Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[ericmurphy]

So to be qualified to discuss evolution what do need to be ? some elitist or is it for anyone ,i'm English i think its for anyone.

You don't need any formal qualifications. I have a high school diploma. But you do need to have some familiarity with the basics of the theory, and some understanding of how science works helps, too. Unfortunately, you give no indication of having either an understanding of evolutionary theory or an understanding of the scientific method. Without either of these two things in your intellectual toolkit, it's very difficult to discuss evolutionary theory intelligently.

In my experience, very few people who have a solid understanding of evolutionary theory have doubts about it. Every time I come across a creationist, said creationist evinces little to no understanding of the theory said creationist is attempting to criticize.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There were trilobites 300 million years ago, and there are no trilobites today. There are rabbits today, but there were no rabbits 300 million years ago. Those two observations, all by themselves, without reference to any additional observations, are more than sufficient to establish the factual nature of evolution.

There is no theory so sound, no paradigm so powerful, as to be immune to the embarrassing drivel of the superficial apologist. :slap:

 

[Autodidact]

OK in laymans terms what are the facts

I realize this is a long thread, but way back on page 12 and following, in post #85 and post #87 and post # 137 I tried to do just that. I don't mind doing it once, although you will see they are quite long posts, but do not have enough patience to go through it again. It would be helpful if you would go back and read those posts, so you have a rudimentary understanding of what we're talking about. I welcome any question or need for clarification, as well as help from anyone else here in filling in what I've missed.

 

[Autodidact]

Did you know that there was sufficient evidence to hang a man in one of the last hangings in England only to find out he was innocent.
I do understand where you are comming from but for example there was evidence to suggest we would not invade the Normandy beaches but we did.
If it is so cut and dried why is'nt it told that way,it is'nt is short answer and it is not fact.
For example only ,how many people believed the da vinci code(hapless fools)the evidence was presented allbeit in a fictional movie yet people still believed it.
The theory of relativity was spoken in the same vein as toe but half of japan was blown up to support it,need i go on

So do you reject all scientific knowledge then? Because ToE is as well evidenced as any theory in modern science.

 

[Autodidact]

So to be qualified to discuss evolution what do need to be ? some elitist or is it for anyone ,i'm English i think its for anyone.

I would say either some basic understanding of it, or, at a minimum, a willingness to admit one's ignorance and try to rectify it. Do you have either of these things? If not, then don't you think it's colossally arrogant as well as stupid to tell intelligent people who have spent their entire lives studying it that they're wrong?

 

[4Pillars]

Such as?



Like what? Give me an example.


That's already been done. First, there is not one "flagellum"; there are dozens, all with different numbers of proteins. Therefore, on that basis alone, flagella are not irreducibly complex. Further, removing parts from various flagella will not make them inoperative for other purposes.

But none of this falsifies intelligent design. An intelligent designer still could have designed flagella this way. Showing something could have evolved does not falsify the claim it was designed.



Not remotely. Show my why something cannot have been designed if it could have evolved.



What observation about the genetic code could falsify this claim? And incidentally, where's the support for this claim? Where is your evidence that the genetic code cannot have arisen except through intelligent intervention? DNA is just another organic polymer; there's nothing all that special about it. It's certainly not a particularly complex polymer. It just has unusual properties. So does water.

Contrary to all the strawman you've put up so far, both Intelligent Design and Creationism do meet those requirements, hence they can rightly be called "scientific".* That you are intellectually prejudiced to implications of the supernatural is your personal problem not science's.* So let's apply your criteria for science.

A) Verification of a designer

If creation has been designed, how can we know or verify that? Answer: By looking at instances of known design, and seek for the same instances in biology.* And the qualities of known design are things like specified complexity and irreducible complexity, things which nature cannot create by chance.* And as it turns out, we do find lots of those qualities in biological systems, such as the DNA code (specified complexity) and the rotary motors in a bacterium's flagella (irreducible complexity) to name but a few.

B) Falsification of a designer

A designer can be easily falsified if it can be shown that such examples of specified complexity and irreducible complexity can arise naturally and incrementally.


So as you can see you cannot simply dismiss ID and Creationism as non-scientific for it meets your own criteria of science.

One of the strawman often brought up against ID and Creationism is that it stifles scientific inquiry, that God will simply invoked when a road block is met.* But in reality it is the naturalistic evolutionary science that stifles scientific inquiry, for if it is true that the universe and life were designed then Evolution has no way of detecting it because of its pre-commitment to naturalistic methodologies.* Whereas ID and Creationism is OPEN to both possibilities.

