge number of fossils which match no creatures living today. And whilst some species have retained basically the same structure for millions of years, their genetic history bears the signs of their common ancestry with the rest of life on Earth.

    "The hype of ToE as usual. The value of a thoery is his capacity of make predictions. Can predict something the ToE?"

    Yes. We can predict, for example, diseases will eventually become resistant to currently used antibiotics. Which diseases, which antibiotics and when is extremely difficult to say. But it will happen. Indeed, it happens all the time. diseases become drug resistant precisely for the reason that they evolve drug resistance.

    "And Creationism and ID are not the only alternatives to the ToE, one of the links of this blogs is John Davidson blog. He has another vision of evolution. Also this guy
    http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/

    has an alternative vision of evolution, and there are/was many alterntives."

    Jim davidson actually posted on here for a bit a while back, and let me assure you he is a) no scientist, b) quite bonkers. His rantings are no serious challenge to modern evolutionary theory in any way shape or form.

    You are, however, correct that there was once competing theories to the theory of evolution via natural selection. Lamarck theorised that animals develop certain body parts during their lifetime and these were somehow passed on to their offspring. This, and other ideas, have eventually been falsified. It is only evolution via natural selection which has stood the test of time.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Oliver:

    I'm not an ID supporter, but a creationist.

    Well, you were responing to a comment asking for an ID explanation so, I assumed that you were talking about an ID explanation (and your explanation is an ID one, for that matter).

    I agree that ID cannot give the truth about these things, because it does not look at all the data.

    That is not why ID fails but rather the reason I specified earlier: ID gives you no reason to choose one ID hypothesis over certain others. Looking at more data is not going to make any difference.

    We have the history of these things recorded in the bible.

    Pffft. There are an infinite number of possible deities. The probability that your one is the "true" one is infinitely small - and that's even when I give you, simply for the sake of argument, the actual existence of some sort of deity. Let me guess, you find Pascal's wager compelling as well...?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Oliver -

    "Discussion about miracles and science is beside the point. Miracles are by definition outside science which is about how things happen normally; miracles are by definition abnormal."

    Pretty much, yeah. So if you have a theory which relies of miracles happening, you know your theory is not scientific. As is the case with ID/Creationism.

    "Merely declaring that science does not allow for a supernatural creator does not stop Him existing (nor does it stop Him holding you responsible for your denial of his creating)."

    Yes that's true. Science has no power to disprove God - or unicorns, fairies or any supernatural being for that matter.

    "Jesus rose from the dead. If you declare it is not so because science does not allow for such events, you are letting your investigative system substitute for thought. It is a question that science cannot handle; it is instead a historical question. Nobody supposes that the dead are habitually resurrected; when it happens, science cannot say anything about it because it is not repeatable."

    I agree. But no-one is trying to disprove God here. Science simply builds its own picture about how the world works - and it's discoveries simply provide reliable theories which render supernatural beings irrelevant. Where once we supposed gods which controlled the weather, the seasons, diseases or life on Earth, we now have workable scientific theories which explain these things - theories which have the advantage of being scientific, testable, reliable, and not at all dependant on fantastical and entirely unsubstanciated beings. And as such, are infinitely to be preferred by any rational person.

    "Since the world was recently created, there was no 500 million years ago, so nothing existed then."

    Wow. Care to back up how you work out the date of the Earth and find it to be so young? Would it be the Bible, by any chance?

    "The contrary evidence is ignored; for example, the pollen from flowering plants found deep in preCambrian rocks, the unfossilised tissue in dinosaur bones or the unexpected existence of C14 in supposedly ancient diamonds."

    Care to source all of this?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Thorton said:

    BTW National Velour, there are many things that if found would falsify the current theory of evolution. Having the phylogenetic tree formed by the genetic record be totally different that the one formed from the fossil record for instance.

    You mean like this:

    "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” says Bapteste.

    Graham Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009)

    Or maybe Thorton, you actually believe the evidence supports the mythical tree of life of darwin because:

    Striking admissions of troubles in reconstructing the “tree of life” also came from a paper in the journal PLOS Biology entitled, “Bushes in the Tree of Life.” The authors acknowledge that “a large fraction of single genes produce phylogenies of poor quality,” observing that one study “omitted 35% of single genes from their data matrix, because those genes produced phylogenies at odds with conventional wisdom"

    Antonis Rokas & Sean B. Carroll, "Bushes in the Tree of Life," PLOS Biology, Vol 4(11): 1899-1904 (Nov., 2006) (internal citations and figures omitted).

    ReplyDelete
  67. Gary the yappy little puppy said...

    Gee thorny do you think you can make yourself look even more childish and moronic? I'm positive you can so keep going please, I'm really enjoying irking you to such a point.


    I'm not irked, I'm actually quite amused that you got caught believing a phony 'interview' and have too fat an ego to admit you were wrong. Typical Creationist in other words.

    T: You still haven't given us the ID explanation for the physical and temporal distribution of the fossil record.

    And all of us that are still using our brains are still amused that you're assuming the fossil record supports Darwinian pseudo-science.


    I didn't say or ask a single thing about the fossil record supporting evolution. I keep asking for your ID explanation of the empirically observed patterns. Why do you keep avoiding? Here's your chance to really put an evil Evo in his place by supplying a good alternate explanation. But all you do is yap! yap! yap! yap! yap! and *piddle*.

    ReplyDelete
  68. National Velour said...

    Thorton said:

    BTW National Velour, there are many things that if found would falsify the current theory of evolution. Having the phylogenetic tree formed by the genetic record be totally different that the one formed from the fossil record for instance.

    You mean like this:


    Sorry NV, but Bapteste is a dyed-in-the wool 100% evolution acceptor. His comments only deal with horizontal gene transfer (HGT) at the lowest levels of the evolutionary tree, typically prokaryotic cells, and do nothing at all to cast doubt on the solidly established phylogenetic relationships of multi-celled animals. Creationist who don't understand biology love to quote-mine him though.

    Sean B. Carroll is another well known research scientist who has written extensively on the evolutionary history of life as determined by the science of evolutionary development, or evo-devo for short. Your quote from Carroll is another blatant quote-mine that you should be ashamed to mention, taken from a dishonest Creationist site.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Oliver said...

    Thornton: "[quoting me:] The fossil record has very little temporal distribution.

    Trilobites were plainly sea-bottom creatures, so they are found under almost everything else.


    Clams are also sea-bottom creatures and they are found everywhere, both below, with, and well above the dinosaurs.

    Do you have a coherent explanation? Did the clams outrun the all the T-Rex to higher ground during DA FLUD too?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Geoxus said...

    I took a look to that article. The author misrepresents a lot of things, most notably, Crick's "central dogma". But the interesting thing is that it says nothing against universal common descent or the mechanisms of evolution. The article is a criticism of DNA-centrism in modern biology. Such kind of criticism can have some merit, but this particular article is clearly an exaggeration. But never mind that. I wonder if Gary could explain what the author meant in that quote and why it is relevant as an argument against evolution. What's the logic behind the sound bite, Gary?


    Gary hasn't quite mastered the skill of reading for comprehension yet. See his faceplant with the Egnor parody above as a good example. Like most Creationists, all Gary knows is how to C&P crap from Creto/IDiot websites with zero understanding or care. He's defending Jeebus you know, so truth and/or accuracy isn't important.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Gerry said...

    Ritchie,

    "And the scientific method leaves no room for miracles."

    It would be interesting to watch you use the scientific method to prove miracles do not happen. Good luck with that one Ritchie.


    Science doesn't need to prove miracles don't happen any more than it needs to prove Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny don't exist.

    If you want people to believe miracles happen, then the burden of proof is on your to come up with some positive evidence for miracles.

    First thing you'll have to do is come up with an objective definition for 'miracle'. Give it a go.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Thorton:

    One book actually said there is no set scientific method. And in my dictionary, "inquiry," "thinking" and "method" all have different meanings. I didn't see "methods of inquiry" just "inquiry."

    What exactly would your definition for the "Scientific Method" be?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Thorton:

    Some of the books mention forming a hypothesis. Some leave that out. Some mention experiments, some don't. Are experiments and hypothesis significant?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Ritchie,

    "I did not say miracles do not happen."

    Speaking of swinging and missing, you missed the point. Science can indeed be done with the allowance for miracles as miracles would be only the temporary suspension of scientific facts. We know if we drop a brick off a building it will fall. If however, for some reason God would choose to prevent the brick from dropping on a certain occasion that would not invalidate science or the laws of gravity.

    As for the world around us being an illusion, that can be disproven as anyone possessing even the slightest ability in critical thinking is fully aware.

    Maybe if you did some serious research instead of watching very poor movies you would know these things.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Thorton,

    The burden of proof is on you..."

    Typical response and completely wrong. Your denial of miracles is as much a claim to knowledge as my acceptance of miracles and therefore you bear an equal burden of proof to support your position. As you cannot prove they do not happen you base your position in faith as do I.

    The definition of a miracle exists in every dictionary, perhaps you should buy one.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Gerry -

    "Science can indeed be done with the allowance for miracles as miracles would be only the temporary suspension of scientific facts. We know if we drop a brick off a building it will fall. If however, for some reason God would choose to prevent the brick from dropping on a certain occasion that would not invalidate science or the laws of gravity."

    Not true at all. There is no limit to the number of miracles God is alledgedly able to produce, and therefore no reason to assume the more 'common' response is the 'natural' one. You seem to suggest that if a brick is dropped 100 times and falls 99 times, yet floats away once, we can assume falling is the 'natural' result from being dropped and floating away is the miracle simply because falling is the more common outcome. But why should this be the case? But can't God have created 99 miracles when the 'dropped' bricks were released? It is a possibility we cannot discount.

    "As for the world around us being an illusion, that can be disproven as anyone possessing even the slightest ability in critical thinking is fully aware."

    Then it should be no problem for you to do so. Please put me in my place and demonstrate how we can be sure the world around us is not an illusion.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Ritchie: "Pretty much, yeah. So if you have a theory which relies of miracles happening, you know your theory is not scientific. As is the case with ID/Creationism."

    Just popping through and caught your defense of science. Well done, mate; thank you. Without meaning to step on your toes I'd like expand a bit due the continuing confusion over this point.

    Science is foremost a modelling exercise and so requires regularity in what it is modelling. This is more important than correctness as regular errors are easily modeled themselves even if a happy theorem of causation is otherwise missing. This is why provably false theories are still quite often of good practical use. Miracles, as part of its notion, are simply unlikely violations of that regularity that occur with a probability low enough to thwart proper modelling. So any reliance on such miracles precludes any rigorous description of a given system. All such systems are matters of pure philosophy; or, if you're feeling a bit peckish, religious claptrap.

    The second and related problem is that of demonstration. Theories are tested against their predictions by performing a demonstration. Theories are tested against each other in the same manner. It's also a way of weeding out charlatans making false claims under science. They refuse to provide a demonstration, or refuse to admit the failure of one, on the basis that they require Miracles. That the odds of success are so low that it cannot be successfully demonstrated.

    More than any other concept, it is eschewing Miracles that makes science what it is.

    Thornton: "If you want people to believe miracles happen, then the burden of proof is on your to come up with some positive evidence for miracles."

