Evolution’s “Tremendous Explanatory Power”
Evolution has a remarkable ability to generate all kinds of explanations. Consider a new study that found “spectacular morphological diversity” among sea snakes that “appear to have diverged very recently and rapidly.” Of particular interest were two species of the snakes with almost indistinguishable genomes, but one is longer with a large head and feeds on crevice-dwelling eels while the other is shorter with a small head and feeds on eels in burrows. How could such a rapid evolutionary change occur? An evolutionist explained it this way:
One way this could have happened is if the ancestral species was large-headed, and a population rapidly evolved small heads to probe eel burrows -- and subsequently stopped interbreeding with the large-headed forms.
Once again evolution produced an explanation. The small-headed snakes rapidly evolved “to probe eel burrows.” But aside from the borrowed Aristotelian teleology (in evolution snakes do not evolve in order to probe burrows, or anything else for that matter), if there were no small-headed snakes then the evolutionists could have just as easily produced an explanation for why no such evolution occurred.
In other words, evolution produces explanations for what is observed. No matter how surprising the science is, evolution can always adjust and produce a new explanation to replace the old one. But the ability to produce explanations is not the same as tremendous explanatory power.
Your alternative, more explanatory theory is...?
ReplyDeleteAnd what, specifically, are some of those "opposing outcomes" you mentioned?
Any explanation of unique events in the past is impossible to falsify. Any theory of this events has the same explanatory power.
DeleteWell, in that case, unless you can falsify it, the theory of design and creation of the universe by Fifi the pink unicorn god, with indispensable engineering and coding help from the flying spaghetti monster, has the same explanatory power as the bible, the koran, and any other religious "explanation". Right?
DeleteOff course, from the scientific point is true.
Delete"Well, in that case, unless you can falsify it, the theory of design and creation of the universe by Fifi the pink unicorn god, with indispensable engineering and coding help from the flying spaghetti monster, has the same explanatory power as the bible"
DeleteWhy would it since we have no one who even claims to have a book written by Fifi the pink unicorn or any culture on the planet built on Fifi the pink unicorn.
As a group your equivalency analogies suck
and LOL
you have not been listening to your high priests very close. According to the logic of Lawrence Krauss Fifi and the flying spaghetti monster DO exist in some universe and are likely to have created a universe like our own since Quantum mechanics allows for almost anything to happen.
You are a naturalist that lives in a supernatural cosmos. get over it.
Ah, so if the "explanation" is in a book and someone claims that the book was written by Fifi and/or the FSM or anyone/anything else, it's a "theory" with "the same explanatory power" as the bible, koran, etc., right?
DeleteAnd how do you know that there isn't a Fifi the pink unicorn god and/or FSM culture, and who says that it has to be on this planet?
Speaking of a culture and a book:
http://www.venganza.org/
http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster/dp/0812976568
And there's also:
http://www.palmyria.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm
They haven't got all of the facts about Fifi right (I know because I have tea with her every Thursday) but they're doing the best they can with a shy unicorn god.
The whole truth
Delete"Ah, so if the "explanation" is in a book and someone claims that the book was written by Fifi and/or the FSM or anyone/anything else, it's a "theory" with "the same explanatory power" as the bible, koran, etc., right?"
From a scientific point of view, as all of them are unfalsifiable, yes.
"And how do you know that there isn't a Fifi the pink unicorn god and/or FSM culture, and who says that it has to be on this planet?"
Faith, something darwinist can`t explain why humans has it.
"Ah, so if the "explanation" is in a book and someone claims that the book was written by Fifi and/or the FSM or anyone/anything else, it's a "theory" with "the same explanatory power" as the bible, koran, etc., right?"
DeleteDepends whats in the book. If you have a book that has shaped thousands of years of world history, established many meaningful institutions, laws and culture you have to have no sense whatsoever to compare it to fifi the pink unicorn.
Sorry but your questions are always so daft and you ducks are so predictable. I could hear the swooshing sound from your head ducking from the implications of Lawrence Krauss's metaphysical claims. You guys can no longer run around claiming that everything in the Bible is so unbelievable because its supernatural when you turn right around and embrace Krauss and his claims for anything being possible and inevitable in quantum mechanics with multiple universes
"Anything" you say? lol....that has implications that poor Krauss hasn't figured out. In infinite time that makes God inevitable, him creating a universe certain and him doing miracles ordinary and average.
Ooops....lokok what science has wrought?
The whole truth:
DeleteCH gave three examples of "opposing outcomes," and then you ask for examples. Did you have coffee this morning?
The "other explanatory theory" is not a "theory" but an observation: biology complexity is intelligently driven.
To read about this "other explanation", read Steven Meyers' book, Signature in the Cell.
I think the point of this blog post was to demonstrate that old-fashioned claim "God did it" is no worse argument for anything than the modern "Evolution did it". The better alternative explanation for anything in science would be to acknowledge that the current implementation of science is materialistic and doesn't necessarily lead to truth (in its largest possible sense).
ReplyDeleteThe low IQ Darwin cult is adept at conjuring up lame explanations straight out their asses, explanations that cannot be falsified because nobody was there to observe them. ahahaha...
ReplyDeleteWhat's more laughable is that the very thing that is required to produce changes in an evolving organism, the mutation, is the very thing that kills the organism before it even has time to evolve a way to reproduce. Why, because the number of deleterious changes is orders of magnitude larger than the number of beneficial ones, so much so, in fact, that every living organism is programmed with a powerful DNA repair mechanism that is designed to prevent mutations.
It gets much worse than this but evolutionists always come up with a cockamamie BS explanation that makes looking at the entrails of animals look like sophisticated science. ahahaha...
How does a cell evolve a way to reproduce if it needs to reproduce in order to evolve? What a cretinous bunch. Where did those morons come from?
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahahah...
Louis,
ReplyDeleteDon't demean an evolutionist's IQ like they like to do with creationists, there are very intelligent people who believe in the story of evolution, just like there are very intelligent people who disagree with evolution. The data predicts evolution, rather than evolution predicting the data. When a theory is not true, this is always the case!
If anybody is intelligent and is preaching Darwinian evolution, he or she is a goddamn liar and a con artist. ahahaha...
DeleteYeah, what is it with these meteorologists. They use their "theories" to explain hot spells, cold spells, wet weather, dry weather, even ice falling from the sky in the summertime.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.zimbop.com/hailstorm/hailstorm12.jpg
For real science sake you ought to be embarrassed to make such a comparison. Meteorologists can entirely test in real time their theories with DIRECT observational tests not manufacture historical conjectures. No storm tracking is ever dependent exclusively on data from storm damage a thousand years ago fudged each year with new conjectures. If it did we would have thousands dead each year just in the US.
DeleteWhere I live, meteorologists rarely get a forecast right.
DeleteWe know evolution must be true because the church of Darwinian mystics seem constantly having to prop up their antiquated and superstitious beliefs next to actual robust and scientific theories that, unlike evolution, can support themselves with empirical facts, experiments, predictions, and falsifiability, and all without the aid of a public relations cheerleading squad.
DeleteLOL
DeleteThere was a story of an old man in Europe who claimed his sons can always tell the weather correctly. One son would say it'll be sunny and the other son it'll be cloudy.
:)
Look who's talking about "constantly having to prop up their antiquated and superstitious beliefs". Your entire belief system, lifepsy, was and is cobbled together with "the aid of a public relations cheerleading squad". ALL you god pushers have is antiquated and superstitious preaching and proselytizing. You have NO evidence.
DeleteEugen, it's probably a good thing that he didn't have a third or fourth son. :)
Delete"ALL you god pushers have is antiquated and superstitious preaching and proselytizing. You have NO evidence."
DeleteI think you meant to say
"ALL you god pushers have is antiquated and superstitious preaching and proselytizing. You have NO evidence that we can't wave away by appealing to our own supernatural metaphysics - like infinite universes and even laws popping out of absolute nothingness"
So, if a theory explains a lot it's a bust but if it doesn't explain everything it's also a failure. Sort of a no-win situation.
ReplyDeleteNo matter how surprising the science is, evolution can always adjust and produce a new explanation to replace the old one.
Isn't that what's supposed to happen in science, adjusting theories to fit facts, not the other way around?
But the ability to produce explanations is not the same as tremendous explanatory power.
Isn't it? Why not?
CH: But the ability to produce explanations is not the same as tremendous explanatory power.
DeleteI: Isn't it? Why not?
J: Because each ad-hoc explanation applies only to the data it is concocted for. Such ad-hoc explanations have no widespread application over space and time like, say, gravitational equations. Everytime they do DNA sequencing they have to concoct new unexpected ad-hoc explanations about mutation rates, etc.
"Isn't that what's supposed to happen in science, adjusting theories to fit facts, not the other way around?"
DeleteNo in science we ought to be willing to throw out theories completely that do not fit the facts not fudge the theory to accomodate each fact in order to save the theory.
Plus in this case the theory ISN'T being adjusted just so stories as fact are being manufactured.
"Because each ad-hoc explanation applies only to the data it is concocted for."
Bang on the money. Cosmologists at present are far more intellectually honest. With the discovery of truly massive structures many are openly questioning long held theories. Evolutionary biologists use the cover of the unknowable past to cover their theories inadequacies one fact after another without looking at the sheer number of fudges that have to be applies
Questioning things that don't fit IS how science is done. If it doesn't its not science - Its dogma.
"unknowable past"?
DeleteDoes that mean that the claims you god zombies make about the past are unknowable?
Poor thing. You think that that expression means that all of the past is unknowable?
DeleteElijah2012
Delete"Isn't that what's supposed to happen in science, adjusting theories to fit facts, not the other way around?"
No in science we ought to be willing to throw out theories completely that do not fit the facts not fudge the theory to accomodate each fact in order to save the theory.
That's exactly to reason for keeping you Christian Taliban extremist idiots away from science classrooms.
elijah threw up:
Delete"You think that that expression means that all of the past is unknowable?"
You're the one who brought up the "unknowable past". Let's see you show, scientifically, that your religious beliefs about the past are knowable.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIan Spedding:
DeleteIsn't that what's supposed to happen in science, adjusting theories to fit facts, not the other way around?
Does this include Piltdown Man and Java Man?
Ian Spedding:
DeleteCH: But the ability to produce explanations is not the same as tremendous explanatory power.
IS:Isn't it? Why not?
Because "just-so" stories are just that: "just-so" stories and no more.
" Let's see you show, scientifically, that your religious beliefs about the past are knowable."
Deletelets see you show anyone who can verify by direct observation anything that happened a million years ago. Yes I did say unknowable - but that flew right over your head. If during a time period there are sentient beings that can know the events of that period then the details of that time period can be potentially known. If there are none then the details of that time period are unknowable.
Heres a clue - All of christianity is established during a time period when sentient beings existed. You may argue that they are all lies but you cannot argue that either way the truth or lie of it is unknowable by any human being.
Understand what "unknowable past" is yet? No?
understandable
"That's exactly to reason for keeping you Christian Taliban extremist idiots away from science classrooms."
DeleteTo any new reader
The above quote is published from our resident 12 year old antagonist. To confirm this assessment one only has to look to his former posts, his tone, his limited vocabulary in insults and the sheer quantity of posts in almost all blog posts that demonstrate he has copious amounts of free time.
On more moderated blogs he would be classified as a troll.
Many atheists and oponents of ID have had and do have worthwhile things to say but this poster is so seldom among them that his posts are routinely ignored by the author of this blog and many of its participants.
You may safely skip his posts as we often do in responding to him
LOL!
DeletePoor Elijah2012, still so butthurt over having your pitiful scientific ignorance exposed for all to see. I had no idea you were wounded so deeply.
Nice demonstration of your Christian Taliban mindset too. Kill all the unbelievers, don't ever let them voice positions that are different than your TRUE one!
Interesting how you IDiot Creationists love to scream about being EXPELLED but are always the first who would deny free speech to others.
