Evidence For And Against Evolution

[gnostic]

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 support neither Design or Fine Turning concepts, because the evidence for either, don’t exist.

Both resorted using metaphysical-based assumptions and faulty analogies, not on scientific evidence.

You forget that Scientific Evidence required to be -

• observable or detectable,
• quantifiable,
• measurable,
• empirical,
• testable/verifiable/refutable (these 3 are essentially related).

The problem with Design, is that ID creationists believe that for there to be a “Design”, then it would require “Designer”.

But there are no evidence for the Designer’s existence. You cannot observe, measure or test the Designer, therefore the whole Intelligent Design is nothing more than speculative BS and have nothing to do with science. No scientific evidence for Designer, so Intelligent Design isn’t science.

Likewise, the whole Fine-tuned universe falls under the same religious philosophy as that of Intelligent Design, no scientific evidence. They used the same tactics, using unsubstantiated speculative assumptions and faulty analogies to derived the conclusion for their belief.

The word “unsubstantiated” mean “no evidence” to verify what say or what they believe.

Assumptions and analogies aren’t evidence.

People who believe in either concepts, think they can get away what they believe in without showing any evidence by using the metaphysics cards.

Using metaphysics alone aren’t “evidence”, let alone “science”.

 

[YoursTrue]

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?

There are many deep springs under the top soil. I can only figure, but I wasn't there to make sure.

 

[YoursTrue]

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!

There are some things that I disagree with those who also say they believe in the Bible. Such as what a day represents and who Jesus really was. And I am not always right, certainly.
I do maintain, however, that there are deep springs that are still around, and they were unleashed during the Deluge. I also believe some mountains were pushed higher than they were before the Flood. The warning to Noah was quite specific. But few very few, believed him. Just as Jesus and the Christian writers spoke of prophecies also. Yet the transmitted document called the Bible, has essentially (yes, I mean essentially) remained the same throughout the centuries and millenia. And the important thing is that it was directed to the descendants of Abraham as well as others, but within a specific confine. History (in the Bible) shows that these people (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) has specific interaction with the land and promises they were given. Whether a person believes it or not, it still means something.

 

[leroy]

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.

Ok so what is the article saying? (specifically in the context of the 200 loci)

 

[leroy]

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.

Again, the goal of the analogy is to show that the cockroaches argument fails, so do you admit that this specific argument fails?...

 

[leroy]

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.

But you already agreed that common ancestry is the best explanation for NH, (even better than God did it) and you agreed that this would still be true even if God exists

So why cant you (at least in principle) provide a naturalistic explanation for the FT of the universe that is better than " God did it" just like you did with NH?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok so what is the article saying? (specifically in the context of the 200 loci)

That it underwent convergent evolution. Not identical evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But you already agreed that common ancestry is the best explanation for NH

Because it actually explains it.

, (even better than God did it)

"god did it", isn't an explanation.
So it rather falls under the category of "not even wrong".

So why cant you (at least in principle) provide a naturalistic explanation for the FT of the universe that is better than " God did it" just like you did with NH?

The evolution explanation for NH isn't in any way, shape, or form dependend on alternative models.
It stands on its own merrits. As is the case for any good explanation.


As in: if evolution would be unknown to us, and we would have no explanation for NH, then still your "god dun it" claim would be just that: a claim.

It would still not be a valid explanation. Because it is unable to stand on its own merrits. As you demonstrate time and again. Every single time when you are asked to support your god-claim, you respond with "well what is YOUR explanation" for the purpose of pitching your "god dun it" claim against it.

Note that when you ask a biologist to support how evolution explains NH, that will not be his/her response. Instead, that biologist will ONLY talk about evolutionary processes and how they result in NH.


If you can't come up with positive evidence in support of your claims, then you have nothing of value.

 

[leroy]

That it underwent convergent evolution. Not identical evolution.

Care to explain the difference?

 

[leroy]

Because it actually explains it.



"god did it", isn't an explanation.
So it rather falls under the category of "not even wrong".



The evolution explanation for NH isn't in any way, shape, or form dependend on alternative models.
It stands on its own merrits. As is the case for any good explanation.


As in: if evolution would be unknown to us, and we would have no explanation for NH, then still your "god dun it" claim would be just that: a claim.

It would still not be a valid explanation. Because it is unable to stand on its own merrits. As you demonstrate time and again. Every single time when you are asked to support your god-claim, you respond with "well what is YOUR explanation" for the purpose of pitching your "god dun it" claim against it.

Note that when you ask a biologist to support how evolution explains NH, that will not be his/her response. Instead, that biologist will ONLY talk about evolutionary processes and how they result in NH.


If you can't come up with positive evidence in support of your claims, then you have nothing of value.