    Absolutely. Now about Evolution. Are we able to perform demonstrations that evolve Bacteria into Biplanes? Or are we begging leave on account of Miracles?

    ReplyDelete
  78. And as for burden of proof, the rational position on anything is one of scepticism. It is to doubt the existence of anything until is can be reasonably shown to be true.

    Why? Well, let us take a random proposition: that fairies exist. Is it rational to assume they do, to assume they do not, or to be entirely non-commital on the subject. You might be tempted to take the third option, since the first two appear to be positions taken on faith.

    But consider this: many propositions cannot be falsified. Fairies, for instance. If we define them as beings able to become incorporeal, invisible and intangible at will, then we can never disprove them. We end up with, in fact, a vast number of fantastical, magical beings, all of which we are unable to dismiss. Unicorns, goblins, giants, ghosts, imps, djinns, genies, bogeymen, the list goes on and on.

    A rational person brings Occam's Razor to bear to cut away such extraneous and unnecessary fantasies. It is far, far better to be naturally sceptical about any new proposition, but also willing to change your mind should evidence come along to prove your scepticism wrong.

    So Thornton is quite right to about miracles. The burden of proof really is on you here.

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

    ReplyDelete
  80. Jquip - well put. Until the end. Do you imagine anyone is saying bacteria evolved into biplanes? Or have I totally misread that?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Gerry:

    As for the world around us being an illusion, that can be disproven as anyone possessing even the slightest ability in critical thinking is fully aware.

    Be my guest.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Ritchie, apologies for the slang: Dragonfly.

    A hazard on Occam's by the by. When dealing with competing axiomatic systems it is in good taste and as you said -- so long as you don't hold that there are rational reasons for rationality. But in purely philosophical domains it leads to unemployment.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Ritchie:


    Multiverse is a perfectly scientific theory. It postulates an infinite number of universes, with different laws. It certainly violates Occam's razor. And, if it is true, then there are universes out there where fairies, witches, leprechauns, ghosts, ogres, etc. exist.

    ReplyDelete
  84. squid ink schuster said...

    Thorton:

    One book actually said there is no set scientific method. And in my dictionary, "inquiry," "thinking" and "method" all have different meanings. I didn't see "methods of inquiry" just "inquiry."

    What exactly would your definition for the "Scientific Method" be?


    Sorry nat, but your writing is not understandable. One sentence you say 'scientific method' and the next you say 'the scientific method'. You are using different word so you must mean completely different things.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Thorton:

    Is there one Scientific Method? If so, what is it? Are there several Scientific Methods? I can't tell from the books.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Jquip said...

    Thornton: "If you want people to believe miracles happen, then the burden of proof is on your to come up with some positive evidence for miracles."

    Absolutely. Now about Evolution. Are we able to perform demonstrations that evolve Bacteria into Biplanes? Or are we begging leave on account of Miracles?


    'Positive evidence' doesn't mean we have to recreate the entire event from scratch in a lab. Positive evidence means we can find evidence left from the event that gives a clear indication of what happened. In the case of dragonfly evolution, we do have positive evidence in the form of proto-dragonfly insect fossils as well as genetic evidence showing the shared common ancestry.

    Aircraft accident investigators can often determine why a plane crashed based on the trace evidence. No one demands that they crash another 747 full of people as a demonstration of their findings.

    ReplyDelete
  87. squid ink schuster said...

    Thorton:

    Is there one Scientific Method? If so, what is it? Are there several Scientific Methods? I can't tell from the books.


    There you go again nat, being confusing! One post you say 'scientific method' and the next you say 'Scientific method. You capitalized the second so obviously you mean two completely different things. No one can understand when you keep using different words.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Gerry said...

    Thorton,

    The burden of proof is on you..."

    Typical response and completely wrong. Your denial of miracles is as much a claim to knowledge as my acceptance of miracles and therefore you bear an equal burden of proof to support your position. As you cannot prove they do not happen you base your position in faith as do I.


    I have no need to prove supernatural miracles don't happen. I can be content in knowing there is zero evidence for them happening.

    The definition of a miracle exists in every dictionary, perhaps you should buy one.

    There are many different definitions of 'miracle', from the benign "the occurrence of an extremely low probability event" to "an event that occurred due to supernatural intervention". I have no problem with accepting that the first kind happen. I have no evidence that the second kind happen. That's why I'd like you to present your definition, one you accept.

    ReplyDelete
  89. I'm confusing because I'm cofused. People say that there exist a Scientific Method that is the way to the Truth. When refering to that concept, I capitalize, Then I read the textbooks to find different definitions the Scientific Method, or discussions of things like scientific thinking, or inquiry. And one textbook says there is no one Scientific Method.

    ReplyDelete
  90. natschuster said...

    I'm confusing because I'm cofused.


    Sure you are squiddy. Hey, maybe you can help me here. There was a story on the various news channels last night about a dog that saved its owner by waking him up when the house was on fire. One station described 'a small brown dog', another described 'a petite brown colored dog' another described 'a small dog with brown fur'.

    I'm so confused! Were there actually three different dogs??

    ReplyDelete
  91. Nat -

    "Multiverse is a perfectly scientific theory. It postulates an infinite number of universes, with different laws. It certainly violates Occam's razor. And, if it is true, then there are universes out there where fairies, witches, leprechauns, ghosts, ogres, etc. exist."

    Well the multiverse theory is hardly well supported. It is really little more than a hypothesis, an idea, a suggested explanation. This is hardly my field, yet to my knowledge no-one has actually been able to gather any evidence of, or infer the the existence of, other universes outside this one. We would do well to be sceptical of this theory (if it deserves the name, rather than 'hypothesis') until it can be substanciated.

    Yet as a hypothesis it does have certain points in its favour. Chief of which being it doesn't infer the existence of anything which does not actually exist. We know that universes do exist - we are in one. Universes are clearly not impossible. We know of one. The multiverse 'theory' simply asks that if one exists, why not two, or ten, or a million?

    Because of this it enjoys a probabilitic advantage over theories which invoke fantastical beings, such as fairies, ghosts or gods. We do not have any evidence of even one of these beings, so we cannot at all be certain that these are even possible at all.

    Once you know for certain a horse exists, the existence of a hundred thousand more horses is more likely than the existence of a single unicorn.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Ritchie said: “I must admit I am having trouble working out what you're saying here. But life on Earth has changed. We have a huge number of fossils which match no creatures living today. And whilst some species have retained basically the same structure for millions of years, their genetic history bears the signs of their common ancestry with the rest of life on Earth.”

    Fact: We have a huge number of fossils which match no creatures living today”

    Assumption, they evolved in other forms. There is no prove of this.

    “their genetic history bears the signs of their common ancestry with the rest of life on Earth”

    Fact DNA sequences of differents species.

    Assumptions: Common ancestry. There is no prove of common ancestry. All the evidences for common ancestry are based on one the nested hierarchie of traits (with exceptions) and all the evidences do not preclude models with no common ancestry.

    “We can predict, for example, diseases will eventually become resistant to currently used antibiotics. Which diseases, which antibiotics and when is extremely difficult to say. But it will happen. Indeed, it happens all the time. diseases become drug resistant precisely for the reason that they evolve drug resistance.”

    You do not need ToE for this prediction, just noting the adaption capacity of all the living forms you can predict that.

    “Jim davidson actually posted on here for a bit a while back, and let me assure you he is a) no scientist, b) quite bonkers. His rantings are no serious challenge to modern evolutionary theory in any way shape or form.”

    Autorithy argument. Was Darwin a scientist? Has he a degree? The important hing is he has another theory of evolution of species different of darwinism.

    “ It is only evolution via natural selection which has stood the test of time.”

    In the mainstream of rented science. Go outside ask people, they beleive earth is rotating around the sun. They do not beleleive apes and man has a common ancestor.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Blas said...

    In the mainstream of rented science. Go outside ask people, they beleive earth is rotating around the sun. They do not beleleive apes and man has a common ancestor.


    Some people believe the sun and stars rotate around the unmoving Earth. Some people believe that the Earth is hollow with demons living inside it. Some people believe Elvis is still alive and living with Bigfoot in a hidden bunker under the Taj Mahal.

    Why do you think the opinion of uneducated laymen somehow trumps the huge body of accumulated scientific evidence for common descent?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Blas -

    "Fact: We have a huge number of fossils which match no creatures living today”
    Assumption, they evolved in other forms. There is no prove of this."

    Proof? No. Supporting evidence? A VAST deal from a many fields.

    "Fact DNA sequences of differents species.
    Assumptions: Common ancestry. There is no prove of common ancestry. All the evidences for common ancestry are based on one the nested hierarchie of traits (with exceptions) and all the evidences do not preclude models with no common ancestry."

    Again, proof? No. Supporting evidence? Lots and lots! There is not one nested hierarchy of nested traits - there are several, drawn up from several fields, and the fact that they CONVERGE is powerful validating evidence.

    "You do not need ToE for this prediction, just noting the adaption capacity of all the living forms you can predict that."

    But how? By what mechanism do they adapt if not by natural selection?

    "Autorithy argument. Was Darwin a scientist? Has he a degree? The important hing is he has another theory of evolution of species different of darwinism."

    It does not matter at all how educated or qualified Jim Davidson is. If he has an alternative theory to the theory of evolution then we must consider it. But he does not have any such thing. He might believe he does, he might claim he does, but his theories are fatally flawed and badly thought-out. He has nothing to challenge modern evolutionary theory.

    "In the mainstream of rented science. Go outside ask people, they beleive earth is rotating around the sun. They do not beleleive apes and man has a common ancestor."

    I don't know where you're from but the majority of people here in Britain - and in every other developed country - do indeed accept common descent. Especially scientists - people whose job it is to investigate and understand such things. Indeed the only real challenge to it comes from religious quarters - people who don't WANT to accept it because they WANT to believe that their chosen deity is responsible (if only partly) for life on Earth.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Thornton: "'Positive evidence' doesn't mean we have to recreate the entire event from scratch in a lab."

    So then we are agreed that we are begging leave on account of Miracles, in preference for a standard based on injecting our biases into an archaelogical record. If we accept this standard as being scientific then we must also accept that Sodom and Gomorrah were given a little bit of Godly wrath on account of the 'positive evidence' for this occurrence. If we further accept that children should receive a comprehensive education in science then public education should involve the perils of, well, sodomy.

    The argument you're presenting is as fallacious as it is common.

    "No one demands that they crash another 747 full of people as a demonstration of their findings."

    This is probably a poor analogy to choose in support of your argument as we have demonstration that the plane did exist, was in good working order, and took off from an airport. We further have black-box recordings that demonstrate the path of demise of the aircraft as well as particulars and cockpit recordings of expert witnesses to the event. We then collect the remains to identify possible failures that could have led to all the data previously demonstrated. Once such candidates are hypothesized they are then tested for stress and failure modes to see if they may account for those demonstrations. Lastly recommendations, possibly including further engineering and demonstrations, are put forth. At the end of all of which the given causes and cures are typically granted only a provisional status as the 'likely cause' rather than 'the' cause. All of which is proper engineering and science.

