Enough Time for Evolution?

[Enai de a lukal]

Comparing proponents of ID to geocentrists is itself a form of ridicule.

Maybe, but that's irrelevant. The real question is whether the comparison is warranted- and no, it isn't, because geocentrism at least seemed reasonable based on a limited amount of data and certain basic metaphysical suppositions which were more or less inescapable to ancient man.

In other words, the comparison isn't fair to geocentrists...

The theory of Macro-evolution lacks evidence to support it, relying instead on speculation, bluster, and a fervent adherence to the theory that seems religious faith to me.

The opposite of what you just said is the case. Here's some pretty solid evidence for macroevolution.

 

[Shermana]

It's shallow, crude & uncivil posts like this one which point to the need for a creationism DIR.
They should ban that guy for a week or so.

Seriously, that guy is quite revolting! So revolting however, that he makes other true scotsmen look like fake ones. But banning might be a bit too extreme, I hear he suffers from multiple personality disorder, so we should be considerate!

 

[Alceste]

Did you not read what I said about "I should have said chimp-thing" or "ape"? I usually say Chimp-thing when discussing this as I've argued in several creation debates. I am well aware that Chimps are considered a close relative, not a direct ancestor. The one time I forget, it obviously creates an easy hole to escape from the issues at stake and focus on me instead. From now on though I will be careful to add "thing" to make sure people don't harp on that as a way of sliding out of the argument with what is essentially ad-hominem.

It's amazing the excuses people will look for to avoid any semblance of debating.

So, 12 pages, nothing that actually addresses specifically what's been at stake, and the one attempt to do so at least admits they didn't read correctly what they thought omitted something. That's at least a start.

It wasn't a chimp, or an ape, or an ape-like thing. WE ARE apes. We are not "descended" from apes.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It wasn't a chimp, or an ape, or an ape-like thing. WE ARE apes. We are not "descended" from apes.

Yeah, but have you ever seen an ape give birth to a dog?

Evolution loses again.

 

[rusra02]

Is it, though? What does the Bible even attempt to say about biology?

It answers questions the ToE cannot. How life on earth began, for example. And where and when and how humankind began.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It answers questions the ToE cannot. How life on earth began, for example. And where and when and how hi,a kind began.

Just like Rudyard Kipling's Just So Stories answers questions the bible can't. How the leopard got his spots, for example. And, how the camel got his hump.

 

[rusra02]

Maybe, but that's irrelevant. The real question is whether the comparison is warranted- and no, it isn't, because geocentrism at least seemed reasonable based on a limited amount of data and certain basic metaphysical suppositions which were more or less inescapable to ancient man.

In other words, the comparison isn't fair to geocentrists...


The opposite of what you just said is the case. Here's some pretty solid evidence for macroevolution.

Speculation and bluster, not evidence.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Speculation and bluster, not evidence.

Either you didn't follow the link, or you call any scientific data "speculation and bluster" because the page included a wide array of genetic, geological, anatomical and other varieties of scientific evidence for macroevolution.

Oh wait, you don't believe in evolution because of your religious commitment, not because of any assessment of the evidence, therefore you're obligated to claim that the (preponderance of) evidence is not "really" evidence.

My bad, I forgot how this whole creationism sham works.

 

[LuisDantas]

It answers questions the ToE cannot. How life on earth began, for example. And where and when and how humankind began.

I suppose it does provide some answers to the satisfaction of some people.

But what I asked was what it says about biology. If it is supposed to refute the ToE, is must have something to say about biology, after all.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It answers questions the ToE cannot.

And cannot answer questions the ToE can.

How life on earth began, for example. And where and when and how humankind began.

Oh yeah, and it begs a whole batch of new questions, which do not arise in relation to evolutionary theory.

 

[LuisDantas]

Speculation and bluster, not evidence.

If you truly find that "speculation and bluster" while symultaneously claiming that the Bible has answers "that the ToE can not provide", it becomes real hard to care about what you think about the ToE. It is rather obvious that you simply will not care for the actual evidence, and what is the point in giving you something that is anathema to you?

 

[rusra02]

I suppose it does provide some answers to the satisfaction of some people.

But what I asked was what it says about biology. If it is supposed to refute the ToE, is must have something to say about biology, after all.

Isn't explaining how plants, animals and man came into existence biology?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Isn't explaining how plants, animals and man came into existence biology?

Exactly what year of grade school did you drop out?

 

[LuisDantas]

Isn't explaining how plants, animals and man came into existence biology?

It is. But "God wanted it so" only goes so far as an explanation.

You don't expect farmers to pray for crops instead of sowing, do you?

Likewise, biologists have little choice but to do actual research.

