Atheists watch Ray Comfort's "Evolution vs God"

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't know what you mean by institution and I don't know what you are implying beyond that. Can you re-state your point? Or was it just a comment?

We have to make a distinction between the method and the label, fact v opinion, truth v institutionalized consensus, since they are so often diametrically opposed throughout history.

[Science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact (Mark Twain)

 

[Yorutenchi]

We have to make a distinction between the method and the label, fact v opinion, truth v institutionalized consensus, since they are so often diametrically opposed throughout history.

[Science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact (Mark Twain)

Then to be clear the method of testing and evidence gathering for evolution is in fact relevant and double checked. And evolution has moved from the realm of opinion and conjecture to scientific fact after such repeated evidences have amassed and verified.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Then to be clear the method of testing and evidence gathering for evolution is in fact relevant and double checked. And evolution has moved from the realm of opinion and conjecture to scientific fact after such repeated evidences have amassed and verified.

Classical physics was a fact also, and it was far more directly observable and testable than evolution ever was, so much so it was considered 'immutable law'

We can't repeat and measure a cell spontaneously morphing into a human, by accidental improvements , that is inherently a matter of conjecture. And one most people are skeptical of

 

[Yorutenchi]

Classical physics was a fact also, and it was far more directly observable and testable than evolution ever was, so much so it was considered 'immutable law'

We can't repeat and measure a cell spontaneously morphing into a human, by accidental improvements , that is inherently a matter of conjecture. And one most people are skeptical of

Classical physics still exist. We just know more about physics. Same with biology. Darwin had a simple theory of evolution. Most of what he had was wrong. We do change over time but how it changes over time has changed fundamentally in our understanding. I would say evolution has undergone just as much change and adaptation as classical physics. Thus we have a better understanding of both now.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Classical physics still exist. We just know more about physics. Same with biology. Darwin had a simple theory of evolution. Most of what he had was wrong. We do change over time but how it changes over time has changed fundamentally in our understanding. I would say evolution has undergone just as much change and adaptation as classical physics. Thus we have a better understanding of both now.

Classical physics fundamentally failed to account for physical reality as was claimed, the universe would collapse into it's simplest state under such simple laws

So too I would say with classical evolution today, 'random mutation and natural selection' and for the same reason: Entropy, life, like matter, requires specific instructions/blueprints to predetermine specific functional outcomes-

not merely simple laws and random actions- these are two diametrically opposed views.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Classical physics fundamentally failed to account for physical reality as was claimed, the universe would collapse into it's simplest state under such simple laws

So too I would say with classical evolution today, 'random mutation and natural selection' and for the same reason: Entropy, life, like matter, requires specific instructions/blueprints to predetermine specific functional outcomes-

not merely simple laws and random actions- these are two diametrically opposed views.

Wrong. Classical physics is still what we use today in most building techniques and in engineering. It is still used and relevant. It works and is "correct" on our level. However in extremes it does not. Evolution as its simple construct by Darwin cannot account for life as it is. However the current theory of evolution can. You are talking about the past and it has already evolved. You seem to think that there is going to be something new pop out of evolution and evolution will be thrown away. This is wrong. Evolution is correct and we know this. Evolution will continue to be understood more and more and perhaps mechanics can be found deeper in evolution but it will still be evolution.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Wrong. Classical physics is still what we use today in most building techniques and in engineering. It is still used and relevant. It works and is "correct" on our level. However in extremes it does not. Evolution as its simple construct by Darwin cannot account for life as it is. However the current theory of evolution can. You are talking about the past and it has already evolved. You seem to think that there is going to be something new pop out of evolution and evolution will be thrown away. This is wrong. Evolution is correct and we know this. Evolution will continue to be understood more and more and perhaps mechanics can be found deeper in evolution but it will still be evolution.

in extremes it does not work-- and in the fundamental basis of physical reality it does not,

Classical physics was thrown out as even a basic explanation for physical reality- it is merely a superficial observation - a result of physical reality- not an explanation for it- two fundamentally different things.

As far as semantics go, sure- if/when we discover the pre-existing information that specifically predetermined humanity's existence, just as they were discovered for the elements of life itself, doubtless some people will still call that 'evolution'.

Just as some people still call record cold and snow 'global warming'

But it will be a fundamentally opposed reality than that most evolutionists believe now- i.e. accidental design improvements

 

[Yorutenchi]

in extremes it does not work-- and in the fundamental basis of physical reality it does not,

Classical physics was thrown out as a comprehensive explanation for physical reality- it is merely a superficial observation - a result of physical reality- not an explanation for it- two fundamentally different things.

