Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

According to mt saint Helen's, sedimentary layers are very easily formed rapidly. The hidden assumtion that annual layers have been laid down at exactly the same rate for billions of years is quite a rocky footing ya stands on.

Wrong, First off those are not technically sedimentary layers. They are volcanic layers. And that would be only some sedimentary layers. You are maknig the error of black and white thinking. Some, very very few, sedimentary layers can be laid down quickly. Most cannot. And If you claim "assumption" you need to be able to prove it. There are no assumptions of that sort that I know of. By the way since asssumptions of that sort are not allowed in the sciences you are personally attacking the scinetists involve, which if you understood the Ninth Commandment means that you are bearing falst witness against your neighbor by making that claim if you cannot support it. Just a friendly reminder, there is no "I was lying for Jesus" escape clause from that Commandment.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please support this claim. Using his images is not teaching recaptitulation. This is a claim that creationists often make but I have yet to see them support it.

I believe the statement is in Stephen Jay Gould's book, Ontogeny and Phylogeny. I can't download the excerpt, but his honest evaluation and comment about it being taught in the NYC school system is there to see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe the statement is in Stephen Jay Gould's book, Ontogeny and Phylogeny. I can't download the excerpt, but his honest evaluation and comment about it being taught in the NYC school system is there to see.

I don't know why Gould had such a fixation on Haeceklel, but I have never seen any creationists able to find any sources that show that recapitulation was taught in schools. If that was the case you should be able to find that regardless of what Gould's beliefs were. That creationists cannot seem to find any should tell you something.

So besides the dubious claims of Gould in this matter (they do not appear to be able to be confirmed independently) what evidence do you have that recapitulation was taught? As I have repeatedly shown it was refuted by the 1920's. Why would scientists push a refuted idea? After all it was fellow scientists that refuted it, not creationists. Why would scientists refute an idea and then teach it? That makes no sense at all.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please support this claim. Using his images is not teaching recaptitulation. This is a claim that creationists often make but I have yet to see them support it.

Further, the images support Haeckel's claim. And those images are

I don't know why Gould had such a fixation on Haeceklel, but I have never seen any creationists able to find any sources that show that recapitulation was taught in schools. If that was the case you should be able to find that regardless of what Gould's beliefs were. That creationists cannot seem to find any should tell you something.

So besides the dubious claims of Gould in this matter (they do not appear to be able to be confirmed independently) what evidence do you have that recapitulation was taught? As I have repeatedly shown it was refuted by the 1920's. Why would scientists push a refuted idea? After all it was fellow scientists that refuted it, not creationists. Why would scientists refute an idea and then teach it? That makes no sense at all.

I don't know why Gould had such a fixation on Haeceklel, but I have never seen any creationists able to find any sources that show that recapitulation was taught in schools. If that was the case you should be able to find that regardless of what Gould's beliefs were. That creationists cannot seem to find any should tell you something.

So besides the dubious claims of Gould in this matter (they do not appear to be able to be confirmed independently) what evidence do you have that recapitulation was taught? As I have repeatedly shown it was refuted by the 1920's. Why would scientists push a refuted idea? After all it was fellow scientists that refuted it, not creationists. Why would scientists refute an idea and then teach it? That makes no sense at all.

Yes, there is no doubt that it was taught in the 60s as truth in the New York public school system. It was refuted by some, but was promoted by others and taught as solid truth into the 60s without wavering. In fact, Gould's honest statement about that has so impressed me that I am inclined to read his book. Have a good night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Further, the images support Haeckel's claim. And those images are

Are what? You seem to have forgotten that even though Haeckel was wrong about recapitulation that those images were and still are evidence for evolution.

Yes, there is no doubt that it was taught in the 60s as truth in the New York public school system. It was refuted by some, but was promoted by others and taught as solid truth into the 60s without wavering. In fact, Gould's honest statement about that has so impressed me that I am inclined to read his book. Have a good night.

If there was"no doubt " then you should have had no problem supporting your claims. The fact that you did not indicates that there is a huge doubt.

And why does this get you so bent out of shape? It may be due to the fact that you do not understand the concept of evidence. You really should take a break and try to learn the concept.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, so it wasn't until the early 1800's you say that the great age of the earth was first being appreciated. OK. But then I wonder if many people believed at that time the earth (and the heavens) might have first been created/made/came into existence 6,000 years ago? Oh, well, that is perhaps for another time.

Yes, most people, including the scientists of the time, thought the Earth was less than 10,000 years old and probably around 6000 years old.

So they were *very* surprised when the evidence showed that assumption was wrong. It caused quite a stir at the time. Everyone had assumed the Biblical chronology was correct and when it simply didn't fit the facts on the ground, that caused a lot of bewilderment in many people.

The first attempt at reconciliation was a form of Catastrophism, where instead of one massive destruction (the Biblical flood), there were many (and the Bible only described the last). This was also ultimately found to not fit the facts on the ground because of the different times when species became extinct.

Ultimately, this lead to the realization that species change over time (evolution). But it wasn't until Darwin that a *mechanism* for this change was proposed that fit the facts (natural selection) and it was even later that the mechanisms of genetics were found and incorporated into the theory of evolution (for the Modern Synthesis).

