Darwin's Illusion

[leroy]

Your ridiculous post on a fossil rabbit in the Cambrian and your attitude concerning how evidence is handled is more than enough to document your dishonesty concerning the fact that you reject evolution. Yes, the history of your posts concerning your bogus claim of skepticism and doubt is more than enough too reinforce your rejection of evolution.

This scenario of the 'rabbit fossil' either reflects your (1) total dishonesty concerning how the falsification of hypotheses and theories in science, or your (2) Total ignorance as to how science works,
I go for #1

Methodological Naturalism is a process of falsification that has strong functional honest skepticism and is always subject to change when new information is discovered.

I simply said that a single out of place fossil wouldn’t falsify evolution, because as you said we have 200 years of cumulative evidence, and you need much, much much, more than an out of palce fossil to trump all that evidence

What is stupid about this claim?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As you can note, I have Reading comprehension problems

This is a breakthrough, Leroy. When did you learn that about yourself? If you've known that for years, perhaps you should be taking that into account when telling others what you understood them to mean. If a person is losing their hearing and is unaware of it, he may accuse others of speaking lazily. Recognizing his own contribution to the problem is the beginning of a solution - a hearing aid, and stop blaming others for them not being heard by you.

Yes I would like to learn from my mistakes

I hope you mean that. Do you think you can do that alone? I don't. I think you need to trust somebody competent to help you with that. That probably won't be me, since you consider me a liar and a deceitful debater, but then maybe you should question your judgment there as well. I'm neither of those, and I could have been a benefactor to you if you hadn't concluded that I shouldn't be trusted. And others here are equally qualified and willing to help you. But you need to recognize that you can benefit form that help and begin looking to others for helpful advice.

Ok I saw my mistake

Great. Now, extrapolate that epiphany. If you saw a mistake you made when somebody asked you to reread a passage more carefully, is that likely to be a one-off occurrence, or is that evidence that you may have that mistake other times when you didn't go back and reread more carefully? This is something that you can learn from that mistake, now that you realize you made it unwittingly and don't know how often that happens.

I wish you had commented on the rest of that piece about transforming ideas between screen and the rendering of those words in consciousness. I don't know why such ideas are of no interest to you.

It is almost as if you willingly keep your replies vague and ambiguous as part of your debate tactics

You just explained that you have trouble understanding what you read. Here would be a good place for you to apply that understanding. Is it possible that a clearly written sentence from me is made vague by your rendering of it? And if carefully rereading a passage revealed more than what what you got earlier, shouldn't

it seens that you Are rejecting the possibility of mutations being directed by an intelligence

No, I am not. My words were, "Random isn't relevant. They only need to be unplanned, undirected by an intelligence with a purpose or goal. It may be that the universe is deterministic and that nothing is random."

Reread that again more carefully, and you might see again where you saw something I didn't write. It doesn't say that the mutations cannot be the result of intelligence. If that was my meaning, my words would have begun, "They are unplanned, undirected by an intelligence ..."

having new traits every once in a while doesn’t necessarily explain why does complexity tends to increase

I told you why increasing complexity appears in evolution. Genetic changes that increase fecundity are selected for and accumulate over time. Changes that can do that are more likely to be because of some added function than to the loss of one.

What I find it perplexing is that I made it clear that I am making that assumption , so what are you arguing about?

You make nothing clear, Leroy. I was clarifying. The word random is wrong. Don't let it become a distraction. The claim is that evolution appears to be undirected by an intelligence with a plan or goal, which may be the case even if genetic changes are directed by some deterministic physical process. But if this will become a stumbling block, ignore it.

that is why there is the concept of "irreducible complexity" in organisms.

That idea isn't a consequence of Pasteur's work.

I have read assertions by believers in evolution that it is not a theory but a law.

OK. They were wrong. A law is a description of what is observed, often in mathematical form. A theory is the explanatory narrative that goes with it.

law or no law, gorillas give birth to gorillas, that seems to be rather consistent in operation

Further support for the theory. If a gorilla gave birth to anything else naturally - say a giraffe - it would falsify the theory

Regarding science, though, no proof.

