75 Theses ~ Science Against Evolution

[Guy Threepwood]

The Zahtzee example was only given to demonstrate that evolution involves selection too, not just random variation.

I understand; natural selection of random variation. No analogy is perfect of course, but the example does demonstrate the principle- that probabilities and selection criteria do matter, (random variation +natural selection) in and of itself, does not necessarily equate to improved new generations, unless those numbers specifically support it.- the devil is in the details.

At one end of the scale, I probably play about 10 games of Yahtzee a week ( yup I'm pretty wild!) and of course with only 5 dice, 6 numbers and a 99.9% efficient selection system- a couple of Yahtzees is no huge surprise-

Then at the other end- Randomly mutate a percentage of the letter characters used in War & Peace. It is not impossible that the book would actually be improved. It's just so improbable, that even with a new generation of one million variations, even if the very best is selected to be copied, it will most likely be inferior to the original, not superior. and so on with every generation.

Where does life, digital genetic code fit into this spectrum? I'd argue that a mere book is selling it a little short, but that's the debatable part, and something Darwin could not dream of. But in every analogy; Yahtzee, books, life, cars, software- It's a question of information systems, something we are just beginning to grapple with at the dawn of the information age, - there is no easy answer these days unless we revert back to a Victorian age model where protoplasm simply does it's thing, by some presumably simple process.

There is no predetermined goal in evolution. The mutation/variation is random but the success of that mutation depends on the ability of that mutant to breed and pass the gene on. That's why the car analogy fails because their design is to a large extent predetermined.

well you make the point, that nature is at a disadvantage here, it has a far inferior selection method. We can test, review, and model outcomes of new automobile technology. All things being even- a .01% improvement in fuel efficiency CAN be selected for right? and WILL be passed onto new generations of designs

But the car/life analogy REMOVED these predetermined design goals, purely random changes, which must then go on to prove themselves in the field.. a consumer will never notice the .01% improvement, it will NOT be selected for, unless it is a very significant improvement. So too with life if you remove the goals

The photocopy analogy falls down because the copies will always deteriorate/distort i.e. more blurred or whatever the fault is, a photocopier cannot improve a picture's quality. - in evolutionary term they would not succeed and be discarded and die out

So that would be my point also, with a master copy to revert to, plus some random variation within specifically supported variable parameters (what day this year's Christmas party falls on) you have a pretty good Yahtzee like chance of success.

So too with life, a master plan + variable parameters for things like overall size, hair length. color- + natural selection- that works fine.



In all the above examples- the objective test lies within in the laws of pure mathematics, it applies to everything, life is not excepted

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No "predetermined design goal" is necessary. One must remember that we are dealing with populations that will always have a range in traits. For example if the climate changes and cools off those individuals that are more fit to a cooler climate will be more likely to pass on their genes. As a result fur may get thicker and thicker. If the opposite occurs traits for less fur may be selected. Given a population with variation natural selection is all the designer that is needed for evolution to occur.

It's all that is needed for adaptation to occur, and this holds up perfectly well in the car analogy also- see above- random paint colors being naturally selected, producing adaptation in northern and southern states- that works fine.

A capacity for adaptation is practically a given for any reasonably sophisticated design, it's hard to imagine why life would or could NOT have the same capacity.

but tweaking paint color parameters can never produce the very system that supports that adaptation- it's a limited design feature, not a comprehensive design method- two completely different things-
and why the fossil record of cars and life shows the same thing, distinct jumps, gaps, with limited superficial variation within the otherwise fairly static state of the design at any time

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's all that is needed for adaptation to occur, and this holds up perfectly well in the car analogy also- see above- random paint colors being naturally selected, producing adaptation in northern and southern states- that works fine.

A capacity for adaptation is practically a given for any reasonably sophisticated design, it's hard to imagine why life would or could NOT have the same capacity.

but tweaking paint color parameters can never produce the very system that supports that adaptation- it's a limited design feature, not a comprehensive design method- two completely different things-
and why the fossil record of cars and life shows the same thing, distinct jumps, gaps, with limited superficial variation within the otherwise fairly static state of the design at any time

No, people have gone over why your car analogy failed. And trying to make a distinction between adaption and evolution is not proper. You need to be able to support that claim. If you want to claim that there is some limit the burden of proof is upon you to identify that limit and to find evidence for it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, people have gone over why your car analogy failed. And trying to make a distinction between adaption and evolution is not proper. You need to be able to support that claim. If you want to claim that there is some limit the burden of proof is upon you to identify that limit and to find evidence for it.