As far as semantics go, sure- if/when we discover the pre-existing information that specifically predetermined humanity's existence, just as they were discovered for the elements of life itself, doubtless some people will still call that 'evolution'.

Just as some people still call record cold and snow 'global warming'

But it will be a fundamentally opposed reality than that most evolutionists believe now- i.e. accidental design improvements

All physics is a result of physical reality. No physics that we can observe is an objective law of the universe. This is true for all portions of physics. QM fails to fundamentally explain reality. So does relativity.

My question is why you think we will discover per-existing information about predetermined humanity? A hunch? That is no different than saying that one will probably find evidence of unicorns. If there is evendence then science will follow what has the greatest evidence. At this time ID does not have it.

And you're also anti-global warming? Are you anti-vaccination as well?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

All physics is a result of physical reality. No physics that we can observe is an objective law of the universe. This is true for all portions of physics. QM fails to fundamentally explain reality. So does relativity.

My question is why you think we will discover per-existing information about predetermined humanity? A hunch? That is no different than saying that one will probably find evidence of unicorns. If there is evendence then science will follow what has the greatest evidence. At this time ID does not have it.

And you're also anti-global warming? Are you anti-vaccination as well?

Because classical physics and classical evolution have much in common

They are both intuitive, attractive, elegant, comprehensive and satisfying explanations for one of life's great questions. And that was/is also their downfall: in a word: entropy.
Simple laws = simple results.

Classical physics was also championed by atheists for making God 'redundant' as a complete explanation for physical reality.
Only the ignorant masses believed there must be more deep, mysterious, unpredictable forces guiding the world. (No coincidence Planck was a skeptic of atheism.)
This ideological aspect is multiplied many times for evolution. I think science should be dispassionate about the implications of it's conclusions, and that's not the case here.

One reason I trust science the method far more than science the academic opinion.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Because classical physics and classical evolution have much in common

They are both intuitive, attractive, elegant, comprehensive and satisfying explanations for one of life's great questions. And that was/is also their downfall: in a word: entropy.
Simple laws = simple results.

Classical physics was also championed by atheists for making God 'redundant' as a complete explanation for physical reality.
Only the ignorant masses believed there must be more deep, mysterious, unpredictable forces guiding the world. (No coincidence Planck was a skeptic of atheism.)
This ideological aspect is multiplied many times for evolution. I think science should be dispassionate about the implications of it's conclusions, and that's not the case here.

One reason I trust science the method far more than science the academic opinion.

Another thing they both have in common is that they are no longer taught in science class as the end all fact of the day. Modern physics and modern evolution are taught with a deeper understanding and supporting evidences.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Another thing they both have in common is that they are no longer taught in science class as the end all fact of the day. Modern physics and modern evolution are taught with a deeper understanding and supporting evidences.

classical evolution still teaches that the improvements in design are coming from random mutations does it not?

 

[Yorutenchi]

classical evolution still teaches that the improvements in design are coming from random mutations does it not?

No. That was never part of classical evolution. That is part of modern evolution because we now KNOW that we have random mutations, have observed random mutations and know how they are formed and more or less why they are formed. That is a modern theory. It is not an out-dated classical notion as it did not exist during that time.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No. That was never part of classical evolution. That is part of modern evolution because we now KNOW that we have random mutations, have observed random mutations and know how they are formed and more or less why they are formed. That is a modern theory. It is not an out-dated classical notion as it did not exist during that time.

Is that the royal 'we'? or academics? certainly not the majority of free thinking people

academics once KNEW solar systems, elements necessary for life, just happened to form by matter randomly knocking about, no deeper mathematical information specific to those very ends.

For most academics, evolution is still languishing in it's classical era, was the point of the analogy.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Is that the royal 'we'? or academics? certainly not the majority of free thinking people

academics once KNEW solar systems, elements necessary for life, just happened to form by matter randomly knocking about, no deeper mathematical information specific to those very ends.

For most academics, evolution is still languishing in it's classical era, was the point of the analogy.

What is a "free thinker"?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What is a "free thinker"?

Not bound by academic consensus

 

[Yorutenchi]

Not bound by academic consensus

Opinionated non-academic and non accredited individuals?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Opinionated non-academic and non accredited individuals?

well as before, when it came to many big questions, creation v static universe, classical physics v unpredictable forces, non -academics have a pretty decent track record- credit where it's due

because the whole point of science is NOT having to take someone elses word for it. Especially those who claim that ironic authority over science
It's obviously not a black and white distinction, but two ends of the scale;
Someone with no personal practical knowledge, purely academic, who unquestioningly accepts evolution 'cause it's on the national curriculum, and has the label 'science' stamped on it by the government- is not a free thinker.