Also as expected. Demonstrated correct beyond reasonable doubt is our standard for belief, and it is always at least a little bit tentative (less than certain).

 

[exchemist]

I am not saying that evolution absolutely disproves the existence of God, but I do think that atheism gained some points thanks to this theory. (specially if all the diversity of life can be explained by simple mechanisms like random mutations + natural selection)

Atheism has become more widespread partly due to the dispelling of a lot of simple myths that underpinned people's faith, certainly. But if so, that would be the fault of those religious groups that have failed to explain how the science can be consistent with religious belief, instead clinging to naïve c.19th fundamentalist interpretations of the bible that are untenable in the light of science today.

The extent to which they have failed to do this is shocking - and the consequences unsurprising. I have a personal anecdote about this which I won't bore you with now, but suffice it to say this is still too often not addressed in religious instruction for children.

 

[leroy]

This is a breakthrough, Leroy. When did you learn that about yourself? If you've known that for years, perhaps you should be taking that into account when telling others what you understood them to mean. If a person is losing their hearing and is unaware of it, he may accuse others of speaking lazily. Recognizing his own contribution to the problem is the beginning of a solution - a hearing aid, and stop blaming others for them not being heard by you.

I hope you mean that. Do you think you can do that alone? I don't. I think you need to trust somebody competent to help you with that. That probably won't be me, since you consider me a liar and a deceitful debater, but then maybe you should question your judgment there as well. I'm neither of those, and I could have been a benefactor to you if you hadn't concluded that I shouldn't be trusted. And others here are equally qualified and willing to help you. But you need to recognize that you can benefit form that help and begin looking to others for helpful advice.

Great. Now, extrapolate that epiphany. If you saw a mistake you made when somebody asked you to reread a passage more carefully, is that likely to be a one-off occurrence, or is that evidence that you may have that mistake other times when you didn't go back and reread more carefully? This is something that you can learn from that mistake, now that you realize you made it unwittingly and don't know how often that happens.

I wish you had commented on the rest of that piece about transforming ideas between screen and the rendering of those words in consciousness. I don't know why such ideas are of no interest to you.

You just explained that you have trouble understanding what you read. Here would be a good place for you to apply that understanding. Is it possible that a clearly written sentence from me is made vague by your rendering of it? And if carefully rereading a passage revealed more than what what you got earlier, shouldn't

No, I am not. My words were, "Random isn't relevant. They only need to be unplanned, undirected by an intelligence with a purpose or goal. It may be that the universe is deterministic and that nothing is random."

Reread that again more carefully, and you might see again where you saw something I didn't write. It doesn't say that the mutations cannot be the result of intelligence. If that was my meaning, my words would have begun, "They are unplanned, undirected by an intelligence ..."

I told you why increasing complexity appears in evolution. Genetic changes that increase fecundity are selected for and accumulate over time. Changes that can do that are more likely to be because of some added function than to the loss of one.

You make nothing clear, Leroy. I was clarifying. The word random is wrong. Don't let it become a distraction. The claim is that evolution appears to be undirected by an intelligence with a plan or goal, which may be the case even if genetic changes are directed by some deterministic physical process. But if this will become a stumbling block, ignore it.

That idea isn't a consequence of Pasteur's work.

OK. They were wrong. A law is a description of what is observed, often in mathematical form. A theory is the explanatory narrative that goes with it.

Further support for the theory. If a gorilla gave birth to anything else naturally - say a giraffe - it would falsify the theory

Also as expected. Demonstrated correct beyond reasonable doubt is our standard for belief, and it is always at least a little bit tentative (less than certain).

Remember I have Reading comprehension problems so please be direct.

Is there any claim made by me in this thread that you disagree with?

If yes, then quote the my claim……… and star your sentence with “I disagree because----“

 

[leroy]

Atheism has become more widespread partly due to the dispelling of a lot of simple myths that underpinned people's faith, certainly. But if so, that would be the fault of those religious groups that have failed to explain how the science can be consistent with religious belief, instead clinging to naïve c.19th fundamentalist interpretations of the bible that are untenable in the light of science today.

