Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Valjean]

Not from the arguments creationists have presented do far.

The creationists haven't presented any real hypothesis or supporting evidence. All they do is Gish gallop all over the place with criticisms of science, methodology, conclusions, &c.

ID is an unsupported assertion of agency, not an argument for any actual mechanism.

 

[YoursTrue]

But we'd all agree with your assessment. Computers don't reproduce with variation. They're designed and manufactured.

Organisms can evolve and become complex because they reproduce with variation. No intentional design is necessary.

Of course the question does come up with medical experts regarding penile implants and scrotum. Something they are considering the possibility of. And, of course, transplanted embryos. Obviously not natural selection.

 

[YoursTrue]

The creationists haven't presented any real hypothesis or supporting evidence. All they do is Gish gallop all over the place with criticisms of science, methodology, conclusions, &c.

ID is an unsupported assertion of agency, not an argument for any actual mechanism.

My being here right now is to discuss evolution and ask questions. I doubt that you can verify (ok, not prove, a word that seems to be verboten in these discussions, so verify is supposedly a better term) the actual mechanisms of the micro or macro changes said to have happened. If so, please let me know. Using specimens of these micro or macro changes evidenced in fossils. Simply saying "yes, dinosaurs became birds because fossils show feathers in a dinosaur" is not verifying, confirming or showing evidence that there were micro changes. It is presumption.

 

[YoursTrue]

If a particular path is shown to be non-viable, and is abandoned, that is falsification. Focusing, then, on another path/ theorem is how science works.
Science investigates various ideas until it finds one that can't be falsified. It then proposes that as a Theory and publishes it for peer review, ie: for other scientists to criticize, test and try to falsify; for other scientists to repeat the research in their own labs and see if they get the same results.

There are not trillion of 'possible' alternative paths. We're lucky if have any at all to investigate.
But we do have the step-by-step path -- with living examples of each step.

We do?

 

[Polymath257]

My being here right now is to discuss evolution and ask questions. I doubt that you can verify (ok, not prove, a word that seems to be verboten in these discussions, so verify is supposedly a better term) the actual mechanisms of the micro or macro changes said to have happened. If so, please let me know. Using specimens of these micro or macro changes evidenced in fossils. Simply saying "yes, dinosaurs became birds because fossils show feathers in a dinosaur" is not verifying, confirming or showing evidence that there were micro changes. It is presumption.

how so? When we have a sequence of such fossils showing a branching out of species with feathers, including some that are unquestionable dinosaurs and others that are unquestionably birds, all with similar skeletal anatomy, but changing with the ages of the fossils, what else are you wanting?

No, we cannot get DNA from animals of that time. But we see changes grouped together via anatomy in a treelike pattern and where exactly that type of pattern is known *today* to correspond to inheritance.

What else are you wanting? Seriously. We don't have every step of the process, that is true. But is that really needed to demonstrate the point?

 

[Polymath257]

We do?

Yes, we do. For example, we have animals *alive today* that represent each stage in the development of an eye from a photosensitive patch of skin to the complex mammalian eye. This shows the stages are NOT irreducibly complex. They can and do exist in functioning living things today.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course the question does come up with medical experts regarding penile implants and scrotum. Something they are considering the possibility of. And, of course, transplanted embryos. Obviously not natural selection.

Why do you think this is relevant to evolution? Seriously.

 

[leroy]

But we'd all agree with your assessment. Computers don't reproduce with variation. They're designed and manufactured.

Organisms can evolve and become complex because they reproduce with variation. No intentional design is necessary.

That is only true, if there is a step by step path of benefitial mutations.

Given that such a path has not been proven to excist in flagella, eyes, ears and most systems, I feel that I have the right to be skeptical about Darwinism

 

[Polymath257]

so if (and I say if) there is a transmission of DNA as these medical ethicists think there may be, and it is different from the"person," because the ejaculatory parts are not the dna of the recipient, AND it produces a being with better or worse DNA and that continues in transference, would you think that would be "natural selection"?

In a case like this, the children would be genetically from the donor. So there is nothing different from ordinary reproduction except that the genetics are from a different individual. So?

 

[Polymath257]

That is only true, if there is a step by step path of benefitial mutations.

Given that such a path has not been proven to excist in flagella, eyes, ears and most systems, I feel that I have the right to be skeptical about Darwinism

But it *has* been demonstrated in flagella, eyes, and most other systems.

 

[leroy]

Yes, we do. For example, we have animals *alive today* that represent each stage in the development of an eye from a photosensitive patch of skin to the complex mammalian eye. This shows the stages are NOT irreducibly complex. They can and do exist in functioning living things today.

This proves that you don't understand Behe's argument.

Do you really think that Behe was unaware of the existance of different types of eyes?

