Evidence For And Against Evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Evolution predicts that such species existed, but it can't predict which species will fossilize.
Fossils aren't ordered like you order a steak at the restaurant.

Tiktaalik is just one example of a "fishapod" from around 375 million years ago.
There will have been such species older as well as younger.

Consider it like this: americans come from europeans. Yet today, 400 years after europeans colonized america, there are still europeans.

In the tetrapod story, americans are tetrapods. Europeans are tiktaalik.

You seem to still be having trouble with understanding the difference between "transitional" and "ancestral".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Bats and dolphins evolved the same genetic material independently.

No, they did not.
There is a case of parallel evolution in a single gene, prestin, which is only involved in detecting the rebound echo's. It's only the auditory part of it. It concerns a gene pretty much all mammals have. This single gene does not account for the entire echolocation trait.

Overall, the genetics that account for the trait of echo-location is different in both species.

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?

This is a misrepresentation. All mammals have this gene as it is related to how mammalian ears function. The mutation that happened in both species, merely allows for more sensitivity to also hear the ultrasonic frequences of the echo's.

This is a detail and not a problem at all.

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

I've already told you.

Different echo-location mechanisms aren't a problem just like different flight mechanisms aren't a problem.
If you would find a mammal with feathers which is underpinned by a fully identical genetic sequence to the feathers in birds, evolution wouldn't be able to account for that.


You know, it would help if you would actually learn about about evolution and genetics, before trying to argue about it. I have a feeling that you are seriously out of your depths.

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,

Sure it is.

in the case of echolocation we are talking about the same genes evolving twice independently

Again: no.
The only case of parallel evolution is a change in a single gene, prestin, involved in hearing high pitches sounds in all mammals.

To pretend that this single gene accounts for the full echolocation mechanism, is just wrong.
It is ONLY involved in being able to "hear" the ultrasonic frequences of the rebound echo's. That's it.

With selection pressures heavily focussing on getting better at hearing high-pitched frequencies, it is no surprise that the gene that actually regulates that, gets mutated.

while in the case of flight, each specie has wings due to completely different genes.

Not exactly. Wings are forelimb adaptions and as such, the same genes are involved.

The yellow bones are "fingers".
To grow these wings, the same genes have been mutated. Genes involved in finger formation.

But overall, yes: wings that evolved independently, use different genetics to accomplish flight - with some overlap since the same structures are involved.
The same goes for echolocation in bats and whales. Overall, since they evolved independently, they use different genetics to accomplish echolocation - with some overlap since the same structures for detecting the rebound sound are involved. These structures are called "ears". Mammalian ears.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Weather if ID is falsifiable or not depends on a whole bunch of semantic games

No, it doesn't.
It depends completely on what ID actually states.

If what it states isn't properly testable, then it's not falsifiable.
This is why predictions are important.

A scientific idea, must make testable predictions. If it doesn't, then it's not a scientific idea, because it means you have no way to evaluate its validity / accuracy. And you need testability in order to be falsifiable.

In science, if something isn't falsifiable, it's pretty much worthless.

that quite frankly I would prefer to avoid.

If ID was actually falsifiable, you wouldn't have to avoid it.

But the statement “ID is the best explanation for the FT of the universe” is an objective statement that could be falsified

And it's easy to do so: there's no way to assess your statement, if it's not testable. So a non-testable model is not an explanation. Since if it's not an explanation, it can hardly be the "best" explanation. It's not even the worst explanation. It's, in fact, no explanation at all.

, all you have to do is provide an alternative explanation and show that this explanation is a better

And this just goes to show that your ID model is actually nothing but an argument from ignorance.
Your bare assertion isn't "the best explanation" by default simply because you don't know what else would be the actual explanation.

Textbook argument from ignorance.

Your model should be able to stand on its own merrit. Instead, it's validity apparantly depends on alternative models existing or not. That's as fallacious as it gets.

ID is not the null hypothesis.

(using commonly accepted criteria like parsimony, explanatory power, explanatory scope, consistency with previous knowledge, etc.)

ID has no explanatory whatsoever. To have explanatory power, one has to have testable predictions. You don't have any.

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?

Because the "vs" part turns it into an argument from ignorance.

The fact is that there isn't a single valid reason to even contemplate the santa model in the first place, since it's just a bare assertion with no evidence and no verifiability. It's utterly meaningless and worthless.