The extent to which they have failed to do this is shocking - and the consequences unsurprising. I have a personal anecdote about this which I won't bore you with now, but suffice it to say this is still too often not addressed in religious instruction for children.

That is the way life is,

Scientific discoveries are made all the time, sometimes this discoveries support theism, sometimes they support atheism, and sometimes they are neural.

But honestly I can´t think on any scientific discovery made in the last 100 years that supports atheism. (and many do support theism)

 

[shunyadragon]

I simply said that a single out of place fossil wouldn’t falsify evolution, because as you said we have 200 years of cumulative evidence, and you need much, much much, more than an out of palce fossil to trump all that evidence

What is stupid about this claim?

What you did was not simply single out . . . you set up a staged unrealistic situation to justify your rejection of evolution. Your supposed skepticism is a transparent bandaid to cover up your rejection of evolution.

There is no indication of what I posted that indicated much much more of whatever.

Again . . .

Methodological Naturalism is a process of falsification that has strong functional honest skepticism and is always subject to change when new information is discovered. Methodological Naturalism can only falsify a hypothesis based on objectively verifiable physical evidence.

You obviously do not accept Methodological Naturalism.

 

[shunyadragon]

That is the way life is,

Scientific discoveries are made all the time, sometimes these discoveries support theism, sometimes they support atheism, and sometimes they are neural.

I know of no scientific discoveries that support theism or atheism. Methodological Naturalism is neutral to any subjective religious belief.

Please name ONE scientific discovery that supports theism or atheism.

But honestly I can´t think on any scientific discovery made in the last 100 years that supports atheism. (and many do support theism)

Ditto above . . .

This post amplifies your religious motives concerning how view science and evolution. It also demonstrates you either (1) lack knowledge of Methodological Naturalism or you (2) misrepresent MN as in your previous bogus rabbit fossil scenario,

I bet #2

 

[exchemist]

That is the way life is,

Scientific discoveries are made all the time, sometimes this discoveries support theism, sometimes they support atheism, and sometimes they are neural.

But honestly I can´t think on any scientific discovery made in the last 100 years that supports atheism. (and many do support theism)

It is not the job of science to "support" any religious viewpoint or lack thereof. We've been over this point so many times on the forum that it should not need repeating.

However, what is important is that religious leaders take an intelligent view of developments in science and be prepared to address the questions that inevitably crop up.

As an example, when the new science of geology got started in the early c.19th (Hutton, Buckland, Lyell) this led to new information about the age of the earth. I was intrigued to read some excerpts from a series of lectures given in Rome in the 1830s or 40s by Cardinal Wiseman. He tackled head-on the new discoveries in geology and showed how they could be perfectly compatible with Christian teaching. Darwin came later of course but the same principles could be, and were, applied to his findings too. (Buckland by the way was a Church of England clergyman).

It was only later in the c.19th that some extreme Protestant sects arose that decided every word of the bible had to be taken literally at face value - which of course set them on collision course with science, thereby condemning their sects to appeal only to the ignorant and the stupid. But then, most unfortunately of all, there came an American called Andrew Dickson White, who put forward the thesis that religion and science were inherently opposed to one another: Conflict thesis - Wikipedia. While this thesis has been dismissed by most, this damaging idea must have done quite a bit to make people think they had to "take sides" - and of course the more educated people would find themselves forced to take the "side" of science.

There is a rather good summery of the history of all this, by a geologist and Anglican priest, here: https://michaelroberts4004.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/genesis-and-geology-unearthed.pdf

 

[YoursTrue]

I simply said that a single out of place fossil wouldn’t falsify evolution, because as you said we have 200 years of cumulative evidence, and you need much, much much, more than an out of palce fossil to trump all that evidence

What is stupid about this claim?

The reason some say it's stupid is twofold. One is because you said it, and another is that it disagrees perhaps with their view of science as it stands now.