Now where's that scientific evidence for "The Fall" you claimed to have? "The Fall" you say caused all the diseases in the world. I guess you were lying about that too. You lie a lot to try to argue your position I've noticed.
Jeff March 20, 2013 at 5:37 AM
Delete[...]
J: Because each ad-hoc explanation applies only to the data it is concocted for.
Any theory or hypothesis in science "applies only to the data it is concocted for". That's how it works.
Everytime they do DNA sequencing they have to concoct new unexpected ad-hoc explanations about mutation rates, etc.
Adjusting or creating hypotheses to fit new data is what science does. It's what it's supposed to do.
Scientific theories are not brought down from a mountain-top inscribed on tablets of stone to remain unchanged down the ages. If you want that kind of certainty you need to look at something other than science.
Elijah2012 March 20, 2013 at 6:50 AM
Delete[...]
No in science we ought to be willing to throw out theories completely that do not fit the facts not fudge the theory to accomodate each fact in order to save the theory.
Why? Who says a theory only gets one shot? How do you know that a nip here and a tuck there won't make a passable theory good or a good theory better unless you try?
Plus in this case the theory ISN'T being adjusted just so stories as fact are being manufactured.
Here we go again. Conspiracy theories.
Questioning things that don't fit IS how science is done. If it doesn't its not science - Its dogma.
Asking the questions is one part, coming up with tentative answers is the other part. No point in asking the questions if you're not interested in the answers.
Lino Di Ischia March 20, 2013 at 11:27 AM
Delete[...]
Because "just-so" stories are just that: "just-so" stories and no more.
And "just-so" stories are explanations: speculative, even fanciful, probably mostly wrong but still explanations.
I: Any theory or hypothesis in science "applies only to the data it is concocted for". That's how it works.
DeleteJ: One can explain how the universe popped into existence 10 million years ago, full-blown, if all theory requires is logical consistency. Good theories are highly-analogical (i.e., inductive). They give us lots of bang for our buck (i.e., lots of specific predictions per assumption).
The ToE is an ever-growing list of ad-hoc hypotheses. Anyone so inclined could do the same thing for SA scenarios. I just don't know why they would be so inclined.
"Here we go again. Conspiracy theories."
DeleteSpedd what are you smoking? How is pointing out that
"a population rapidly evolved small heads to probe eel burrows "
is not a real fact but a manufactured one to to accomodate an evolutionary explanation a conspiracy theory? learn how to think beyond popular rhetorical come backs
Elijah2012
DeleteHow is pointing out that
"a population rapidly evolved small heads to probe eel burrows "
is not a real fact but a manufactured one to to accomodate an evolutionary explanation a conspiracy theory?
That was never offered as a 'fact' you lying Creationist Taliban POS. if was offered as a hypothesis by the researcher which would explain the observed morphologic and genetic data.
Here's the actual press release that CH quote-mined.
"An international team of scientists led by Dr Kate Sanders from the University of Adelaide, and including Dr Mike Lee from the South Australian Museum, has uncovered how some sea snakes have developed 'shrunken heads' - or smaller physical features than their related species.
Their research is published today in the journal Molecular Ecology.
A large head - "all the better to eat you with" - would seem to be indispensable to sea snakes, which typically have to swallow large spiny fish. However, there are some circumstances where it wouldn't be very useful: sea snakes that feed by probing their front ends into narrow, sand eel burrows have evolved comically small heads.
The team has shown normal-shaped sea snakes can evolve such "shrunken heads" very rapidly. This process can lead to speciation (one species splitting into two).
The small-headed populations are also much smaller in absolute size than their ancestors, and these shape and size differences mean they tend to avoid interbreeding with their large-headed ancestors.
Dr Lee says, "A team led by my colleague Dr Kate Sanders (University of Adelaide) has been investigating genetic differences across all sea snakes, and we noticed that the blue-banded sea snake (Hydrophis cyanocinctus) and the slender-necked sea snake (Hydrophis melanocephalus) were almost indistinguishable genetically, despite being drastically different in size and shape.
"The slender-necked sea snake is half the size, and has a much smaller head, than the blue-banded sea snake.
"This suggested they separated very recently from a common ancestral species and had rapidly evolved their different appearances.
"One way this could have happened is if the ancestral species was large-headed, and a population rapidly evolved small heads to probe eel burrows - and subsequently stopped interbreeding with the large-headed forms."
Dr Sanders says the research could have wider implications in other scientific studies: "Our results highlight the viviparous sea snakes as a promising system for studies of speciation and adaptive radiation in marine environments."
Just once I'd like to see a Creationist go a whole day without lying. Just once.
T you can play your lying little peek a boo games it will fool none of us who have been around long enough to see the lying games played.
DeleteToday it is a proposition tomorrow that proposition is presented as fact. Just once I would like to see an atheistic evolutionists admit to the downright lies told in the name of science complete with imagination based drawings presented as real life creatures.
and yes lol you can see the very phenomenon I referred to (replacing conjecture for fact) and you are ducking from observe
"The team has shown normal-shaped sea snakes can evolve such "shrunken heads" very rapidly. This process can lead to speciation (one species splitting into two)."
has shown? No statement of fact eh?
Where is that fact? nowhere. Its an assumption stated as fact just as I said. Will you EVER read a link you refer to?
Never mind.... I know the answer
Elijah2012
Delete"The team has shown normal-shaped sea snakes can evolve such "shrunken heads" very rapidly. This process can lead to speciation (one species splitting into two)."
has shown? No statement of fact eh?
Has shown they CAN evolve - not claiming factually DID evolve. Read the words that were written you moron. The fact part is that the evidence provides a mechanism and a selection driver and supports the hypothesis that such speciation is occurring.
Just once I'd like to see a Creationist go a whole day without lying. Just once.
lol
DeleteYou cannot even think straight. Thats totally irrelevant
Where is it shown that they CAN evolve T? Where is that fact? Its the assumption being stated as a fact just like I said.
"The fact part is that the evidence provides a mechanism and a selection driver and supports the hypothesis that such speciation is occurring."
Deleteand thats Cornelius' point if you were honest enough to admit it. The overall evolutionary hypothesis is that you can say that about almost any outcome whether it happens slowly or allegedly fast, whether it happens or doesn't happen. shucks even if the species are related or distant (just chalk it up to convergent evolution).
Its totally elastic.
You have a way like a child of just calling people names instead of engaging with substance. Even for your own atheist purposes it would be useful to learn the other point of view because the caricatures you build of the other majority side are so easily shown to be fabrications you just shoot yourself in the foot. Similar to what has happened to Dawkins recently with even some atheists becoming his greatest critics because of his lightweight strawman constructions of what theists or even IDists believe.
Elijah2012
DeleteYou have a way like a child of just calling people names instead of engaging with substance.
No, I have a way of treating lying jackasses who launch substance-free attacks on my profession as jackasses.
My patience in dealing with you scientifically illiterate assholes wore out some time ago. I got tired of hearing the same old Creationist stupidity over and over and over and over from people too lazy to do a 10 second Google search. What finally sealed the deal was being told one too many times that I and my fellow scientists are either hopelessly incompetent or deliberate frauds. Yes, after devoting decades of my academic and professional life to the sciences I do take it personally.
As much as you Fundy Taliban like to pretend, this isn't about religion. I have a quite positive view of religion and will (and have) fought for your freedom to worship as you choose. That does not mean I will stand for a few of you political extremists trying to gut science education in this country just to assuage your own egos. Now my policy is whenever you clowns stick your head where it doesn't belong I hit back, and hard.
Z, meteorologists don't appeal to teleological explanation. Nor do they just pile up ad-hoc hypotheses that are worthless for future prediction. They use observed conditions and their observed antecedent conditions to infer regularities and tendencies that allow us to predict future states of affairs with useful degrees of probability. The ToE doesn't have anything like that which can be used as evidence for UCA. For as you admitted, the ToE ASSUMES the logical possibility of UCA as an axiom and its corollary of the logical possibility of macroevolutionary common ancestries for which there is absolutely no evidence for. In short, you're a true believer. Meteorologists are not.
ReplyDeleteCornelius Goebbels
ReplyDeleteIn other words, evolution produces explanations for what is observed. No matter how surprising the science is, evolution can always adjust and produce a new explanation to replace the old one.
In other words, all scientific theories produce explanations for what is observed. No matter how surprising the science is, all scientific theories can always adjust and produce a new explanation to replace the old one.
I corrected your glaring omission CH. Hope you don't mind.
But the ability to produce explanations is not the same as tremendous explanatory power.
There's some nice meaningless double-speak. Want to explain why not?
Thorton: In other words, all scientific theories produce explanations for what is observed.
DeleteLOL, no Thorton. That's called guessing. Scientific theories require empirical testability and falsification criteria.
Thorton:No matter how surprising the science is, all scientific theories can always adjust and produce a new explanation to replace the old one.
Hahaha... you can tell Thorton is an evolutionist just by the way he writes.
Science isn't like Nickelodeon Gakk or jello that can always conform around changing data, Thorton. That is the exact opposite of science.
lifepsy, thanks for admitting that religious beliefs are the exact opposite of science, because they can (and do) "conform around" changing data, impossible fair tales, greed, lies, hypocrisy, different and changing interpretations/opinions, emotional bullshit, various other types of bullshit, total lack of evidence, the preaching and proselytizing by clueless authority figures and self appointed prophets, and whatever else you god pushers conjure up from the bowels of your fearful and arrogant delusions.
DeleteDo you feel better now or do you need another rhetoric purge? :)
Deletelifepsy March 20, 2013 at 8:27 AM
DeleteThorton: In other words, all scientific theories produce explanations for what is observed.
LOL, no Thorton. That's called guessing. Scientific theories require empirical testability and falsification criteria.
I don't see Thorton denying they should be testable. I'm assuming he takes it for granted they should.
So tell us what you think characterizes a good theory
Science isn't like Nickelodeon Gakk or jello that can always conform around changing data, Thorton. That is the exact opposite of science.
No, it isn't. It's what science is about, at least in part: pushing the boundaries of a theory, seeing how far it can be stretched before it breaks, discovering the limits of its domain of applicability. That's how science advances.
We have relativity theory because physicists became aware of limits of Newtonian mechanics and realized something better was needed. Maybe that will happen to evolution, only time will tell, but we aren't there yet.
Some mal-adjusted Darwinian true believer wrote:
ReplyDeleteIn other words, all scientific theories produce explanations for what is observed. No matter how surprising the science is, all scientific theories can always adjust and produce a new explanation to replace the old one.
I corrected your glaring omission CH. Hope you don't mind.
If "all scientific theories can always adjust and produce a new explanation to replace the old one," then how in the world does one 'theory' come to replace another?
Do you now see why CH used "evolution" and not your substitution? But why do I even bother asking---you're a "true believer" for whom Darwinism can never be falsified, no matter how absurdly deformed it becomes in having to come up with new and conflicting explanations for all the 'surprises' that come out each and every day.
Jeff: For as you admitted, the ToE ASSUMES the logical possibility of UCA as an axiom and its corollary of the logical possibility of macroevolutionary common ancestries for which there is absolutely no evidence for.
ReplyDeleteThat's like saying Newtonian physics isn't science because it posits axioms. Or that all science isn't science because it involves hypotheses, which are tentative assumptions held for the purposes of testing their empirical consequences.
In the case of evolution, divergence from common ancestors is the hypothesis, the nested hierarchy and fossil succession are some of the empirical consequences.
What is testable? You're still using the assumption itself as evidence that evolution is even possible. And most importantly you have no mechanism to drive common descent. You are constantly invoking past instances of a mechanism that we do not see evidence of today. Without a mechanism, you're actually invoking evolution fairies to explain morphological and anatomical changes.
DeleteThere is no nested hierarchy exclusive to being produced by sexual reproduction. There is no evidence that this is even possible. Nested hierarchy is more accurate based on function and environment. Does not need to invoke epicycles of convergence and past-HGT.
