tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post7451926177684250634..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Richard Dawkins: How Could Anyone “Possibly Doubt the Fact of Evolution”Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger315125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63867914656020174022014-03-14T17:03:15.209-07:002014-03-14T17:03:15.209-07:00Just keep talking, nic, you've been doing a gr...Just keep talking, nic, you've been doing a great job of demonstrating my point.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8415897568958906682014-03-14T07:05:10.504-07:002014-03-14T07:05:10.504-07:00nic: There is not even a plausible hypothesis, so ...<b>nic</b>: <i>There is not even a plausible hypothesis, so you're over reaching even by saying there is no working theory. </i><br /><br />There's some intriguing possibilities that have led to some interesting results, but nothing that reaches the level of theory. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>How does it incorporate the information? </i><br /><br />Through replication, variation, and selection. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>Also incorporating information is not equivalent to creating new information. </i><br /><br />Shannon information is created by the random function. It is filtered by the environment through selection. <br /><br />In any case, it doesn't matter whether or not you want to conflate definitions of information,the organism adapts to the environment. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>Maybe you should look at something that is not 60 years old. </i><br /><br />The observation is still there, and often replicated.<br /><br />So you admit you can't explain Lederberg & Lederberg by response to external stimuli. Hint: the whole point of the experiment was to show that the adaptation can't be due to external stimuli. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>Adaptation and variation among bacteria is simply not evolution. </i><br /><br />And you're not nic. <br /><br />If you want to have a conversation, you have to use commonly accepted definitions. There are thousands of studies that use the word evolution to mean the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. You can't read "Welcome to the E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project Site" and make any sense of it if you say "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>As taxonomy is an arbitrary process, how do you figure this really helps your position? </i><br /><br />Biological taxonomy is not completely arbitrary, as we have already pointed out. Objective observers agree that there are natural groupings of organisms. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>Sure it's crucial evidence for common descent, but it's also evidence for design and creation. </i><br /><br />That's what you claim, but we have yet to see the entailments necessary to support the claim. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>Whales don't have hind limbs. </i><br /><br />Whales refers to any member of the order Cetacea. Yes, whales once had hind limbs. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>Is that why he has more than 30 patents related to his research, because he has only a tenuous grasp of the scientific method? </i><br /><br />Engineering is not science. It's clear he has only a rudimentary understanding of physics which clearly shows the Earth is billions of years old. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25524980308201486202014-03-13T20:33:10.121-07:002014-03-13T20:33:10.121-07:00Pedant,
Nic: So all proponents of ID and creation...Pedant,<br /><br />Nic: So all proponents of ID and creationism are ignorant of science, is that your claim? None of them know anything about science?<br /><br />"Not at all, the claim, if you were capable of reading for comprehension, and as illustrated by your own history of incoherent comments here, is that they don't understand science."<br /><br />OK, now that you've set yourself as the more learned of the two of us, how about you demonstrate how proponents of ID and creationism don't 'understand' science.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79291516515315213312014-03-13T17:21:50.670-07:002014-03-13T17:21:50.670-07:00Hi nic,
So all proponents of ID and creationism a...Hi nic,<br /><br /><i>So all proponents of ID and creationism are ignorant of science, is that your claim? None of them know anything about science?</i><br /><br />Not at all, the claim, if you were capable of reading for comprehension, and as illustrated by your own history of incoherent comments here, is that they don't <b>understand</b> science.<br /><br />The claim is an <i>empirical</i> hypothesis, subject to support or lack of support by the kind of evidence you have been so generously providing.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46238009672227803162014-03-13T16:03:38.393-07:002014-03-13T16:03:38.393-07:00Zachriel,
nic: It can't present a plausible h...Zachriel,<br /><br />nic: It can't present a plausible hypothesis.<br /><br />"There's no working theory at this time."<br /><br />There is not even a plausible hypothesis, so you're over reaching even by saying there is no working theory.<br /><br />nic: What you can't show is the process by which adaptation occurs.<br /><br />"We can show the mechanism is capable of incorporating information from the environment, which was the objection raised above."<br /><br />You're still not answering the basic question. How does it incorporate the information? Also incorporating information is not equivalent to creating new information. So, you're still not meeting the basic requirements needed to support your argument.<br /><br />nic: There is growing evidence adaptation is a result of designed mechanisms that trigger adaptive responses to external stimuli.<br /><br />"How does that explain Lederberg & Lederberg 1952?"<br /><br />Maybe you should look at something that is not 60 years old. A lot has changed since they did their work.