 

[exchemist]

Yes. And that is why there is the concept of "irreducible complexity" in organisms.

There is no such concept in science.

This term was made up as part of the pseudoscience of "Intelligent Design", by a discredited individual called William Dembski. It has no scientific validity and was exposed as hollow in the Dover School trial, in 2005.

 

[exchemist]

Allow me to clarify. I have read assertions by believers in evolution that it is not a theory but a law. Not sure that makes a big difference to the idea about scientific concepts.

No you have not. You have almost certainly made that up. Citation required.

 

[leroy]

What you did was not simply single out . . . you set up a staged unrealistic situation to justify your rejection of evolution. Your supposed skepticism is a transparent bandaid to cover up your rejection of evolution.

There is no indication of what I posted that indicated much much more of whatever.

Again . . .

Methodological Naturalism is a process of falsification that has strong functional honest skepticism and is always subject to change when new information is discovered. Methodological Naturalism can only falsify a hypothesis based on objectively verifiable physical evidence.

You obviously do not accept Methodological Naturalism.

There is something really, really wrong with you

 

[leroy]

Please name ONE scientific discovery that supports theism or atheism.

The discovery of the Fine Tuning of the initial conditions of the universe (theism)

The theory of evolution (common ancestry) ……. atheism

 

[leroy]

It is not the job of science to "support" any religious viewpoint or lack thereof. We've been over this point so many times on the forum that it should not need repeating.

However, what is important is that religious leaders take an intelligent view of developments in science and be prepared to address the questions that inevitably crop up.

agree

 

[leroy]

There is no such concept in science.

This term was made up as part of the pseudoscience of "Intelligent Design", by a discredited individual called William Dembski. It has no scientific validity and was exposed as hollow in the Dover School trial, in 2005.

in fact the concept comes from darwin

f it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

Origin of Species Variorum

darwin-online.org.uk

Each slight modifications has to be

1 achievable in 1 generation

2 most of them have to be positive (so that NS selection can select it)……….

In my opinion, both creationists and evolutionists should remain silent on this issue,--------- nobody understands complex traits at the genetic level, so it is impossible to know if there are viable paths or not.

 

[shunyadragon]

The discovery of the Fine Tuning of the initial conditions of the universe (theism)

The theory of evolution (common ancestry) ……. atheism

Neither justifies any sort of religious belief. Though your conclusion that common descent justifies atheism reflects your rejection of evolution based on an ancient tribal religious agenda. It remains abundantly clear that any skepticism you claim amounts to rejection.

A simple Google search reveals a number of arguments for and against the fine-tuning argument

A very good argument rejecting the Theist fine-tuning argument is by Victor Stenger in a series of essays that became a book

Victor J. Stenger, The fallacy of fine tuning part - PhilPapers

The claim that certain fundamental constants of nature are fine tuned for life and that this provides strong evidence for supernatural design is perhaps the best scientific argument for the existence ...