Fossil succession offers a vague sequence, and offers more problems that solutions for evolution for obvious reasons.
ToE could explain many different fossil sequences. For instance, Mammals could appear roughly same time as reptiles, radiating immediately from a common tetrapod ancestor. Any serendipitous quirks could be explained by convergence. This would be no problem for evolution. Life could start on land (which is actually emerging as a prominent hypothesis) This will be no problem for evolution either. It actually predicts very few specific scenarios about the past.
Lifepsy,
DeleteAnd most importantly you have no mechanism to drive common descent. You are constantly invoking past instances of a mechanism that we do not see evidence of today. Without a mechanism, you're actually invoking evolution fairies to explain morphological and anatomical changes.
Go ahead, what exactly is the mechanism that the designer used and how does one experimentally verify it? And what exactly was designed ? Is the design mechanism still occurring? Which exact scenarios does ID predict? What would falsify design?
It seems fair to prove that one's theory is more explanatory by actually explaining. Thanks
velikovskys,
DeleteI'm not advancing a scientific origins theory.
Darwinian mysticism can not stand on its own merits. You don't a need a theory to replace the tooth fairy, you simply call its proponents' bluff.
lifepsy
DeleteI'm not advancing a scientific origins theory.
Neither is the theory of evolution. OOL is abiogenesis research, a completely separate scientific field.
Darwinian mysticism can not stand on its own merits. You don't a need a theory to replace the tooth fairy, you simply call its proponents' bluff.
What happened to the stupidity you were pushing just last week? That there's no such thing as evolution but ALL changes over ALL time are just phenotypic plasticity?
You sure dropped that brain fart in a hurry when you couldn't use it to explain the evidence.
Jeff: For as you admitted, the ToE ASSUMES the logical possibility of UCA as an axiom and its corollary of the logical possibility of macroevolutionary common ancestries for which there is absolutely no evidence for.
DeleteZ: That's like saying Newtonian physics isn't science because it posits axioms. Or that all science isn't science because it involves hypotheses, which are tentative assumptions held for the purposes of testing their empirical consequences.
J: There are huge differences. How many ad-hoc hypotheses did Newton or later physicists have to keep adding to his original HIGHLY-ANALOGICAL theory? Now, how many are added in the ToE? They're added constantly. That's why it's no different than the 5 minute theory.
You're assuming to be logically possible naturalistically what we have no idea is logically possible naturalistically. Adding ad-hoc hypotheses doesn't help a bit since the 10-million theory and the 5 minute theory work the EXACT SAME WAY.
Z: In the case of evolution, divergence from common ancestors is the hypothesis, the nested hierarchy and fossil succession are some of the empirical consequences.
J: There are way more "axioms" than that, Z. Every unobserved hypothetical species, specific lineage and origin timing(as well as all the geological assumptions required to IMPLY the fossil succession means what you need it to mean) is an axiom in your theory, because none of it is known to be logically possible naturalistically. There are literally millions of ad-hoc properties that have to be posited for past events that we have no way of inferring, with any analogical or intuitive warrant, to be consistent with the laws of nature. That's EXACTLY how the 5 minute theory works.
To compare that to the mind-boggling simplicity vs. predictive power of Newton's theory is to completely miss the point of what makes a valuable theory.
Your theory has the same value as the 5-minute theory--NONE. Anyone who understands your methodology realizes that there is no a priori reason to think a million SA scenarios couldn't be IMPLIED that way with less ad-hoc hypotheses. The reason SA'ists don't bother with it is because they know such explanation has no convincing power to rational people.
Lifepsy,
DeleteSo what you are saying is that the ToE is the best scientific explanation to your knowledge.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Go ahead, what exactly is the mechanism that the designer used"
DeleteLaw...ordered law. nothing accidental since the very concept of accident is unproven and illogical in a universe with both order and law
"and how does one experimentally verify it?"
You observe it and we have observed it in almost every area of science
" And what exactly was designed ?"
everything....take your pick
" Is the design mechanism still occurring?"
Every day, every minute, every second on the macro level and yep even at the micro level
" Which exact scenarios does ID predict?"
order and law over accident. convergence of design across unrelated species, high level of functionality in junk Dna, few if any non functional organs, high level information processing in DNA. Where have you been?
[quote] What would falsify design?[/quote]
Put the right elements existing independently in the planet, randomly mix them and watch as inanimate matter becomes not just some components of but full simple life.
anything else? ;)
Elijah2012
Delete" And what exactly was designed ?"
everything....take your pick
Everything. All forms of cancer, malaria, tuberculosis, flesh-eating bacteria, cholera, typhus, AIDS, smallpox, Asian flu, SARS, harlequin ichthyosis.
You name it, the all-knowing benevolent Intelligent Designer came up with it. Even impacted wisdom teeth.
Yes T of course.
DeleteWhy stop there? if you jump off a ten story building then broken legs are designed by the designer. If you sleep with your mother and end up with some serious mutations that was designed by the designer too.
Shucks you must be right because we all know if you use something that was designed in a way that a designer told you it was not to be used that whatever ensues is because the designer designed it that way.
"Even impacted wisdom teeth."
What no totally useless wisdom tooth claim again. I guess thats progress
Elijah2012 today:
Delete" And what exactly was designed ?"
E: everything....take your pick
" Is the design mechanism still occurring?"
E: Every day, every minute, every second on the macro level and yep even at the micro level
Elijah2012 three days ago.
No one who believes in design believes we were designed with disease. You are just being characteristically clueless
Flip-flop. Flop-flip. This IDiot Creationist just can't make up his mind.
Elijah2012
DeleteShucks you must be right because we all know if you use something that was designed in a way that a designer told you it was not to be used that whatever ensues is because the designer designed it that way.
What is the Designer's "proper" way to use all forms of cancer, malaria, tuberculosis, flesh-eating bacteria, cholera, typhus, AIDS, smallpox, Asian flu, SARS, and harlequin ichthyosis?
How could we use the "design" differently as to never get those nasties?
Elijah2012
DeleteNo one who believes in design believes we were designed with disease. You are just being characteristically clueless
Yet head IDiot Michael Behe says in The Edge Of Evolution:
Behe: "Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. C-Eve’s children died in her arms partly because an intelligent agent deliberately made malaria, or at least something very similar to it. (p. 237)"
Can't you IDiot Creationists ever get your story straight?
Sigh. the mechanism of law IS around us every day. In denial much? the mechanism itself need not be putting out new designs. Buy a clue, Biblical theism is very clear God stopped creating in Genesis 1.
DeleteThere is no flip flop. Its just as usual you know nothing about what you are opposing.
"How could we use the "design" differently as to never get those nasties?"
Live in a world where people follow the designer's directions. T seriously you will get nowhere with your line of reasoning . The concept of sin death and disease not being part of the original design precedes darwin by thousands of years. It was not created as an explanation for atheists questions. Read your history books - there were even less atheists around than now.
Theism has always held to the idea of moral law and consequences for the created world and EVERYONE living on it. Thing is must be kind of strange to you because all the moral laws tend toward a healthier life as evidenced by a number of studies.
Go figure.
"Can't you IDiot Creationists ever get your story straight?"
Deletequestion is can you? Behe is an adherent of ID who believes in evolution. He most definitely is NOT a biblical creationist.
Your side is compelled to keep that lie going because if you didn't you would have to admit that ID is not synonymous with being a creationist and lose one of your key but fraudulent rhetoric devices
Elijah2012
DeleteLive in a world where people follow the designer's directions. T seriously you will get nowhere with your line of reasoning .
What directions should someone follow that will guarantee they never get malaria, tuberculosis, flesh-eating bacteria, cholera, typhus, AIDS, smallpox, Asian flu, SARS, or harlequin ichthyosis?
Why do so many pious Christians who have followed the Biblical "directions" to the letter still die agonizing deaths from those diseases every day?
You're making up crap as you go again, so keep going.
T: "Can't you IDiot Creationists ever get your story straight?"
question is can you?
You said flat out diseases aren't designed but were caused by The Fall. Behe says they are designed. Which is it? You both can't be right but you sure both can be wrong.
DeleteElijah,
Law...ordered law. nothing accidental since the very concept of accident is unproven and illogical in a universe with both order and law
Free will would also seem illogical, if all action is preordained by laws and order. How would one know that the mechanisms of evolution are not one of those laws?
order and law over accident
Of course, axiom 1 is there is no such thing as an accident, everything is completely constrained by law. If it happens it was planned
convergence of design across unrelated species
If each species was completely unique sharing no convergence would that be evidence for non design? If not that would mean any aspect, simple to complex,shared or unique would be equal evidence for design
high level of functionality in junk Dna,
Axiom 1 says there can be no junk DNA, if it is in the molecule it was intended,100%
few if any non functional organs
Why would there be any non functional anything,everything was designed by law. So even nonfunctional organs are indicative of design.
high level information processing in DNA.
Again,if life was simpler would it be proof of non design? In many human designs the greatest designs use a minimalist approach, less to break.
To recap,both convergent and unique, simple and complex,functionality or non functionality all point to design by law, by the mechanism of law. In fact it might seem that no designer is necessary beyond the initial creation of law.
How to falsify design?
Put the right elements existing independently in the planet, randomly mix them and watch as inanimate matter becomes not just some components of but full simple life.
If law is the mechanism then the fact that there is any such thing as inanimate matter is surprising , after all that is the thing about a law, it is universal. So eliminating the accidental eliminates any non design,
"Why do so many pious Christians who have followed the Biblical "directions" to the letter still die agonizing deaths from those diseases every day?"
DeleteSigh you have not done a lick of reading have you? Christianity in particular never promises anywhere non suffering in this world and yes it states directly that everything on the planet is suffering from the effects of sin. Face it T you don't know the first clue about theology besides maybe what you read in the laughably unresearched "God delusion"
You might think thats okay but it pretty much nails you on intellectual dishonesty of claiming to know what you haven't even bothered to read up on
"Behe says they are designed. Which is it? You both can't be right but you sure both can be wrong."
This is a great scientific discovery. We have found the densest element in the universe in T's mind. I have no reason I have to agree with Behe I am not him. We are not even of the exact same idealogical camp as he believes in Evolution where I don't. You must cling to this in all dishonesty so as not to have the thought occur in your head that IDist are not synonymous with creationists and therefore lose the lie that they are as a legitimate argument against ID.
Elijah2012
DeleteFace it T you don't know the first clue about theology besides maybe what you read in the laughably unresearched "God delusion"
But we're not talking about theology here. You're suppose to be presenting your scientific evidence for ID Creationism, the stuff you demand we teach in science classes instead of evolution, remember?
Looks like you have nothing to say on the scientific aspect of life's history on the planet, so you'll understand when we insist you and the rest of the Christian Taliban keep your theology in Religion classes.
I have no reason I have to agree with Behe I am not him. We are not even of the exact same idealogical camp as he believes in Evolution where I don't.
Again you confirm you are not arguing science but merely proselytizing your particular religious beliefs.
No science class for you!
"Free will would also seem illogical, if all action is preordained by laws and order."
DeleteWhy? because you assume that no law would allow for it? Laws dont have to be intuitive or strictly determinate on all levels. IF....then logic is written into the universe at almost every level. What happened at the quantum level may not be intuitive but it is subject mathematically to the same if....then...logic. therefore there is nothing to suggest that choice cannot be an IF statement.
" How would one know that the mechanisms of evolution are not one of those laws?"
and how would it matter? It certianly wouldn't afffect Id in the least.
"If each species was completely unique sharing no convergence would that be evidence for non design? "
You are confusing yourself with language. there is evidence for design and there is lack of evidence or no evidence for design. not evidence for non design. IF you mean something else by nondesign then state it openly.
"To recap,both convergent and unique, simple and complex,functionality or non functionality all point to design by law, by the mechanism of law.