Also, it's incredibly misleading, even dishonest, to call santa a "hypothesis". A hypothesis is independently testable. Unfalsifiable models aren't. So unfalsifiable models don't qualify for the term "hypothesis".

They only qualify as bare assertions / arguments from ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

That's not "supporting" it.
That's shifting the burden of proof and setting up an argument from ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

yes, you have repeated what your claim is plenty of times already.

People are asking you to actually support your claim.

If your support for this claim amounts to nothing but "you don't have another explanation", then you're just engaging in a ginormous argument from ignorance.

So, do you feel like engaging in logical fallacies is a reasonable way to build your case?

Here, I'll make it easy on you: my explanation is that "I don't know". So I don't know.

So, you think you do know.. you claim ID.
Go ahead, support your claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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,

That's not how evidence works nore how one supports a claim.

It is, however, how logical fallacies work like argument from ignorance and shifting the burden of proof.

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.,

I don't know.

Now support your ID claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of all the pool of alternatives I would suggest that ID is the best option based on the data that we have today......

Why?

I am assuming that you disagree and that you believe that there is a better alternative

You assume wrong.
I believe that I don't know.
I believe that you also don't know - you just like to pretend that you know.

I also believe that the ONLY reason you think ID is the "best" option, is because you ALREADY BELIEVED THAT, since it is essentially your religious belief.

I also believe that you can not build a proper rationally supported case for this belief, which is why you continously engage in fallacious reasoning when called on it.

Quite honestly I think I am asking a very reasonable question, I mean why wouldn't you respond to it?

I did respond: i don't know.

Now support your claim that ID is a good explanation.

 

[leroy]

And ID's explanation is..............?

Because you're doing everything you can to avoid actually saying what "ID's explanation" is. Until you do that, it's impossible for anyone to evaluate it, or compare it to anything else.[/QUOTE]
The ID explanation is just the claim that that an intelligent designer is the cause of the FT that we observe in the universe, just like you would say that an inteligent designer is the cause of artwork, tools, pottery, buildings etc. if astronauts ever find that stuff in other planets. Quite frankly I don’t know what type of answer are you expecting, should I provide a source that explains the ID position with more detail?

Just to be clear, I would be the first one to admit that I don’t understand your question, and I don’t understand what kind of answer are you expecting, so before insulting and accusing me for making a straw man please explain with detail what exactly your question is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@leroy , here is a simple challenge:

What reasonable test could show your version of ID to be wrong? And it is not reasonable to make your test rely upon others to prove themselves right. You need to test ID on its own merits. If you cannot do that you only have an ad hoc explanation, and those are worthless in the sciences. If you cannot think of a test then you do not have a scientific hypothesis or theory and therefore do not have any evidence for it by definition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because you're doing everything you can to avoid actually saying what "ID's explanation" is. Until you do that, it's impossible for anyone to evaluate it, or compare it to anything else.
The ID explanation is just the claim that that an intelligent designer is the cause of the FT that we observe in the universe, just like you would say that an inteligent designer is the cause of artwork, tools, pottery, buildings etc. if astronauts ever find that stuff in other planets. Quite frankly I don’t know what type of answer are you expecting, should I provide a source that explains the ID position with more detail?

Just to be clear, I would be the first one to admit that I don’t understand your question, and I don’t understand what kind of answer are you expecting, so before insulting and accusing me for making a straw man please explain with detail what exactly your question is.

I see that I could've saved myself some time. You just stated that ID is a worthless ad hoc explanation based upon an argument from ignorance and has no supporting evidence.

 

[leroy]

The problem is that ID isn't an explanation at all. It has no predictive power, no way to distinguish when it is true versus when it is not, and seems to be able to encompass any data whatsoever.

That means it has absolutely no explanatory power.

I disagree, but I would also rather to keep things simple and grant your assertion for the purpose of this conversation.

But even if all that were true, you should still be capable of providing an explanation for the FT of the universe and explain why is that a better explanation than ID.

Take for example Nested Hierachies,(NH) even though an inteligent designer could have had made organisms and organize their genomes in a NH pattern, common ancestry is still demonstrably a better explanation than intelligent design for such a pattern, it is very easy to demonstrate that common ancestry is more parsimonious, more elegant, less ad hoc, has more explanatory power, more predictive power, and a wider explanatory scope….so even if you cant entirely disprove ID, you can still prove that common ancestry is a better explanation than ID

So in theory you should be capable of providing an explanation for the FT of the universe, and show that the explanation is better than ID, even if you don’t fully disprove ID.