philpapers.org

The concept of fine-tuning the nature of our physica

The fallacy of fine tuning part​

Victor J. Stenger

Abstract​

The claim that certain fundamental constants of nature are fine tuned for life and that this provides strong evidence for supernatural design is perhaps the best scientific argument for the existence of God since Paley’s watch. Even atheist physicists find these so-called “anthropic coincidences” difficult to explain and need to invoke the Weak Anthropic Principle and multiple universes to do so. Certainly, if there are many universes, fine-tuning is simple. Our form of life was fined tuned to our universe by evolution. While multiple universes are expected from modern cosmological theories, theists and some scientists object that invoking the unobservable is not science. Of course, God is unobservable too, so the best theists can claim is a standoff. This is the first in a series of columns based on a book in the works that attempt to show that the apparent fine-tuning of fundamental constants can be understood from basic physics without invoking multiple universes. In some cases the explanation is provable. In other cases, it is not provable but plausible. Fine-tuning by design is a God of the Gaps argument. The proponent has the burden if proving that no possible natural explanation can be found. Thus a plausible natural explanation is sufficient to defeat the argument. A list of thirty-four parameters that seem to be fine-tuned has been assembled by Rich Deem on the God and Science website. Several of Deem’s constants, such as the speed of light in a vacuum, c, Newton’s constant of gravity, G, and Planck’s constant, h, are just arbitrary numbers that are determined simply by the unit system you are using. They can be set equal to any number you want, except zero, with no impact on physics. So no fine-tuning can possibly be involved, just as the number p is not fine-tuned. I will focus first on the five parameters that have the most significance because, if interpreted correctly, they seem to pretty much rule out almost any conceivable kind of life without fine-tuning: · Ratio of electrons to protons · Ratio of electromagnetic force to the gravity Expansion rate of the universe · Mass density of the universe · Cosmological constant I will admit that the features a universe would have for slightly different values of these parameters, all other parameters remaining the same, would render unlikely any form of life even remotely like ours, that is, one that is based on a lengthy process, chemical or otherwise, by which complex matter evolved from simpler matter. Let me discuss each in turn, with the last, the most difficult, reserved for a future column

Existence must follow a narrowly defined set of natural laws physical. constants and natural processes for life to exist. Yes,, life cannot likely exist if the constants were much any different than they are, but we cannot determine what the possible theoretical range of natural laws and constants are beyond their present values. The Theist claim requires the assumption of an 'argument from ignorance' that because science cannot explain why the constants must be as they are, therefore God. A common fallacy of apologetic arguments that requires the assumption God exists as a premise of the argument.

No alternate explanation is more necessary other than a natural explanation. Again any hypothesis in science must be supported with objectively verifiable evidence, and none-supports fine-tuning.

I believe in God but acknowledge there is no scientific hypothesis or other fallible human apologetic argument that can prove God's existence. I believe God Created our physical existence naturally as is.

 

[shunyadragon]

in fact the concept comes from darwin

Origin of Species Variorum

darwin-online.org.uk

Charles Darwin is oldy moldy as far as the contemporary sciences of evolution. He proposed the problem of complexity over 170 years ago. Not relevant to today's science.

Each slight modifications has to be

1 achievable in 1 generation

2 most of them have to be positive (so that NS selection can select it)……….

In my opinion, both creationists and evolutionists should remain silent on this issue,--------- nobody understands complex traits at the genetic level, so it is impossible to know if there are viable paths or not.

These are not remotely have anything to do with the contemporary knowledge of the sciences of evolution. They just represent your ignorance of the science of evolution today.

Science has provided a detailed explanation of complexity throughout nature including the complexity of life.

What complexity in life can you present that science does not have an explanation for?

 

[shunyadragon]

agree

Apparently in reality you do not agree, because you are asserting that the claimed evidence of fine-tuning justifies the argument for the existence of God. Based on the basic principles of Methodological Naturalism there is no objectively verifiable evidence for the existence or the non-existence of God.

 

[exchemist]

in fact the concept comes from darwin

Origin of Species Variorum

darwin-online.org.uk

Each slight modifications has to be

1 achievable in 1 generation

2 most of them have to be positive (so that NS selection can select it)……….

In my opinion, both creationists and evolutionists should remain silent on this issue,--------- nobody understands complex traits at the genetic level, so it is impossible to know if there are viable paths or not.

Yes, IF it could be demonstrated. But it never has been and in fact could never be.

Darwin never used the term “irreducible complexity”. That was coined by those frauds at the Discovery Institute.

What you say about modifications shows you still do not understand how evolution works. Those members of a population with an advantageous trait will breed slightly more successfully, even if they are initially few in number. Over time, the proportion of the population with the trait will increase.

The process therefore does NOT rely on any particular proportion of positive traits, relative to others. You really need to grasp this simple point. Think about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

2 most of them have to be positive (so that NS selection can select it)……….

No. Only a small portion of them have to be positive. Bad ones are lost. You do not seem to understand that. They do not have to overwhelm the negative ones. The positive changes are promoted, the harmful ones are not. That is all that it takes.