And contrary to another of your friend's strawman arguments, we don't practice "supernatural science" and invoke a supernatural agent for every circumstance.* Eventhough we believe in a Designer that does not stop us from learning how nature works, just like me who knows very little about automobiles would not be stifled from tinkering with a car and learning how it physically works even though I know that car had a designer.

ON THE OTHER HAND, as I have posted before...


I questioned the application of your own criteria to Evolution itself, and I personally find it wanting and therefore is hard-pressed at considering MACRO-evolution as science.

A) Verification of macro-evolution

Despite all the conjectures in your previous posts, you have yet to give us ANY verifiable evidence for MACRO-evolution.* All you've given us an appeal to micro-evolution, and a claim that micro-evolution + time = macro-evolution.* But again, the issue is VERIFICATION, a mere claim isn't one.* Besides, your appeal to micro-evolution is nothing but the fallacy of illicit conversion.* Can you give us a clear example of NEW GENETIC INFO being produced naturally which created a new organ or a new functionality on an organism, resulting in a new specie of it?

B) Falsification of macro-evolution

Because many, if not most, evolutionary scientists view their theory as "fact" it has become virtually impossible to falsify macro-evolution.* For example, one known problem of this view is the Cambrian Explosion.* While you claimed in your previous that "the fossil record is complete", the Cambrian Explosion falsifies that.* It is precisely because of this problem in the fossil record that devout evolutionists like Stephen Jay Gould have invented a mechanism to explain CE away, i.e. the theory of Punctuated Equillibrium, just to keep evolution coherent.

Now please note that I am a Biblical Creationists not an IDT.* As much as Creationists agree with ID theorists, and as much as evolutionists want to lump the 2 together, nevertheless, they are NOT the same, both camps actually deny association with each other.* Feel free to visit the link below to see the difference for your additional your learning:

Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same


Bye... back to enjoy my vacation. See you next year.

 

[ericmurphy]

There is no theory so sound, no paradigm so powerful, as to be immune to the embarrassing drivel of the superficial apologist. :slap:

And given their implicit refusal to distinguish between the fact of evolution, and evolutionary theory, I have to think it's intentional duplicity. I don't think they're conflating the two accidentally, especially when the distinction is repeatedly pointed out to them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Contrary to all the strawman you've put up so far, both Intelligent Design and Creationism do meet those requirements, hence they can rightly be called "scientific".

Nice mantra: baseless, ignorant, and irresponsible, but no doubt comforting.

 

[painted wolf]

rotary motors in a bacterium's flagella

hate to break it to you but this one has been disproven.

The bacterium's flagella is perfectly usable without as many as half its parts.
Bacterium use it as a injection devise for toxins.
The Flagellum Unspun
Answering the Biochemical Argument from Design
Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

In fact evolutionary pathways have been found for all of the "irreducibly complex" systems touted by IDists. Sadly they like all other scientific developments have been ignored.
I can understand Dembski being a bit behind.. he hasn't done any research in ten years.

wa:do

 

[ericmurphy]

A designer can be easily falsified if it can be shown that such examples of specified complexity and irreducible complexity can arise naturally and incrementally.

Absolutely, unequivocally false. Just because a particular structure could arise naturally does not in any way, shape, or form falsify the notion that it was created. There would be nothing stopping a creator from creating a flagellum even if it could be shown in step-by-step detail how a flagellum could arise from entirely naturalistic and unguided processes.

Try again. Try to come up with a single falsifiable prediction either Intelligent Design or special creation makes. If you cannot do so (and you cannot), then you have no justification for claiming that either one is in any way scientific.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There were trilobites 300 million years ago, and there are no trilobites today. There are rabbits today, but there were no rabbits 300 million years ago. Those two observations, all by themselves, without reference to any additional observations, are more than sufficient to establish the factual nature of evolution.

There is no theory so sound, no paradigm so powerful, as to be immune to the embarrassing drivel of the superficial apologist. :slap:

And given their implicit refusal to distinguish between the fact of evolution, and evolutionary theory, I have to think it's intentional duplicity. I don't think they're conflating the two accidentally, especially when the distinction is repeatedly pointed out to them.

None of which renders your comment any less inane.

 

[Willamena]

Do you know?

