Evidence For And Against Evolution

[leroy]

It is expected that you will support your assertion. It is a reasonable and valid expectation.

Imagine you are traveling across a great plain of grassland. Your point of destination is directly in front of you. There are no bushes to beat around. Just go straight to your point.

Human artifacts demonstrate human intelligence and tell us nothing about the existence of a designer. I hope that is not your argument. It is a non sequitur.

Well how do archeologists know that Neanderthals designed their own tools? Nobody has ever seen a neanderthal creating anything, so how do archeologist know?...

The answer is simple, one can infer design by just looking at the pattern

 

[leroy]

Fine-Tuned for what?


Cockroaches have lived for over 300,000,000 years; humans have been around for 100,000.

Why did the Intelligent Designer Fine Tune the Earth for cockroaches?

The FT argument states that some constants of nature have the exact values required for the formation of atoms, molecules, chemistry , stars, planets etc.

The claim is that atoms, molecules, chemestry stars etc are escential requirements for the existance of life, (both, humans and cockroaches)

The difference is that intelligent human-like life requires even more Fine Tunning than cockroaches,...... but granted a cockroache could also look at the universe and assume that it was FT for its existence. Just like your dog could erroneously conclude that your bed was created for him.

There would be controversy between cockcroaches and humans on the purpose of the designer, but there would not be controversy on the claim that the designer exists.

 

[leroy]

Which isn't the same accross species.



citation?



Let's first see you demonstrate your claim that bats and dolphines evolved a set of 200 identical genes independently from one another.

No, the claim is not that dolphins and bat's evolved 200 genes independently... These genes are present in all mammals

The claim is that bats and dolphins have the same variations of those genes, the implication is that bats and dolphins got the exact same mutations in the exact same location independently.

If 2 independent clades can have the exact same mutations in the exact same location multiple times, why can't mammals evolve Feathers independently from birds?

 

[leroy]

As I read more of this sub-discussion, it strikes me that he is not clear on the kinds of predictions that can meaningfully be made using the theory of evolution. There were reasons to predict Tiktaalik, but there is no reason to predict mammals with feathers.

I believe my initial error in answering this was in thinking more on the possibility of feather-like vestiture evolving in mammals given the right conditions as opposed to predicting finding such given reason to do so. Those are two different scenarios. We know fish existed prior to tetrapod land animals and would be the ancestral group. We know about when tetrapod land animals appear in the fossil record. The theory predicts transitionals. All the information and the prediction were available to find the fossil and they were.

Sure, but finding land tetrapods that predate tiktaalik (and all other fishapods) should count as an incorrect prediction.

 

[Polymath257]

Well I don't know exactly what you mean by "answer" but sure if someone finds a piece of pottery it would be perfectly rational to say that it was designed by an unknown individual, who used a mechanism that we don't understand yet.

And what if we see something and can't tell whether it could appear naturally or required an intelligent intervention? This is actually pretty common. For example, to determine if cracked bones were the result of ancient humans wanting to get to the marrow, or were cracked because of a random rock, or were crunched by an animal takes a fair amount of experimentation to determine the differences between the cases.

And if we ever find pottery in other planets it would be obvious that they where created by intelligent individuals, even if we don't know who the aliens, are, nor where did they come from, nor the mechanism used to create such pottery. Those questions could be left for future reaserch..... , but it would still be obvious that those pieces of pottery where created by an intelligence, regardless if we ever find an answer to those other questions.

I disagree that it would be obvious. A LOT would depend on the conditions of the world where we find the artifact.

The point is that there are objective ways to detect design, there are patterns (like those in pottery) that are better explained by design, than by natural mechanisms, agree? Yes or no

The main way to 'objectively' determine whether something was designed is to fully understand the possibilities of non-designed objects in the environment.

The FT argument simply proposes that the finely tuned pattern that we observe in the constants of nature is better explained by design than by natural mechanisms.... . In the same way pottery in other planets would be better explained by design than by natural mechanisms.

And I already gave an alternative that bests ID. But I can go further. You have to *at least* show that that the constants *can* be different than they are, that they don't *naturally* move towards the current values as an equilibrium, and that they are subject to some intelligent intervention.

Thruthfully, none of those has been demonstrated.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok but why is it that the point of equilibruim of each of the constants and initial conditions happened to be the exact values that would allow for the existence of atoms, molecules, stars, chemistry (and therefore life)?

Was this just a coincidence?

I am asking these questions because I want to understand your proposition, (just want to avoid answering with a strawman)

No, it is because those values maximize overall complexity. That, in particular, allows the formation of atoms, stars, galaxies, complex chemicals, etc.