<br /><br />"Redefining terminology is not an argument. You may not like it, but bacteria are evolving in Lenski's long-term evolution experiment.<br />http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/"<br /><br />I'm not redefining anything. Adaptation and variation among bacteria is simply not evolution. <br /><br />Lenski has been working with bacteria for over 30 years and still has nothing but bacteria. How is that evidence for evolution, outside of unfounded extrapolation?<br /><br />If you wish to define evolution as change of any kind, which seems to be the situation, that would mean my grandson is evolving because he's getter taller. What palpable nonsense.<br /><br />nic: First, demonstrate your claim<br /><br />"You could read a text on taxonomy, or we could consider cases."<br /><br />As taxonomy is an arbitrary process, how do you figure this really helps your position?<br /><br />nic: and second demonstrate how that would have any bearing on the argument that nested hierarchies can be explained by design.<br /><br />"The nested hierarchy is crucial evidence for common descent."<br /><br />Really, do you ever read anything I post? Sure it's crucial evidence for common descent, but it's also evidence for design and creation. Can you not get that fact? And as it is evidence for design and creation, it is not proof of evolution. So, please quit saying the nested hierarchy is crucial evidence for common descent. It's simply not a unique component for your position.<br /><br />nic: And this is what you think qualifies as replicating the evolution of the whale?<br /><br />"No, that's a creationist strawman."<br /><br />Well, seeing as you posted this in response to my comment about replicating the evolution of the whale, I was correct in my criticism. It was not a strawman argument, it was a direct response to your comment and totally in context.<br /><br /> "including whales with hind limbs."<br /><br />Whales don't have hind limbs. <br /><br />nic: So all proponents of ID and creationism are ignorant of science, is that your claim? None of them know anything about science?<br /><br />"Most only have a tenuous grasp of the scientific method."<br /><br />So John Sanford only has a tenuous grasp of the scientific method? Is that why he has more than 30 patents related to his research, because he has only a tenuous grasp of the scientific method?<br /><br />Do you realize how absolutely absurd you sound?<br /><br />I could name several more examples, but I don't think I should have to do so, as a mature individual would never make such an astoundingly stupid comment as you just made. Really, grow up!nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09793551026825053240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87784701616776514102014-03-13T13:53:39.334-07:002014-03-13T13:53:39.334-07:00nic: It can't present a plausible hypothesis. ...<b>nic</b>: <i>It can't present a plausible hypothesis. </i><br /><br />There's no working theory at this time. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>What you can't show is the process by which adaptation occurs. </i><br /><br />We can show the mechanism is capable of incorporating information from the environment, which was the objection raised above. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>There is growing evidence adaptation is a result of designed mechanisms that trigger adaptive responses to external stimuli. </i><br /><br />How does that explain Lederberg & Lederberg 1952? <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>No, you cannot. </i><br /><br />Redefining terminology is not an argument. You may not like it, but bacteria are evolving in Lenski's long-term evolution experiment. <br />http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/<br /> <br /><b>nic</b>: <i>I did </i><br /><br />Still no answer. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>First, demonstrate your claim </i><br /><br />You could read a text on taxonomy, or we could consider cases. Based on the panoply of traits, which two group closer? Whale, trout, cat? <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>and second demonstrate how that would have any bearing on the argument that nested hierarchies can be explained by design. </i><br /><br />The nested hierarchy is crucial evidence for common descent. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>And this is what you think qualifies as replicating the evolution of the whale? </i><br /><br />No, that's a creationist strawman. Evolution predicts that we won't directly observe whale evolve from land mammals. However, Gingerich used the theory of evolution to predict the placement and character traits of intermediate species, including whales with hind limbs. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>So all proponents of ID and creationism are ignorant of science, is that your claim? None of them know anything about science? </i><br /><br />Most only have a tenuous grasp of the scientific method. Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32668683843347945532014-03-13T11:48:32.265-07:002014-03-13T11:48:32.265-07:00Pedant,
"It would if IDers and creationists ...Pedant,<br /><br />"It would if IDers and creationists understood anything about science."<br /><br />So all proponents of ID and creationism are ignorant of science, is that your claim? None of them know anything about science?nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09793551026825053240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10541859470447361962014-03-13T11:45:30.111-07:002014-03-13T11:45:30.111-07:00Zachriel,
Nic: And the way they replicated the ev...Zachriel,<br /><br />Nic: And the way they replicated the evolution of the whale, amazing.<br /><br />"Yeah, Gingerich's work with whale fossils is pretty amazing. Wonder why IDers never come up with cool stuff like this ...<br /><br />http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm"<br /><br />And this is what you think qualifies as replicating the evolution of the whale? Surely you can't be serious.nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09793551026825053240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14416330483204584802014-03-13T11:43:16.293-07:002014-03-13T11:43:16.293-07:00Zachriel,