 

[Polymath257]

The word make was the point. If something is made, it must be compelled to do so since making or bringing something to a different form are both actions. Now this action has to come from either in the thing made, or outside of the thing made. Being made from the inside is impossible since a thing can't compel itself to do something, this it must be an external forced. Randomness breeds chaos so for something ordered to exist, the made thing must be forced to be made ordered. Since nature is an unintelligent, undirected force... It's hard to maintain that it could order anything.

But the laws of nature are NOT random and undirected. For example, gravity is (to a first approximation) always on the direct line between the masses involved and pulls them together. This is why large astronomical bodies (like planets and stars) are spherical.

Electromagnetism is more complicated, but quite far from being random.

And it is the physical properties of the atoms involved that determine which chemical reactions occur. Again, this is quite far from being a random process.

Your metaphysics has a lot to be desired to get into agreement with what is known in physics.

 

[JasAnMa]

But the laws of nature are NOT random and undirected. For example, gravity is (to a first approximation) always on the direct line between the masses involved and pulls them together. This is why large astronomical bodies (like planets and stars) are spherical.

Electromagnetism is more complicated, but quite far from being random.

And it is the physical properties of the atoms involved that determine which chemical reactions occur. Again, this is quite far from being a random process.

Your metaphysics has a lot to be desired to get into agreement with what is known in physics.

Your actually making my point for me. Order never comes from chaos without information added. Why I'm the world would nature and the universe be different? To say laws or constants come from randomness goes against everything we observe in life. The laws of thermodynamics state this. You can try to argue around it but there's no free lunch. If you have examples to the contrary I'd be open to hearing them. And I'm sad I have to say this so often... But I am NOT bring sarcastic when I say that.

 

[Jose Fly]

According to mt saint Helen's, sedimentary layers are very easily formed rapidly. The hidden assumtion that annual layers have been laid down at exactly the same rate for billions of years is quite a rocky footing ya stands on.

I gotta ask.....do you really have such a dim view of the world's geologists that you think they can't tell the difference between layering of ash and mud from a volcanic eruption, and annual layers from other circumstances? Do you truly think they're that bad at their profession?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your actually making my point for me. Order never comes from chaos without information added. Why I'm the world would nature and the universe be different? To say laws or constants come from randomness goes against everything we observe in life. The laws of thermodynamics state this. You can try to argue around it but there's no free lunch. If you have examples to the contrary I'd be open to hearing them. And I'm sad I have to say this so often... But I am NOT bring sarcastic when I say that.

But we see "order from chaos" quite often. Have you ever seen a snowflake up close? Or mineral crystals? It is a rather bad error to use the word "random" when describing evolution since it is not a random event. In other words you are using a strawman fallacy when you do so.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then why the confusion? Recapitulation has not been taught ever in schools and was refuted in the 1920's.

Please if you can, go to the forward in Stephen Jay Gould's book about that. He firmly and clearly declared in the Prospectus of his book that he learned Haeckel's theory in the New York City school system FIFTY YEARS AFTER scientists had abandoned the theory. So after scientists gave the theory up for error, the school system(s) were teaching it. Clearly the school system was teaching it to unsuspecting students. Later, I suppose, he realized there were serious flaws in it, and he felt the need, despite walls of opposition, to investigate this further. In other words, it most certainly was taught as fact in New York when Gould went to school there.
I am reading the book in parts, and perhaps we'll see what Gould's take is on this issue in the final analysis. But if you note, I am not discussing right now if it's true or not. I am saying that it was taught definitely as truth to New York State schoolchildren. Many of whom believed it wholeheartedly without reservation or thought for the rest of their lives. Unlike Gould, who had the temerity and nerve and decision to examine it more closely later on. Good for him.

 

[JasAnMa]

But we see "order from chaos" quite often. Have you ever seen a snowflake up close? Or mineral crystals? It is a rather bad error to use the word "random" when describing evolution since it is not a random event. In other words you are using a strawman fallacy when you do so.

Your describing the effect of a force on an object. If it weren't random we'd expect to see the exact snow flake every time, as it happens that's not what we see. Objects formed by a specific force is not the same thing as order from chaos. There's no fallacy there, I believe my argument holds as is.

 

[Polymath257]

Your actually making my point for me. Order never comes from chaos without information added. Why I'm the world would nature and the universe be different? To say laws or constants come from randomness goes against everything we observe in life. The laws of thermodynamics state this. You can try to argue around it but there's no free lunch. If you have examples to the contrary I'd be open to hearing them. And I'm sad I have to say this so often... But I am NOT bring sarcastic when I say that.

Who said the laws and constants come from randomness? I'm saying the universe follows natural laws that lead it to increasing complexity over time. I;m not sure it even makes sense to talk about the 'cause' of fundamental laws since causality itself is one of those laws.

You even mention some of those laws (the laws of thermodynamics), but I would bet you don't really understand what those laws say. In particular, the increase of complexity we see in life is completely consistent with the 2LOT. And, in fact, information and the 2LOT are quite closely connected (at least Shannon information) and your interpretation seems to be directly against what we know to be true for the 2LOT.