    What you're putting forward as the preferred and sufficient evidence is simply the remains of the remains of random and possibly unrelated animals and lineages. This remains true even if we accept the strongest statements as to common descent and the Modern Synthesis. I have no idea what you would find a suitable analogy for this condition but the process of the NTSB most certainly is not it.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Blas: "I don't know where you're from but the majority of people here in Britain - and in every other developed country - do indeed accept common descent."

    This does little to recommend the state of science education in developed countries. Given the weakest notion of common descent as being that of consistent lineage we find that HGT falsifies the notion quite soundly. To salvage this we must make the much stronger statement that there was only single act of genesis -- abio, bio, deo, or whatever else you prefer. This so HGT does not validate the singular family tree. But in so doing we must make the statement that there was only *one* instance of creation. Taking abiogenesis as an example, if we presume that the genesis event was inevitable then we must certainly accept that there could, and quite likely should, have been multiple events. In the face of HGT we cannot then state that common descent holds.

    However if we presume that the genesis event was a Miracle then we are firmly embedding Miracles into what purports to be a scientific theory.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Jquip said...

    So then we are agreed that we are begging leave on account of Miracles, in preference for a standard based on injecting our biases into an archaelogical record. If we accept this standard as being scientific then we must also accept that Sodom and Gomorrah were given a little bit of Godly wrath on account of the 'positive evidence' for this occurrence.


    You have positive evidence that God smote Sodom and Gomorrah? Does that include turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt? What positive evidence would that be?

    At the end of all of which the given causes and cures are typically granted only a provisional status as the 'likely cause' rather than 'the' cause. All of which is proper engineering and science.

    Since all of science is considered provisional and subject to revision upon the introduction of new evidence, even common descent, what is your point? Present enough evidence that common descent is false and provide an alternate, better explanation for the empirically observed patters and science will be all ears. In the mean time science will stick with the current explanation.

    What you're putting forward as the preferred and sufficient evidence is simply the remains of the remains of random and possibly unrelated animals and lineages.

    LOL! If that's your understanding of the quality and quantity of the evidence for common descent this conversation is done before it starts. Why don't you just jump to the Creationist "it's all interpretation!!" hand wave and save some time?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Jquip said...

    This does little to recommend the state of science education in developed countries. Given the weakest notion of common descent as being that of consistent lineage we find that HGT falsifies the notion quite soundly.


    Er...no. Not even close. All HGT does is bring into question phylogenetic relationships established by mapping any one single gene, as any one gene may have an HGT history. But common descent is established by mapping thousands of different genes across lineages and observing the consistent patterns.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Thornton: "You have positive evidence that God smote Sodom and Gomorrah? Does that include turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt? What positive evidence would that be?"

    We have the archaeological record certainly. Just as we have the paleontological record. If your claim is that proper science can eschew demonstration -- 'cause Miracles are hard, yah? -- then injecting biases into any collection of such rocks is just as easily warranted.

    You are free to cherry-pick which biases we're allowed to inject as you like. But I submit to you that such would still not be science.

    "Present enough evidence that common descent is false and provide an alternate, better explanation for the empirically observed patters and science will be all ears."

    This is a sad attempt at shifting the burden. It is on the claimant to demonstrate their theory's validity by means of demonstration. The point is that this is something that the NTSB engages in. Your claim is that Evolution should not need be held to this standard because Miracles are hard.

    But if you prefer to hang your hat on the exemplar set by the NTSB then it should be a trivial matter for you to show the demonstrations provided for evolving Bacteria into Biplanes.

    "Why don't you just jump to the Creationist "it's all interpretation!!" hand wave and save some time?"

    Without demonstration it is all interpretation. Historical narratives, if you will, that are predicated on injecting our personal biases onto history. If you're in a debate with a YEChead you should remind them of this if they make a claim to the truth of Biblical issues on the basis of the positive evidence in the historical record.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Thronton: "Er...no. Not even close. All HGT does is bring into question phylogenetic relationships established by mapping any one single gene, as any one gene may have an HGT history."

    Sorry for the second reply, I mistook your response as being from Blas and didn't want to muddy things.

    The problem here is that sexual descent and genetic descent were considered synonymous and interchangeable prior HGT. HGT shows this to be a false notion, and unless we're to be quaintly Lamarckian it remains that it is the genetic descent is the only bit of importance here. Thus common descent only remains if we posit only a single individual in a single instance of Miraculous genesis.

    Hope that clears things up.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Jquip said...

    Thornton: "You have positive evidence that God smote Sodom and Gomorrah? Does that include turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt? What positive evidence would that be?"

    We have the archaeological record certainly.


    What about the archaeological record is evidence that God destroyed those two cities? Please be specific.

    T: "Present enough evidence that common descent is false and provide an alternate, better explanation for the empirically observed patters and science will be all ears."

    This is a sad attempt at shifting the burden. It is on the claimant to demonstrate their theory's validity by means of demonstration.


    This has already been done to the satisfaction of virtually 100% of the professional scientific community.

    But if you prefer to hang your hat on the exemplar set by the NTSB then it should be a trivial matter for you to show the demonstrations provided for evolving Bacteria into Biplanes.

    It is trivial to show the processes involved as well as the supporting evidence. Any good freshman biology book will cover the topic, or you can learn more here.

    You have very peculiar notions about what science needs to 'demonstrate'. You've never worked in a scientific field, have you?

    ReplyDelete
  102. Jquip said...

    The problem here is that sexual descent and genetic descent were considered synonymous and interchangeable prior HGT.


    Please define what you mean by 'sexual descent' and 'genetic descent.' Do you means sexually reproducing organisms v. asexual reproducing ones? Your unorthodox terminology makes it unclear.

    HGT shows this to be a false notion, and unless we're to be quaintly Lamarckian it remains that it is the genetic descent is the only bit of importance here. Thus common descent only remains if we posit only a single individual in a single instance of Miraculous genesis.

    No. Common descent doesn't have to mean extends all the way back to one single individual. Humans and chimps are related by common descent. Dogs and cats are related by common descent. That is true even if the human/chimp common ancestor and the dog/cat common ancestor were somehow shown to be unrelated.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Jquip:

    So then we are agreed that we are begging leave on account of Miracles, in preference for a standard based on injecting our biases into an archaelogical record. If we accept this standard as being scientific then we must also accept that Sodom and Gomorrah were given a little bit of Godly wrath on account of the 'positive evidence' for this occurrence. If we further accept that children should receive a comprehensive education in science then public education should involve the perils of, well, sodomy.


    Come on, Jquip. Justify some of your assumptions here. You can start by telling us why a god had sodomy in it's mind when it destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah rather than destroying them because it didn't like the names of these cities. Shall I take it that you too find Pascal's wager convincing?

    ReplyDelete
  104. Hawks: "Justify some of your assumptions here."

    Fair enough. I assumed that Thornton would find the notion of the validity of the account of Sodom and Gomorrah to be against his taste. And so I simply used his construction as to the validity or proof of Evolution and applied it to something which ran counter what I assumed to be his preferences. If his reasoning is sound then both examples must be allowed as scientific. If his reasoning is unsound then we're still in need of an agreed upon valid notion of science. Well, beyond the obscenity test: "I know it when I see it."

    "Shall I take it that you too find Pascal's wager convincing?"

    I stopped beating her last Tuesday. I'm sorely doubtful but hoping you'll surprise me with a novel connective to this moldy piece of sophistry. I find Pascal's wager to be offensive to all thinking men. And Christians; if you feel a need to draw a distinction between the two.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Jquip said...

    Hawks: "Justify some of your assumptions here."

    Fair enough. I assumed that Thornton would find the notion of the validity of the account of Sodom and Gomorrah to be against his taste. And so I simply used his construction as to the validity or proof of Evolution and applied it to something which ran counter what I assumed to be his preferences. If his reasoning is sound then both examples must be allowed as scientific.


    The big difference between ToE vs. God smiting Sodom and Gomorrah: I provided references to lots of positive evidence for my position, you couldn't provide a single reference for yours. Big FAIL for you there Jquip.

    If his reasoning is unsound then we're still in need of an agreed upon valid notion of science.

    It's not unsound, and there is an agreed upon valid notion of science. Agreed upon by virtually 100% of the scientific community that is. What wingnut Creationists think science should entail (like Behe saying astrology is as much a science as ID) doesn't much matter.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Thornton: "What about the archaeological record is evidence that God destroyed those two cities? Please be specific."

    This seems to be a stumping point for you and Hawks both. If my reply to Hawks doesn't cover things, let me know.

    "This has already been done to the satisfaction of virtually 100% of the professional scientific community."

    This is something of an oddity. Am I to understand that your claim is that science is merely a Good Ol' Boys club that dispenses 'truth' without demonstration like so much Manna from Heaven?

    "It is trivial to show the processes involved as well as the supporting evidence."

    Then it should be trivial to evolve Bacteria into Biplanes. The first difficulty here is that we are still quite a bit in the dark as to the presumed processes. The second is that a reduction of a large system to toy examples is only as valid as the caveat Ceteris Paribus. For the practical difficulties in getting there from here on that basis merely look at economics.

    "Please define what you mean by 'sexual descent' and 'genetic descent.'"

    That is a bit awkward, isn't it? With asexual reproduction it would refer to the organism that was the direct biological predecessor as normally understood.

    "That is true even if the human/chimp common ancestor and the dog/cat common ancestor were somehow shown to be unrelated."

    This is a decidedly unorthodox position to take as common descent is considered a universal quality, while your discussion is more commonly known as most recent common ancestor. I can drop a talkorigins link on you, if you like. Regardless, if this is your position then you do not find the Modern Synthesis or any consensus variant to a correct theory.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Thornton: "I provided references to lots of positive evidence for my position, you couldn't provide a single reference for yours."

    Wait what? I'm confused. Are you now saying that demonstration is, in fact, needed? Perhaps you could clarify your position.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Thorton, I know Bapteste is an evolutionist, that's why I quoted him. If the evidence for the tree of life in darwnism exists, why would he say it doesn't? Why would evolutionists OMIT data that contradicts their mythical tree? Shouldn't it support it if it were true? Why would evolutionist Lynn Margulis admit the evidence for darwinism is missing? I thought darwin's 'theory' was a proven fact according to the propaganda, I mean 'literature'???

    ReplyDelete
  109. Jquip said...

    Thornton: "What about the archaeological record is evidence that God destroyed those two cities? Please be specific."

    This seems to be a stumping point for you and Hawks both. If my reply to Hawks doesn't cover things, let me know.


    OK, you were caught BS-ing. Got it.

    T: "This has already been done to the satisfaction of virtually 100% of the professional scientific community."

    This is something of an oddity. Am I to understand that your claim is that science is merely a Good Ol' Boys club that dispenses 'truth' without demonstration like so much Manna from Heaven?


    If that's what you understand you are even more clueless than you appear.

    T: "Please define what you mean by 'sexual descent' and 'genetic descent.'"

    That is a bit awkward, isn't it? With asexual reproduction it would refer to the organism that was the direct biological predecessor as normally understood.


    OK, you don't understand the terms and were just throwing out buzzwords. Got it too.

    T: "That is true even if the human/chimp common ancestor and the dog/cat common ancestor were somehow shown to be unrelated."

    This is a decidedly unorthodox position to take as common descent is considered a universal quality, while your discussion is more commonly known as most recent common ancestor.