Kindly desist from foolishness. You cannot recap on answers when you ask questions that I have not even yet answered without exposing your intention of not really geniuinely asking the questions to begin with.
how does "non functionality" point to law? Again your are just exercising empty verbage skills. Show me anything in the universe that has no functionality whatsoever. IF you can't then your summary is defeated as being bogus.
"In fact it might seem that no designer is necessary beyond the initial creation of law."
DeleteWhy yes I could say that once we have hands and a mind to sculpt a statue we no longer need a sculptor. How does that contribute anything but trying to hide the sculptor behind what he provides?
and how do you presume to go about the initial creation of law without law? Even appealing to quantum law is still appealing to a law.
lol.....This is what happens when you follow peoples statements without thinking for yourself. This is the present day new atheists position - all we need is law without not the slightest explanation of how we get it outside or before there is a universe that we see it in. Its pointless and idiotic. If then logical order is a given in our universe. We did not accidentally create such logical order. Its all around us and is the very basis of our own human logic. It is therefore central to the nature of whatever entity we look to have created the universe. Its inescapable that ordered logic is one of the primary and eternal properties/abilities of that Entity. Can we CLAIM that when we have the ability to have logic that we are intelligent but that any other entity having the same capabilities and that even invented logic in our universe is non intelligent? Why yes we can claim anything we want but do we have any solid ground to stand on?
absolutely none.
"If law is the mechanism then the fact that there is any such thing as inanimate matter is surprising , after all that is the thing about a law, it is universal."
What a preposterously silly thing to say. You might be surprised but I cant think why any logical person would be. When we refer to Law we do so as a collective of LawS and we at no time whatsoever claim that because they are universal they are everywhere having the same effect or even operational in the same way. Our laws of motion do not dictate that everywhere things should be experiencing the same movement so exactly how and why should we find it surprising that everything is not animated matter?
Please try again. That makes no sense whatsoever.
"But we're not talking about theology here."
DeleteROFL... of course T. When you ask about why God would design diseases we are not talking theology we are talking science.
Finally you concede then that theology is scientific. lol.
"Why do so many pious Christians who have followed the Biblical "directions" to the letter still die agonizing deaths from those diseases every day?"
DeleteLOL..... T when do you ever stop lying man? There are no biblical directions to avoid all diseases or death. You just made that garbage up to save your already failed argument (in hopes of miraculous ressurection)
Even in what you call fairy tales biblical prophets and righteous kings got sick and died. Why? because Neither christianity nor Judaism was there ever any directions to completely escape the diseases in the world. You just lied that up out of thin air.
Now you could honestly get the wrong idea that sickness and disease are always the cause of sin according to the bible but there you would just be misinformed again. Jesus himself encountering a blind man stated he had done nothing wrong. in theology the effects of sin is like pollution. You don't have to pollute to be affected by others pollution over the years.
But why all these direct questions about Christianity when you CLAIM the only thing being discussed is science not theology?
Elijah2012
Delete"But we're not talking about theology here."
ROFL... of course T. When you ask about why God would design diseases we are not talking theology we are talking science.
I didn't bring your Christian God into the mix, you did. You claimed you had scientific evidence of the "Intelligent Designer" (wink wink) , and that diseases were caused by "The Fall" and not following the Designer's instructions.
Now we see you were lying all along (surprise!) and just trying to push your Fundy Christian theology as 'science' the whole time.
That's yet another example of why you lying Religious Extremists aren't going to be allowed anywhere near public science classes.
Elijah2012
DeleteLOL..... T when do you ever stop lying man? There are no biblical directions to avoid all diseases or death.
You just said it assclown, not me
T: ""How could we use the "design" differently as to never get those nasties?"
E: "Live in a world where people follow the designer's directions."
So if by designer you didn't mean your Christian God, who or what did you mean?
If you're going to lie about what you just said you need a better memory
T if you are going to debate me you will have to get some knowledge.
DeleteYes I said live in a world where people follow the designer's direction. By all accounts we have not lived in such a world for thousands of years. Get it finally? Its not saying that people individually can avoid sickness by themselves living by directions but that the whole world would have to do so or us living in the world just as with air pollution will be affected regardless of what we personally do.
So as usual I am not lying . You are just a kid that doesn't understand what is being discussed. The only one lying is the person who has been lying over and over about people lying and that would be you.
Some mal-adjusted Darwinian 'true believer':
DeleteQuote from Behe's EofE:
"Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. C-Eve’s children died in her arms partly because an intelligent agent deliberately made malaria, or at least something very similar to it. (p. 237)"
Can't you IDiot Creationists ever get your story straight?
Where does one begin in responding to this sort of nonsense?
First, it is you who can't get your story straight.
You deny that an intelligent agent can act in the material world, and then you condemn such an intelligent agent because of the way in which this agent has acted in the material world.
Where is your consistency in any of this? Nowhere to be seen.
You simply, for your own convenience---a la Darwin---import a theological argument. (More on this below by Behe.)
Second, Behe does not speak in this quote of yours of "the Intelligent Designer", but simply of an "intelligent agent", who he does not identify. You're equating the "Intelligent Designer" with "an intelligent agent", with no basis for such an equivocation.
Third, you don't amplify the quote you've taken from EofE---which is something you decry night and day here at DGB---you know, your standard, "Why didn't you include the REST of the quote?", blah, blah, blah.
If you had included more, we would have read from p. 238: "Whether on balance one thinks life was a worthwhile project or not---whether the designer of life was a dope, a demon, or a deity[thus rendering meaningless your above identification of Designer with "agent"]---that's a topic on which opinions over the millennia have differed considerably.
And Behe continues. P.239:
Wasp larvae feeding on paralyzed caterpillers is certainly a disquieting image, to say nothing of malaria feeding on children. So did Darwin conclude that the designer was not beneficent? Maybe not omnipotent? No. He decided---based on squeamishness (from a letter to Asa Gray) that no designer existed. Because it is horrific, it was not designed---a better example of the fallacy of non sequitur would be hard to find. Revulsion is not a scientific argument.
I.e., unless you're dealing with a Darwinian 'true believer.'
You skewered yourself on this one Thorton. It's not the first time.
"Extremists aren't going to be allowed anywhere near public science classes."
DeleteThey aren't? Umm so what happened in tenessee?
Anyway you are like the kid holding up a lemon pie to another kid who hates lemon and saying
"you can't have any nanaanananaaaa"
the overwhelming majority of Christian parents have no desire themselves to send their children to public schools because they suck teaching wise, many are too violent and beyond creation subjects are low on morality. They send their kids there the most part only when they have to. Thats why the battlelines were drawn over education vouchers. Because public schools knew if parents of any means could send their kids anywhere public schools would shrivel up and die for the people removing their kids from them.
so in case you still haven't figured it out. Besides a few people and yes some political pundits masses of creationists could not care less about your "public schools". You can have em. most all studies indicate that privately schooled children do better or at worst the same as public schools when they get to college. Home schooled children the same plus they don't have to worry about mass killers shooting up their kids.
SO if thats whats got your underpants in a ruffle you can straighten them up. Most creationists don't really care much about public schools. not the ones I know.
"whether the designer of life was a dope, a demon, or a deity[thus rendering meaningless your above identification of Designer with "agent"]---that's a topic on which opinions over the millennia have differed considerably."
DeleteYes plus it shows that Behe was specifically talking in general terms (which would be the case in a book for popular consumption).
"Third, you don't amplify the quote you've taken from EofE---which is something you decry night and day here at DGB"
IN my short time here I have found no one who quote mines more and yet he decries it the most - most times fabricating it out of thin air because this or that person did not duplicate an article in full within the limited space comments provide.
Elijah2012
DeleteT if you are going to debate me you will have to get some knowledge.
You don't have the scientific chops or the intelligence to debate evidence for evolution vs. evidence for ID Creationism.
You're just another ignorant Fundy clown doing your usual knee-jerk attacks on the sciences you don't understand.
Pretty much all you're good for is comic relief, which is all you are for me.
PaV Lino
DeleteSome mal-adjusted Darwinian 'true believer':
PaV you idiot at least try to follow the conversation. Elijah2012 claimed that no ID supporter thinks diseases are designed. I showed where one of the major ID players made exactly that claim.
It doesn't matter who or what or when or where or why Behe thinks malaria is designed. The fact is Behe claimed malaria is designed which directly contradicts Elijah2012's assertion.
Watching you idiots knee-jerk to defend each other's stupidity is worth the price of admission.
"Watching you idiots knee-jerk to defend each other's stupidity is worth the price of admission."
DeleteWe got in for free to watch your silliness but its still worth its weight in gold. lino's point just flew right over your head. It gave context to your quote mining.
Lino I had the opportunity last night to read the chapter in question and it gets worse for the evoheads.
DeleteTurns out there are even more quotes that show they are full of hot air with their quote mining. Behe SPECIFICALLY states for the purpose of the book he is NOT addressing who or what he thinks the designer is
"It is not my purpose here to rehearse what has been said over the millennia on that score, or to say why I myself find some of those arguments persuasive and others not. Here I’m content to “take ‘purposeful designer’ in a very broad sense.”
(p. 228-229).
So he is NOT expressing all his views on the designer but deliberately for the sake of the book keeping things broad
Secondly since most of them never bothered to read the book they don't even understand Behe's position on design. Behe believes in a mix of design and chance as in fine tuning WITHOUT direct intervention, Behe believes the design is in the fine tuning and that through evolution many random changes occur subsequent to that fine tuning
Thirdly and most devastating to Thorton's argument from the very first chapter BEHe indicates that the Human body also has evolved and at times HAS the capacity to be unaffected by Malaria. Put that together with the last part of this quote which the evoheads completely ignore
"C-Eve’s children died in her arms PARTLY because an intelligent agent deliberately made malaria, or at least something very SIMILAR TO IT."
and BEHE's whole picture becomes clear.
Behe makes absolutely no definitive statement that malaria as a disease today is designed. The disease is caused by susceptibility which he shows in humans is not always the case, he is being careful to limit his own personal opinions in regard to the designer himself and he SPECIFICALLY leaves the door open to the designer NOT designing it as it is today when he states
"at least something very SIMILAR TO IT."
Behe when talking about the design of malaria is talking about particularly capabilites of malaria not all that is involved in the disease itself or of a designer designing todays malaria. Our resident quote miner is defeated yet again.
Elijah2012
DeleteBehe makes absolutely no definitive statement that malaria as a disease today is designed.
Yet there it is in black and white:
Behe: "Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. "
The twisted ways you IDiots come up with to deny reality is a sight to behold.
Sorry T. Quote mining won't work anymore...neither will ignoring the parts of your quote that say otherwise
Delete" or at least something very SIMILAR TO IT."
if OR is definitive for you then we can add "definitive" as yet another word you don't know the meaning of.
Next time read the book to get an idea of what an author says not run around to atheist blogs looking for quote mining material.
Is evolution indeed anymore then looking at results and inventing plausible explanations after the plausibility of a concept is accepted?!
ReplyDeleteIf evolution is not true then what in retrospect, 20 years from now when its over and put to sleep, will those commentators SAY was the reason this THEORY had staying power???
Surely they will question why a scientific theory was wrong!
I say they will question how could a scientific theory be wrong!
i say they will conclude it was never a scientific theory. It never passed the test.
It did not employ the rules of what the scientific method is. lIkewise the critics did not hold it to these rules but were also misled by a seeming structure of scientific investigation.
Robert Byers March 20, 2013 at 2:08 PM
DeleteIs evolution indeed anymore then looking at results and inventing plausible explanations after the plausibility of a concept is accepted?!
Is science, in part, any more than inventing plausible explanations? Isn't the other part putting those explanations to the test - like predicting that certain fossils should be found in rocks of a certain age?
If evolution is not true then what in retrospect, 20 years from now when its over and put to sleep, will those commentators SAY was the reason this THEORY had staying power???