 

[ecco]

The fact that God can do anything

Why do you call this a fact? At best it is your opinion and the belief of many people. However, many people also believe Shiva is God. Beliefs are worthless in establishing facts.

 

[ecco]

The point is that there are objective ways to detect design, there are patterns (like those in pottery) that are better explained by design, than by natural mechanisms, agree? Yes or no

Yes.

Where do you see patterns in nature "(like those in pottery)" that cannot be explained by nature alone? You don't.

If the universe is fine-tuned for human life why did it take an accidental meteor strike to make it possible for large mammals and humans to exist?

If the universe is fine-tuned for human life why do only one of eight planets in our solar system support human life?

If the universe is fine-tuned for human life why did cockroaches appear long before humans?

 

[Wandering Monk]

For that matter, even here on earth there are only a small range of environments that can support human life.

 

[ecco]

The FT argument states that some constants of nature have the exact values required for the formation of atoms, molecules, chemistry , stars, planets etc.

The claim is that atoms, molecules, chemestry stars etc are escential requirements for the existance of life, (both, humans and cockroaches)

The difference is that intelligent human-like life requires even more Fine Tunning than cockroaches,...... but granted a cockroache could also look at the universe and assume that it was FT for its existence. Just like your dog could erroneously conclude that your bed was created for him.

You completely missed the point. Perhaps that was intentional so that you didn't have to address it.

I'll try again...

Cockroaches have lived for over 300,000,000 years; humans have been around for 100,000.

Why did the Intelligent Designer Fine Tune the Earth for cockroaches?

There would be controversy between cockcroaches and humans on the purpose of the designer, but there would not be controversy on the claim that the designer exists.

Controversy? If cockroaches believed like Christian Fundamentalists, they would be correct in knowing that God looks like this...

Following your argument, you would have to agree that this is a good picture of the God who created your Finely Tuned Universe.




ETA: Viruses may object. The universe was more Finely Tuned for them than even the cockroaches. Perhaps, this is a true representation of The Creator God.

 

[Polymath257]

I think there is a distinction to be made that there is 'fine tuning' of the constants to allow for the formation of atoms, stars, etc and the much more specific claim that there is fine tuning for life or the even more specific claim that there is fine tuning for human life.

As far as I can see, there is no good evidence for fine tuning for human life. There is NOTHING in the values of the constants that dictate human life or even make it more or less probable than other life.

There is a case that can be made that there is fine tuning of the constants to allow for atoms, stars, etc. IF the constants can be different AND we have the right basic formulas, then we can say that other values for the constants might preclude, for example, a stable proton or the formation of gravitationally bound nuclear reactors (stars). Such values of the constants would clearly also preclude anything like life as we understand the concept.

It is a much more delicate claim to say that there is fine tuning for life. Again, this is far from clear since, at this point, we only know of life on one planet in the universe. If there was fine tuning on this, we would expect life to be abundant. The problem is, of course, that it might well be abundant, but we cannot as yet detect it.

But the basic problem is that we simply don't know if the constants *can* be different than they are (and if not, why not). if the current values are the only possible ones, the whole argument for an intelligence being involved goes out the window.

Furthermore, this assumes we have the right fundamental laws and that the constants we use are the appropriate one to describe those laws. So, to actually compute the resonance in beryllium and carbon that allows for the formation of C-12 *from the basic laws* is, to say the least, a complex endeavor which nobody has ever done. We simply don't know what range for the *basic* constants would allow for this resonance because the resonance itself depends on so many different parameters.

It is also possible (perhaps even likely) that, when we find more fundamental laws (like quantum gravity, say), the values of the constants we currently use will be determined by more fundamental constants and that a wide range of those more fundamental constants will give the same values for our current ones. We simply don't know.

Upshot: our ignorance is much greater than our knowledge in this. ANY conclusion at all is premature.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well how do archeologists know that Neanderthals designed their own tools? Nobody has ever seen a neanderthal creating anything, so how do archeologist know?...

The answer is simple, one can infer design by just looking at the pattern

Pattern of what? Tea leaves?

They use evidence, logic and reason. Something you seem woefully unfamiliar.

 

[Polymath257]

Well how do archeologists know that Neanderthals designed their own tools? Nobody has ever seen a neanderthal creating anything, so how do archeologist know?...

The answer is simple, one can infer design by just looking at the pattern

Let's turn it around a bit. Suppose we have something that looks like a tool and ask if the local Neanderthals could have designed it. How could we answer such a question?

Well, among other things, we can do studies, based on the bones, of range of movements, forces available, etc and we if the artifacts we see could have been formed by the allowed motions.

But, before we even consider whether the artifact was designed at all, we would first look into what sorts of artifacts occur naturally. And, while this isn't as big of a deal for Neanderthal artifacts, it *is* a big deal for earlier ancestors.

So, we find a crushed antelope skull, or we find a rock that might have been chiseled. How do we determine if the skull was intentionally crushed and if the rock was intentionally formed?

And the answer is that we *first* determine what sorts of skull crushing happens naturally (say, after death, or by wild animals eating) and what sorts of marks appear in *unintentional* modification of rocks (falling from a cliff, for example). We then do a careful analysis comparing those that are formed 'accidentally' and those that were formed 'purposefully'. Only then, can we take an artifact and say it was more likely to be intentionally formed or not.

In the case of fine tuning, however, we don't have anything to compare to. We don't have any way to play around and see what constants come about by 'natural' processes. And, in fact, we don't even know whether it is *possible* for the constants to be any other value.

So, in regards to fine tuning, we are in the situation where we see an intriguing rock, but have no way at all to see what sorts of rocks form naturally, or even if there are other ways for the rock to be formed.

If you want to make a case for fine tuning, the *first* step is to show that it is possible for the constants to be different than they are. If you manage to do that, we can *then* look at the dynamics of those changes and see what drives such changes. And only after that can we even address the question of whether an intelligence directed the changes or not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sure, but finding land tetrapods that predate tiktaalik (and all other fishapods) should count as an incorrect prediction.

That would have to be established for some logical reason and on evidence. Just because Tiktaalik represents a step does not mean it was the first to make that step or that once therapies evolved the ancestors magically died off. Fish, amphibians and reptiles represent steps to mammalian evolution, but they still exist. Finding mammals before fish would be s real problem. But finding older examples of the transition to mammals within or near strata of an age expected is likely a detail expanding the time frame of transition and not falsifying it or failing prediction.

You are desperately grasping at straws in a subject for which you clearly have no real conception.

 

[leroy]

The claim is that the existance of atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc depends on a finely tuned balance of multiple constants and initial conditions.

Then we make a second claim, and suggest that life (both humans and cockroaches) requires atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc in order to exist...... (you can't have life, if you don't atoms for example)

Do you se and understand why the cockroaches argument is a strawman?

Note that both of these claims is testable, falsifiable

If the universe is fine-tuned for human life why do only one of eight planets in our solar system support human life?

The argument does not imply that the universe is FT to maximize the number of planets with life.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The claim is that the existance of atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc depends on a finely tuned balance of multiple constants and initial conditions.

Then we make a second claim, and suggest that life (both humans and cockroaches) requires atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc in order to exist...... (you can't have life, if you don't atoms for example)

Do you se and understand why the cockroaches argument is a strawman?

Note that both of these claims is testable, falsifiable




The argument does not imply that the universe is FT to maximize the number of planets with life.

How about this: BECAUSE the constants and laws of physics are such, these thing could arise.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well how do archeologists know that Neanderthals designed their own tools? Nobody has ever seen a neanderthal creating anything, so how do archeologist know?...

The answer is simple, one can infer design by just looking at the pattern

Are you arguing that Neaderthals designed the universe? This should be good

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The claim is that the existance of atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc depends on a finely tuned balance of multiple constants and initial conditions.

Then we make a second claim, and suggest that life (both humans and cockroaches) requires atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc in order to exist...... (you can't have life, if you don't atoms for example)

Do you se and understand why the cockroaches argument is a strawman?

Note that both of these claims is testable, falsifiable




The argument does not imply that the universe is FT to maximize the number of planets with life.

How are you going to demonstrate that you have to have life if you have all these initial condtions, laws and particles? How can you show it was designed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The claim is that the existance of atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc depends on a finely tuned balance of multiple constants and initial conditions.

Then we make a second claim, and suggest that life (both humans and cockroaches) requires atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc in order to exist...... (you can't have life, if you don't atoms for example)

Do you se and understand why the cockroaches argument is a strawman?

Note that both of these claims is testable, falsifiable




The argument does not imply that the universe is FT to maximize the number of planets with life.

But that evidence would only support the existence of those constants. Nothing more. So what good is that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, the claim is not that dolphins and bat's evolved 200 genes independently... These genes are present in all mammals

The claim is that bats and dolphins have the same variations of those genes, the implication is that bats and dolphins got the exact same mutations in the exact same location independently.

If 2 independent clades can have the exact same mutations in the exact same location multiple times, why can't mammals evolve Feathers independently from birds?

So you need to demonstrate that mammals share all the genes associated with feathers in birds that are found in birds.