Well there are three corroborating lines of evidence that make this distinction quite clearly

Theoretical/mathematical
Empirical/demonstrable
and the physical historical record

Each of course gets into some depth, but very briefly

This forum software allows for adaptation- you can alter the size, shape and color of the text, there are specific parameters that allow for this within specified limits of operation
So too for life, control genes allow for what you yourself gave in an example of 'evolution' whereby sheep with thicker wool may survive a harsher winter to procreate more.

If you understand why you cannot ever author this software, or create a new one, by fiddling with the text parameters- then you understand the problem of extrapolating micro adaptation to macroevolution- it runs into exactly the same paradox, as did trying to explain gravity with classical physics, again the math is objective here- no matter what appears intuitive to our anthropomorphic biases

Empirically: this is also well supported in direct experimentation; bacteria, fruit flies, dogs, to give just 3 common examples, remain so within their strict limits of adaptation-

The fossil record also matches this, gaps which were once assumed to be artifacts of an incomplete record, are now increasingly accepted as real. leaving only very limited variation in adaptation actually being recorded



So adaptation is what we can unambiguously observe, record, repeat, and model.

Macro evolution, we simply cannot, it does not enjoy the level of scientific validation that adaptation does, so there is far more burden of proof required there

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well there are three corroborating lines of evidence that make this distinction quite clearly

Theoretical/mathematical
Empirical/demonstrable
and the physical historical record

Each of course gets into some depth, but very briefly

This forum software allows for adaptation- you can alter the size, shape and color of the text, there are specific parameters that allow for this within specified limits of operation
So too for life, control genes allow for what you yourself gave in an example of 'evolution' whereby sheep with thicker wool may survive a harsher winter to procreate more.

If you understand why you cannot ever author this software, or create a new one, by fiddling with the text parameters- then you understand the problem of extrapolating micro adaptation to macroevolution- it runs into exactly the same paradox, as did trying to explain gravity with classical physics, again the math is objective here- no matter what appears intuitive to our anthropomorphic biases

Empirically: this is also well supported in direct experimentation; bacteria, fruit flies, dogs, to give just 3 common examples, remain so within their strict limits of adaptation-

The fossil record also matches this, gaps which were once assumed to be artifacts of an incomplete record, are now increasingly accepted as real. leaving only very limited variation in adaptation actually being recorded



So adaptation is what we can unambiguously observe, record, repeat, and model.

Macro evolution, we simply cannot, it does not enjoy the level of scientific validation that adaptation does, so there is far more burden of proof required there

Let's deal with one claim at a time. What "gaps"? There has been a tendency for the gaps to grow smaller and smaller. The evolution of mammals is well understood and continually growing clearer. I have been following a series of Aron Ra where he covers our evolutionary path. Here is the first in what is now a series of 17 with more coming:

And here is the most recent. He is up to therapsids:

 

[Darkstorn]

Macro evolution, we simply cannot, it does not enjoy the level of scientific validation that adaptation does, so there is far more burden of proof required there

You saying that in every single thread about the subject doesn't actually make it true.

You are merely failing to differentiate between your subjective view and objective facts: You think they are one and the same. But really, at best that claim right there is wishful thinking, and talking about burden of proof, seeing as you're making the claim here and have failed to support it, the burden of proof is on you.

Show us that "macro evolution" does not enjoy the level of scientific validation that adaptation does.

If you understand why you cannot ever author this software, or create a new one, by fiddling with the text parameters- then you understand the problem of extrapolating micro adaptation to macroevolution- it runs into exactly the same paradox, as did trying to explain gravity with classical physics, again the math is objective here- no matter what appears intuitive to our anthropomorphic biases

What paradox is that exactly? I mean, you say there's a paradox. Can you show it too?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Let's deal with one claim at a time. What "gaps"? There has been a tendency for the gaps to grow smaller and smaller. The evolution of mammals is well understood and continually growing clearer. I have been following a series of Aron Ra where he covers our evolutionary path. Here is the first in what is now a series of 17 with more coming:

And here is the most recent. He is up to therapsids:

In Darwin's time, the gaps were believed to be artifacts of an incomplete record, which would be filled in as new fossils were discovered.