 

[leroy]

How about:

The constants of physics have equilibrium values that maximize complexity. They spontaneously change to be close to those equilibrium values.

OK and under your model what causes the spontaneous change towards optimizing complexity?

1 An inteligen designer

2 an stochastic or chaotic event (chance)

3 a deterministic natural law

4 some other alternative that I haven’t think of?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree, but I would also rather to keep things simple and grant your assertion for the purpose of this conversation.

But even if all that were true, you should still be capable of providing an explanation for the FT of the universe and explain why is that a better explanation than ID.

Take for example Nested Hierachies,(NH) even though an inteligent designer could have had made organisms and organize their genomes in a NH pattern, common ancestry is still demonstrably a better explanation than intelligent design for such a pattern, it is very easy to demonstrate that common ancestry is more parsimonious, more elegant, less ad hoc, has more explanatory power, more predictive power, and a wider explanatory scope….so even if you cant entirely disprove ID, you can still prove that common ancestry is a better explanation than ID

So in theory you should be capable of providing an explanation for the FT of the universe, and show that the explanation is better than ID, even if you don’t fully disprove ID.

Concepts like nested hierarchies can and have been repeatedly tested. They are falsifiable on their own merits. That is why they are evidence for evolution. You cannot seem to come up with a reasonable test for ID. That means there is no reliable evidence for it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK and under your model what causes the spontaneous change towards optimizing complexity?

1 An inteligen designer

2 an stochastic or chaotic event (chance)

3 a deterministic natural law

4 some other alternative that I haven’t think of?

4.

 

[Polymath257]

OK and under your model what causes the spontaneous change towards optimizing complexity?

1 An inteligen designer

2 an stochastic or chaotic event (chance)

3 a deterministic natural law

4 some other alternative that I haven’t think of?

How about statistical events that over time lead to an equilibrium. That happens frequently in the known universe.

But, truthfully, I don't have to answer that question since my scenario is already a better explanation than ID.

 

[leroy]

How about statistical events that over time lead to an equilibrium. That happens frequently in the known universe.

Over time? What time? The universe was Finely tuned since the big bang, since the beginning of time the universe was FT

So when did this statistical events happened?

1 Before the Big Bang (before time)

2 Before the Big Bang (there was time before the big bang)

3 soon after the big bang? (a few seconds after the BB)

4 Long after the big bang (Say during a period of millions of years after the big bang )

But, truthfully, I don't have to answer that question since my scenario is already a better explanation than ID.

The reason why I am asking these questions is because I personally what to understand your model.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Yes, life is very fine tuned to the universe, not vice versa.

If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

OK and under your model what causes the spontaneous change towards optimizing complexity?

1 An inteligen designer

2 an stochastic or chaotic event (chance)

3 a deterministic natural law

4 some other alternative that I haven’t think of?

Why do you believe the first three options are mutually exclusive?

 

[Polymath257]

Over time? What time? The universe was Finely tuned since the big bang, since the beginning of time the universe was FT

Far from clear. We have some degree of fine tuning once stars get going, but it isn't clear that is the case prior to that.

So when did this statistical events happened?

1 Before the Big Bang (before time)

2 Before the Big Bang (there was time before the big bang)

3 soon after the big bang? (a few seconds after the BB)

4 Long after the big bang (Say during a period of millions of years after the big bang )

The reason why I am asking these questions is because I personally what to understand your model.

Well, one of my points is that this *isn't* actually a model. It is very, very far from being a model. But, even with that, it is far better than anything ID has come up with. But, since ID hypothesizes that the constants *can* be different, that means they can change. And that means there could be an equilibrium that gives the observed values.

That said, and if I cared to elaborate on this line of thinking, I would guess the coalescence to the current values for the constants happened during the inflationary stage.

Among the issues that need to be dealt with: what is the feedback mechanisms for changing the constants? What drives them to change? And, most importantly, what predictions can be made from this conjecture that could be tested?

But, again, ID provides none of those either. What I have proposed is something that does not introduce an un-evidenced intelligence, but instead only postulates that the constants can change and that the current values are the equilibrium ones.

My model wins simply because ID cannot do anything that even this toy idea can do.