    Attempt to twist / misrepresent what I wrote noted. You're not doing too good here Jquip.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Jquip said...

    Thornton: "I provided references to lots of positive evidence for my position, you couldn't provide a single reference for yours."

    Wait what? I'm confused. Are you now saying that demonstration is, in fact, needed? Perhaps you could clarify your position.


    Are you now saying you're just another clueless Creationist throwing any crap you can find at the walls to see what sticks?

    It's always hilarious when we get Creationists armchair philosophers trying to rhetorically argue away 150+ years of scientific findings.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Me: Justify some of your assumptions here.

    Jquip:

    Fair enough. I assumed that Thornton would find the notion of the validity of the account of Sodom and Gomorrah to be against his taste. And so I simply used his construction as to the validity or proof of Evolution and applied it to something which ran counter what I assumed to be his preferences. If his reasoning is sound then both examples must be allowed as scientific. If his reasoning is unsound then we're still in need of an agreed upon valid notion of science. Well, beyond the obscenity test: "I know it when I see it."

    So you build a straw-man so that you could lay out this little false dichotomy? Clever...

    When I said to justify your assumptions, I meant for you to somehow justify the assumptions that lead to sodomy being taught as being bad (and no, I don't care if you think it is). When you're at it, do the same for the conclusion that Biplanes evolved from bacteria. It might be a good lesson for you.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Thornton: "OK, you were caught BS-ing. Got it."

    It is a bog standard logical and rhetorical device. I take from your response that I assumed too much of your critical thinking skills and you are upset because this makes you feel ignorant; or that you understand the contradiction your preferences create and that it makes you look ignorant. No worries, mate. Happens to all of us daily.

    "If that's what you understand you are even more clueless than you appear."

    I should think so. Asking a question is the acme of exhibiting cluelessness. Perhaps you would be so kind as to attempt answering it.

    "OK, you don't understand the terms and were just throwing out buzzwords. Got it too."

    Terms easily understood by the lay, sure. My apologies if you took my consideration as a sleight to your intellect.

    "Attempt to twist / misrepresent what I wrote noted."

    Again you have my apologies for trying to make a charitable sense of your misuse of terms that have, most unfortunately, become misused buzzwords fashionable amongst those that have only the most fleeting knowledge of the subjects under discussion. I would be more than happy to treat you as lacking a more full knowledge of the subjects at hand if would help. But alas, this seems to rankle you as well.

    "Are you now saying you're just another clueless Creationist throwing any crap you can find at the walls to see what sticks?"

    Nope, just pointing out the contradiction present in requiring others accept argument without demonstration while refusing to entertain any argument without demonstration. This is all the more curious as the particulars are completely irrelevant given that it was the construction of the statements rather than their content that was the issue.

    All things equal I think it is safe to say that you are firmly of the opinion that everything that is not a demonstration therefore is, and thus we have our proofs of your theories.

    Which has us at this awful juncture where you are playing Torquemada over religious purity tests. If I deny that I am a Creationist you will burn me until I admit that I am, in fact, a heretic. And if I affirm that I'm a huge fan of the various theories of Dice, but not a believer, that I shall be beaten for apostasy.

    I suppose I should find this more distressing than I do. But I shall take a page from your book and state that since I am to be beaten and not beaten while I am burned and not burned that this is of little concern to me.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Hawks: "So you build a straw-man so that you could lay out this little false dichotomy? Clever..."

    It's only a false dichotomy when there are more than two options. In this case a fellow that believes in true contradictions would state that his reasoning could be sound, unsound, or both simultaneously. If you are such a fellow then it is fair to call it a false dichotomy, yes.

    But a straw-men is when you claim that someone has made an argument they have not. Obviously he has not made a claim as to truth of the Christian God, nor have I made any claim that he has.

    My argument was concerning the manner of his judgements and the constructions he used to attain them, which I made every effort to make accurate to his own. If you feel that I am an error you are more than welcome to point out the inadequacies of the comparison.

    "When I said to justify your assumptions, I meant for you to somehow justify the assumptions that lead to sodomy being taught as being bad (and no, I don't care if you think it is)."

    Well that would be an interesting feat for me to perform wouldn't it? For I never claimed that it was good, bad, or otherwise. If you'll be so kind as to reread things you'll find that the only term I used was 'peril' which -- for example -- even recreational and procreational intercourse involve. No matter your moral judgement of such things. Again, on rereading, you'll note that I stated 'if we accept' which is a common term of provisional acceptance of a claim used by native English speakers.

    "When you're at it, do the same for the conclusion that Biplanes evolved from bacteria. It might be a good lesson for you."

    I don't follow your argument here. I suppose I could say that it would be pretty darn cool to show evolution in the lab, but I don't think that's what you had in mind. Feel free to clarify.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Thorton:"Why do you think the opinion of uneducated laymen somehow trumps the huge body of accumulated scientific evidence for common descent?"

    Probably because in the university I have to study that "Ontogeny replicates phylogeny" as a law, and now I know it is not true, and the law was based in adjusted(if no faked) evidence.
    And people that support common descent says evolution is a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Ritchie:"Proof? No. Supporting evidence? A VAST deal from a many fields."

    "Again, proof? No. Supporting evidence? Lots and lots! There is not one nested hierarchy of nested traits - there are several, drawn up from several fields, and the fact that they CONVERGE is powerful validating evidence."

    All that evidence are interpretation of facts. You do not have any observable event that can convert the ToE in a fact. Unless you are changing the definitions we agree before.

    "You do not need ToE for this prediction, just noting the adaption capacity of all the living forms you can predict that."

    "But how? By what mechanism do they adapt if not by natural selection?"

    Can you define natural selection?

    ReplyDelete
  116. Thorton:

    Is there a single Scientific Method? If so, what is it?

    Ritchie:

    We know that a Universe exists, our universe. and we know that it follows certain laws. So all we know is that a Universe that follows thelaws of nature we are familiar with exists. We can't infer that an infinite number of universes ththave different laws exist.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Ritchie,

    "How we can be sure the world is not an illusion."

    Holding to the position of the universe as an illusion is truly one of the most infantile positions one can hold.

    First the universe follows strict laws in its functioning. This would not be so if it was an illusion. Second, predictions can be made as to the function of the universe. Again not possible if it was an illusion..

    The illusion argument is so pitiful it's a wonder anyone tries to use it any longer. It's actually quite funny in fact. Throw out your Matrix trilogy and get a real education.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Thorton,

    "Knowing there is zero evidence for them happening."

    How do you know?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Gerry: First the universe follows strict laws in its functioning. This would not be so if it was an illusion. Second, predictions can be made as to the function of the universe. Again not possible if it was an illusion..

    Gerry,

    Not possible? You'll need to be more precise.

    For example, Solipsism claims that I cannot know anyone or anything external to myself actually exists. This is due to the fact that I cannot demonstrate that you, or anyone else, are actually conscious. I think, therefore I am. However, I cannot know that you think, and therefore "are".

    Since Solipsism posits that everything that you an I accept as external realty actually represent elaborate facets of my internal self, each observation in physics, medicine, etc. could also be evidence for Solipsism.

    However, I'd suggest there are objective reasons why sophism can be discarded without experimental testing. This is because it fails to explain the very phenomena in question. it's a bad explanations.

    Sophism fails to explain why object-like facets of myself would obey laws of physics-like facets of myself. It fails to explain why conscious being-like facets of myself would discover new particles-like facts of myself in particle accelerator-like facets of myself, which I can't even do the math to build or describe. That's just what my internal self just so happened to project.

    So, we cannot say that it's "not possible", as observations alone could support both "theories." It cannot rule it out as a possible state of affairs, in reality. But we can clearly rule it out as an explanation for what we observe.

    Specially, we can say Solipsism is a convoluted elaboration of reality.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Of course, would could make similar arguments regarding any observation. Rather than draw a line at the one's mind, one could draw the line at any arbitrary location in order to attack any conclusion you personally object to.

    For example, I cannot "demonstrate" that we exist in a heliocentric solar system as all observations are theory laden.

    It's logically possible that the earth is actually surrounded by a giant planetarium that merely presents a highly elaborate simulation of a heliocentric solar system. This includes bouncing back radio waves and photons, returning space craft with just the right amount of fuel missing, simulated telemetry data and even astronauts with implanted false memories of collecting false moon rocks.

    Beyond this planetarium, you could claim anything exists that you like, or nothing at all. Each and every observation we make today could be consistent with this possibility.

    In this case we've drawn the boundary at the the earth's atmosphere, rather than one's mind.

    As with Solipsism, the giant planetarium theory fails to explain the motions of the nights sky. If there is no external solar system, then where did the data model the simulation based on come from? That's just what the simulator happens to simulate.

    Again, we cannot rule this out as a possible state of affairs, in reality, but we can objective note that it fails to actually explain the motions of the planets. it's a convoluted elaboration of heliocentric theory. As such we can discard it as an explanation without experimental testing.

    And we can say the same regarding the current crop of ID, as it fails to explain the biological complexity we observe. Specifically, it has no explanation for why we observe specific, concrete patterns in the fossil record, in existing organisms and a wide range of other observations. That's just what the designer must have wanted.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Gerry -

    Once again, you totally miss my point.

    I was not arguing that the world around us IS an illusion. Go back and reread our exchange.

    But you did claim that you could actively disprove the world around us is an illusion - something you have failed to do.

    "First the universe follows strict laws in its functioning. This would not be so if it was an illusion."

    Ummm, no. If the world around us was an illusion it would not have to follow strict laws - but it might. The fact that it follows strict laws is no evidence at all that it is not an illusion.

    "Second, predictions can be made as to the function of the universe. Again not possible if it was an illusion.."

    Again, why not? An illusory universe might not be predictable, but equally it might. Just because it is predictable doesn't mean it isn't an illusion.

    Again, let me stress, as you seem to misunderstand this point, that I am not saying the universe IS an illusion. But it might be. Just as anything might be a miracle. But if we thought that were the case then why do science? Science is an attempt to understand the laws of the universe. And for that there have to BE laws of universe. Laws which are not violated willy-nilly by miracles and magic beings. As the saying goes, God is not permitted inside the lab.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Jquip said...

    Thornton: "OK, you were caught BS-ing. Got it."

    It is a bog standard logical and rhetorical device.


    Yep, it's a bog-standard rhetorical device for clueless creationist armchair philosophers. Like I said, it's always hilarious to get boobs trying to use rhetorical games to argue away 150+ years of evidence.

    I should think so. Asking a question is the acme of exhibiting cluelessness. Perhaps you would be so kind as to attempt answering it.

    And asking a twisted, loaded question is the acme of creationist dishonesty. Glad we got that straightened out.

    Terms easily understood by the lay, sure. My apologies if you took my consideration as a sleight to your intellect.

    Actually it exposes you as a scientifically ignorant poseur who doesn't understand and can't define the buzz-terms he is tossing about.

    Nope, just pointing out the contradiction present in requiring others accept argument without demonstration while refusing to entertain any argument without demonstration.

    Since your armchair philosopher demand for 'demonstration' has nothing to do with the actual technical evidence being discussed, we'll chalk that one up to your scientific ignorance.

    All things equal I think it is safe to say that you are firmly of the opinion that everything that is not a demonstration therefore is, and thus we have our proofs of your theories.