Except it's not the commentators who decide whether a theory, it's the scientists. They're the people who keep using it for as long as they find it useful
I say they will question how could a scientific theory be wrong!
They won't if it's right.
i say they will conclude it was never a scientific theory. It never passed the test.
It did not employ the rules of what the scientific method is.
So the overwhelming majority of the world's professional biologists have been hoodwinked into endorsing a theory that is so obviously wrong that even a non-scientist like yourself can see it? Is that likely? Or is it more likely that you are talking through your hat because you see it as a threat to your personal religious beliefs?
Ian: So the overwhelming majority of the world's professional biologists have been hoodwinked into endorsing a theory that is so obviously wrong that even a non-scientist like yourself can see it? Is that likely?
DeleteProbably not likely, but almost guaranteed in certain situations: where there is a great deal of philosophical/political/religious commitment to the theory.
These situations will be marked by an evasion of open criticism to the theory.
lifepsy.
DeleteThese situations will be marked by an evasion of open criticism to the theory.
Science absolutely depends on open criticism to strengthen its case. It's the basis for the whole peer review system. But science requires it be informed criticism from those with demonstrated competence in the subject. That doesn't cover internet clowns like you who attack from your almost total ignorance and whine about your ridiculous cartoon versions of what you *think* evolution must be.
We're not talking about science, Thorton. We're talking about Evolution.
DeleteInformed biologists have advanced major scientific criticisms of both neo-darwinism and evolution in general. That is a fact.
Darwinian mystics fear an open airing of such facts to the public.
lifepsy
DeleteInformed biologists have advanced major scientific criticisms of both neo-darwinism and evolution in general. That is a fact.
Darwinian mystics fear an open airing of such facts to the public.
You just directly contradicted yourself there IDiot.
If these "informed biologists" have indeed advanced all these devastating criticisms then they must have had an open airing.
Why haven't these "informed biologists" submitted any papers to mainstream journals with their evidence of these terrible ToE failures? I see IDiots like Behe and Meyer writing popular press garbage for clueless fools like you but I don't see a peep in the actual professional literature.
With the web it's pretty much impossible to censor ideas anymore. If you clowns had anything of value you could spread the word far and wide in the scientific community. But you don't.
Behe published that "evolution" primarily moves forward by breaking down existing systems. His conclusions, though apparent, have largely gone ignored. That empirical reality is incredibly awkward for the darwin mystics.
DeleteThe other arguments have been around for decades and have gone unaddressed. (cost theory, signal-to-noise ratios) They have only gotten more problematic as more genetic/epigenetic function has been discovered, as well as phenomena such as orphan genes.
Other research that attempts to support evolution, ends up producing empirical evidence against it, such as sexual selection's inability to fixate beneficial alleles in fruit flies, or bacteria's inability to produce novel functional gene sequences after 50,000 generations. Epic fail.
There really isn't anything to attack... There's no evidence this mystical force works. It's like trying to find evidence against alchemy. The neo-Darwinian mechanism is simply not feasible to produce even the tiniest shred of biodiversity.
lifepsy
DeleteThere really isn't anything to attack... There's no evidence this mystical force works.
I agree there's no evidence for the stupid Creationist cartoon version of ToE you keep attacking. Like I said, science responds to informed criticism from those with demonstrated competence in the subject. Not to blustering ignorant Creationists like you who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground.
Still waiting on evolutionists to give one observed example of genuine animal speciation.
ReplyDeleteTalk Origins gives a wordy attempt at it, but alas, never actually gave a bona fide example of animal speciation. Casey Luskin took the time to do a detailed autopsy the Talk Origins claim and came to the same conclusion as I did. In fact, anyone reading it carefully would draw that conclusion. Evolutionists always have to over sell what they have.
Tedford the Slow
DeleteStill waiting on evolutionists to give one observed example of genuine animal speciation.
Still waiting on Tedford the Slow to define "genuine" animal speciation.
Still waiting on Tedford the Slow to explain why he thinks a process that may take hundreds of thousands of years to complete should be viewable in its entirety in real time.
Tedford is not very bright.
Here's the link to Luskin's article.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.discovery.org/f/8411
Meanwhile, back in the land of reality, science continues to pile up the evidence for common descent through speciation. Like the following evidence for the evolution of cats.
DeleteThe Late Miocene Radiation of Modern Felidae: A Genetic Assessment
Johnson et al
Science 6 January 2006: Vol. 311 no. 5757 pp. 73-77
Abstract: "Modern felid species descend from relatively recent (<11 million years ago) divergence and speciation events that produced successful predatory carnivores worldwide but that have confounded taxonomic classifications. A highly resolved molecular phylogeny with divergence dates for all living cat species, derived from autosomal, X-linked, Y-linked, and mitochondrial gene segments (22,789 base pairs) and 16 fossil calibrations define eight principal lineages produced through at least 10 intercontinental migrations facilitated by sea-level fluctuations. A ghost lineage analysis indicates that available felid fossils underestimate (i.e., unrepresented basal branch length) first occurrence by an average of 76%, revealing a low representation of felid lineages in paleontological remains. The phylogenetic performance of distinct gene classes showed that Y-chromosome segments are appreciably more informative than mitochondrial DNA, X-linked, or autosomal genes in resolving the rapid Felidae species radiation."
Felidae phylogenetic tree
Any of you IDiot Creationists want to give me your explanation for the data? Anyone?
That's what I thought.
Maybe you could point out the evidence for evolution in there, Thorton.
DeleteAll that abstract really says is that living felidae species have genetic similarity to each other and moreso within subgroups. A lion and a tiger are more genetically similar than a Lion and a domestic cat. Shock. Also the authors allude to the fact that mtDNA molecular rate of change doesn't match up with Y-chromosome segments. They go with Y because it paints the picture they want.
Also, many of the small-medium species are from the suborder of Felinae, and most of those likely diverged from an original kind of small-medium sized cat.
They also have these cats skipping all over the oceans due to "sea-level fluctuations" within a few million years which is interesting.
Also interesting, the highly specific cat-form had to have "evolved" independently by convergent evolution at least two other times in the Nimravidae and Thylacosmilus.
Let me know when you have evidence of how evolution produced the cat-form, or any physical form, Thorton.
LOL! I see lifepsy flapped his gums and waved his hands but forgot to give us his explanation for the data.
DeleteTell us how the data fits into your claimed "it's ALL phenotypic plasticity" model. Tell us what diet I have to feed to a domestic moggy to get in to grow through "plasticity" into a Bengal tiger.
For evolutionists, speciation, we are told, is something that always happened in the past. Whether gradual or abrupt, it always happened long ago past. Out of the millions of animal species in the world never has mankind observed a speciation. Out of the millions of possibilities it would be logical to assume that at least one of these species would experience sufficient change to make it completely reproductively isolated.
ReplyDeleteEvolutionists require change way beyond a bona fide animal speciation. The ironic thing is that evolutionists can't even give a single observed example of something so simple. Please show us an observed example from A to B first (speciation), rather than pontificating about A to Z happening in the deep past. A simple, bona fide example of observed animal speciation would be a little start, but evolution requires so much more than that. They can't even get started.
If we can observe so much genetic variation that oscillates around a mean, why is it so difficult to observe change that keeps going away from the mean? Like a pendulum... we see lots of movement but always back and forth. There is time for evolutionary movement, but its never the kind of movement that causes speciation and macro change. Evolutionists have no excuse for why they can not produce an observed animal speciation. The time is there, the movement is not.
Tedford, why are you still such a dumbass as to demand a process that may take hundreds of thousands of years to complete should be viewable in its entirety in real time?
DeleteAre you really that stupid you just can't grasp the concept?
I know you're way too ignorant to take a crack at the Felidae speciation evidence above. What about the rest of you brave IDiot Creationists? here's your big chance to explain some real world data, yet you're all hiding like scared little mice.
Given the vastness of animal species on earth it is very odd that not a single one of them just happened to be posed for bona fide speciation in the last hundred years or so. Even if one accepts the bogus excuse from evolutionists about there is not being enough time, it is odd that not a single animal happened to be tipped over that line into complete reproductive isolation. Just by the sheer numbers at least one species should have been nearly ready to speciate and then did while someone was watching.
ReplyDeleteBut, the deal is never closed... and evolutionists are forced to appeal to the distant past where interpretations can be easily manipulated to suit ToE.
The big beaks, get smaller again.... the big mice, get smaller again. Moths go back and forth in color. Back and forth, back and forth. Often the back and forth changes occur very quickly. the deprived Lenski e-coli by the trillions and tens of thousands of generations is still just e-coli. It will be so in a million generations.
It's as if the species variation are like rubber bands. Stretch it a lot and stretch it quickly, but then snap and nothing more. Nothing more. Ever.
OK Tedford, we get it. You're one of the stupidest Creationists on the block and can't grasp the concept.
DeleteProcesses that may take hundreds of thousands of years to complete can't be viewed in their entirety in real time.
But I guess who have to go with the Creationists' standard tactic - if you repeat a stupid lie enough times that magically makes it true.
lifepsy: What is testable?
ReplyDeleteThat the claim entails specific empirical implications, and that those implications can be observed.
lifepsy: You're still using the assumption itself as evidence that evolution is even possible.
No. One assumes the hypothesis in order to test for its empirical implications.
lifepsy: And most importantly you have no mechanism to drive common descent.
The mechanism is reproductive isolation.
lifepsy: You are constantly invoking past instances of a mechanism that we do not see evidence of today.
We observe varying degrees of reproductive isolation, as well as speciation.
lifepsy: There is no nested hierarchy exclusive to being produced by sexual reproduction.
Not sure what that means, but sexual reproduction doesn't produce a nested hierarchy.
lifepsy: Nested hierarchy is more accurate based on function and environment.
No. That certainly doesn't follow. Here's a simple thought experiment. Did minotaurs or griffins ever exist in nature, simply never having been found? Why or why not?
lifepsy: Fossil succession offers a vague sequence,
Well, you have no life, then single-celled life, then colonial life, then chordates, vertebrates, fish, land vertebrates, amniotes, mammals, apes, hominids, then modern humans; to trace just a single lineage.
lifepsy: ... and offers more problems that solutions for evolution for obvious reasons.
"Problems" are what science thrives on. And while IDers talk, scientists continue to discover wonderful things about the world.
lifepsy: For instance, Mammals could appear roughly same time as reptiles, radiating immediately from a common tetrapod ancestor.
The lines leading to modern reptiles and mammals diverged fairly soon after the first amniote.
lifepsy: It actually predicts very few specific scenarios about the past.
Anytime you're trying to reconstruct historical events, there is going to be uncertainty.
Jeff: How many ad-hoc hypotheses did Newton or later physicists have to keep adding to his original HIGHLY-ANALOGICAL theory?
ReplyDeleteA few. The anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the problem of the speed of light. Don't even get started on wavicles.
Jeff: There are way more "axioms" than that
That's because there are a lot of mechanisms involved. Life is complicated.
Jeff: Every unobserved hypothetical species, specific lineage and origin timing(as well as all the geological assumptions required to IMPLY the fossil succession means what you need it to mean) is an axiom in your theory, because none of it is known to be logically possible naturalistically.
No. Those are implications of the theory. A researcher might posit the existence of an intermediary between fish and land vertebrates, for instance, then compares that with the overall geological history, journeys to an outcropping of the predicted strata, then finds an intermediate fossil. That's hypothesis, prediction, verification.
Jeff: To compare that to the mind-boggling simplicity vs. predictive power of Newton's theory is to completely miss the point of what makes a valuable theory.
That was just to show you why your argument about "assumptions" was fallacious.
Jeff: Every unobserved hypothetical species, specific lineage and origin timing(as well as all the geological assumptions required to IMPLY the fossil succession means what you need it to mean) is an axiom in your theory, because none of it is known to be logically possible naturalistically.