Nic: I'm the one stating the facts,...Zachriel,<br /><br />Nic: I'm the one stating the facts, which is that evolution cannot explain the origin of life.<br /><br />"It doesn't at this point. We may have misread your statement that you were claiming it couldn't, even in principle."<br /><br />It can't present a plausible hypothesis.<br /><br />"Evolution isn't random. We can show that adaptation can occur even if mutation is random with respect to fitness."<br /><br />What you can't show is the process by which adaptation occurs. There is growing evidence adaptation is a result of designed mechanisms that trigger adaptive responses to external stimuli.<br /><br />"Or are you saying computers can't model a random function? "<br /><br />Not in the truest sense, no.<br /><br />Nic: Again, you're comparing a science that can be directly observed in real time, and is repeatable, to evolution which cannot be directly observed, or observed at all, and is not repeatable.<br /><br />"We can directly observe evolution. Darwin couldn't, but we can."<br /><br />No, you cannot. All you can observe is adaptations and variations. The rest is extrapolation which does not qualify as observation. That would be like a prosecutor claiming he observed Charlie murder Chuck because he saw Charlie walking by the building where Chuck's body was found. <br /><br />"You have to show why the nested hierarchy and fossil record is entailed in your specific claim. You've merely waved in the general direction of ID."<br /><br />I did, you're simply displaying your inability to comprehend an argument again.<br /><br />Nic: What do you mean when you use the term 'singular' nested hierarchy?<br /><br />"There is only one way to reasonably arrange most organisms by trait,..."<br /><br />First, demonstrate your claim, and second demonstrate how that would have any bearing on the argument that nested hierarchies can be explained by design.nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09793551026825053240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14838600619648403622014-03-12T16:59:41.337-07:002014-03-12T16:59:41.337-07:00Nic:
I know the testability of all aspects of evo...Nic:<br /><br /><i>I know the testability of all aspects of evolution makes ID and creationism incredibly envious.</i><br /><br />It would if IDers and creationists understood anything about science.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13205495926170511682014-03-12T05:55:54.761-07:002014-03-12T05:55:54.761-07:00Nic: And the way they replicated the evolution of ...<b>Nic</b>: <i>And the way they replicated the evolution of the whale, amazing. </i><br /><br />Yeah, Gingerich's work with whale fossils is pretty amazing. Wonder why IDers never come up with cool stuff like this ...<br />http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm<br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14926412615501554792014-03-12T05:53:56.471-07:002014-03-12T05:53:56.471-07:00Nic: I'm the one stating the facts, which is t...<b>Nic</b>: <i>I'm the one stating the facts, which is that evolution cannot explain the origin of life. </i><br /><br />It doesn't at this point. We may have misread your statement that you were claiming it couldn't, even in principle. It seemed obvious as we had already stated there is no working theory of abiogenesis. <br /> <br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>Do you really believe a computer program is random? </i><br /><br />Evolution isn't random. We can show that adaptation can occur even if mutation is random with respect to fitness. <br /><br />Or are you saying computers can't model a random function? We can always use a source of true randomness, such as white noise. It won't change the results any. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>Again, you're comparing a science that can be directly observed in real time, and is repeatable, to evolution which cannot be directly observed, or observed at all, and is not repeatable. </i><br /><br />We can directly observe evolution. Darwin couldn't, but we can. We've provided citations. Not sure why you keep insisting otherwise. As we mentioned above, you're probably conflating evolution and common descent.<br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>I stated on several occasions that both ID and creationism can explain nested hierarchies and the fossil record. </i><br /><br />You have to show why the nested hierarchy and fossil record is entailed in your specific claim. You've merely waved in the general direction of ID. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>What do you mean when you use the term 'singular' nested hierarchy? </i><br /><br />There is only one way to reasonably arrange most organisms by trait, while artifacts can be reasonably arranged in many different ways. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28470262992875908102014-03-11T20:18:30.987-07:002014-03-11T20:18:30.987-07:00Zachriel,
"It doesn't, but how can you k...Zachriel,<br /><br />"It doesn't, but how can you know that an explanation of life's origins won't include an evolutionary component? Can you support that claim?"<br /><br />Give your head a shake! I don't have too, I'm the one stating the facts, which is that evolution cannot explain the origin of life. In fact it can't even create a plausible hypothesis. You're the one arguing from a position of wishful thinking. <br /><br />nic: The problem is evolutionary algorithms assume the ability comes about by evolutionary processes. <br /><br />"We merely assume what we already know, the existence of replicators, variation, and selection. The question is whether this will lead to the incorporation of information in response to the environment, which is does."<br /><br />Do you really believe a computer program is random? <br /><br />nic: Which is itself subject to presuppositions. <br /><br />"Sure. The experiment concerning the retardation of the pendulum not only assumed that the Earth rotated, but that Newtonian Mechanics applied. The latter had already been strongly supported, so the test was considered fairly definitive concerning the Earth's rotation. It even provided a rough measure of the Earth's oblateness."