    Since you've lied and twisted just about everything else I've written, of course you'd say that. You're nothing if not consistent.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Gerry said...

    Thorton,

    "Knowing there is zero evidence for them happening."

    How do you know?


    Because no one anywhere has ever presented evidence for any supernatural miracles. If you think you can, please do so. But give your definition of 'miracle' first.

    ReplyDelete
  124. squid ink schuster said...

    Thorton:

    Is there a single Scientific Method? If so, what is it?


    Was there one dog or three at that house fire? Which dog was it?

    ReplyDelete
  125. Nat -

    "We know that a Universe exists, our universe. and we know that it follows certain laws. So all we know is that a Universe that follows thelaws of nature we are familiar with exists. We can't infer that an infinite number of universes ththave different laws exist."

    Who is claiming there is?

    It sounds to me as though you think the multiverse theory a) postulates an infinite number of universes b) is mainstream scientific canon. Neither of which are true.

    In the first case, the multiverse theory does not stipulate a particular number of other universes - let alone an infinite number. There could be two more, or ten more, or, yes, infinite universes. Moreover, they don't all HAVE to have different laws. But can we really expect our laws to apply in other universes too?

    In the second case, this is all rather speculative. It has not been accepted into mainstream scientific thinking. No-one gets taught it at school. No-one may take it as granted in their theories. It is a fun and plausible idea to tinker with, and little more.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Blas -

    "All that evidence are interpretation of facts. You do not have any observable event that can convert the ToE in a fact."

    I already agreed to that. Theories never get changed into facts. I do not understand why you are saying this as though it should be a point against the credibility of ToE that it is a theory rather than a fact. Because it is not. It could be the most well-supported theory in the history of science (in fact it is up there with the best of them) and STILL it wouldn't be a fact. But so what?

    "Can you define natural selection?"

    Here's one I just grabbed:

    A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations.

    http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Natural_selection

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

    ReplyDelete
  128. Thorton said...

    Blas said...

    Thorton:"Why do you think the opinion of uneducated laymen somehow trumps the huge body of accumulated scientific evidence for common descent?"

    Probably because in the university I have to study that "Ontogeny replicates phylogeny" as a law, and now I know it is not true, and the law was based in adjusted(if no faked) evidence.


    Which university taught that, and when? If your university taught you a 'law' that was disproven and rejected by the scientific community almost a century ago, that says a lot more about the crap quality of your university than it does the state of scientific knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Jquip -

    If I may jump in here...

    "So then we are agreed that we are begging leave on account of Miracles, in preference for a standard based on injecting our biases into an archaelogical record. If we accept this standard as being scientific then we must also accept that Sodom and Gomorrah were given a little bit of Godly wrath on account of the 'positive evidence' for this occurrence. If we further accept that children should receive a comprehensive education in science then public education should involve the perils of, well, sodomy."

    I have to question your logic that we are 'begging leave on account of miracles' just because we cannot witness something directly in a lab. We cannot witness a murder which happened last week. But we can try to discover whether someone is guilty of committing that murder by deductive reasoning - which is what historians, including scientific ones, do. They build a most-likely picture of what happened based on the evidence they have to hand.

    It is true that we have not directly witnessed bacteria evolve into dragonflies, but such a process takes millions of years. Nevertheless, the mechanisms by which such an event took place are far from mysterious. We have witnessed speciation many times, both in the lab and field. Evolution is a process we can directly witness. It sounds suspiciously like you are asking to witness 'bacteria to biplanes' precisely because you know this is an impossible demand.

    The comparison with Sodom & Gamorrah breaks down when we consider how we come by these 'biases'. We may take it as red that ToE is true, but this is only because ToE has been arrived at through a long and arduous process of data-gathering, hypothesis-testing and hypothetico-deductive reasoning. All standard fare for science, but it means theories which survive this rigorous process intact must have something going for them. They must, based on the evidence we possess, be highly likely to be correct.

    How did we come by our interpretation of what happened to S&G? Religious myth. A highly untrustworthy method of obtaining historical facts at the best of times.

    Simply put, we have no reason to be confident in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as historical fact. By contrast, we have excellent reasons to be confident that ToE is correct.

    You also brought up the topic of Horizontal Gene Transfer. It is true that this significantly complicates the genetic history of life on Earth, but only at the base level. It is not really applicable to anything large enough to be seen with the naked eye. It does not undermine at all the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs, whales from terrestrial quadrupeds, and all mammals (including humans) from small, shrew-like creatures.

    Neither does HGT undermine the theory of evolution even in microscopic domains where it IS applicable. It is an extra headache for genetic historians, but nothing about it at all violates the key principles of ToE.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Thorton:"Which university taught that, and when? If your university taught you a 'law' that was disproven and rejected by the scientific community almost a century ago, that says a lot more about the crap quality of your university than it does the state of scientific knowledge."

    Always blame the others. Another reason to not beleive darwinists.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Ritchie"It could be the most well-supported theory in the history of science (in fact it is up there with the best of them) and STILL it wouldn't be a fact. But so what?"

    Ok, Ritchie completly agree of that. Evolution it is not a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Ritchie:"Simply put, we have no reason to be confident in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as historical fact. By contrast, we have excellent reasons to be confident that ToE is correct."

    As it is for all events in the past, historical events, it is a matter of confidence in the witnesses and interpretation of the evidence.
    I´m not going to bet on ToE.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Blas -

    "Ok, Ritchie completly agree of that. Evolution it is not a fact."

    Quite. It is a theory. An extremely well supported and attested theory which forms the cornerstone of entire scientific fields, and is by far and away, and without a shadow of doubt, the most robust and comprehensive explanation we have for life on Earth.

    "As it is for all events in the past, historical events, it is a matter of confidence in the witnesses and interpretation of the evidence."

    Again, yes. However we can place a great deal of confidence in the truly vast deal of evidence we have which supports ToE.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Ritchie:"Again, yes. However we can place a great deal of confidence in the truly vast deal of evidence we have which supports ToE."

    You have that confidence and are free to have it. I do not have that confidence.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Thorton:

    Why aren't you answeringmy question? Is there one Scientific Method? If so, what is it?

    Ritchie:

    Multiverse is an attempt to explain why the Universe appears to be exquisitely fine tuned to accomodate life. Scientists call the problem the Anthropic Principle. It says that there are an infinite number of universes, all different. We happen to live in the one that can accomodate life.

    ReplyDelete
  136. squid ink schuster said...

    Thorton:

    Why aren't you answeringmy question? Is there one Scientific Method? If so, what is it?


    Why aren't you answering my question? Was there one dog or three at that house fire? Which dog was it?

    ReplyDelete
  137. Blas said...

    Thorton:"Which university taught that, and when? If your university taught you a 'law' that was disproven and rejected by the scientific community almost a century ago, that says a lot more about the crap quality of your university than it does the state of scientific knowledge."

    Always blame the others. Another reason to not beleive darwinists.


    You claimed your university taught you a century-old discredited idea as support of ToE. I'd like to check for myself to see if that's really true.

    Since your fellow creationist Jquip has already admitted to lying in order to score cheap rhetorical points, I want to make sure you're not just doing the same.

    What was the university and the class that taught "Ontogeny replicates phylogeny" as a law?

    ReplyDelete
  138. Thorton said:"What was the university and the class that taught "Ontogeny replicates phylogeny" as a law?"

    Are you denying that in the eighties, evolutionist used Haeckel´s biogenetic law as a proof of common descent?

    ReplyDelete
  139. Nat -

    "Multiverse is an attempt to explain why the Universe appears to be exquisitely fine tuned to accomodate life. Scientists call the problem the Anthropic Principle. It says that there are an infinite number of universes, all different. We happen to live in the one that can accomodate life."

    According to who, exactly? This sounds like more ID/Creationist nonsense to me.

    It is not the go-to scientific answer to explain why 'the universe is fine-tuned for life'. For one thing, we would have to establish that our universe IS 'fine-tuned for life' and considering the unfathomable vastness of the universe and the fact that life is (to our knowledge) confined to a single spec of a planet, that seems rather a Herculean task. How can we say the universe is 'fine-tuned to life' when the staggering majority of it (which encompasses massive variations in heat, gravitational pulls, planetary atmospheres, etc) is hostile to life?

    Next, we have to establish the number of ways life can exist. Life has arisen on this planet, in this universe, in this way. But maybe life can arise in any number of ways. Maybe life can arise made up of different base chemicals, at different atmospheric pressures, etc. How do we calculate the likelihood of, not just OUR sort of life, but ANY sort of life arising?

    And even if it did turn out that the universe was indeed very precisely tuned for life (and that's a big if) then the Multiverse Theory is only a possible thought experiment on why such a thing might not be so surprising after all. Moreover, it is a good rebuttal to ID-ers/Creatonists who use the entirely fallacous 'finely-tuned universe' argument as evidence for the existence of God. It is not, however, established mainstream scientific thought.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Blas -

    "You have that confidence and are free to have it. I do not have that confidence."

    As you say. Though I cannot attribute your lack of such to anything other than a wilful desire.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Blas said...

    Thorton said:"What was the university and the class that taught "Ontogeny replicates phylogeny" as a law?"

    Are you denying that in the eighties, evolutionist used Haeckel´s biogenetic law as a proof of common descent?


    What was the university and the class that taught you "Ontogeny replicates phylogeny" as a law?

    If you can't provide the university and class then the logical conclusion is that you were lying.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Ritchie: "Though I cannot attribute your lack of such to anything other than a wilful desire."

    Seems we also agree in the existance of "free will".

    ReplyDelete
  143. Thorton:"If you can't provide the university and class then the logical conclusion is that you were lying."

    As a good darwinist twisting the evidence in your favor.

    If you admit that in the eighties Haeckel´s biogenetic law were still teached as proof of common descent I´ll tell you my degree.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Blas said...

    Thorton:"If you can't provide the university and class then the logical conclusion is that you were lying."

    As a good darwinist twisting the evidence in your favor.

    If you admit that in the eighties Haeckel´s biogenetic law were still teached as proof of common descent I´ll tell you my degree.


    OK, you admit that you were lying when you claimed your university taught "Ontogeny replicates phylogeny" as a law.

    Why do you think telling such blatant lies is going to help your argument? Did you think no one would check or call you on it?

    The whole Creationist philosophy of 'lying for Jesus is OK' just fascinates me.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Thorton:"OK, you admit that you were lying when you claimed your university taught "Ontogeny replicates phylogeny" as a law."

    This is the way darwinist get the conclusion ToE is a fact?
    This is their logic?

    More reason to not be confident.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Thorton:

    It might have been one dog. It might have been two different dogs. It might have been three different dogs. There isn't enough information presented in articles for me to tell definitely. Now will you answer my question?

    ReplyDelete
  147. Ritchie


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

    It looks like the Anthropic Prinicple is a real proble that scientists are dealing with. Multiverse is an attempt to address it. It seems to be a perfectly scientific theory. Some proponents of String Theory say that it follows naturally from String Theory.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Blas said...

    Thorton:"OK, you admit that you were lying when you claimed your university taught "Ontogeny replicates phylogeny" as a law."

    This is the way darwinist get the conclusion ToE is a fact?
    This is their logic?

    More reason to not be confident.


