Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

I would say that objectively speaking ID the best explanation for FT of the universe, feel free to provide your favorite naturalistic explanation and lets see who has the best objective evidence

It is your claim. You support it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But up to this date ID is the best explanation for FT agree?

Up to this date, ID has never been a good explanation, or an explanation at all, for anything.

It's just an assertion.
Worse, it's trying to explain a mystery with an even bigger mystery.

It's not an explanation at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well what would you like to call it when a claim is made that if biogenesis happened we would not see the evidence cause the new little critter gets eaten first?

I don't recall anyone making that claim, but I guess I would ask for the reasoning / rational behind that assertion and go from there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok, so I guess the poster can come out and agree or disagree with a fellow evo. Your bet?


Seems to me if it seemed a certain way to me, that you should explain how it actually means something else if you are the one pushing the thing!

I didn't "push" anything.

Again, reread the sentence.
I'm sure you can figure out what it says.

 

[halbhh]

About 1/2 of Christians believe there was no evolution, but a bit over 1/2 believe the Bible supports/allows or even describes evolution. But the OP post is representing that the Bible disallows evolution.

That's misrepresentation.


Forum rules: "In accordance with the forum's mission statement, under no circumstances is harassment of other beliefs, attempting to undermine or ->**misrepresent a specific belief system(s)** <-... allowed on the forums."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

well we do have echolocation in the "dolphin line" and in the "bat line"
In bats and whales, convergence in echolocation ability runs deep
so we have the same traits in 2 independnet lines, why is this different from finding a mammal with feathers?

Because an analogy would be the trait of "flight".
Birds do it with feathered wings. Bats do it with flaps of skin.

The underlying mechanism is different.
Same with the trait of "sight". Many independend evolution instances of eyes. All of them different in underlying mechanism - dramatically different in the case of eyes, actually.

Echo-location is a form of sight, actually, and if memory serves me right, it evolved independently 4-5 times.

So would finding a land tetrapod that predates tiktaalik be a problem ?

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok then tiktaalik had nothing to do with the evolution of tetrapods, agree?

Tiktaalik is an example species of the gradual transition from sea to land, from the period where this transition happened. We're talking about a period of some 30 million years.... It's by any and all accounts a transitional species, in that it shows traits from both fish as well as tetrapods.

If tetrapods descend from fish, then at some point there would have had to be fishapod species. And these species would have had to live in the period where this transition happened.

In that period, they expected to find a "fishapod". And they did.

I don't know what else to tell you... Nore do I understand what your problem actually is with this.

 

[leroy]

Since a designer has no objective evidence, your assertion does not hold up. Your argument is circular.

Since a universal common ancestor has no objective evidence, your assertion does not hold up. Your argument is circular

 

[Jose Fly]

But up to this date ID is the best explanation for FT agree?

Before anyone can say, what exactly is "ID's explanation for FT"?

 

[leroy]

Tiktaalik is an example species of the gradual transition from sea to land, from the period where this transition happened. We're talking about a period of some 30 million years.... It's by any and all accounts a transitional species, in that it shows traits from both fish as well as tetrapods.

If tetrapods descend from fish, then at some point there would have had to be fishapod species. And these species would have had to live in the period where this transition happened.

In that period, they expected to find a "fishapod". And they did.

I don't know what else to tell you... Nore do I understand what your problem actually is with this.

Ok since the oldest land animals that have been found are 395M years old, shouldn’t we expect to find fishapods that are older than 395M years old? Isent it that something that evolution would predict?

 

[gnostic]

I would say that objectively speaking ID the best explanation for FT of the universe, feel free to provide your favorite naturalistic explanation and lets see who has the best objective evidence

Intelligent Design was never a hypothesis, because it failed to be falsifiable.

People often misunderstood Falsifiability.

Being falsifiable mean the potential of testing the statement, to refute the statement.

Meaning, any hypothesis formulated, must include instructions on to test the statement or explanation, through series of observations.

Testing can only occur with some form of observation, hence evidence and test results (data) from experiments. Evidence and experiments are often including measurements, and these measurements are recorded as data.

Negative evidence are still evidence, and that’s actually good news, because with accumulated negative evidences, you have objectively refute the hypothesis.

The tests aren’t just to verify solid hypotheses, but to also weed out bad or weak hypotheses. Negative evidence in experiments/tests, only demonstrated the hypothesis isn’t good.

If you have no evidence whatsoever, not even negative evidence, then the statement or explanation isn’t falsifiable. Intelligent Design falls under this category, as unfalsifiable explanation, hence pseudoscience.

Intelligent Design isn’t falsifiable, cannot be tested (no experiments, and no positive and no negative evidence), and without evidence and data, cannot be peer reviewed.

Even Michael Behe admitted that Intelligent Design (during cross examination in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, 2005) have no original research and no data (hence no evidence), as well as never being peer reviewed.

Intelligent Design have only provided unfalsifiable and unsubstantiated assertions, and heap of propaganda materials, eg books like Darwin’s Black Box and Of Panda And People, and analogy like The Watchmaker.

And btw, the theory on Evolution only deal with biology on Earth, and on biodiversity. It has nothing to do with the rest of the “universe”. Evolution don’t get involved with astrophysics and physical cosmology like the Big Bang.

 

[leroy]

Because an analogy would be the trait of "flight".
Birds do it with feathered wings. Bats do it with flaps of skin.

The underlying mechanism is different.
Same with the trait of "sight". Many independend evolution instances of eyes. All of them different in underlying mechanism - dramatically different in the case of eyes, actually.