Someone who is say, a top neurosurgeon, who has successfully pioneered many procedures never before attempted, who's personal understanding of biology saves lives every day- and thinks evolution is nonsense regardless of academic consensus, is a free thinker.
He judges on the weight of evidence he sees for himself, not the weight of opinions of others.

 

[dust1n]

"Let’s make a drawing of this idea. First, the idea of gradual constant change(*) is shown schematically in the following figure:

The original ancestor species is represented by individuals of red color in the above figure. Each individual gives birth to another individual, represented by the next little black line under the colored strip. Each descendant differs from its parent (in color in this figure, but in physical traits in reality), but the difference is so tiny that we cannot notice it merely by looking at the parent and the child. However, looking at a sufficiently distant descendant (green color) over a long period of time we can see that there is a definite difference (red vs. green) between original ancestor and distant descendant.

But, as I said, this view is most likely wrong. The following figure seems to be a more accurate representation of reality:

The difference in the above figure is that the change is relatively abrupt. The word “relatively” in this context is important. The individuals shown in orange, yellow, and lime in the figure (labeled as “individuals making up transitional species”) might have lived for several thousand years. However, the entire colored strip from left (red) to right (green) is supposed to have lasted for tens of millions of years, or more. Thus, the transitional species are represented by a very narrow piece of time on the strip. Therein lies the first reason of the fossil record appearing as having gaps. Because, suppose that you can take a few random snapshots within this time interval, represented by the black vertical lines on the following strip (assume each black line is a fossil):

As you see, the snapshots (fossils), being random and sparse, “missed” the transitional species (orange, yellow, and lime) entirely. In reality, the reader should imagine a much narrower interval of time for transitional species than the one shown above, and a sparser set of fossil snapshots. (*) then the transitional period would be only five thousandths of the entire length; it would take a width of only about two pixels to represent it in the above figure. Imagine having to “hit” that kind of interval in your sample of fossils. It is in this sense that we say that species evolve to other species “abruptly”: not literally abruptly (not from parent to child, of course, as Lamarck thought), but so fast that when seen from a faraway perspective the transitional period almost vanishes, and the change appears as if it is abrupt."

According to Richard Cowen (in History of Life) the majority of animal species living now are unlikely ever to leave fossils, since they are soft-bodied invertebrates such as worms and slugs. Consider that of the more than 30 phyla of living animals, two-thirds of these have never been found as fossils! For all the above reasons, transition from “red” to “green” might happen, as in the previous figures, but if none of the “yellow”, etc., transitional individuals fossilized, then the change went undocumented in the fossil record. No matter how hard we dig, a transitional individual will not be unearthed, because none is there to be found. In that case it is not the paleontologist’s ax, but nature itself that “missed” recording the transition...

(After looking at Fish->Amphibian fossils in the link)

Putting now the above-mentioned fossils onto the colored strip that was shown earlier, we obtain roughly the following diagram:

So we see that in the case of the fish-to-amphibian transition we were lucky enough to have found just the right kind of fossils that document precisely that transition. Naturally, the search is not over, so the collection keeps being enriched, decade after decade.

http://www.foundalis.com/bio/evo/evolution_and_gaps_in_fossil_record.htm

 

[Yorutenchi]

well as before, when it came to many big questions, creation v static universe, classical physics v unpredictable forces, non -academics have a pretty decent track record- credit where it's due

To be fair, they don't have a track record at all. OF anything.

because the whole point of science is NOT having to take someone elses word for it. Especially those who claim that ironic authority over science
It's obviously not a black and white distinction, but two ends of the scale;
Someone with no personal practical knowledge, purely academic, who unquestioningly accepts evolution 'cause it's on the national curriculum, and has the label 'science' stamped on it by the government- is not a free thinker.

Someone who is say, a top neurosurgeon, who has successfully pioneered many procedures never before attempted, who's personal understanding of biology saves lives every day- and thinks evolution is nonsense regardless of academic consensus, is a free thinker.
He judges on the weight of evidence he sees for himself, not the weight of opinions of others.

We only ever know things through the lens of science or reason. Non academics may have been lucky and right about a few things but so many more have been wrong. They didn't do anything to further the knowledge that was gained by actual academics to verify it as knoweldge.

 

[KBC1963]

That is part of modern evolution because we now KNOW that we have random mutations, have observed random mutations and know how they are formed and more or less why they are formed.

I have always loved these type of statements.
Can you show how a random mutation is indeed random?
What test by scientific method has shown that random is correctly being assert for the changes being observed?