 

[dust1n]

So as we can see everyone, the problem isn't about the title of "Peer Reviewed", it's about what you think of their viewpoints and interpretations and conclusions in particular. Meanwhile, any other Peer-Review doesn't have to have a wide range of views to count. Does the confirmation bias get any more glaring? At least let's stop misrepresenting what Peer Review means, and let's stick to the actual subject of the Review, that would be great! So basically, as long as their board supports the idea of ID, it can't be Peer-Reviewed.

Quite ironic when people tell me I don't know what Peer Review means apparently.

So far we have about 2 replies that have actually come anywhere close (And still not very close) to getting into the details. I guess that's better than nothing.

A.) I never claimed anything about anything.

B.) "Any other peer review doesn't have to have a wide range of views to count." That isn't true, nor would I suggest it otherwise. If there isn't a diverse board of reviewers, then peer review is a rather pointless endeavor if everyone who will ever be editing and anyone who will be contributing to the journal have already expressed their opinion any given topic before the information reveals the evidence. Does Nature have a stance on issues the precedes the editorial process? Does everyone fall on the same side of any given topic? What about the Journal of Cell Biology? Etc.

C.) I'm not going to reply; I really can't even begin to care about such an opinion. I'd rather argue about something that isn't already, basically, tautology at this point.

Have fun, bud. I have no interest in discussing two studies I lack the capabilities to fully understand the implications of with someone else who also lacks the capabilities to fully understand the implications of.

 

[dust1n]

Is it, though? What does the Bible even attempt to say about biology?

That plant life on Earth preceded the sun.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

 

[Shermana]

A.) I never claimed anything about anything.

B.) "Any other peer review doesn't have to have a wide range of views to count." That isn't true, nor would I suggest it otherwise. If there isn't a diverse board of reviewers, then peer review is a rather pointless endeavor if everyone who will ever be editing and anyone who will be contributing to the journal have already expressed their opinion any given topic before the information reveals the evidence. Does Nature have a stance on issues the precedes the editorial process? Does everyone fall on the same side of any given topic? What about the Journal of Cell Biology? Etc.

C.) I'm not going to reply; I really can't even begin to care about such an opinion. I'd rather argue about something that isn't already, basically, tautology at this point.

Have fun, bud. I have no interest in discussing two studies I lack the capabilities to fully understand the implications of with someone else who also lacks the capabilities to fully understand the implications of.

That reply was not aimed at you directly, just to let you know, in fact, I'd like to congratulate you on your civility!

If anything you have inspired me to research further if in fact there's a noted, observable/provable confirmation bias that forbids people with the ID perspective from having their papers published just because of their conclusion and viewpoint, regardless of the study involved. I would say there is but proving it conclusively will take some looking into.

 

[Alceste]

It answers questions the ToE cannot. How life on earth began, for example. And where and when and how humankind began.

Having no answer is preferable to having a wrong answer.

 

[Curious George]

Admission of error.

In post 6 I wrote, over-hastily,
My mistake: in re epistasis, Ewert and co. did attempt on p.6 to recruit the phenomenon to their cause:
As before, however, the honesty of their argument can be called into question.

Note first the subtle conflation of "deleterious or even lethal" with "diminishing returns". The latter means that successive epistatic mutations add less fitness than previous ones - not that they are "deleterious".
Second, the research revealing these diminishing returns is restricted to mutations conferring antibiotic resistance on bacteria, and a paper not cited by Ewert and co. points out that
In other words, diminishing returns go with this particular territory and are not necessarily applicable elsewhere.

Shermana, you asked that we show you
You now have several such examples to chew over.

Can't download ewerts etc al paper on my phone (can someone give me a title so I can find it from another source?

It seems to me that posts such as the one I am quoting here and several others deal with the OP's original intent and bring into question the honesty or thoroughness of the critique.

So far the critique has been criticized on conflating terms, ignoring multiple mutations, and applying slower rates of mutation to all populations by only representing examples of the slower rate I.e. "for humans this means..."

I do not see how these fair criticisms have been addressed beyond requesting even more examples or support for these ideas.

 

[Alceste]

Can't download ewerts etc al paper on my phone (can someone give me a title so I can find it from another source?

It seems to me that posts such as the one I am quoting here and several others deal with the OP's original intent and bring into question the honesty or thoroughness of the critique.

So far the critique has been criticized on conflating terms, ignoring multiple mutations, and applying slower rates of mutation to all populations by only representing examples of the slower rate I.e. "for humans this means..."

I do not see how these fair criticisms have been addressed beyond requesting even more examples or support for these ideas.

The silly thing is that the original paper being critiqued doesn't raise any of these questions. At all. It's just a mathematical model based on the idea that the rate of evolution is logarithmic rather than exponential. The numbers they've inserted into the equations are completely arbitrary. It's not even three pages long, whereas I understand the "critique" is six pages (file under "you know you're reading bollox when..."). The original paper doesn't make any factual claims about actual population sizes or genetic sequences, or even the frequency of genetic mutation. If you don't get higher math (and I don't), then there's nothing there to critique.