Echo-location is a form of sight, actually, and if memory serves me right, it evolved independently 4-5 times.



No.

Bats and dolphins evolved the same genetic material independently. At least some of the genes related to echolocation evolved in dolpphins and bats independently, so if echolocation (same genes) can evolve independently twice, why can’t feathers (same genes) evolve twice?

If echolocation is not a problem for evolution, what difference would there be if we find a mammal with feathers?

Just to be clear echolocation is bats and dolphins is not analogous to “flight in birds” and “flight in bats” nor is it analogous to eyes, in the case of echolocation we are talking about the same genes evolving twice independently while in the case of flight, each specie has wings due to completely different genes.

 

[leroy]

Intelligent Design was never a hypothesis, because it failed to be falsifiable.

People often misunderstood Falsifiability.

Being falsifiable mean the potential of testing the statement, to refute the statement.

Meaning, any hypothesis formulated, must include instructions on to test the statement or explanation, through series of observations.

Testing can only occur with some form of observation, hence evidence and test results (data) from experiments. Evidence and experiments are often including measurements, and these measurements are recorded as data.

Negative evidence are still evidence, and that’s actually good news, because with accumulated negative evidences, you have objectively refute the hypothesis.

The tests aren’t just to verify solid hypotheses, but to also weed out bad or weak hypotheses. Negative evidence in experiments/tests, only demonstrated the hypothesis isn’t good.

If you have no evidence whatsoever, not even negative evidence, then the statement or explanation isn’t falsifiable. Intelligent Design falls under this category, as unfalsifiable explanation, hence pseudoscience.

Intelligent Design isn’t falsifiable, cannot be tested (no experiments, and no positive and no negative evidence), and without evidence and data, cannot be peer reviewed.

Even Michael Behe admitted that Intelligent Design (during cross examination in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, 2005) have no original research and no data (hence no evidence), as well as never being peer reviewed.

Intelligent Design have only provided unfalsifiable and unsubstantiated assertions, and heap of propaganda materials, eg books like Darwin’s Black Box and Of Panda And People, and analogy like The Watchmaker.

Weather if ID is falsifiable or not depends on a whole bunch of semantic games that quite frankly I would prefer to avoid.

But the statement “ID is the best explanation for the FT of the universe” is an objective statement that could be falsified, all you have to do is provide an alternative explanation and show that this explanation is a better (using commonly accepted criteria like parsimony, explanatory power, explanatory scope, consistency with previous knowledge, etc.)

I mean obviously the statement Santa Clause exist is probably unfalsifiable, but one can test the hypothesis “Santa clause is the cause of presents in the Christmas tree” vs “parents are the cause of presents in the Christmas tree” and you can show objectively that the second hypothesis is the best hypothesis (even if you don’t fully falsify the existence of Santa Clause) so why can’t you do the same with ID why cant you simply provide an explanation for FT and show that this explanation is better than ID?

 

[leroy]

It is your claim. You support it.

Ok it is my claim, and therefore I will support it. Please let me know what is your favorite naturalistic explanation for the FT of the universe and I will try to show that ID is a better explanation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Since a universal common ancestor has no objective evidence, your assertion does not hold up. Your argument is circular

I haven't made that argument in our exchange. Another creationist tactic to avoid supporting creationist positions and assertions. Also, your claim is incorrect and the evidence used to support common ancestry exists, you are aware of it and simply deny it.I

Did you have any support for your other assertions that were the subjects of our exchange or is it that you have simply folded and are flipping about hoping to hit water?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok it is my claim, and therefore I will support it. Please let me know what is your favorite naturalistic explanation for the FT of the universe and I will try to show that ID is a better explanation.

You have the burden to provide your argument and evidence all on your own. Do it or do not. The choice is yours.

 

[Jose Fly]

But the statement “ID is the best explanation for the FT of the universe” is an objective statement

No, it's an empty and vague (at best) assertion, no different than "Kloptsitch is the best explanation for the FT of the universe". All you're trying to do is set up ID creationism as the default, and shift the burden of proof onto everyone else, hoping no one would notice that you've not done a single thing to justify ID creationism being given default status (or even explained what ID creationism's explanation is).

But it appears you are deliberately ignoring me, so hopefully someone else will take this up with you.

 

[leroy]

Leroy Said
So would finding a land tetrapod that predates tiktaalik be a problem ?

No.

Ok so finding Tiktaalik in the late Denovian was not a big deal right, it would have been the same if the fossil would have been found in the Jurassic, or in the Cretaceous or even a living sample right?

 

[leroy]

You have the burden to provide your argument and evidence all on your own. Do it or do not. The choice is yours.

Sure my claim is that ID is a better explanation than any of the naturalistic hypothesis that have been discussed in the literature, I will be happy to support my claim, just let me know what is your favorite naturalistic hypothesis so that I can support my claim

 

[leroy]

No, it's an empty and vague (at best) assertion, no different than "Kloptsitch is the best explanation for the FT of the universe". All you're trying to do is set up ID creationism as the default, and shift the burden of proof onto everyone else, hoping no one would notice that you've not done a single thing to justify ID creationism being given default status (or even explained what ID creationism's explanation is).

But it appears you are deliberately ignoring me, so hopefully someone else will take this up with you.

Sure at this point the statement “ID is the best explanation for the FT of the universe” is just an empty assertion, I am willing to support my assertion with objective evidence against the naturalistic hypothesis of your preference, just let me know which is that naturalistic hypothesis and I will be happy to support my assertion of why I think ID is a better explanation.,