DeleteZ: No. Those are implications of the theory.
J: Z, when a theory requires millions of ad-hoc hypotheses per ONE corroborated implication, there is absolutely NO reason to assume that the corroboration is anything but MERE correlation (vs. implying any specifics about causation). That's why there is no EVIDENCE for naturalistic UCA.
If you don't think the same trivial number of mere correlations could not be "implied" for SA scenarios using millions of ad-hoc hypotheses, you're one confused puppy.
Neal Tedford: Still waiting on evolutionists to give one observed example of genuine animal speciation.
ReplyDeleteSpeciation is usually a process, not an event.
Neal Tedford: Out of the millions of possibilities it would be logical to assume that at least one of these species would experience sufficient change to make it completely reproductively isolated.
Sudden reproductive isolation is fairly common in plants due to polyploidism. On the other hand, even clearly distinct species, such as lions and tigers, can interbreed under certain circumstances.
The evidences that is missing if evolution as darwinist think happened are fishes trying to breath air, fishes developing arms, mammals extending his neck.
DeleteZachriel said, "We observe varying degrees of reproductive isolation, as well as speciation."
DeleteName one example of a bona fide observation of animal speciation?
Oh dear. Tedford the Slow is stuck in idiot mode again.
DeleteHe's still stupid enough to demand to see processes that may take hundreds of thousands of years to complete be viewed in their entirety in real time.
Actually it seems Tedford is permanently stuck in idiot mode.
Neal Tedford: Name one example of a bona fide observation of animal speciation?
DeleteWhat? You don't like plants? In any case, as we pointed out, speciation is generally a process, not an event. There is no precise dividing line between species. By the way, that was crucial evidence in Darwin's Origin of Species.
If there is no precise dividing line between species, as you say, then how can you seriously claim speciation?
DeleteIs the entire species classification system wrong? That species can be divided means you are wrong. That you can't provide an example of observed animal speciation means evolution is seriously lacking prime evidence. You're just muddling things to make excuses. We see tons of change in animals - back and forth - nothing but the failure of ToE prohibits us from seeing vast directional change. In other words, there is plenty of time to see the bird beaks oscillate (and you guys use that for evidence to extrapolate)... but somehow there isn't enough time for bona fide speciation to be observed.
If the back and forth oscillation of bird beak sizes, which we easily observe, is good enough for evolutionists to extrapolate everything under the sun... then why do we not see vast directional change well beyond anything that is classified as a species?
If the stuff of change for bird beaks is good enough for evolutionists to use then why not an example of change that is truly and stunningly directional? The bird beaks change quickly, and this is evolution (according to you guys) - but funny that you have no example of such change easily and quickly breaking well past any species classification.
Tedford the Slow
DeleteIf there is no precise dividing line between species, as you say, then how can you seriously claim speciation?
Tedford the Slow thinks all the different cat varieties listed in this study are the same "cat species".
African Golden Cat
Asian Golden Cat
Andean Mtn Cat
Bay Cat
Black-footed Cat
Bobcat
Caracal
Cheetah
Chinese Desert Cat
Clouded Leopard
Cougar
Fishing Cat
Flat-headed Cat
Geoffrey's Cat
Iriomote Cat
Jaguar
Jaguarundi
Jungle Cat
Kodkod
Leopard
Leopard Cat
Lion
Little Spotted Cat
Lynx, Canadian
Lynx, Eurasian
Lynx, Spanish
Margay
Marbled Cat
Ocelot
Pallas Cat
Pampas Cat
Rusty-Spotted Cat
Sand Cat
Serval
Snow Leopard
Tiger
Wildcat-African
Wildcat-Asiatic
Wildcat-European
I told you Tedford is permanently stuck in Idiot mode.
Blas: The evidences that is missing if evolution as darwinist think happened are fishes trying to breath air, fishes developing arms, mammals extending his neck.
ReplyDeleteLungfish, Tiktaalik, Samotherium.
That were hundred of millions of year ago, why didn`t happened again?
DeleteZach, lungfish do not "try to breath air", they do it very well.
DeleteBlas: That were hundred of millions of year ago, why didn`t happened again?
DeleteBecause as Neal Tedford points out, they do it very well already.
As lungfish always have. Fish with gills breath very well too- as they always have. ToE's impossible transistional monsters are non-existent.
DeleteZachriel said
Delete"Because as Neal Tedford points out, they do it very well already."
So evolution is a succession of unique events.
Blas: So evolution is a succession of unique events.
DeleteNot always, but it can be difficult for a competitor to invade an already occupied niche. The air breathing niche has been filled more than once, though. When vertebrates invaded the land, there were already a variety of arthropods there, not to mention plants.
That"darwinistic explanation" has two problems, breathing fishes there are very few, the new mutants do not need go to breath in the land, and second mutation do not know the land is already occupied so drift to breathing fishes should be possible until NS extinguish the attemps.
DeleteBlas: That"darwinistic explanation" has two problems, breathing fishes there are very few, the new mutants do not need go to breath in the land, and second mutation do not know the land is already occupied so drift to breathing fishes should be possible until NS extinguish the attemps.
DeleteThe lungfish niche is already filled with lungfish. Extant lungfish are not the same as Devonian lungfish. Also, keep in mind that evolution can be very contingent. Conditions today are not the same as the conditions as then.
Zachriel
Delete"The lungfish niche is already filled with lungfish. Extant lungfish are not the same as Devonian lungfish. Also, keep in mind that evolution can be very contingent. Conditions today are not the same as the conditions as then."
Again, the abfibian ancestor evolved in the lungfish niche, why it couldn´t happen again? Again DNA do not know that in the niche there are lungfishes, or what conditions are there why there are no species drifting to breath air before NS extinguish them?
Blas: Again, the abfibian ancestor evolved in the lungfish niche, why it couldn´t happen again?
DeleteIt could, but it's unlikely for the reasons already provided.
Blas: Again DNA do not know that in the niche there are lungfishes, or what conditions are there why there are no species drifting to breath air before NS extinguish them?
Because a newly, and therefore poorly optimized, lungfish can't easily compete against highly evolved lungfish that already occupy the niche. Not to mention all the other organisms that now occupy the air breathing niche that didn't exist in the Devonian. If you are an up-and-coming fishapod lineage, you'll have to ply your wares elsewhere.
Zachriel
Delete"It could, but it's unlikely"
So unlikely that do not happen in 500 Mya?
"for the reasons already provided."
reasons? I see just speculations.
"Because a newly, and therefore poorly optimized, lungfish can't easily compete against highly evolved lungfish that already occupy the niche. Not to mention all the other organisms that now occupy the air breathing niche that didn't exist in the Devonian. If you are an up-and-coming fishapod lineage, you'll have to ply your wares elsewhere."
Ok, but the lungfishes evolved from animals with gills water breathing, step by step. They were breathing with the gills an at the same time they were developing structures that will become lungs. In the mean time they stay at the same niche where they were until the lung structures give them an advantage in the new niche. What I do not see is actual animals water breathing developing new structures that will become lungs n the same niche they are living actually.
Neal Tedford: As lungfish always have. Fish with gills breath very well too- as they always have.
ReplyDeleteLungfish are an intermediate form, and fit right into the expected pattern of descent.
Neal Tedford: If there is no precise dividing line between species, as you say, then how can you seriously claim speciation?
Are lions and tigers different species?
Ian H. Spedding
ReplyDeleteits not biologists! its a smaller gang of biologists etc that , 9-5, investigate origins of biology. You can't claim the prestige of biologists!
Yes they could be wrong because they want answers and simply accept the present answer.
Yet they are hoodwinked if they think evolution is a scientific biological theory.
it isn't!
Its just a hypothesis.
Science is not hypothesis. A hunch.
Science is a real standard of investigation that must be employed before the prestige of science can be invoked.
Creationists should be aiming at the methodology before at the evidence proclaimed.
We screwed up.
Robert Byers March 21, 2013 at 4:55 PM
ReplyDelete[...]
its not biologists! its a smaller gang of biologists etc that , 9-5, investigate origins of biology. You can't claim the prestige of biologists!
It is biologists. You're trying to explain away that overwhelming support by a conspiracy theory. It won't wash.
Yes they could be wrong because they want answers and simply accept the present answer.
Yet they are hoodwinked if they think evolution is a scientific biological theory.
I say they have a better understanding of what a scientific theory is than you. Tell us what you think it is.
Its just a hypothesis.
Science is not hypothesis. A hunch.
Hypotheses are one of science's most important tools. They are not hunches or guesses. They are carefully-formulated explanations which can tested for accuracy.
Science is a real standard of investigation that must be employed before the prestige of science can be invoked.
Yes, it is - and has.
Creationists should be aiming at the methodology before at the evidence proclaimed.
They did and failed. Don't let that stop you, though.
We screwed up.
You still are.
Its just a small segment of biologists that study evolution. So one can't claim the whole tribe of biologists. They do actual biology and not evolutionary biology.
DeleteIts very few people and the rest just accept their conclusions.
Hypothesis is not more then a hunch or guess or apple on the head.
its only a beginning of the scientific methodology.
Evolution is a hypothesis but is not a theory.
It can not demonstrate to have been evidenced by the relevant fields it proclaims to pronounce upon. Its not tested either.
Instead a carelessness was built into the hypothesis of justifying it unpon unrelated fields of subjects.
This is why they always invoke fossils, genetics, and so on AS the evidence.
yet no biology.
Even if true evolution would have a hard time bringing biological scientific evidence as its about past and gone events and processes.
nevertheless the evidence they do bring is misclassified as biological evidence and so evolution is not a biological theory.
As it couldn't be worthy of if it was not true.
Whats not true couldn't possibly have excellent/scientific evidence backing it up.
Do you know of any biological scientific evidence for evolution?
whats your single most favorite if you do???
Zachriel said
ReplyDelete2 keep in mind that evolution can be very contingent. Conditions today are not the same as the conditions as then."
So is a ramdom process.
Blas: So is a ramdom process.
ReplyDeleteNo, but it is contingent.
Blas: So unlikely that do not happen in 500 Mya?
ReplyDeleteAs we pointed out, it happened more than once; vertebrates, arthropods, gastropods.
Blas: Ok, but the lungfishes evolved from animals with gills water breathing, step by step.
Yes.
Blas: They were breathing with the gills an at the same time they were developing structures that will become lungs.
Fish would gulp air into their guts in oxygen poor environments. This developed into simple sacs, which then evolved into air bladders and lungs.
It's an easy out for evolutionists to say that animal speciation can't be observed because it takes too long. On the other hand, we observe significant variation in bird beak size, moth colors, etc, etc... evolutionists even use these as their own examples.
ReplyDeleteIf you added all the back and forth variation around the mean together and instead sent all that change in one direction then stunning speciation and macro change would be observed. The problem is the change is back and forth and not directional and unbounded.
If a man walks in circle at 4mph, his directional progress in 10,000 years will be the same as it was after 10 minutes. Given the pace of variation, THERE IS TIME.
It is a lie for evolutionists to excuse themselves because the time factor. No, the directional change you require for your theory to work doesn't happen. It's not a time problem, its a theory problem
Tedford the Slow
DeleteIt's not a time problem, its a theory problem
No, it's an ignorant Creationist doesn't understand the evidence so makes lame excuses problem.
Do you still think all those cats from the Felidae study are all one big species?
Pastor Neal Tedford: permanently stuck in idiot mode.
Neal Tedford: It's an easy out for evolutionists to say that animal speciation can't be observed because it takes too long.
ReplyDeleteSpeciation can happen suddenly, such as polyploidism in plants. But for most organisms, it is a process, not an event. Aspects of the process and the results of the process have been observed.
Neal Tedford: The problem is the change is back and forth and not directional and unbounded.
Significant adaptive change usually takes significant time. Sorry.
Zachriel said
ReplyDelete"As we pointed out, it happened more than once; vertebrates, arthropods, gastropods."