In contrast, the gaps have become ever more well defined, explosive, abrupt- hence the emergence of Darwinian splinter groups like punctuated equilibrium

the length of TIME remaining available in these gaps, for major transitions to occur, has kept shrinking yes, but this certainly does not support Darwinian beliefs

 

[Subduction Zone]

In Darwin's time, the gaps were believed to be artifacts of an incomplete record, which would be filled in as new fossils were discovered.

And to quite a large degree that has happened. So it seems so far you are saying that Darwin was right.

In contrast, the gaps have become ever more well defined, explosive, abrupt- hence the emergence of Darwinian splinter groups like punctuated equilibrium

No, that is pure nonsense on your part. What "gaps" do you think still remain? You appear to be like many creationists that when a transitional fossil is found they only claim that there are two more gaps.

the length of TIME remaining available in these gaps, for major transitions to occur, has kept shrinking yes, but this certainly does not support Darwinian beliefs

And the "gaps" have kept shrinking too. Can you support your claims with any legitimate sources? I seriously doubt if you can.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And to quite a large degree that has happened. So it seems so far you are saying that Darwin was right.


No, that is pure nonsense on your part. What "gaps" do you think still remain? You appear to be like many creationists that when a transitional fossil is found they only claim that there are two more gaps
.
And the "gaps" have kept shrinking too. Can you support your claims with any legitimate sources? I seriously doubt if you can.

“We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.”
-- David M. Raup

(Paleontologist and Curator of the Chicago Field Museum)

 

[Subduction Zone]

“We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.”
-- David M. Raup

(Paleontologist and Curator of the Chicago Field Museum)

Sorry quotes by creationists without links to valid sources are worthless. Since he is obviously wrong your claim is worthless anyway:

This article goes into more detail for you:

Transitional Fossils Are Not Rare

The number of transitional fossils are almost endless. in fact almost all fossils can be shown to be transitional between two species. The lack of them makes the phrase of little value these days. There may be specific transitions where fossils might be hard to find, but so many have been found that there is no doubt about the theory any longer. And that is only one form of evidence for the theory of evolution. Meanwhile there is no scientific evidence for creationism.

 

[SkepticThinker]

“We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.”
-- David M. Raup

(Paleontologist and Curator of the Chicago Field Museum)

Still trying to pass of this quote mine, eh? Have you no shame?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still trying to pass of this quote mine, eh? Have you no shame?

It looked like a quote mine the second that I saw it. I can see that he has not supported it yet.


I think that there should be a rule that when quoting someone from the other side to support oneself that a link to a valid source must be given. That means an original source where the quote can be read in context. I can quote mine the Bible twelve different times and get it to say "There is no God". That would not be an honest technique if I was serious and did not at the very least list chapter and verse. Of course once that is done the dishonesty of the quote comes shining through.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It looked like a quote mine the second that I saw it. I can see that he has not supported it yet.

He's been trying to pass it off since I started coming to this board a couple of years ago. He tries it out in pretty much every thread where evolution is mentioned. Over and over, as though he's never been called on it a thousand times before.

I think that there should be a rule that when quoting someone from the other side to support oneself that a link to a valid source must be given. That means an original source where the quote can be read in context. I can quote mine the Bible twelve different times and get it to say "There is no God". That would not be an honest technique if I was serious and did not at the very least list chapter and verse. Of course once that is done the dishonesty of the quote comes shining through.

I like that idea. Because like you say, anybody can quote anything in such a way that it says what they want it to, and without proper citation, we're pretty much just taking their word for it.
Not to mention that some people don't seem to understand what a quote mine is in the first place.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It looked like a quote mine the second that I saw it. I can see that he has not supported it yet.


I think that there should be a rule that when quoting someone from the other side to support oneself that a link to a valid source must be given. That means an original source where the quote can be read in context. I can quote mine the Bible twelve different times and get it to say "There is no God". That would not be an honest technique if I was serious and did not at the very least list chapter and verse. Of course once that is done the dishonesty of the quote comes shining through.