    No, it's the way we determine you're nothing but a liar who thinks it's OK to make up fabrications to support his attacks on science.

    Why did you lie about what you were taught at university? Does your religion teach you it's OK to lie?

    ReplyDelete
  149. natschuster said...

    Thorton:

    It might have been one dog. It might have been two different dogs. It might have been three different dogs. There isn't enough information presented in articles for me to tell definitely. Now will you answer my question?


    But why then did the reports use different words to describe the dog or dogs? How can it be that different people can use slightly different wording to describe the same thing?

    ReplyDelete
  150. Thorton:

    Maybe different words are use because they are different dogs. We can't tell from the articles. Now will you please answer my question?

    ReplyDelete
  151. squid ink schuster said...

    Thorton:

    Maybe different words are use because they are different dogs. We can't tell from the articles. Now will you please answer my question?


    How can it be that different people can use slightly different wording to describe the same thing?

    ReplyDelete
  152. But maybe they aren't the same thing. Now please, please answer my question.

    ReplyDelete
  153. natschuster said...

    But maybe they aren't the same thing. Now please, please answer my question.


    You didn't answer my question.

    How can it be that different people can use slightly different wording to describe the same thing?

    ReplyDelete
  154. In theory, people can use different terminology to refer to the same thing. But, as in the case of the dogs, it makes it difficult to determine if they are the same thing. Now, please answer my quesion.

    ReplyDelete
  155. squid ink schuster said...

    In theory, people can use different terminology to refer to the same thing. But, as in the case of the dogs, it makes it difficult to determine if they are the same thing. Now, please answer my quesion.


    But what if they are the same thing and people use different words in the description. What then?

    ReplyDelete
  156. Then they are the same thing. One person might say the sky is blue. Another person might say that donuts are yummy, but he really means to say the sky is blue. He's aphasic. So they are really saying the same thing with completely different terminology. Now please answer my question.

    ReplyDelete
  157. natschuster said...

    Then they are the same thing. One person might say the sky is blue. Another person might say that donuts are yummy, but he really means to say the sky is blue. He's aphasic. So they are really saying the same thing with completely different terminology.


    What if one says 'the sky is blue' and the other says 'the sky is azure'. Now how would you go about determining if they were saying the same fundamental thing?

    ReplyDelete
  158. Nat -

    "It looks like the Anthropic Prinicple is a real proble that scientists are dealing with. Multiverse is an attempt to address it. It seems to be a perfectly scientific theory. Some proponents of String Theory say that it follows naturally from String Theory."

    You are confusing your terms. The very first line of the page you linked to say the Anthropic Principle is a philosophical argument. Which is exactly the point. This is not hard science, nor is it a problem to which the Multiverse Thoery is a possible answer - this is philosophy of science.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Blas -

    "Seems we also agree in the existance of "free will"."

    I guess so.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Thorton:

    If by blue the first gut meant navy blue then they are talking about different things. Now, please answer my question.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Ritchie:

    Multiverse is an attemot to explain an observed phenomenon about our universe. I'm not sure how calling it science or philosophy makesa difference.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Thorton:

    If a person is aphasic, when he says "the sky is azure" he might mean "donuts are yummy."

    ReplyDelete
  163. Nat -

    ToE is a scientific theory. It is a hypothesis which has withstood the rigorous of the scientific method. Scientific theories are evidence based, testable, and as such it is reasonable to rely on them until further evidence falsifies them.

    Multiuniverse theory is a philosophical theory. Though it makes claims about the world, it is beyond our means to test and falsify. Without any supporting (or, non-falsifying) evidence, it remains, from a scientific point of view, hypothetical. That is not to say it is to be dismissed - the possibility that it is true alone gives us reason to doubt that a universe which hosts life (to however small a degree) is as improbable as Creationists/IDers would like us to believe. As such it is an argument Creationists/IDers might run into a fair amount.

    The difference between ToE and Multiverse theory is one of supporting evidence. ToE = lots, multiverse = none. Creationism/ID = none as well, but it is inferior even to the multiverse theory in that it is not even naturalistic. Multiuniverse does at least have that in its favour.

    ReplyDelete
  164. natschuster said...

    Thorton:

    If by blue the first gut meant navy blue then they are talking about different things.


    You still didn't answer my question

    What if one says 'the sky is blue' and the other says 'the sky is azure'. How would you go about determining if they were saying the same fundamental thing?

    Now, please answer my question.

    I am answering your question. I'm doing it by making you think first so you'll learn. If I spoon-feed you an answer you'll just stay ignorant.

    You do want to learn, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  165. Ritchie:

    I have to question your logic that we are 'begging leave on account of miracles' just because we cannot witness something directly in a lab. We cannot witness a murder which happened last week. But we can try to discover whether someone is guilty of committing that murder by deductive reasoning - which is what historians, including scientific ones, do.

    Yeah, but then we'd be injecting our biases into the crime scene. If we do that, then we should also teach kids the perils of sodomy.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Hawkes -

    I'm confused. Deductive reasoning is pretty antithetical to 'injecting biases', isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  167. Ritchie,

    I was merely pointing out the stupidity of Jquip by substituting the term "archeological record" for "crime scene" when Jquip said:

    "So then we are agreed that we are begging leave on account of Miracles, in preference for a standard based on injecting our biases into an archaelogical record. If we accept this standard as being scientific then we must also accept that Sodom and Gomorrah were given a little bit of Godly wrath on account of the 'positive evidence' for this occurrence. If we further accept that children should receive a comprehensive education in science then public education should involve the perils of, well, sodomy."

    ReplyDelete
  168. Thorton:

    I have no way of knowing for sure if they are saying the same thing. I would assume they are saying the same thing, but that is just me. Now, please answer my question. Is there one Scientific Method? If so, what is it? The suspense is killing me.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Ritchie:

    Multiverse is an attempt to explain observed phenomena about our Universe. That sounds scientific to me. Does the fact that it isn't testible make it philosophical?

    ReplyDelete
  170. Thorton,

    "Extremely low probability event."

    You really do need a dictionary. A low probability event is just that, a low probability event. A miracle is by definition an event which goes against accepted natural laws. Your claim that no evidence has been presented in support of such events is pure nonsense. All you're really saying is there is no evidence which you will accept. That's quite a different story.

    ReplyDelete
  171. squid ink schuster said...

    Thorton:

    I have no way of knowing for sure if they are saying the same thing. I would assume they are saying the same thing, but that is just me.


    You still didn't answer the question

    How would you go about determining if they were saying the same fundamental thing?

    Sorry nat, but if you're not willing to think no one can help you.

    Now, please answer my question. Is there one Scientific Method? If so, what is it? The suspense is killing me.

    No thinkee, no answeree.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Thorton:

    I can't determine for sure if they are saying the same thing. I just assume they are because it is more convenient, and it conforms to my experience.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Gerry said...

    Thorton,

    "Extremely low probability event."

    You really do need a dictionary. A low probability event is just that, a low probability event. A miracle is by definition an event which goes against accepted natural laws.


    Good. A miracle is an event which goes against accepted natural laws, i.e one that requires supernatural intervention. So merely having an extremely low probability event occur doesn't qualify.

    Your claim that no evidence has been presented in support of such events is pure nonsense. All you're really saying is there is no evidence which you will accept. That's quite a different story.

    We'll never know since you haven't presented any evidence of a 'miracle' by your definition of 'requires supernatural intervention.'

    If you have any such evidence of supernatural intervention please present it.

    ReplyDelete
  174. natschuster said...

    Thorton:

    I can't determine for sure if they are saying the same thing. I just assume they are because it is more convenient, and it conforms to my experience.


    Forgetting all that squid ink you squirted about being aphasic, what now makes it more convenient and/or makes it conform?

    Try again.

    How would you go about determining if they were saying the same fundamental thing?

    Not identical thing, fundamentally similar thing.

    I bet if someone offered you $1 million to find out you'd come up with a way pretty darn quick.

    ReplyDelete
  175. THorton,

    "Please present it."

    The resurrection of Christ. There is extensive historical evidence for this event, which would definitely qualify as a miracle.

    I await your response, though I'm quite confident I already know what you'll say.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Gerry said...

    THorton,

    "Please present it."

    The resurrection of Christ. There is extensive historical evidence for this event, which would definitely qualify as a miracle.


    Please present the scientific or historical evidence of supernatural intervention.

    I await your response, though I'm quite confident I already know what you'll say.

    Then you should know that 'the Bible says' isn't reputable evidence, any more written Norse mythology in the Edda is evidence for Odin and Thor.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Oop, bad timing for the holiday weekend. Apologies in advance for the spam in catching back up with the conversation.

    Thornton: "Yep, it's a bog-standard rhetorical device for clueless creationist armchair philosophers. Like I said, it's always hilarious to get boobs trying to use rhetorical games to argue away 150+ years of evidence."

    Logical and Rhetorical device. Ignoring half the statement is not a point of honesty on your behalf. Or it's evidence of a public education. I've no idea which your case may be and so will not slander you with either. But it remains that a logical device exists regardless of a subject at hand. A rhetorical device exists to make you see it. Or but a 1977 Chevy Nova; either one. You're correct about a rhetorical issue absent logic. Do you care or dare to answer the half you ignored?

    "And asking a twisted, loaded question is the acme of creationist dishonesty. Glad we got that straightened out."

    Two problems. The first, I'm not a Creationist. The second is that an issue of understanding requires putting forth what you understand; whether it be correct or incorrect. Your failure here is that you've not resolved the issue. In fact you've shown a preference for Ad Homs and attempts at changing the subject; which are the evidence's of a man dishonest either with others or himself. So should I understand it as I stated or do you have a different answer for my question?

    "Actually it exposes you as a scientifically ignorant poseur who doesn't understand and can't define the buzz-terms he is tossing about."

    Or perhaps considerate to the notion that everyone is neither as schooled as I am or beyond it. Either way.

    "Since your armchair philosopher demand for 'demonstration' has nothing to do with the actual technical evidence being discussed, we'll chalk that one up to your scientific ignorance."

    Normally, I'd be inclined to agree; but in this instance I find far more entertainment in just following the tone you continue to set by saying:

    "Actually it exposes you as a scientifically ignorant poseur who doesn't understand and can't define the buzz-terms he is tossing about."

    This, of course, is fair play as you've defined it. And I've a talkorigins link I can throw at you still if you like.

    "Since you've lied and twisted just about everything else I've written, of course you'd say that. You're nothing if not consistent."

    "Lied" is a bit strong I should think. I've simply made my arguments and presented to you my understandings of yours. If that qualifies as a lie then anyone that disagrees with your most High wisdom is a liar no matter if they are right or not. Which seems a bit of an echo-chamber opinion if you ask me.

    If I've misunderstood your position you may feel free to qualify me as a liar or correct me as you like.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Thorton,

    "Then you should know..."

    Thank you for proving my suspicions right. Only those utterly ignorant of historical documentation would make such a ridiculous statement. The Bible is a compilation of extremely accurate historical documents. To argue otherwise is to display overwhelming ignorance of the facts.

