Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

That is a strawman, I never said that 200 genes evolved independently in bats and dolphins
And I already corrected that straw man earlier ¿why can’t you learn from your previous mistakes?


...........................
This is and has always been my claim.

Yes you did.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Polymath257 and Wandering Monk made a similar claim so I´ll answer to both :





But the question is why……… why are the values of the constants and initial condictions such that they would allow for life? Why are these values “changing” to optimize complexity, why arent the changeing to optimice "simplicity"?

1 Is it due to a random or stochastic event? Maybe it simply happened to be that way (chance)

2 Is it because there are deeper natural laws that explain these values, where these deeper laws allow for a wider range of life permitting values?.......... (for example inflation is a candidate that would make a flat universe more probable, so inflation does solve 1 FT problem, would you say that there are other deeper “laws” or “mechanisms” that would solve other FT problems, just like inflation probably solves the flatness problem?)

3 Is it because an intelligent designer made those values as such, because he wanted a universe that could support life.

Which of these 3 alternatives do you think is the best?

stop your games. Support your claims.

You think ID is the best. Now show us.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well that is what the FT argument proposes isent it? Should I justify that assertion? That is stupid, since I am the one proposing the argument, I am the one who decide what is it what the argument proposes

Stop your games. Support your claims.

it is your assertion with your burden to justify. So far, all you have done is assert and try and hand off your burden of proof.

Clearly, you cannot justify your claim. It has no evidence to support it. ID is not science. It is another version of creationist belief. It can be believed it ignored, but not supported.

 

[Jose Fly]

All I am saying is that common ancestry us the best explanation for NH, this would be true even if God exists....... Do you agree? Yes or No

Sure, because common ancestry is the only scientific explanation for NH.

When did I do that?

If you're saying ID creationism does not seek to explain NH, then I'm fine with that.

 

[Polymath257]

But the question is why……… why are the values of the constants and initial condictions such that they would allow for life? Why are these values “changing” to optimize complexity, why arent the changeing to optimice "simplicity"?

Sorry, but that's sort of like asking why the gravitational force is an inverse square force and not an inverse cube. Or why Maxwell's equations work for E&M.

I am proposing that it is a law of nature that the constants change in this way. You are proposing a *different* law of nature (that they change to optimize simplicity) which is clearly against observations.

Furthermore, my proposed law is testable in a variety of ways and explains the values of the constants that we see.

 

[ecco]

The argument is that the universe is FT for the existance of atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc.

The claim is that life (both humans and cockroaches) require atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc. In order to exist.

Do you understand the argument or do you have further questions?

If your argument is that the universe is just finetuned for "the existance (sic) of atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc." maybe that explains why humans didn't appear for 13.772 billion years. However, if that is the point of your argument, then I don't see the point.

Perhaps you will explain why your God (I mean, of course, your Intelligent Designer) fine-tuned a universe and then sat on his holy bottom and waited for the better part of 13.772 billion years for puny us to appear.

 

[ecco]

To make an analogy, your house was clearly finely tuned, for example your light bulbs are located exactly where the electricity cables are, if you move the light bulbs say 1cm to any direction, they would no longer get electricity from the cables and the bulbs would no work.

You clearly have a misconception of Finely Tuned.

No, my house is not finely tuned. The light bulbs were placed where they are because that's where there is electricity.

If the house was Finely Tuned, the builder of the house (aka your intelligent designer) would have known, because he is omniscient and omnipotent, precisely where the future homeowner was going to want to place lightbulbs.

It's a subtle but very important difference. I hope you can understand it.

 

[ecco]

However your dog could make an argument and claim that the house was intended for him, and nor for humans..... My point is that whether if the house was intended for dogs or for humans is irrelevant, the FT of the light bulbs indicate the existence of an intelligent creator of the house, weather if he had dogs or humans in mind is irrelevant for the purpose of stablishing the existence of the designer.

Still wrong and still a very poor analogy. The builder did not fine-tune anything. He used the past experiences of hundreds of homebuilders, contractors, interior designers, and inspectors to place wiring where it's generally accepted to be the best places to have it.

In many remodels walls are torn down and electricity is completely rewired to please a new owner. No fine-tuning anywhere. No more so than the depression in the ground that holds 1180 cubic miles of water and is called Lake Michigan.

 

[leroy]

You say you corrected it, but your so-called correction just repeated it:


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.

So yes, you did claim that these genes took the exact same evolutionary pathways.
Which is not at all what is said in the article you linked.

Convergent evolution <> identical evolution.

Sure, so bat's and dolphins had the same mutations in 200 different loci, that the point of the article

revealed signatures consistent with convergence in nearly 200 loci. Strong and significant support for convergence among bats and the bottlenose dolphin was seen in numerous genes linked to hearing or deafness, consistent with an involvement in echolocation.

 

[leroy]

It's just a bare assertion.



Yes.



And you feel like it's not your job to justify it?



And you should try to support it, unless you're happy with it just being a bare assertion. But then, don't expect anyone to pay any attention to it either.

Exactly what am I suppose to justify?

 

[leroy]

This quesiton has confirmation bias and hindsight fallacy written all over it.
You are asking this question with some kind of "purpose" in mind. The addition of the words "such that they would allow for life", shows that you put additional special value on them for that reason.

This is like being dealt a random hand of cars and ending up with a royal flush and then asking "why were the values of the cards such that they would allow for a royal flush".

Surely you can see how that would be an invalid question to ask.
Now, if you would actually have valid reasons and evidence to think that the deck had been tampered with, and that the hand wasn't actually random, then you could ask that question. But at that point, you're not just assuming "purpose".

So the real questions is: why do you ask that question? What makes you think that this "why" question, actually has an answer?

Sure, there is an explanation for why the constants have the value that they have. But that's a HOW question. Not a WHY question.



We don't know yet.
I guess there are many potential reasons.
Perhaps they only CAN have those values.
Perhaps there's an infinite amount of universe and we just live in the one in which we can live.
Perhaps there are only a couple, or even just one, universe and we lucked out.

I see no reason at this point to make any kind of "cosmic purpose" assumptions.
I see no reason to think that "life" is the point of the universe any more then black holes or expanding space is.



perhaps.



Perhaps.



What "intelligent designer"? What makes you propose this, other then you already believing in one religiously?



The one that requires the least assumptions of unsupported entities.

Ok, then just change "why" for "how"...

If you get 1 royal flush, you would probably think that you where lucky, (it happened by chance) but if you get 10 royal flushes in a row, you would certainly consider the "a design hypothesis"

 

[leroy]

Yes you did.

Quote me

 

[leroy]

Still wrong and still a very poor analogy. The builder did not fine-tune anything. He used the past experiences of hundreds of homebuilders, contractors, interior designers, and inspectors to place wiring where it's generally accepted to be the best places to have it.

In many remodels walls are torn down and electricity is completely rewired to please a new owner. No fine-tuning anywhere. No more so than the depression in the ground that holds 1180 cubic miles of water and is called Lake Michigan.

You are missing the point


The point is that whether if the universe was FT for cockroaches or humans is irrelevant to stablish the 3xistance of a designer..... Do you see why the cockroaches argument fails?

 

[leroy]

You clearly have a misconception of Finely Tuned.

No, my house is not finely tuned. The light bulbs were placed where they are because that's where there is electricity.

If the house was Finely Tuned, the builder of the house (aka your intelligent designer) would have known, because he is omniscient and omnipotent, precisely where the future homeowner was going to want to place lightbulbs.

It's a subtle but very important difference. I hope you can understand it.

The point is that light bulbs only work if you place them exactly where the cables are, even misplacing the bulbs 1cm would render them useless. (this is why the bulbs are said to be Fine-tuned

 

[YoursTrue]

Sounds like an argument from ignorance.
...

Is that because no one saw or really knows how life started, but can only guess about it? Just wondering...what you meant when you said it sounds like an argument from ignorance. Why not go for an argument about the first definite absolute specimen of life that's not from ignorance? Let's go for it, like you or anyone knows as if you were there or have specimens.

 

[YoursTrue]

Or this thing right here:

View attachment 35058


The amount of nonsense that that creature can surivive is FAR beyond anything humans, or most other animals, are capable off.

ooooooo that thing is pretty ugly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Quote me

It has already been done by others and established that you did say it. I saw you do it myself. It is a little late to deny it now.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sure, so bat's and dolphins had the same mutations in 200 different loci, that the point of the article

See. You got busted and cannot even come up with a response that fits the facts or admit you were wrong.

I am still waiting for your killer argument that established ID as the best explanation for...well, anything. Others are waiting too. The beating around the bush diversion is getting tiresome. Though, apparently not for you. I expect it will continue for a while more, then the subject will drop. At some much later time, when you feel it has been forgotten, you will revive your assertion as if we're brand new, never before seen, and unchallenged fact.

 

[leroy]

See. You got busted and cannot even come up with a response that fits the facts or admit you were wrong.

I am still waiting for your killer argument that established ID as the best explanation for...well, anything. Others are waiting too. The beating around the bush diversion is getting tiresome. Though, apparently not for you. I expect it will continue for a while more, then the subject will drop. At some much later time, when you feel it has been forgotten, you will revive your assertion as if we're brand new, never before seen, and unchallenged fact.

Exactly you can see from my quote that I never said that 200 genes (complete genes) evolved independently in bat's and dolphins. But rather that they share 200 traits in different loci that can't be explained by common ancestry.


Sure I can provide good positive reasons for why ID is the best explanation for the FT of the universe, just tell me what is your favorite naturalistic explanation and I will justify why is ID a better explanation.

 

[leroy]

Sure, because common ancestry is the only scientific explanation for NH.


If you're saying ID creationism does not seek to explain NH, then I'm fine with that.

Ok so just like there is a better explanation for NH than design, you should in theory be capable of providing a better naturalistic explanation for the FT of the universe than design...... So go ahead what is that explanation and why is it better than design?