Well if I ever argue that common ancestry is not the best explanation for NH, wouldn't you ask me to provide a better explanation and justify why I think is a better explanation?

 

[leroy]

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.

Ok I am largely confused, my claim is and has always been that convergent evolution (even at a genetic level) is possible.... 2 organisms can have the same mutation in the same gene in the same loci independently.... If this mutation happens to be bebefitial, this mutations could get fixed in both of the populations....... Do we disagree on anything? Would you claim the opposite?

What is your point?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Care to explain the difference?

Convergent evolution takes a different path and ends up in similar structures due to similar selection pressures.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well if I ever argue that common ancestry is not the best explanation for NH, wouldn't you ask me to provide a better explanation and justify why I think is a better explanation?

Sure.

But that explanation should still and on its own merrits.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok I am largely confused, my claim is and has always been that convergent evolution (even at a genetic level) is possible.... 2 organisms can have the same mutation in the same gene in the same loci independently....

That's not what convergent evolution is.

If this mutation happens to be bebefitial, this mutations could get fixed in both of the populations....... Do we disagree on anything? Would you claim the opposite?

What is your point?

You are talking about similar end-structures and assuming/asserting the path to them was the same.

The end-structures are similar because selection pressures squeeze them into such form. The path towards that need not be the same.

 

[leroy]

Then do it.



Busted again.

Your argument should stand on its own merrits.

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

The reason why I am asking you to provide a naturalistic explanation for the FT and then justify why is that explanation better than ID is because deep inside we both know that your intend is to use the same strategy that flat earthers use:

1 adopt a position of extreme and irrational skepticism

2 avoid the burden proof

3 keep your position vague and ambiguous

4 avoid direct answers


By forcing you to provide an alternative naturalistic explanation you would no longer be capable of hiding behind any of those 4 points.


But anyway those are my terms, if you want to talk about FT with me, you have to support a naturalistic explanation and explain why is that better than design..... If you don't like these terms feel free to find someone else to talk with

 

[leroy]

That's not what convergent evolution is.




You are talking about similar end-structures and assuming/asserting the path to them was the same.

The end-structures are similar because selection pressures squeeze them into such form. The path towards that need not be the same.

Ok so two organisms can't have the same mutation in the same gene, in the same loci.... Is that what you are claiming?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The reason why I am asking you to provide a naturalistic explanation for the FT and then justify why is that explanation better than ID is because deep inside we both know that your intend is to use the same strategy that flat earthers use:

No. My intent is to get you to support your claims.
But instead of doing so, you keep refering to other claims.

1 adopt a position of extreme and irrational skepticism

Asking for what evidence you have in support of your claims, doesn't sound that radical to me.

2 avoid the burden proof

I don't have a burden of proof concerning claims that YOU are making.

3 keep your position vague and ambiguous

My position is that I don't know.
I think that's pretty clear.

You are the one who thinks he has an answer.
I'm asking you to support your answer.

Or are you of the opinion that I should just accept whatever you have to say, simply because I don't know myself?

4 avoid direct answers

Kind of ironic for you to say that, since your whole game here, is to avoid directly answering the question for you to support your claims.

By forcing you to provide an alternative naturalistic explanation you would no longer be capable of hiding behind any of those 4 points.

My position is I don't know.
And as I've explained countless times now, YOUR argument should be able to stand on its own merrits. What I think, or anyone else, shouldn't matter.

Now, support your claim that the universe requires a "fine tuner".

But anyway those are my terms, if you want to talk about FT with me, you have to support a naturalistic explanation and explain why is that better than design

Even if I would play your game, I can't know if whatever "naturalistic explanation" I can come up with, is indeed better then design, unless you actually first give us your argument for design, so we have something to measure it up against....................................


Regardless, my explanation / position is that I don't know.
I don't claim to have an answer.
You do.

So what is your answer and why should I accept it as a valid answer?
What's your argument and supporting evidence?

..... If you don't like these terms feel free to find someone else to talk with

It's funny how you yourself are guilty of the 4 points you just listed.
Extreme case of projection.


Now, what is your argument and what evidence can you present in support of said argument?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok so two organisms can't have the same mutation in the same gene, in the same loci.... Is that what you are claiming?

No.

You're really dense, you know....

It would help if you would learn a bit of evolutionary mechanism before trying to argue about it.

 

[leroy]

No.

You're really dense, you know....

It would help if you would learn a bit of evolutionary mechanism before trying to argue about it.

No?

Ok so two organisms can have the same mutation in the same gene snd in the same loci..... Agree? Yes or no?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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!

I have seen them argue opposite points and not admit their failure when at least one of them has to be wrong.

That is part of the problem. They believe they have complete knowledge and that humans can learn nothing new or at least nothing new that contradicts that illusion.