    I'm not surprised, however, in reading some of your other posts you've displayed considerable ignorance in a number of your arguments. You're typical of all pseudo intellectuals, you read a few articles in magazines or watch a few youtube videos and suddenly you think you've got the subject cased. I imagine this is the point where you're going to try and tell me you've got university degrees in various disciplines. Yeah, sure. Ho Hum, boring! Moving on.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Ritchie: "We cannot witness a murder which happened last week. But we can try to discover whether someone is guilty of committing that murder by deductive reasoning - which is what historians, including scientific ones, do. They build a most-likely picture of what happened based on the evidence they have to hand."

    Yes and no. Criminal trials are based on inductive rather than deductive reasoning. Mathematics, past the root axioms, are based on deductive reasoning (If we ignore series). Science, proper, sits between the two. But 'most-likely' -- as a pure notion -- is inductive reasoning of the sloppiest kind and which we reserve for tort suits under the notion of preponderance of the evidence.

    The hypothesis portion of things is inductive in Science while the experiment is deductive. That is, the demonstration may only rule out rather than rule in, on any topic.

    "It sounds suspiciously like you are asking to witness 'bacteria to biplanes' precisely because you know this is an impossible demand."

    Far from. In, say Darwin's day, we would say this would be an impossible demand given what they knew then of the extent problems in things. Today, knowing what we do, it is simply an engineering problem. With that in mind anyone is free to say that what is engineering cannot be engineered by injecting Miracles as they like. Christians do it all the time. As do Buddhists, Muslisms, and Evolutionists. As religious cults rather than anything otherwise.

    "The comparison with Sodom & Gamorrah breaks down when we consider how we come by these 'biases'."

    Congratulations for getting it. If I present to you two cities, razed by fire due brimstone, that are surrounded by salt pillars then what? If I do not believe in the Christian God then this is simply two cities. If I am vacuous and believe in the Christian God then I might be inclined to toss all wisdom out the window and make the leap the this then proves the Christian God and my belief in it. The latter, of course, does not follow from the former and is an unwarranted leap of superstition. You'd have to breathe through your posterior, much like bedbugs, to make such a statement with a personal conviction.

    Now, if I've two rocks different from each other but that both look a bit like dragonflies...

    "They must, based on the evidence we possess, be highly likely to be correct."

    Absolutely not. You've got a good grasp on things but this is right out. Every scientific theory lasts right up until the first disproof of things. Flat earth and shadows in wells. Geoiocentrism and Satellites. Phlogistons and Magnesium. Bohr's model and Helium. One, and only one disproof sends the whole thing down the drain.

    The only place in which we can begin to lean on likelihood is when we know the entire system and its interactions well enough to be able to outline what the failure case may or may not entail. But, for this subject, if we could do that then we'd be building Biplanes in the lab regularly.

    "Neither does HGT undermine the theory of evolution even in microscopic domains where it IS applicable."

    HGT is only applicable in the microscopic domain. And yes you are correct in that it does not undermine "evolution", but it does undermine every theory of evolution that relies on common descent. Which, sadly, is most of them.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Thronton: "What if one says 'the sky is blue' and the other says 'the sky is azure'. Now how would you go about determining if they were saying the same fundamental thing?"

    Now that was a beautiful piece of rhetoric. Which, you assure us, pegs the you as a liar. How, this liar asks of another liar, do we straighten such a quandry out?

    natschuster: "Multiverse is an attemot to explain an observed phenomenon about our universe. I'm not sure how calling it science or philosophy makesa difference."

    It makes all the difference in the world and none at all. It is a hypotheis and is such a philosophical position by definition. If it can be tested, and has been, then we enter the domain of Science. The multiverse theory may be entirely correct, but cannot be tested, so it's simply a point of pure philosophy.

    Ritchie: "It is a hypothesis which has withstood the rigorous of the scientific method."

    Then you've a reference to an experiment where they evolved a Bicycle into a Biplane or you do not. If such empiricism is lacking then it does not qualify as Science. Religion perhaps, but not Science.

    Hawks: "I was merely pointing out the stupidity of Jquip by substituting the term "archeological record" for "crime scene" when Jquip said:"

    Hawks, it's generally not a useful manner to retain allies by calling them "stupid" when "ignorant" will do. You should have a greater care with Ritchie as he's one of your own.

    Gerry: "A miracle is by definition an event which goes against accepted natural laws."

    Nope, "low probability event" is correct. I think this may be my fault but it might be Thornton that introduced the term. Either way, within Science there is no distinction. If it is not regular enough to be blended into the model then it is a Miracle no matter to what we ascribe the cause. Measurement error, Dice, Divinity, or Kali gettin' jiggy with a bowl of pudding is all the same. What is true or factual, false or mistaken, has nothing to do with the matter; we can model it or not.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Nat -

    "Multiverse is an attempt to explain observed phenomena about our Universe. That sounds scientific to me. Does the fact that it isn't testible make it philosophical?"

    Pretty much, yes.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Jquip -

    "In, say Darwin's day, we would say this would be an impossible demand given what they knew then of the extent problems in things. Today, knowing what we do, it is simply an engineering problem."

    I'm confused. How is it merely an engineering problem?

    Evolution never works towards goals. Setting an end goal for evolution to work towards is nonsensical. The raw materials for evolution are random mutations. To produce ANY specific end goal we would be relying on a very specific chain of random mutations - an event ridiculously improbable, and one that takes millions of years in any case.

    "If I do not believe in the Christian God then this is simply two cities. If I am vacuous and believe in the Christian God then I might be inclined to toss all wisdom out the window and make the leap the this then proves the Christian God and my belief in it...
    Now, if I've two rocks different from each other but that both look a bit like dragonflies..."

    Then you have two rocks which look a bit like dragonflies.

    That does not mean you cannot draw any inferences from them. Say you arrive home to find a window smashed, a football in the house among the broken glass, and next door's little boy looking very sheepish and nervous as you arrive. These are each curious individual facts. But it doesn't take a genius to fit these pieces together.

    "Every scientific theory lasts right up until the first disproof of things. Flat earth and shadows in wells. Geoiocentrism and Satellites. Phlogistons and Magnesium. Bohr's model and Helium. One, and only one disproof sends the whole thing down the drain."

    That's true, but I don't see how it contradicts what I was saying. Every time we perform an experiment we draw up a hypothesis and a null hypothesis and then go with whichever is statistically more likely.

    "And yes you are correct in that it does not undermine "evolution", but it does undermine every theory of evolution that relies on common descent."

    How so?

    "Then you've a reference to an experiment where they evolved a Bicycle into a Biplane or you do not. If such empiricism is lacking then it does not qualify as Science. Religion perhaps, but not Science."

    I have many experiments where each of the mechanisms of evolution were tested and supported. Demonstrations of evolution in action, even.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Gerry said...

    Thorton,

    "Then you should know..."

    Thank you for proving my suspicions right. Only those utterly ignorant of historical documentation would make such a ridiculous statement. The Bible is a compilation of extremely accurate historical documents. To argue otherwise is to display overwhelming ignorance of the facts.


    You mean like the world being created in 6 days only 6000 years ago? Like a literal Noah's Flood? Like the Tower of Babel incident?

    Having the Bible be historically accurate in some things doesn't make it accurate in all things. That's why I ask for your corroborating evidence for supernatural intervention in your 'miracles'. Sadly you seem to be fresh out.

    Same old same old - "The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true!!" doesn't fly in the scientific world.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Jquip said...

    Thornton: "Yep, it's a bog-standard rhetorical device for clueless creationist armchair philosophers. Like I said, it's always hilarious to get boobs trying to use rhetorical games to argue away 150+ years of evidence."

    Logical and Rhetorical device. Ignoring half the statement is not a point of honesty on your behalf.


    Your admission that you commonly lie as a rhetorical device has perjured you I'm afraid. Anything you say from here on out is considered suspect. So lie your armchair philosopher heart out if it makes you feel better about yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Thorton:

    "Your admission that you commonly lie as a rhetorical device has perjured you I'm afraid. Anything you say from here on out is considered suspect. So lie your armchair philosopher heart out if it makes you feel better about yourself."

    &

    "Badwiring, you are the one who should be embarrassed by your churlish and uncivil behavior."
    ===

    Fascinating!

    If this isn't the razorbacked Warthog calling a supposed piglet 'Soo-wee'

    ReplyDelete
  186. Thornton: "Same old same old - "The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true!!" doesn't fly in the scientific world."

    Then, given that your argument for the truth of evolution is the same manner of tautology, we are agreed that evolution doesn't fly in the scientific world.

    "Your admission that you commonly lie as a rhetorical device has perjured you I'm afraid. Anything you say from here on out is considered suspect."

    Well, a third party claimed I was lying. Thus your claim that I admitted that I was lying is a lie. This leads one to suspect that your claim that I'm suspect is a bit suspicious. And so we're right back full circle to the trying to find a curious solution to this quandry.

    You've got heart and are quite entertaining even if you're a terrible advocate for your position. I'm looking forward to your future gyrations.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Ritchie: I'm going to take your statements a bit out of order for better clarity.

    "Every time we perform an experiment we draw up a hypothesis and a null hypothesis and then go with whichever is statistically more likely."

    Eh. Statistical hypothesis testing is its own can of worms. But we're already agreed that to be able to be modeled statistically that it cannot be a Miracle.

    "... an event ridiculously improbable, and one that takes millions of years in any case."

    And yet your claim here is to call the game on account of Miracles. On the assumption that this is your honest appraisal of the problem then we have 2 options plus a third for Hawks. We can either state that evolution, to date, is not a scientific theory; or we can back up and change our priors such that science does cover Miracles. The third rail is that we can go full-blown Thornton and double-down on the doublethink.

    Moving on, "Setting an end goal for evolution to work towards is nonsensical."

    You mean mechanism rather than raw material, natch, as you later noted. The raw material itself is the fitness landscape; a fancy way to say "environment the organism resides in." And we most certainly can rig the environment -- and do routinely -- for the point of encouraging things in a given direction. If all the independent and small mechanisms that are verified can add up in combination to the claims of evolutionary theories then we should find no problem in having this occur. There will be a great deal of vituperation over what rigging of the environment is considered allowable or in good taste; but that's all quite secondary to showing that it can be done at all. And thus, an engineering problem.

    However, as you note, it is a pure numbers game. By starting with bacteria we avoid most of the issues prevalent with small populations and long generational times. By tipping the fitness landscape about as we like and at our own speed we are able to shortcut changing environmental concerns that do play a central role in any reasonable theory of things. Nothing different here from those folks that pool their resources to buy a large quantity of lottery tickets.

    "How so?"

    Because we know that genetic descent cannot be assumed to be lineal. Not by preference in our inference, but directly through experimentation. Any given theory that does not rely on the lineal assumption is fine here. Any given theory that does rely on the lineal assumption is obviously wrong.

    Continued...

    ReplyDelete
  188. Ritchie: "Say you arrive home to find a window smashed, ..."

    True, it takes no genius at all. You were on your way back with a replacement window from Home Depot and the child was waiting sheepishly to ask for his ball back. Thank goodness the window was already broken and it's all a bit of no harm, no foul. The first problem here is that you're still sneaking in your bias that the window was unbroken in the beginning. Or, being unbroken, that it can be demonstratively stated that the boy has broken it with the football.