The claim is that multiple independent mutations would have to occur in order to get a benefit that would be selected by natural selection. (one single mutation would have been neutral and therefore unlikely to become fixed)

 

[Polymath257]

This proves that you don't understand Behe's argument.

Do you really think that Behe was unaware of the existance of different types of eyes?

The claim is that multiple independent mutations would have to occur in order to get a benefit that would be selected by natural selection. (one single mutation would have been neutral and therefore unlikely to become fixed)

I think Behe was a charlatan, pure and simple.

 

[leroy]

But it *has* been demonstrated in flagella, eyes, and most other systems.

this is also relevant to a comment made by @Valjean

Correct me if I am wrong, but these type of images are not suppose to be describing single step (single mutation) stages..... Nobody claims that one can go from A to B via 1 single step (1 single mutation)

What you have to do is show a step by step path of benefitial mutations that would explain how one goes from A to B and from B to C etc..... Obviously you don't have to explain every single step in order to have a good theory, but atleast a relevan portion of the required steps would be nice to have.

 

[leroy]

I think Behe was a charlatan, pure and simple.

Irrelevant, even if he was a charlatan, you still have to deal with his actual claim

 

[Polymath257]

Correct me if I am wrong, but these type of images are not suppose to be describing single step (single mutation) stages..... Nobody claims that one can go from A to B via 1 single step (1 single mutation)

What you have to do is show a step by step path of benefitial mutations that would explain how one goes from A to B and from B to C etc..... Obviously you don't have to explain every single step in order to have a good theory, but atleast a relevan portion of the required steps would be nice to have.

You are right. be each smaller step *is* beneficial, so what is the issue?

 

[Polymath257]

Irrelevant, even if he was a charlatan, you still have to deal with his actual claim

And they have been dealt with extensively, which is *why* he is regarded as a charlatan. he didn't do the necessary prior research into the things he was making claims about and thereby made claims that were know *at the time* to be wrong.

 

[leroy]

According to you, your task is simple.

1. Demonstrate design.
2. Demonstrate the designer.
3. Demonstrate that natural systems could not exist without the actions of that designer.
4. Demonstrate the designer is the God of the Bible. Sure. Sure. We have all heard the ID lie that an identity is not a goal of the belief, but not even the ID movement bought that one.

This should all be a piece of cake. No hill for a climber like you.

But then all it ends up being is an illogical attack on science, hoping some dung sticks to the wall long enough to bolster the delusion of a win by default.

1 how so? What would convince you for example that life (say the first living thing) was designed?

2 all I have to claim is that the existance of a designer that predates life on earth is possible..... Would you claim that it is impossible for a designer to excist? (ether a god, or Alien?)

3 you are asking me to prove a negative, which is impossible,....

4 No, whether if the designer is the God of the Bible, some other God or an Alien is beyond the scope of the ID argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Irrelevant, even if he was a charlatan, you still have to deal with his actual claim

No, that is not the case. Scientists have better things to do than to refute every crank that comes along. Behe was treated more seriously than most cranks because he has an education and used to have a decent reputation. But all of his specific claims of IR have been refuted. And since his redefinition is unfalsifiable there is no way to test it. Of course as a result he has no evidence for his claims. At this point Hitchen's Razor takes effect:

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

 

[leroy]

1. Then why go on as if every step is demanded? Disingenuous much?
2.
3. Not unsupported claims based on unverified or imagined premises.
4. Stop claiming it and demonstrate it.

1 it is a probabilistic argument, if you show a path and justify 100% of the steps, Darwinism would be obviously true and only a lunatic would deny it..... If you justify 80% of the steps Darwinism would be true beyond reasonable doubt, if you show 50% Darwinism would be a good hypothesis, if you show 10% or less Darwinism would be just a random speculation..... So you decide, how many steps are you going to justify, so far we are in the 0%-1% range.

2

3 then do not asert that the claims have been refuted, next time you should say "we don't know" maybe he is correct, maybe he is wrong.

4 OK would admit that there is not enough knowledge to ether prove or disprove the claim with certainty (no body know which specific gebes and variations where responsable for the evolution of the eye) but it seems obvious that for example light sencitive cells in a" fish - like" ancestor would be useless these cells are connected to the brain and unless the brain produces a reaction when light is detected. And it seems obvious that you can not have all three systems via a single mutation... Obviously I am just speculating, but the burden proof is on you, you have to show that there is a viable step by step path... I can't prove a negative, I can't prove that there is N0 such path

 

[leroy]

that is because we understand design when we see it and can test for it. ID believers cannot come up with a reasonable test.

By the way, complexity is not evidence of design. In fact what we see in life is excessive complexity arguably evidence against design.

That is why, the claim. Is that specified complexity ("not just complexity) indicates design