Three and since 500 Mya none?
"Fish would gulp air into their guts in oxygen poor environments. This developed into simple sacs, which then evolved into air bladders and lungs."
Once and never again.
Blas
DeleteThree and since 500 Mya none?
Is this the latest bit of stupidity in the Creationist arsenal? The demand for "why didn't evolution produce XYZ dozens of times???"
Sorta like Ray Comfort's "why didn't evolution produce a crocoduck???"
Once and never again.
Don't be too sure.
Neal Tedford: No, the directional change you require for your theory to work doesn't happen.
ReplyDeleteThere's plenty of examples of directional change in the fossil record. Just consider skull size in hominin lineages, or equidae .
Zachriel said
ReplyDelete"There's plenty of examples of directional change in the fossil record. Just consider skull size in hominin lineages, or equidae ."
yes you lack in the fossil record the not directionl change required by a "contingent" process.
Zach, your making excuses. It's easy to say whatever you want and then say we can't observe it because of time. Anyone can to that.
ReplyDeleteThe problem for you is that, we observe back and forth change - and that's the only thing you guys use for evidence. Finches have time to grow beaks like Toucans, but they don't - it's not a time problem, it's a theory problem. Mice have time to grow to the size of elephants - but they don't. There are limits tot he plasticity of species. You can blame the lack of observed macro change on time, but you should consider that you don't observe it because its not possible.
Tedford the Slow
DeleteThe problem for you is that, we observe back and forth change - and that's the only thing you guys use for evidence.
Not only is Tedford permanently stuck in idiot mode he's also your typical Creationist liar.
Go look at the Felidae data again. Tell us why it's not evidence for speciation in the clade.
Blas: Three and since 500 Mya none?
ReplyDeleteAnnelida. Once a niche is filled, further evolution usually occurs by diversification into subniches. So air-breathing vertebrates evolved amniotes in order to move onto land. Arthropods evolved wings.
Blas I can't see how you can argue with that. Evolution isn't stupid. like Zac says vertebrates evolved amniotes IN ORDER TO MOVE ONTO LAND.
DeleteClearly Evo comes up with ideas in big bursts and theres nothing operating in biology and the ecosystem over the hundreds of million years that would allow for organisms to remain relatively unchanged.
Its just that when a niche fills up evo gets bored and decides it wants to move onto land
Its a just so fact.
It is a fact that I´m an idiot.
DeleteBlas
DeleteSome jokes from your language don't translate well into English. I know that after some failed experiments.
:)
Neal Tedford: The problem for you is that, we observe back and forth change - and that's the only thing you guys use for evidence.
ReplyDeleteWe also observe the nested hierarchy and the succession of fossils. Can't make you look, though.
Zach, if you cherry pick only - look at all the contrary data. That's more important when it comes to analyzing your theory.
DeleteTedford the Slow
DeleteZach, if you cherry pick only - look at all the contrary data. That's more important when it comes to analyzing your theory.
You mean the way you're anaylzing the Felidae data I provided above?
We'll add hypocrite to your burgeoning resume.
"We'll add hypocrite to your burgeoning resume."
DeleteYou can't. You filled the niche on the this blog. It can't take anymore.
Elijah2012, you're more than welcome to give us your Creationist explanation for the data in the Felidae study above. None of the other IDiot Creationists will touch it, maybe you can get in the science game.
DeleteOr, you could be your normal childish moron self and just throw rocks from the sidelines.
Wonder which one you'll choose?
"Or, you could be your normal childish moron self."
DeleteHAHAHA ..ROFL
You of all People making that charge? creator of such lines as
"do you want an Waaaahmbulance?"
"Ass clown"
"So butt hurt want a cork for it?"
ROFL. you have absolutely how childish you come across to the average reader do you T? How do you think I knew you were a teenager? No adult talks like you do in almost every blog comment.
"Elijah2012, you're more than welcome to give us your Creationist explanation for the data in the Felidae study above."
DeleteWhy because you demand it? You give no orders around here. We've been waiting for you to address bigger and better issues regarding actual macro evolution we disagree on not some list of species within cat kinds and you and the others usually run away with you directly stating in one thread that the answer was "I don't know" and that that was a good scientific answer.
Shoot how about an even half decent answer to abiogenesis that doesn't involve the same duck and run answer "we don't know but we KNOW it wasn't design"
No need to run with you to smaller issues of speciation within a kind just to help you hide your lack of anything substantial to say on the real issues of macro evolution and abiogensis.
You forgot to give us your Creationist explanation for the Felidae data.
DeleteAnother cowardly Creationist too scared to get in the game.
Keep hiding under that rock Elijah2012. Make Jesus proud!
Elijah2012
DeleteT: "Elijah2012, you're more than welcome to give us your Creationist explanation for the data in the Felidae study above."
Why because you demand it? You give no orders around here.
No demands. Merely giving you the fair chance to engage the actual scientific evidence instead of just running your mouth like an ignorant clown. But it looks like ignorant mouth-running is all a member of the Christian Taliban like you is capable of.
Carry on.
Blas: yes you lack in the fossil record the not directionl change required by a "contingent" process.
ReplyDeleteSure we do. We see a divergence from common ancestors. Sometimes the adaptations are roughly linear, sometimes not.
Zachriel
ReplyDelete"Sure we do. We see a divergence from common ancestors. Sometimes the adaptations are roughly linear, sometimes not."
So according to you the fossil record have both the directional change and the "contingent" change. And it is still incomplete.
Fantastic the fossil record!
Blas
DeleteSo according to you the fossil record have both the directional change and the "contingent" change. And it is still incomplete.
Fantastic the fossil record!
Yes, the fossil record records millions of different lineages changes, some directional, some contingent. It also shows many different rates of change, from gradual to punk eek. And yes, the record just gives a incomplete random sampling of the actual patterns because the conditions for fossilization are pretty rare.
Another day, another Creationist argument from ignorance based personal incredulity. Ho hum.
Neal Tedford: if you cherry pick only - look at all the contrary data.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't provide any data that contradicted the theory of evolution.
Neal Tedford: If there is no precise dividing line between species, as you say, then how can you seriously claim speciation?
Are lions and tigers different species?
Blas: Fantastic the fossil record!
Thorton responded to that.
Zach, evolution is not allowed to be falsified.
DeleteLions and tigers are classified as separate species. Ligers are sterile.
The not-enough-time to observe animal speciation and more importantly macro change is a lame excuse. Variation happens quickly - you know the bird beak stuff that evolutionists spout all the time. IF evolution were true we would observe strong and continued directional plasticity in species.
Like failed politics - blame someone or something else. It's time to get real.
Tedford the Slow
DeleteZach, evolution is not allowed to be falsified.
Of course it is. It just hasn't been. Another Creationist dolt who confuses "not falsifiable" with "not falsified".
Lions and tigers are classified as separate species
How did lions and tigers get to be separate species?
Are lions and tigers two different "kinds" that were each on the Ark? How about the other 35 cat species I listed above? Were they all separate "kinds" too?
IF evolution were true we would observe strong and continued directional plasticity in species.
Which of course we do.
Evolution of Giant Body Size on Islands
"One of the most fascinating and repeatable patterns in evolution is the dramatic change in body size that accompanies island colonization. Large mammals, such as elephants, tend to become smaller on islands, whereas small mammals, such as mice, tend to become bigger. Examples of this phenomenon also come from human evolution, including an extinct hominid species with a height of 1m that lived on an Indonesian island. As one of only a few empirical generalities that characterize the evolution of natural populations, this “island rule” has inspired intensive study and debate among biologists for more than 100 years. Understanding the evolutionary causes of this provocative trend requires the identification of genetic changes that underlie these size differences. Remarkably, virtually nothing is known about the genetic basis of changes in the body sizes of island mammals.
We have found a system that holds remarkable promise for understanding the evolution of body size on islands. Gough Island, located in the South Atlantic about 3000 km southwest of South Africa, is home to the largest wild house mice in the world. These animals are about twice the mass of wild mice in the United Kingdom. Body size evolution has been rapid: mice were recently introduced to the island (in the 19th century) and a major size increase was observed over just a 40-year period. The drastic size change of Gough Island mice has been attributed to low temperature, extended longevity, reduced predation, and carnivorous eating habits. "
We just haven't been watching for the hundreds of thousands of years that Tedford the Slow demands to see an entirely different animal
Pastor Neal Tedford: permanently stuck in idiot mode.
Jeff: Every unobserved hypothetical species, specific lineage and origin timing(as well as all the geological assumptions required to IMPLY the fossil succession means what you need it to mean) is an axiom in your theory, because none of it is known to be logically possible naturalistically.
ReplyDeleteZachriel: No. Those are implications of the theory.
Jeff: when a theory requires millions of ad-hoc hypotheses per ONE corroborated implication...
You need to focus. You said "Every unobserved hypothetical species ... is an axiom in your theory". We pointed out that they were not axioms, but implications. But you act as if we never responded, but simply repeat the same strawman.
Jeff: when a theory requires millions of ad-hoc hypotheses per ONE corroborated implication...
DeleteZ: You need to focus. You said "Every unobserved hypothetical species ... is an axiom in your theory". We pointed out that they were not axioms, but implications. But you act as if we never responded, but simply repeat the same strawman.
J: Nah. It's you that needs to focus. On the other thread, here's what was said:
ME: You've PREDICTED nothing inconsistent with SA other than:
1) IF bifurcated descent occurred continually over earth's biological history starting from a precambrian organism
and
2) IF all fossil and observed species are members of those lineages
and
3) a) IF there were species that are not known to humans from fossils or observations which were also members of the bifurcated lineages, some of which were genealogical intermediates to known species -- OR alternatively b) IF large, observed morphological gaps were bridged by saltations -- OR alternatively c) IF large, observed morphological gaps were bridged by both as per a) and b)
and
4) IF nested hierarchical tree generation rules coincidentally correpond to temporally-ordered phenotypic/morphological/extinction effects of earth's event regularities
and
5) IF there is exactly ONE nested hierarchy tree consistent with nested hierarchical tree generation rules
THEN that one nested hierarchy of 5) is predicted by 1)-4).
... Do you have any evidence AT ALL for 2)-4)?
YOU: Those are axioms of the theory. The nested hierarchy is the entailment.
J: Now, do you not realize why I included saltations in 3)? Because the nested hierarchy exists INDEPENDENT of the hypothetical intermediate traits. Thus, it is explicable by SA or saltations ALSO. The only way you can rule out saltations to explain the morphological gaps is to say the nested hierarchy is implied by assuming UCA IFF UCA occurred non-saltationally. But that means you have to ASSUME the existence of millions of unobserved species to even GET the implication of the nested hierarchy.
It's this simple, Z. Any time you're positing event sequences that are not known to be logically possible in terms of any set of event regularities (never mind extant ones), each such event is being posited to be logically possible as an ad-hoc assumption. You're positing millions of them. Conclusions inherit the plausibility of their grounds. You have nothing.
DeleteNeal Tedford: evolution is not allowed to be falsified.
ReplyDeleteOf course it is. However, it's hasn't been.
Neal Tedford: Lions and tigers are classified as separate species.
That's right.
Neal Tedford: Ligers are sterile.
Not always.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/09/120921-liliger-liger-lion-tiger-big-cats-animals-science/
Meant to mention that above, hybridization can sometimes result in speciation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_speciation
Neal Tedford: Variation happens quickly - you know the bird beak stuff that evolutionists spout all the time.
So quickly that only the most careful observation over years or decades can detect. Direction observation is fairly modern. Darwin couldn't directly observe evolution. He predicted microevolution from the evidence for macroevolution. Quite amazing, really.
Neal Tedford: IF evolution were true we would observe strong and continued directional plasticity in species.
That's a strawman, of course. Evolution doesn't posit continuous plasticity.