    The saving grace in your example is it's second flaw. That we have direct observational knowledge or the prior and posterior states. Not as good a bit of observational evidence as a videotape, but still. It still qualifies as a demonstration precisely because we were able to gain both the prior and posterior states no matter what dickering we may hold about the middle portion of things.

    What's lacking in our topic is knowledge of the prior states. To try to keep with your analogy it's akin to sitting in the jurybox where the alleged victim merely claims that his window was unbroken when he left. Without some evidence on offer the putative victim's claim is merely a claim of assertion and we have no demonstration of anything. There are other and further problems.

    But let's grant that Inductive inferences -- stereotypes and guesstimates -- are indeed valid bits of things under the mantle of Science as the experiment itself. If I grant this then I need only remind you what the original post was about: Order and refinement preceding order and refinement.

    The original post then becomes an instance of a Precambrian Rabbit and we've our falsification of the theory. If we deny this then, as applied to the fossil record, the theories are unfalsifiable despite their own claims that this would be a falsification.

    Both are a bit nonsense since, if we accept some theory of evolution as universal over all life past and present, then it is tautologically true that all fossils were life, and thus must have been evolved. The wonderful fossil headlining this discussion is completely immaterial to the point. It's just a rock which looks a bit like a dragonfly eye.

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

    ReplyDelete
  190. Jquip said...

    T: "Your admission that you commonly lie as a rhetorical device has perjured you I'm afraid. Anything you say from here on out is considered suspect."

    Well, a third party claimed I was lying


    No third party. You admitted it directly in response to a direct challenge. It's in this very thread just above

    Thornton: "OK, you were caught BS-ing. Got it."

    Jquip: "It is a bog standard logical and rhetorical device.


    But that's OK. If lying about things that are so easily verified makes you happy then go for it. I've already written you off as a clueless armchair philosopher and clown.

    ReplyDelete
  191. Thornton: "No third party. You admitted it directly in response to a direct challenge. It's in this very thread just above"

    That wasn't an agreement to your statement, it was an attempt to provide clarity for you. Obviously English isn't your first language; should I use smaller and simpler statements so that you have an easier time following the conversation?

    ReplyDelete
  192. Jquip said...

    Thornton: "No third party. You admitted it directly in response to a direct challenge. It's in this very thread just above"

    That wasn't an agreement to your statement, it was an attempt to provide clarity for you. Obviously English isn't your first language; should I use smaller and simpler statements so that you have an easier time following the conversation?


    LOL! Sure you didn't mean it just because you said it Mr. armchair philosopher clown. Maybe you're that aphasic guy natschuster was talking about, and you really meant "donuts are yummy!"

    This has been a bad week for science though. First CH disproves 150+ years of solid evolutionary research with his made up probability calculations, then Gary disproves it with his 'coded algorithmic information' nonsense, then you disprove it with your brilliant (the lies were only a rhetorical device) wit. Scientists might as well quit now and start digging ditches.

    ReplyDelete
  193. Thornton: "Maybe you're that aphasic guy natschuster was talking about, and you really meant "donuts are yummy!""

    Let's go with that then. Assume I have a mental disability that frustrates normal comprehension between me and yourself. Then your choice of things is to avoid all notion of reaching comprehension, preferring instead to descend into willful ignorance and ad hominems. Now assume I don't have such a disability but such comprehension problems arose anyways. You've still reached for the same personal response of willful ignorance and ad hominems. Now, ad homs are generally frowned upon when your target is disabled; otherwise they're a great deal of fun. But your willful ignorance is entirely beyond the pale; unless, natch, you're mentally disabled. In which case I sympathize with your condition and will treat you more gently.

    "then you disprove it with your brilliant (the lies were only a rhetorical device) wit."

    Of course I haven't falsified anything as it is unfalsifiable. There's hardly anything surprising about that since my position is little different than those which Popper held for a great many years. Of course, if you knew anything about this subject, you'd realize that when I asked you the "leading question" you objected to that also was one of Popper's opinions. Had you jumped on that you'd have scored some good points and perhaps gained a draw out of it. I thank you for choosing to provide entertainment instead.

    "Scientists might as well quit now and start digging ditches."

    Perhaps you are unaware as to why archaeologists and paleontologists refer to it as a "dig" site?

    ReplyDelete
  194. Jquip said...

    Thorton: "Maybe you're that aphasic guy natschuster was talking about, and you really meant "donuts are yummy!""

    Let's go with that then. Assume I have a mental disability that frustrates normal comprehension between me and yourself. Then your choice of things is to avoid all notion of reaching comprehension, preferring instead to descend into willful ignorance and ad hominems.


    No armchair philosopher clown, my choice is to not engage with admitted liars, except to poke fun at them.

    T: "then you disprove it with your brilliant (the lies were only a rhetorical device) wit."

    Of course I haven't falsified anything as it is unfalsifiable.


    LOL! Sorry armchair philosopher clown, the current ToE is quite falsifiable. There are any number of things that if discovered would do the trick. Finding that every animal had its own unique form of DNA for example, or finding that the phylogenetic tree constructed from the genetic record was significantly different that the one from the fossil record. Don't feel bad APC, lots of Creationists are too stupid to understand that not falsified doesn't equal not falsifiable.

    ReplyDelete
  195. Thornton: "No armchair philosopher clown, my choice is to not engage with admitted liars, except to poke fun at them."

    And yet you are engaging me. So if you are honest then I must not be an admitted liar; yet you claim I am. If you are dishonest then this statement is simply a ruse. In either case you're still engaging both me and your own willful ignorance.

    "or finding that the phylogenetic tree constructed from the genetic record was significantly different that the one from the fossil record."

    That's a bit nonsensical as we can not retrieve DNA from fossils, natch. But if you meant that genetics and homology have very different pictures then yes, this has already occured and is still on going. The phylogenetic tree based on homology has undergone pretty significant alterations. And now that we've HGT in the mix the whole thing is phylogenetic graph rather than tree.

    Personally, I think your choice of metrics here is vapid and unreasonable for lacking any logical rigor. But it is yours and by your claim to it evolution has been falsified already. You can find lots of information on this subject written at talkorigins if you want to bone up on it.

    Now, granted, I'm trying to tease some sanity out of your statement so that it makes sense. Taken literally your statement is both vacuous and unfalsifiable as it's a nonsense in the first place.

    I shall be curious as to whether you engage in this any further or not, my dear DoubleThink.

    ReplyDelete
  196. Jquip said...

    Thornton: "No armchair philosopher clown, my choice is to not engage with admitted liars, except to poke fun at them."

    And yet you are engaging me.


    Actually no, I'm poking fun at you. Part of the joke is that you appear to be too dull-witted to notice.

    ReplyDelete
  197. Jquip:

    "And yet you are engaging me."

    "I shall be curious as to whether you engage in this any further or not, my dear DoubleThink."
    ===

    Don't take it personally, she is this way with anyone who calmly and intelligently engages in what is hopefully a meaningful and enlightening discussion and all the while calmly and respectfully refuses to engage in the same beastly neanderthal behavioral traits so commonly present in her retorts. The tactic used here is to drag down her opponants into the same cesspool of environment she resides in.

    You can actually know that she has been backed into a corner like some vicious wounded defensive animal when the best she can respond is with shallow insults and vulgarities devoid of any indepth understanding on the dogma being discussed. Take it as a badge of honour, the rest of us do.
    ----

    Thorton:

    " . . and when people politely tried to correct your misunderstandings all you did was spit at them."
    ===

    More Razorbacked Warthog calling piglet "Soo-Wee"
    ---

    Thorton:

    "I'm intellectually honest, which makes me your better."
    ===

    This is humorous, as most TRUE intellectuals I've ever in my life encountered were of a very high class calliber and would never stoop or engage in the degraded behavior of encessant name calling, filth/foul mouth antics you have displayed here and elsewhere.

    Now everyone knows why Cornelius rarely responds and actually allows your presence on these boards. Letting your billigerent wounded animalistic posting style[usually 3/4 of any of your posts] to remain speaks volumes to the tremendous lack of knowledge you possess to defend your religious worldviews. It would behoove the others on your side of the issue to hogtie and gag you as opposed to allowing such degenerative style to heap tarnish on their cherished religious dogma. Their silence on the matter also speaks volumes.

    Thanks, Cornelius , we really do understand why. *smile*

    ReplyDelete
  198. Big LOL!

    Eocene reminds me of the fat little cheerleader who waddles onto the pitch after his footy team has been thrashed 15-nil. He bawls and clutches his vest and wails about how the winning team are cheaters! and they play dirty! and they were lucky! and they didn't deserve to win!

    Hey Eocene, why don't you lose that 50 lbs of ugly fat from your head and get in the game yourself instead of cowardly tossing rocks from the sidelines? Is it because the last time you tried your scientific ignorance got exposed so badly you ran and hid for a month?

    ReplyDelete
  199. Eocene: "The tactic used here is to drag down her opponants into the same cesspool of environment she resides in."

    No worries. There was a fellow I use to know, an Atheist Activist if ever there was one, that came across exactly the same. I don't believe we ever agreed on a thing, but once he felt safe to drop the Us/Other tribalism he turned out to be a friend and a good sort to have about. Like Thornton, he had a lot heart also.

    ReplyDelete
  200. Jquip -

    My time is short and your post is long, so forgive me for only taking a brief snap at this:

    "we're already agreed that to be able to be modeled statistically that it cannot be a Miracle.
    "... an event ridiculously improbable, and one that takes millions of years in any case."
    And yet your claim here is to call the game on account of Miracles."

    I really don't understand the point you are making here. What do you mean 'calling the game on account of miracles'? To create a dragonfly from a bacteria would rely on such good luck as to be extremely improbable. But only because you have an end goal in mind. A chain of a thousand acculumlated mutations is not at all improbable given enough time. In fact it is practically inevitable. A chain of a thousand accumulated SPECIFIC, PRE-SPECIFIED mutations is a different matter entirely.

    "The raw material itself is the fitness landscape; a fancy way to say "environment the organism resides in." And we most certainly can rig the environment -- and do routinely -- for the point of encouraging things in a given direction."

    Not so. The raw materials evolution works on are the random mutations which them run the gamut of natural selection. And we cannot rig an environment to guarantee a specific mutation.

    Consider Lenski's bacteria study. He took twelve samlpes of the same bacteria and 'fed' them glucose. They all evolved to process the glucose more efficiently but each in different ways! The accumulated mutations which allowed them to process the glucose more efficiently were different for each sample.

    So we can adjust the environment of our sample, but we cannot precisely predict the ways in which they will adapt to it.

    "Because we know that genetic descent cannot be assumed to be lineal. Not by preference in our inference, but directly through experimentation. Any given theory that does not rely on the lineal assumption is fine here. Any given theory that does rely on the lineal assumption is obviously wrong."

    HGT does not falsify common descent. It is perfectly possible for both HGT and common descent to be true. Thus, HGT does not FALSIFY common descent.

    "What's lacking in our topic is knowledge of the prior states. To try to keep with your analogy it's akin to sitting in the jurybox where the alleged victim merely claims that his window was unbroken when he left. Without some evidence on offer the putative victim's claim is merely a claim of assertion and we have no demonstration of anything."

    Unless you have someone refuting that the window was unbroken earlier in the day (or some such evidence), then the hypothesis that the boy broke the window is consistent with all available data.

    ReplyDelete