<br /><br />Again, you're comparing a science that can be directly observed in real time, and is repeatable, to evolution which cannot be directly observed, or observed at all, and is not repeatable. Please tell me you can grasp the difference. <br /><br />nic: None of which can be claimed as exclusive evidence for evolution. <br /><br />"You keep saying that but fail to provide an alternative model that explains the data, including the nested hierarchy, and the fossil succession."<br /><br />I stated on several occasions that both ID and creationism can explain nested hierarchies and the fossil record. <br /><br />So there are three possible explanations for your claim I didn't offer an alternative model.<br />1. You're not reading what I post<br />2. You cannot comprehend what I am saying<br />3. You're lying<br /><br />"You say the nested hierarchy is also like design, but artifacts don't form a singular nested hierarchy."<br /><br />What do you mean when you use the term 'singular'<br />nested hierarchy? I have an idea, but I would like you to clarify your statement before I comment.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46140005821457487722014-03-11T19:41:25.686-07:002014-03-11T19:41:25.686-07:00Pedant,
"That's the beauty of ID or crea...Pedant,<br /><br />"That's the beauty of ID or creation scenarios. They are unrestrained by testability."<br /><br />Yeah, I'm really impressed how evolution can test descent from a common ancestor. And the way they replicated the evolution of the whale, amazing.<br /><br />I know the testability of all aspects of evolution makes ID and creationism incredibly envious.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17147117524157712572014-03-11T18:25:38.654-07:002014-03-11T18:25:38.654-07:00nic: I did not misstate the argument, you did. It ...<b>nic</b>: <i>I did not misstate the argument, you did. It was you who presented the argument in isolation, so that is how I responded. </i><br /><br />You said, "Simply possessing common traits is not a solid base upon which to claim an organism as transitional." That misstates what scientists mean by transitional. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>So you keep saying, but without ever explaining how and why it is evidence for evolution only, as you have been asked to do numerous times. </i><br /><br />It's the natural and direct consequent of bifurcating descent. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>You've yet to provide an example of directly observed evolution, outside of your feeble attempt with bacteria remaining bacteria, and Sticklebacks remaining Sticklebacks. </i><br /><br />When a bacterial population garners a mutation, and that mutation becomes predominant because it confers antibiotic resistance, that is defined as evolution. We do not expect to see bacteria turning into sticklebacks. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>There is not even a large number of fossils which would lend credence to this argument, let alone a large number of sequences. </i><br /><br />You simply pretend not to see *apparent* transitions, because it would make your argument much more difficult. There are many sequences in the fossil record, including the overall fossil record. There are no mammals in the Precambrian. There can't be, because they would precede any plausible evolutionary ancestor. <br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>Centaurs and griffins never existed as natural organisms as they have no plausible evolutionary ancestors. </i><br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>Thus the irrelevancy of your question, even from the perspective of evolutionary thought. </i><br /><br />It's very relevant. You were afraid of the answer, so again, you pretend not to see. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>FINALLY! </i><br /><br />Hmm. <br /><br />Z: There are an infinitude of possible explanations for any set of facts. <br /><br />Z: No hypothetical confirmation can "prove" a theory, much less "prove" it's the only possible explanation. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>Well at least the evolutionists interpretation of the evidence. But, as we've stated many times, evidence is always filtered through one's presuppositions. </i><br /><br />Sure, but science is a way to test those presuppositions. That's the whole point. <br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>Artifacts don't arrange into a single nested hierarchy. </i><br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>This is seriously your response? I'll give you a chance to reconsider that before commenting.</i><br /><br />We've provided examples. There are many ways to arrange vehicles, books, paintings. There is only one way to reasonably arrange most organisms by trait. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>Then why are you using it as an argument? </i><br /><br />It's not that difficult. We have the nested hierarchy. We have direct observations of evolution, including the process of reproductive isolation. The theory of evolution includes all these mechanisms, and more. It's the consilience of evidence that lends confidence in the theory. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>And no, there are not an infinite number of possible explanations for any set of facts. </i><br /><br />Of course there are. Off the top, we have Last Thursdayism, Last Fridayism, Last Tuesday a Week Ago-ism. We have Vulcan buried the fossils to make it look like evolution. Loki makes up the fossils on the spot when he wants to toy with a paleontologist. <br /><br />However, the most parsimonious explanation at this point is the Theory of Evolution. But that theory is in constant flux. Today's Theory of Evolution is not Darwin's theory. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74792790074179718872014-03-11T18:00:15.597-07:002014-03-11T18:00:15.597-07:00nic: It can't, pure and simple.