Yes; but I'm asking you to see if you know.

 

[Willamena]

What is the "it" that you don't think is fact, England? If "it" is "evolution," then evolution is a fact, and you're 100% wrong if you don't think it is. How do I know this? Simple. There were trilobites 300 million years ago, and there are no trilobites today. There are rabbits today, but there were no rabbits 300 million years ago. Those two observations, all by themselves, without reference to any additional observations, are more than sufficient to establish the factual nature of evolution. If you disagree, I would like for you to provide an alternative explanation for why trilobites don't exist now, and why rabbits didn't exist then.

I can't see the extinction of a species or the discovery of a new one being evidence of change within the species.

 

[painted wolf]

I think the point is supposed to be that the tree of life and phylogenics predict that creatures like arthopods will have evolved first and that mammals evolved later.
Thus if you can find a trilobyte with a rabbit you have a better case for 'special' creation which says that all the animals were *poofed* into existance at the same time.

wa:do

 

[ericmurphy]

None of which renders your comment any less inane.

What's "inane" about the observation that since there were creatures in the past which do not exist today, and there are creatures in existence today which did not exist in the past, that evolution must necessarily have happened?

What is "inane" is to try to argue, in the face of the above observation, that evolution does not, and indeed cannot, happen. To do so is exactly equivalent to denying that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

 

[ericmurphy]

I think the point is supposed to be that the tree of life and phylogenics predict that creatures like arthopods will have evolved first and that mammals evolved later.
Thus if you can find a trilobyte with a rabbit you have a better case for 'special' creation which says that all the animals were *poofed* into existance at the same time.

wa:do

To prove evolution has happened, you don't even have to go that far. All evolution is (as distinct from the theory of evolution) is the fact that living organisms have changed over time. All you need to do to demonstrate that evolution happens is to show that there were different organisms in the past from what exists now, and that organisms alive today did not exist in the past.

Evolution is nothing more and nothing less than this. If you want to believe that God caused this evolution (which evolution is undeniable), then fine. If you want to get me to believe it, then come up with a plausible hypothesis of how Goddidit, because saying Goddidit doesn't cut it.

Evolutionary theory proposes a series of mechanisms by which life evolves. Special creation does not. That in and of itself would be bad enough, but special creation seems to go further and claims that evolution doesn't happen at all. Which is preposterous.

 

[Willamena]

What's "inane" about the observation that since there were creatures in the past which do not exist today, and there are creatures in existence today which did not exist in the past, that evolution must necessarily have happened?

How is it evidence of evolution?

That's like saying there was a ball over there, now there's a ball here - so that's evidence of gravity.

 

[painted wolf]

more evidence against the irreducible complexity of the flagellum

you don't need all the genes to make a working flagellum... I mean come on, this was done in the 1980's!!

Various deletions were introduced into the central region of Escherichia coli flagellin (497 residues) without destroying its ability to form flagellar filaments. The smallest flagellin retained only the N-terminal 193 residues and the C-terminal 117 residues, which are suggested to be the domains essential for filament formation.

Construction of a minimum-size functional flagellin of Escherichia coli.

Also if they were so irreducibly complex then you would think there would only be one way to make them right?
Wrong.
There are two types of flagella.

wa:do

 

[ericmurphy]

How is it evidence of evolution?

That's like saying there was a ball over there, now there's a ball here - so that's evidence of gravity.

No. It's like saying, here's a ball in my hand, and I'm letting go of it, and it's falling. That's evidence of gravity.

Let's get our analogies straight.

Also, let's get our nomenclature straight. I am not, not not NOT, discussing the theory of evolution here. The theory of evolution is not, of course, factual. No theory is. Evolution (as distinct from evolutionary theory) is simply an observation. It's the observation that living organisms have changed over time, and that's all it is. It's not an accounting for what caused that change, it's not a series of mechanisms purporting to explain that change; it is simply an observation that living organisms change. They change slightly over short amounts of time (microevolution), and they change dramatically over long periods of time (macroevolution). These observations are no more disputable than that the moon orbits the earth.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What's "inane" about the observation that since there were creatures in the past which do not exist today, and there are creatures in existence today which did not exist in the past, that evolution must necessarily have happened?

Pachycephalosaurus existed in the Upper Cretaceous and does not exist today. Homo sapiens sapiens exist today and did not exist in the Upper Cretaceous, nor did they evolve from pachycephalosaurus. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy.