Evidence For And Against Evolution

[leroy]

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.

Are you proposing a single deeper law that would explain all the FT of all the different constants and initial conditions ? Or are you saying that each constant has its own deeper law?

Why Is this law (s) such that it changes the values untill it finds and optimal level of "complexity" it simply happened to be that way (chance)? Or would you suggest mechanisms that would render this values necessary or atleast more probable?


If you want, you can link me to an article that represents your view, that way you would no have to answer all my doubts regarding your model

 

[leroy]

I


It is also possible (perhaps even likely) that, when we find more fundamental laws (like quantum gravity, say), the values of the constants we currently use will be determined by more fundamental constants and that a wide range of those more fundamental constants will give the same values for our current ones. We simply don't know.
.

Sure that is a possibility, there are porencially infinite possible explanations for the FT of the universe.

Would you afirm that this alternative is better than design?

 

[Polymath257]

Are you proposing a single deeper law that would explain all the FT of all the different constants and initial conditions ? Or are you saying that each constant has its own deeper law?

Why Is this law (s) such that it changes the values untill it finds and optimal level of "complexity" it simply happened to be that way (chance)? Or would you suggest mechanisms that would render this values necessary or atleast more probable?

If you want, you can link me to an article that represents your view, that way you would no have to answer all my doubts regarding your model

I would say that the law works on all constants at once. No mechanism required: just the statement.

It isn't a fully fleshed out model, of course. Among other things, a good way to compute complexity from the constants is required. But just proposing a 'force' that pushes the constants up the gradient of complexity seems like a *much* better model than anything like ID.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure that is a possibility, there are porencially infinite possible explanations for the FT of the universe.

Would you afirm that this alternative is better than design?

Yes, far better. Design requires a much larger metaphysical investment and dealing with a much larger collection of unknowns.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure that is a possibility, there are porencially infinite possible explanations for the FT of the universe.

Would you afirm that this alternative is better than design?

I've yet to see you choose your constants, look at the ranges that can give atoms, argue for a particular distribution of the chose constants, and use that to argue FT.

 

[tas8831]

@leroy - hope you are just busy gathering data -

Your conclusion is premised on your unstated mere belief that there had to be some large number of beneficial mutations fixed in our lineage in order for us to have evolved along the trajectory we did.

But you have not explained:

1. What traits the human-chimp ancestor had in the first place
2. how many mutations would have been needed in order to get a distinctly human trait - say, upper limb proportion - from the LCA of humans and chimps
2a. How you discovered what the ancestral state was, seeing as we do not know what the exact ancestral taxon was
2b. how you determined the number of beneficial mutations needed to produce that change
etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

@leroy - hope you are just busy gathering data -

Your conclusion is premised on your unstated mere belief that there had to be some large number of beneficial mutations fixed in our lineage in order for us to have evolved along the trajectory we did.

But you have not explained:

1. What traits the human-chimp ancestor had in the first place
2. how many mutations would have been needed in order to get a distinctly human trait - say, upper limb proportion - from the LCA of humans and chimps
2a. How you discovered what the ancestral state was, seeing as we do not know what the exact ancestral taxon was
2b. how you determined the number of beneficial mutations needed to produce that change
etc.

Evolutionists themselves can tamper with cells and do things scientically. None of that proves evolution as if that's how life started with and from a unicell or two or three, etc. And then went on its way by the force of natural selection to màke plants and animals down the metaphorical road. It's all guesswork.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

ooooooo that thing is pretty ugly.

Imagine facing that thing if it were the size of a hippo or something :O

 

[YoursTrue]

Imagine facing that thing if it were the size of a hippo or something :O

Oops. Nah...or a dinosaur. Bye bye.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is that because no one saw or really knows how life started

Yes. That's literally what an argument from ignorance is.....

"I don't know /understand by which process life can form, therefor it can't"​

but can only guess about it

Science is not a guessing game.

Just wondering...what you meant when you said it sounds like an argument from ignorance

Exactly that. Not knowing / understanding something, just means that you don't know or understand that something.

Why not go for an argument about the first definite absolute specimen of life that's not from ignorance?

I have no clue what you mean.

Let's go for it, like you or anyone knows as if you were there or have specimens.

What are you talking about?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

That's not what the article says. The sentence you quoted, doesn't say what you claim it says.

Again: convergent evolution IS NOT THE SAME as "identical" evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Exactly you can see from my quote that I never said that 200 genes (complete genes) evolved independently in bat's and dolphins

But you DID say that they underwent the exact same sequence of mutations. Which isn't true.

But rather that they share 200 traits in different loci that can't be explained by common ancestry.

Those are YOUR words. The article you linked to doesn't claim this at all.
Convergent evolution isn't at all a problem to explain for evolutionary biology and common ancestry.

Sure I can provide good positive reasons for why ID is the best explanation for the FT of the universe

Then do it.

, just tell me what is your favorite naturalistic explanation and I will justify why is ID a better explanation.

Busted again.

Your argument should stand on its own merrits.

My "explanation" is that I don't know.
Now, support YOUR argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok so just like there is a better explanation for NH than design

The evolutionary explanation for NH is completely independent of any silly design arguments.
Evolution actually has positive evidence going for it. It's merrits / validity isn't dependend on the failures of other explanations.

Evolution stands on its own merrits.

This is the difference between a valid and reasonable argument and an argument from ignorance.

, you should in theory be capable of providing a better naturalistic explanation for the FT of the universe than design

No.

Instead, your design argument should be able to stand on its own merrits.
Apparantly, it can't. Apparantly, you feel like your bare assertions should be like a default explanation one falls back on if other explanations fail. Apparantly, you feel like this bare assertions is exempt from its burden of proof.


If you can't support your argument with actual positive evidence, then just say so.

...... So go ahead what is that explanation and why is it better than design?

We don't know.

Now support your argument from design.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Then You cannot provide it. Understood. No one expected you to provide it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

It is a great to watch you struggle so hard to avoid supporting your position. You could honestly respond that ID is just creationism (belief) with no scientific or explanatory value, but honesty has never been a creationist value.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ok so just like there is a better explanation for NH than design

"Design" is not an explanation for NH.

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?

And now we've come full circle. As we covered, ID creationism's explanation is merely "God did it", which encompasses everything imaginable. Therefore, there cannot be an alternative to it.

 

[ecco]

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?

Do you see why a depression in the ground that fills with water is not evidence of an FT Designer?
For the same reason, an accreted pile of dust and rocks is not evidence of an FT Designer.
For the same reason, a sphere of hydrogen and helium and carbon and nitrogen and oxygen is not evidence of an FT Designer.

Since you think everything is the result of a Fine-Tuning Designer, would you care to speculate for what purpose your FT Designer Finely Tuned His Design? A Design that didn't result in us for 13.8 billion years. Are you going to argue that your Fine-Tuning Designer put an asteroid out there someplace so that it would impact the earth to eliminate the dinosaurs?

Of course, the big question is: Who do you think the FineTuningDesigner is? You list your religion as Christian but your Christian scripture does not support a 13.8 billion-year-old universe.

 

[ecco]

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

Who finetuned light bulbs? Do your finetuned light bulbs place themselves into the sockets that have the proper wiring? Your analogy gets dumber and dumber.

 

[ecco]

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

In three years on this forum, I have yet to see a fundie admit to being wrong about anything. Perhaps that's because God gives them complete knowledge. Nah!

 

[ecco]

Did a couple of continental plates shift naturally and cause a depression that filled with 1180 cubic miles of water and came to be called Lake Michigan?
-or-
Did a couple of continental plates shift to intentionally cause a depression that filled with 1180 cubic miles of water and came to be called Lake Michigan?