It doesn'...<b>nic</b>: <i>It can't, pure and simple. </i><br /><br />It doesn't, but how can you know that an explanation of life's origins won't include an evolutionary component? Can you support that claim? <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>The problem is evolutionary algorithms assume the ability comes about by evolutionary processes. </i><br /><br />We merely assume what we already know, the existence of replicators, variation, and selection. The question is whether this will lead to the incorporation of information in response to the environment, which is does. <br /> <br /><b>nic</b>: <i>Which is itself subject to presuppositions. </i><br /><br />Sure. The experiment concerning the retardation of the pendulum not only assumed that the Earth rotated, but that Newtonian Mechanics applied. The latter had already been strongly supported, so the test was considered fairly definitive concerning the Earth's rotation. It even provided a rough measure of the Earth's oblateness. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>None of which can be claimed as exclusive evidence for evolution. </i><br /><br />You keep saying that but fail to provide an alternative model that explains the data, including the nested hierarchy, and the fossil succession. You say the nested hierarchy is also like design, but artifacts don't form a singular nested hierarchy. As for the apparently fossil succession, all you've done is cover your eyes and say you can't see it. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90268490074689693692014-03-11T17:01:42.134-07:002014-03-11T17:01:42.134-07:00nic:
None of which can be claimed as exclusive ev...nic:<br /><br /><i>None of which can be claimed as exclusive evidence for evolution. All could be evident in ID or creation scenarios.</i><br /><br />That's the beauty of ID or creation scenarios. They are unrestrained by testability.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-92060701534318335812014-03-11T14:54:19.914-07:002014-03-11T14:54:19.914-07:00Zachriel,
Nic: So, I'm right, evolution can&#...Zachriel,<br /><br />Nic: So, I'm right, evolution can't explain the origin of life.<br /><br />"Don't know that it can't."<br /><br />It can't, pure and simple. Hoping it will be able to in the future is nothing but wishful thinking. You can't even begin to make an argument that it will ever be able to do so, or how it would do so. It's whistling passed the graveyard, nothing more.<br /><br />"Evolutionary algorithms model how genomes can incorporate information from an environment."<br /><br />The problem is evolutionary algorithms assume the ability comes about by evolutionary processes. The simple fact is, you can arrive at a correct conclusion even while working with fallacious premises.<br /><br />Nic: Which is the wordy way of saying it depends on one's presuppositions.<br /><br />Zach: "In science, those presuppositions are put to the test through hypothesis-testing."<br /><br />Which is itself subject to presuppositions.<br /><br />Nic: How does that make them evidence only for evolution?<br /><br />Zach: "Adaptation and variation,... Other evidence includes the nested hierarchy and the fossil succession."<br /><br />None of which can be claimed as exclusive evidence for evolution. All could be evident in ID or creation scenarios.nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09793551026825053240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52595584272442294602014-03-11T14:24:33.773-07:002014-03-11T14:24:33.773-07:00Zachriel,
"Not in isolation. No single line ...Zachriel,<br /><br />"Not in isolation. No single line of evidence is definitive."<br /><br />I did not misstate the argument, you did. It was you who presented the argument in isolation, so that is how I responded.<br /><br />"However, the nested hierarchy strongly implies common descent,..."<br /><br />So you keep saying, but without ever explaining how and why it is evidence for evolution only, as you have been asked to do numerous times.<br /><br />"there is direct observation of evolution,..."<br /><br />You've yet to provide an example of directly observed evolution, outside of your feeble attempt with bacteria remaining bacteria, and Sticklebacks remaining Sticklebacks. You most certainly have no observable evidence to support your claim for the evolutionary development of nested hierarchies.<br /><br />"and large numbers of fossil sequences,..."<br /><br />There is not even a large number of fossils which would lend credence to this argument, let alone a large number of sequences. In the entire fossil record the percentage of vertebrate fossils which consist of more than one bone is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 0.0001%. Not at all a total on which one would want to base conclusions.<br /><br />"Centaurs and griffins never existed as natural organisms as they have no plausible evolutionary ancestors."<br /><br />Thus the irrelevancy of your question, even from the perspective of evolutionary thought.<br /><br />"However, they show the hallmark of design."<br /><br />So does any drawing of a stick man. Is it starting to sink in yet?