Thorton said:
ReplyDelete"Of course it is. It just hasn't been. Another Creationist dolt who confuses "not falsifiable" with "not falsified"."
Are you sure it is?
Read:" Philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith doubted that a single set of anachronistic fossils, however, even rabbits in the Precambrian, would disprove the theory of evolution outright. The first question raised by the assertion of such a discovery would be whether the alleged "Precambrian rabbits" really were fossilized rabbits. Alternative interpretations might include incorrect identification of the "fossils", incorrect dating of the rocks, and a hoax such as the Piltdown Man was shown to be. Even if the "Precambrian rabbits" turned out to be genuine, they would not instantly refute the theory of evolution, because that theory is a large package of ideas, including: that life on Earth has evolved over billions of years; that this evolution is driven by certain mechanisms; and that these mechanisms have produced a specific "family tree" that defines the relationships among species and the order in which they appeared. Hence, "Precambrian rabbits" would prove that there were one or more serious errors somewhere in this package, and the next task would be to identify the error(s)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit
Blas
DeleteThorton said: "Of course it is. It just hasn't been. Another Creationist dolt who confuses "not falsifiable" with "not falsified"."
Are you sure it is?
Yep, quite sure. I've already listed numerous things that if found would have falsified ToE stone dead. Like having the phylogenetic tree made from the fossil record be wildly discordant with the one from the genetic record. Like finding dozens of different forms of non-compatible DNA in different clades.
Again for the idiots: Not falsified doesn't equal not falsifiable.
Thorton, change in the pragraph I copied from Wikipedia "precambrian rabbit" with "dozens of different forms of non-compatible DNA in different clades".
DeleteBy the way orphan genes aren´t dozens of different forms of non-compatible DNA in different clades
Blas
DeleteThorton, change in the pragraph I copied from Wikipedia "precambrian rabbit" with "dozens of different forms of non-compatible DNA in different clades".
Why? if you change the criteria the whole argument changes.
By the way orphan genes aren´t dozens of different forms of non-compatible DNA in different clades
So orphan genes don't falsify ToE.
It's pretty stupid to start demanding ways to falsify ToE now, after it's amasses 150+ years of positive supporting evidence form hundreds of different scientific disciplines. That's like demanding a way to falsify the germ theory of disease *today* given all we know. The discoveries that would falsify ToE were available from the first day but they were never found.
That's what you IDiot Creationists can't seem to grasp.
ThortonMarch 22, 2013 at 4:10 PM
Delete"Why? if you change the criteria the whole argument changes."
No, you will use the same argument (evolution is still valid because of ovwrhelmig evidence from different branches of the science) for two different subjects precambrian rabbits or dozens of different forms of non-compatible DNA in different clades.
"So orphan genes don't falsify ToE."
No, I do not said that, my question was if orphan genes fullfill your criteria of falsiability.
"It's pretty stupid to start demanding ways to falsify ToE now, after it's amasses 150+ years of positive supporting evidence form hundreds of different scientific disciplines. That's like demanding a way to falsify the germ theory of disease *today* given all we know. The discoveries that would falsify ToE were available from the first day but they were never found."
As I said is not falsifiable.
That's what you IDiot Creationists can't seem to grasp.
Blas
DeleteAs I said is not falsifiable.
Except for the ways I just gave you. You IDiots say a lot of really stupid things with no connection to reality.
What would falsify the germ theory of disease?
What would falsify the theory of gravity?
If you can't answer, does that mean those aren't scientific theories?
Blas March 22, 2013 at 3:09 PM
Delete[...]
Read:" Philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith doubted that a single set of anachronistic fossils, however, even rabbits in the Precambrian, would disprove the theory of evolution outright.
Godfrey-Smith makes perfect sense.
Science has a duty to weigh all the evidence, both for and against a theory. Should a single adverse finding tip the balance against a theory where there is already a large amount of supportive data? Not necessarily. It might indicate a fundamental and possibly unrecoverable error but it might also just be an anomaly for other reasons. Either way, it should be seen as an opportunity not a setback.
Then ToE is not falsifiable.
DeleteYes, it is, but it wouldn't be easy, nor should it be, given all the evidence accumulated to support it.
DeleteBlas
DeleteThen ToE is not falsifiable
Keep repeating that lie if it makes you sleep better at night. Hopefully the laughter from the scientific community won't keep you awake.
Thorton said
ReplyDelete"What would falsify the germ theory of disease?"
As far as I remember, this was falsified, the presence of the germ is not the cause of the disease, just correlation.
"What would falsify the theory of gravity?"
theory of gravity was changed since the first postulation by new evidence, and we have the external stars behaviour that shows theory of gravity needs adjustments like dark matter.
"If you can't answer, does that mean those aren't scientific theories?"
It depends of the defiition of scientific theories.
The explanation of how Lenski E. Coli evolved from Cit- to Cit+ is falsifiable. Extrapoling this experiment and postulating that this is the way a pig became a whale is not falsifiable.
Blas March 23, 2013 at 6:15 AM
Delete[...]
The explanation of how Lenski E. Coli evolved from Cit- to Cit+ is falsifiable. Extrapoling this experiment and postulating that this is the way a pig became a whale is not falsifiable.
I disagree.
If the theory postulates that the transition from pig to whale would take millions of years then we should not expect to see it happening in real time because, as individuals, we don't live long enough, nor have we been doing science for long enough. Do you think anyone ever saw the Himalayas forming and growing before their eyes? If not, does this mean that it didn't happen or couldn't happen?
These things are falsifiable if by that we mean it is possible to falsify them. It is not practical for us to falsify or verify them by direct observation because we don't live long enough and we haven't been around as a species for long enough. That alone doesn't mean they didn't or couldn't happen, though.
Blas
DeleteThe explanation of how Lenski E. Coli evolved from Cit- to Cit+ is falsifiable. Extrapoling this experiment and postulating that this is the way a pig became a whale is not falsifiable.
Of course it is. Just test the DNA of pigs and whales. If they are found to have different non-compatible forms of DNA then the idea they evolved from a common ancestor - evolution - is falsified.
Not falsified doesn't equal not falsifiable, no many how many times you repeat your mistake.
Blas
DeleteThorton: "What would falsify the germ theory of disease?"
As far as I remember, this was falsified, the presence of the germ is not the cause of the disease, just correlation.
LOL! Maybe you should get the word out to all the doctors and nurses at hospitals who spend billions of dollars a year on disinfectants and sterilization of their equipment. Think of all the time doctors would save too not having to scrub down before performing operations. And all the guff about washing your hands after going to the lavatory, who would have thought it was pointless?
This is the kind of tard nugget the IDiots produce that keeps you coming back for more!
Ian H Spedding
Delete"Do you think anyone ever saw the Himalayas forming and growing before their eyes? If not, does this mean that it didn't happen or couldn't happen?"
No, off course not, what I say is any explanation of how the Himalayas were formed is not falsifiable, as it explains a unique event in the past.
"These things are falsifiable if by that we mean it is possible to falsify them. It is not practical for us to falsify or verify them by direct observation because we don't live long enough and we haven't been around as a species for long enough."
So they are not falsifiable until 20 Mya.
Wich observation would falsify ToE in 20 Mya?
Blas March 23, 2013 at 4:28 PM
Delete[...]
No, off course not, what I say is any explanation of how the Himalayas were formed is not falsifiable, as it explains a unique event in the past.
Yes, the formation of the Himalayas is a unique event. Suppose, however, that we have a theory which proposes that mountain ranges, such as the Himalayas, can be formed by the upthrust of rocks along the lines where tectonic plates are colliding. If we found no such mountains along tectonic plate boundaries then the theory would be falsified. The explanation of how the Himalayas were formed is, therefore, falsifiable.
[...]
So they are not falsifiable until 20 Mya.
Not by us, not by continuous, direct observation. Put yourself in the place of a scientist, however. How else do you think we could test such an explanation?
Wich observation would falsify ToE in 20 Mya?
All current species still exist with no detectable genetic of phenotyical changes? What do you think?
Jeff: You've PREDICTED nothing inconsistent with SA ...
ReplyDeleteCan't tell, because you haven't provided specifics about SA, much less provided entailed predictions. Please, either provide a clear and specific statement of SA, or avoid using the term.
Jeff: Any time you're positing event sequences
Bifurcating descent.
Jeff: that are not known to be logically possible in terms of any set of event regularities (never mind extant ones)
Bifurcating descent is logically possible.
[Read:" Philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith doubted that a single set of anachronistic fossils, however, even rabbits in the Precambrian, would disprove the theory of evolution outright.
ReplyDeleteIan: Godfrey-Smith makes perfect sense...]
[Blas: Then ToE is not falsifiable
Thorton: Keep repeating that lie if it makes you sleep better at night...]
So, Ian (and Thorton), if that makes perfect sense, finding rabbits in the precambrian wouldn't (for you) falsify TOE, right?
Like I said, you have to weigh all the evidence. On its own, rabbits in the pre-Cambrian would probably not be sufficient to overturn the theory.
DeleteJust checking. In fact, I never took this "rabbits in the pre-cambrian" thing seriously as science...just rhetoric by some darwinists committed to defend their theory at any cost.
DeleteI hope I remember yours and now others' dissention when my evolutionist friends argue the classical "rabbits in the pre-cambrian" as an accurate criterion of falsification...
Here are some examples (one of them we find easily here in this blog):
The statement that “evolution cannot be disproven” is just silly. It’s true that any one piece of evidence would probably not be enough to make us pitch the entire theory, but some– like Haldane’s example of the fossil rabbit from the Precambrian– would certainly throw the whole paradigm into turmoil.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/how-to-disprove.html
LS -
Another liar heard from. The TOE makes no prediction that can specifically and completely falsify it. Zilch. Nada. I challenge you right here to provide just one that is not a lie or a deception.
Ritchie:
The oft-cited 'rabbit in the Cambrian' would falsify evolution. Or, more specifically, if the fossil record showed no progressive change in species. If instead, all classes of animals appeared all over the place. But this is not the pattern we observe.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com.br/2012/07/difference-between-science-and.html
Blas: Read:" Philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith doubted that a single set of anachronistic fossils, however, even rabbits in the Precambrian, would disprove the theory of evolution outright. The first question raised by the assertion of such a discovery would be whether the alleged "Precambrian rabbits" really were fossilized rabbits. Alternative interpretations might include incorrect identification of the "fossils", incorrect dating of the rocks, and a hoax such as the Piltdown Man was shown to be. Even if the "Precambrian rabbits" turned out to be genuine, they would not instantly refute the theory of evolution, because that theory is a large package of ideas, including: that life on Earth has evolved over billions of years; that this evolution is driven by certain mechanisms; and that these mechanisms have produced a specific "family tree" that defines the relationships among species and the order in which they appeared. Hence, "Precambrian rabbits" would prove that there were one or more serious errors somewhere in this package, and the next task would be to identify the error(s)."
ReplyDeleteSo, first would be doubt about the fossil themselves, which is reasonable considering they contradict the rest of the fossil record. However, given provenance, it would certainly undermine the current theory of evolution in terms of historical sequences. It's reasonable to say that the verified existence of rabbits in the Precambrian would falsify the current theory of evolution. Whether some other theory of evolution would rise from the ashes could only be answered when such a fossil is found.
But, in fact, we don't find rabbits in Precambrian strata. Look all you want. You won't find a hare either, or any Leporidae, and you won't find Centaurs or Griffins. There's a reason why.
We can measure the growth of mountains... we can measure genetic variation oscillating AROUND the mean within the species boundary - but we can't measure or observe the directional change that ToE requires. One can't take the movement of a grandfather clock and extrapolate that in a million years it will turn into a propellor.
ReplyDeleteSpecies boundary? Reproductive isolation often grades between closely related organisms. We also have many cases in the fossil record of directional change.
DeleteSell and buy used and new goods.
ReplyDeletePost ads for free or get free account via Facebook Login in one click.
More details more