He's been trying to pass it off since I started coming to this board a couple of years ago. He tries it out in pretty much every thread where evolution is mentioned. Over and over, as though he's never been called on it a thousand times before.


I like that idea. Because like you say, anybody can quote anything in such a way that it says what they want it to, and without proper citation, we're pretty much just taking their word for it.
Not to mention that some people don't seem to understand what a quote mine is in the first place.

Just to clear up any confusion you may have about the context, here is the entire paragraph, which goes on to state the point more clearly. the originally quoted parts underlined/

As you can see there is no conflict in context.


Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.

some people don't seem to understand what a quote mine is in the first place.

anything that doesn't support Darwinism?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just to clear up any confusion you may have about the context, here is the entire paragraph, which goes on to state the point more clearly. the originally quoted parts underlined/

As you can see there is no conflict in context.


Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.



anything that doesn't support Darwinism?

On a Common Creationist Quotation of Dr. David M. Raup

 

[Guy Threepwood]

On a Common Creationist Quotation of Dr. David M. Raup

from your site

" The paper is about Darwin's mechanism of natural selection and whether this mechanism is reflected in pattern of the fossil record"

Exactly- and that was the context I was quoting it in- Raup is as credible as sources get and his position is crystal clear "we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection."

"not whether there is a lack of evidence for common descent. From the beginning of the article:"

fine, that's not what I was disputing, nor does intelligent design

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just to clear up any confusion you may have about the context, here is the entire paragraph, which goes on to state the point more clearly. the originally quoted parts underlined/

As you can see there is no conflict in context.


Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.



anything that doesn't support Darwinism?

Oh my Gawd!! So you did not even understand your more in context quote. Did you not read what it said about horse evolution? Horse evolution is very well understood. The original explanation was oversimplified and therefore wrong. Now there are over 40 species of horse ancestors and their relatives. The number of transitional fossils is almost endless today.

But then you probably do not know what a transitional fossil is in the first place. Your source was simply wrong about their being fewer transitional. That was based upon a rather odd definition of what a transitional fossil is. We did not lose any. He is simply wrong in that claim.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh my Gawd!! So you did not even understand your more in context quote. Did you not read what it said about horse evolution? Horse evolution is very well understood. The original explanation was oversimplified and therefore wrong. Now there are over 40 species of horse ancestors and their relatives. The number of transitional fossils is almost endless today.

But then you probably do not know what a transitional fossil is in the first place. Your source was simply wrong about their being fewer transitional. That was based upon a rather odd definition of what a transitional fossil is. We did not lose any. He is simply wrong in that claim.

Fine, you can argue that a highly esteemed paleontologist, curator of the Chicago Field Museum was 'simply wrong'. I don't take academic credentials as ultimate authority either, but Raup was not just any old academic, safe to say he was far more knowledgeable on this subject than any of us here

I agree with his approach that it all comes down to the math, like everything else- it's the only objective measure free from our intuitive biases and significant amounts of passion for Darwinism as seen in this thread

[David Raup became one of the world's most renowned paleontologists not by excavating dinosaur bones but by using computers, math and statistics to study evolution and extinction. Former University of Chicago professor and Curator and Dean of the Field Museum of Natural History

Have you ever visited the Field museum? I use to live quite nearby and did so many times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fine, you can argue that a highly esteemed paleontologist, curator of the Chicago Field Museum was 'simply wrong'. I don't take academic credentials as ultimate authority either, but Raup was not just any old academic, safe to say he was far more knowledgeable on this subject than any of us here

[David Raup became one of the world's most renowned paleontologists not by excavating dinosaur bones but by using computers, math and statistics to study evolution and extinction. Former University of Chicago professor and Curator and Dean of the Field Museum of Natural History

Have you ever visited the Field museum? I use to live quite nearby and did many times.

Not that particular museum, but yes, I have been to a few in my lifetime. By the way, where was the link? Without a link to a valid source it is still a worthless quote. He may have gone on to explain in more depth what he meant there. So without a link to the original source you have nothing.

Your problem is that you may not realize what a transitional species is. In your own words do you think that you can define one?

 

[Altfish]

“We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.”
-- David M. Raup

(Paleontologist and Curator of the Chicago Field Museum)

This is a well known Creationist quote mine (i.e. Breaking the 9th Commandment)

See the full quote and an explanation here...
David Raup - RationalWiki