<br /><br />nic: So how does that answer the question as to how nested hierarchies are evidence ONLY for Darwin as you continually try to argue?<br /><br />"It's not."<br /><br />FINALLY! So then I would suggest you quit pushing it on people as such.<br /><br />"However, variations of "Darwin, which is actually an entire collection of different theories, are the ones supported by the most evidence."<br /><br />Well at least the evolutionists interpretation of the evidence. But, as we've stated many times, evidence is always filtered through one's presuppositions. Except evolutionists of course, they have no presuppositions. They are 110% objective in everything they do.<br /><br />nic: That such nested hierarchies were the result of design would in no way be in conflict with the fossil record.<br /><br />Zach: "Except that our experience with design is contrary. Artifacts don't arrange into a single nested hierarchy. That's because humans mix and match."<br /><br />This is seriously your response? I'll give you a chance to reconsider that before commenting. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're trying to say, so feel free to rephrase it.<br /><br />nic: So the mutations are random with respect to fitness, how does that demonstrate common descent?<br /><br />Zach: "It doesn't."<br /><br />Then why are you using it as an argument?<br /><br />"It demonstrates random mutatino, evolutionary diversification, and selection." <br /><br />Care to explain what you mean by 'mutatino'?nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09793551026825053240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10190617440765729132014-03-11T10:41:37.522-07:002014-03-11T10:41:37.522-07:00Nic: So, I'm right, evolution can't explai...<b>Nic</b>: <i>So, I'm right, evolution can't explain the origin of life. </i><br /><br />Don't know that it can't. Evolution would probably be part of any complete explanation, but that awaits further discoveries. <br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>Proteins may not be required for the first life. </i><br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>That doesn't address my point. </i><br /><br />You said, evolution "doesn't know how proteins could self arrange to create even the simplest of organisms." As the first life many not have involved proteins, it is relevant to what you said at least. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>So your argument is an intelligently designed algorithm can demonstrate how random processes could produce new information? Interesting logic. </i><br /><br />You're confusing the model with the thing being modeled. It's like saying a computer program can't predict natural weather because the computer program is intelligently designed. Evolutionary algorithms model how genomes can incorporate information from an environment. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>Which is the wordy way of saying it depends on one's presuppositions. </i><br /><br />In science, those presuppositions are put to the test through hypothesis-testing. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>How does that make them evidence only for evolution? </i><br /><br />Okay. It seems you keep saying "evolution" when you mean common descent. Adaptation and variation are only part of the evidence for common descent. Other evidence includes the nested hierarchy and the fossil succession. <br /><br /><br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52041393905384861982014-03-10T18:10:04.766-07:002014-03-10T18:10:04.766-07:00Zachriel,
"There is no confirmed theory of a...Zachriel,<br /><br />"There is no confirmed theory of abiogenesis."<br /><br />So, I'm right, evolution can't explain the origin of life. <br /><br />"Proteins may not be required for the first life."<br /><br />That doesn't address my point. <br /><br />nic: It doesn't know where the information contained within the cells of all organisms originates. <br /><br />Zach: "While there is no complete theory of abiogenesis, evolutionary theory can account for increases in biological complexity."<br /><br />Really, how? <br /><br />nic: It doesn't know how the new information needed to drive descent from a common ancestor would arise. <br /><br />Zach: "Sure it does. Evolutionary algorithms show how information from the environment can be incorporated."<br /><br />So your argument is an intelligently designed algorithm can demonstrate how random processes could produce new information? Interesting logic.<br /><br />nic: the evidence is the same for everyone, it is only the interpretation which differs. <br /><br />Zach: "In science, interpretation has to do with how the evidence is entailed in the hypothesis."<br /><br />Which is the wordy way of saying it depends on one's presuppositions. <br /><br />nic: Adaptation and variation are not evidence for evolution, they are simply evidence for variation and adaptation. <br /><br />Zach: "Adaptation and variation are at the heart of evolutionary theory. See Darwin 1859."<br /><br />So what? How does that make them evidence only for evolution? Adaptation and variation are completely acceptable to ID and creationism. So again, how are they evidence only for evolution and not evidence for ID or creation?<br /><br />You've been asked this question several times now. All we get is the same line 'variation and adaptation are at the heart of evolutionary theory'. Do you actually ever intend to attempt an answer? Maybe you don't understand the question. If that's the case, I'll be more than happy to rephrase it. Just let me know.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85320255659363297782014-03-10T17:57:24.407-07:002014-03-10T17:57:24.407-07:00nic: Because I didn't include the words ancest...<b>nic</b>: <i>Because I didn't include the words ancestor and descendant in my reply, you assume I didn't understand your argument? OK, fine.</i><br /><br />You misstated the argument. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>Simply possessing traits similar to a supposed ancestor and traits similar to a supposed descendant, is not a solid base on which to claim an organism is {related by common descent}. </i><br /><br />Not in isolation. No single line of evidence is definitive. However, the nested hierarchy strongly implies common descent, there is direct observation of evolution, and large numbers of fossil sequences, such as the stickleback mentioned above. Darwin spent eight years studying Cirripedia, including their fossils. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>I'm still waiting for a relevant question. </i><br /><br />Everyone can see that you refused to attempt an answer to both questions. We showed that the answer is straightforward. Centaurs and griffins never existed as natural organisms as they have no plausible evolutionary ancestors. However, they show the hallmark of design. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>So how does that answer the question as to how nested hierarchies are evidence ONLY for Darwin as you continually try to argue? </i><br /><br />It's not. However, variations of "Darwin, which is actually an entire collection of different theories, are the ones supported by the most evidence. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>That such nested hierarchies were the result of design would in no way be in conflict with the fossil record. </i><br /><br />Except that our experience with design is contrary. Artifacts don't arrange into a single nested hierarchy. That's because humans mix and match. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>So the mutations are random with respect to fitness, how does that demonstrate common descent? </i><br /><br />It doesn't. It demonstrates random mutatino, evolutionary diversification, and selection. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6634130300518080642014-03-10T17:40:28.702-07:002014-03-10T17:40:28.702-07:00nic: It doesn't know how life could come from ...<b>nic</b>: <i>It doesn't know how life could come from non-life.</i><br /><br />There is no confirmed theory of abiogenesis. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>It doesn't know how proteins could self arrange to create even the simplest of organisms. </i><br /><br />Proteins may not be required for the first life. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>It doesn't know where the information contained within the cells of all organisms originates. </i><br /><br />While there is no complete theory of abiogenesis, evolutionary theory can account for increases in biological complexity. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>It doesn't know how the new information needed to drive descent from a common ancestor would arise. </i><br /><br />Sure it does. Evolutionary algorithms show how information from the environment can be incorporated. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>the evidence is the same for everyone, it is only the interpretation which differs. </i><br /><br />In science, interpretation has to do with how the evidence is entailed in the hypothesis. <br /><br /><b>nic</b>: <i>Adaptation and variation are not evidence for evolution, they are simply evidence for variation and adaptation. </i><br /><br />Adaptation and variation are at the heart of evolutionary theory. See Darwin 1859. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13916512519896888572014-03-10T15:29:38.153-07:002014-03-10T15:29:38.153-07:00Zachriel,
Nic: In evolutionary research nothing i...Zachriel,<br /><br />Nic: In evolutionary research nothing is allowed to counter the fact of evolution.<br /><br />Zach: "Sure it can. But the fact of evolution is so strongly established, that it is very unlikely based on what we know at this time."<br /><br />And just what does evolution know? <br /><br />It doesn't know how life could come from non-life. It doesn't know how proteins could self arrange to create even the simplest of organisms. It doesn't know where the information contained within the cells of all organisms originates. It doesn't know how the new information needed to drive descent from a common ancestor would arise. It can't demonstrate its supposed driving force of evolution actually functions as it imagines it does.<br /><br />I could go on, but seriously it would take a lot less time for you to try and list what evolution actually does know.<br /><br />Nic: So why are those who deny evolution wrong?<br /><br />Zach: "Because they have no argument, and no evidence."<br /><br />That's just plain hilarious for a couple of reasons.<br /><br />First, as low as I am on the totem pole of knowledge, I've presented you with numerous arguments, not one of which you've been able to counter. Not even remotely close.<br /><br />Second, the evidence is the same for everyone, it is only the interpretation which differs. That is a logical, concrete fact which evolutionists for whatever reason, either cannot or simply refuse to accept.<br /><br />"You seem to have simply redefined evolution."<br /><br />Not at all, I just don't work with a rubber ruler when it comes to definitions. Adaptation and variation are not evidence for evolution, they are simply evidence for variation and adaptation.<br /><br />Neither are extrapolation and wishful thinking just-so stories evidence for evolution. In fact, they are not evidence for anything other than an active imagination.<br /><br />"Bacteria are not all the same."<br /><br />Nope, they're not, but they are all bacteria, so you're no further ahead. But feel free to keep trying.<br /><br />"They evolve and adapt just like other organisms."<br /><br />Here we go with baseless assertions pretending to be fact based science, again. Just keep shooting BBs at the battleship. nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09793551026825053240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80876423574904618612014-03-10T15:07:11.626-07:002014-03-10T15:07:11.626-07:00Zachriel,
Nic: Simply possessing common traits is...Zachriel,<br /><br />Nic: Simply possessing common traits is not a solid base upon which to claim an organism as transitional.<br /><br />Zach:"But that's not what we said. To be called a transitional it has to exhibit traits common to both the posited ancestral group and its posited derived descendant group."<br /><br />Because I didn't include the words ancestor and descendant in my reply, you assume I didn't understand your argument? OK, fine.<br /><br />Simply possessing traits similar to a supposed ancestor and traits similar to a supposed descendant, is not a solid base on which to claim an organism is transitional.<br /><br />Are you happy now?<br /><br />Nic: I don't like repeating myself to the same person ad nauseum, so please, move on.<br /><br />Zach: "The evidence doesn't go away because you are bored with it."<br /><br />I'm not bored with the evidence, it is what it is and I have no problem with it. I'm bored with you sounding like a stuck record when you keep throwing out the same arguments when I have clearly and concisely responded showing your interpretation doesn't hold. Get the difference?<br /><br />Nic: Bring up the subject when you have even a scintilla of evidence they existed.<br /><br />"This is from the archaic period.<br />http://www.theoi.com/image/O12.3Kentauroi.jpg"<br /><br />Really? This is from the prequel period.<br />http://varezart.devianart.com/art/jar-jar-binks-171326443<br /><br />"Centaurs and griffins are chimeras, and have no plausible evolutionary ancestors. However, they have the hallmarks of design, a mix-and-match that is common among human imagination."<br /><br />A 'mix-and-match that is common among human imagination'. Yeh, that sounds like an apt description of evolutionary thought.<br /><br />"See how easy that was? What we see is that you are afraid of the answer."<br /><br />Yeah, right. I'm still waiting for a relevant question.<br /><br />Nic: And what meaning is there in hypothesizing the existence of Zeus?<br /><br />Zach: "Well, if there were an angry sky god hurling bolts of lightning, it would be nice to know."<br /><br />If there were, would it change your outlook?<br /><br />Nic: Why are nested hierarchies evidence ONLY for Darwinism?<br /><br />Zach: "We've answer this many times. There are an infinitude of possible explanations for any set of facts."<br /><br />So how does that answer the question as to how nested hierarchies are evidence ONLY for Darwin as you continually try to argue? <br /><br />And no, there are not an infinite number of possible explanations for any set of facts. <br /><br />"We'd be happy to look at alternative explanations, especially ones that are consistent with the fossil succession."<br /><br />That such nested hierarchies were the result of design would in no way be in conflict with the fossil record.<br /><br />Nic: Nested hierarchies and filing books have no relationship to one another.<br /><br />Zach:"Huh? Libraries arrange books in nested hierarchies. But they can arrange them into different yet perfectly reasonable nested hierarchies."<br /><br />How does the fact you can have a variety of hierarchies help your argument?<br /><br />Nic: Well, as they are still bacteria, it is hardly an example of intentionally repeated evolution.<br /><br />Zach: "Sure it is. It's a commonly repeated experiment showing that the mutations are random with respect to fitness."<br /><br />So the mutations are random with respect to fitness, how does that demonstrate common descent?<br />nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09793551026825053240noreply@blogger.com