I'd also point out that the 2LOT is NOT a fundamental law. In fact, it is a statistical law and we KNOW of systems where it fails (mostly involving small numbers of components). When done via statistical mechanics, it describes entropy (essentially the negative of information) and how it changes over time.

Finally, nobody said there was a 'free lunch'. Only that the conservation of energy (the first law of thermo) does not negate the possibility of the 'universe from nothing' scenario *if* you allow that 'nothing' obeys the known laws of nature (in particular, that it is a state of the universe having no particles in it).

 

[Polymath257]

Your actually making my point for me. Order never comes from chaos without information added.

Where is the added information when a gas cloud condenses and forms a spherical star with orbiting planets?

There is certainly an increase of order in such a situation (although local). If you think about it enough, you will realize there is a trade-off between energy derived from falling into a gravitational well and the randomness of the original system. As the system condenses, the entropy decreases locally (but not globally) due a release of energy to the environment.

 

[JasAnMa]

I gotta ask.....do you really have such a dim view of the world's geologists that you think they can't tell the difference between layering of ash and mud from a volcanic eruption, and annual layers from other circumstances? Do you truly think they're that bad at their profession?

Not at all, I'm confident they can do much better than that. I'm talking about actual sedimentary layers, laid down within days in the valley below.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please if you can, go to the forward in Stephen Jay Gould's book about that. He firmly and clearly declared in the Prospectus of his book that he learned Haeckel's theory in the New York City school system FIFTY YEARS AFTER scientists had abandoned the theory. So after scientists gave the theory up for error, the school system(s) were teaching it. Clearly the school system was teaching it to unsuspecting students. Later, I suppose, he realized there were serious flaws in it, and he felt the need, despite walls of opposition, to investigate this further. In other words, it most certainly was taught as fact in New York when Gould went to school there.
I am reading the book in parts, and perhaps we'll see what Gould's take is on this issue in the final analysis. But if you note, I am not discussing right now if it's true or not. I am saying that it was taught definitely as truth to New York State schoolchildren. Many of whom believed it wholeheartedly without reservation or thought for the rest of their lives. Unlike Gould, who had the temerity and nerve and decision to examine it more closely later on. Good for him.

Even if that is true, what difference does it make? At the high school level minor errors, and that is what this one is, often linger. It does not change the fact that evolution is a fact.

 

[JasAnMa]

Who said the laws and constants come from randomness? I'm saying the universe follows natural laws that lead it to increasing complexity over time. I;m not sure it even makes sense to talk about the 'cause' of fundamental laws since causality itself is one of those laws.

You even mention some of those laws (the laws of thermodynamics), but I would bet you don't really understand what those laws say. In particular, the increase of complexity we see in life is completely consistent with the 2LOT. And, in fact, information and the 2LOT are quite closely connected (at least Shannon information) and your interpretation seems to be directly against what we know to be true for the 2LOT.

I'd also point out that the 2LOT is NOT a fundamental law. In fact, it is a statistical law and we KNOW of systems where it fails (mostly involving small numbers of components). When done via statistical mechanics, it describes entropy (essentially the negative of information) and how it changes over time.

Finally, nobody said there was a 'free lunch'. Only that the conservation of energy (the first law of thermo) does not negate the possibility of the 'universe from nothing' scenario *if* you allow that 'nothing' obeys the known laws of nature (in particular, that it is a state of the universe having no particles in it).

I guess my next question would be, how did the laws originate. I assume since they are physical laws they have a beginning. If those laws don't come into existence randomly, you need a mechanism that forms them. If I'm correct in that assessment, what is their origin outside of randomness.

 

[Jose Fly]

Not at all, I'm confident they can do much better than that. I'm talking about actual sedimentary layers, laid down within days in the valley below.

Then I'm not sure what your point is. When @Subduction Zone brought up seasonal layers in lake varves and ice cores, you replied by mentioning layering of ash and mud at Mt St. Helens.

But if you understand that geologists can tell the difference between those things, what exactly is your point?

 

[JasAnMa]

Then I'm not sure what your point is. When @Subduction Zone brought up seasonal layers in lake varves and ice cores, you replied by mentioning layering of ash and mud at Mt St. Helens.

But if you understand that geologists can tell the difference between those things, what exactly is your point?

He asked if I thought geologists were so incompetent that they couldn't tell the difference between annual layers and Ash layers. I never said nor argued that. I do however believe they have no way of knowing for sure that all layers they see as annual layers, actually are annual layers. That's a huge assumption given that sedimentary layers have been demonstrated to have accrued rapidly. That was my argument, I apologize for not properly explaining my position.

 

[Jose Fly]

He asked if I thought geologists were so incompetent that they couldn't tell the difference between annual layers and Ash layers.

Actually, I asked that.

I do however believe they have no way of knowing for sure that all layers they see as annual layers, actually are annual layers. That's a huge assumption given that sedimentary layers have been demonstrated to have accrued rapidly. That was my argument, I apologize for not properly explaining my position.

What sedimentary layers that resemble annual layering in lake varves and ice cores are you thinking of?