Just Accidental?

[Profound Realization]

This is basically how I described the fundamental flaw in @Guy Threepwood 's argument....

The gist of his argument is something like, both cars buried in junkyards and fossils buried in strata show certain patterns (shared traits, similarities, changes over time, some gaps, sudden appearances, also a few regressions and dead ends). With cars, all those patterns are the result of "intelligent design", therefore since we see the same patterns in the fossil record, the organisms they represent must also be the result of "intelligent design".

The problem with that reasoning is obvious. It relies on the fundamental assumption that if we see the same patterns in both instances, the same mechanisms must have produced them.

But we know for a fact that the assumption is false. We know for a fact that cars are the result of human engineering and manufacturing. We can go see those processes in action right now. We can watch human engineers drawing their sketches and we can watch human-constructed factories assemble the cars. With biological organisms OTOH, we know for a fact that they are the result of replication with variation, differential survival based on fitness, and random statistical sampling error (genetic drift). We can go to a lab and conduct experiments where we see these mechanisms generate new organisms with new traits.

So based on simple observation we can say with absolute certainty that Guy's analogy and the conclusion he attempts to draw from it are false. Between cars buried in junkyards and fossils in strata, we know for a fact that they are not the result of the same mechanisms.

Now, the last time I posted this Guy simply stopped responding to me. He chose to run away and continue to argue from this fundamentally flawed analogy.

Make of that what you will.

Going deeper, this reasoning is also flawed. You deliberately point to one mechanism(natural selection) for biological life(OTOH) and then indirectly state as fact that human intelligence/engineering/design is not the same result of the same mechanism.(natural selection.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

by that rationale, a car that has adapted parts instead of brand new ones, must have spontaneously designed itself for no particular reason.

Nope. Sorry, your logic needs some work.

again your argument is with mainstream science, not just skeptics of Darwinism, this is hardly controversial stuff these days- have you ever actually read Origin of Species?
Gradual Change Vs. Punctuated Equilibrium : The Study of Change Over Time : Evolution 101 : University of Vermont

Darwin assumed that if evolution is gradual then there should be a record in fossils of small incremental change within a species. But in many cases, Darwin, and scientists today, are unable to find most of these intermediate forms. Darwin blamed lack of transitional forms on gaps in the fossil record, a good assertion, because the chances of each of those critical changing forms having been preserved as fossils are very small. However in 1972, evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed another explanation for the numerous gaps in the fossil record. They suggested that the "gaps" were real, representing periods of stasis in morphology. They termed this mode of evolution "punctuated equilibrium."[[/quoite]

Yes, but that site does not have the best explanation for punctuated equilibrium. This one is bit better:

Evolution: Library: Punctuated Equilibrium

"According to this idea, the changes leading to a new species don't usually occur in the mainstream population of an organism, where changes wouldn't endure because of so much interbreeding among like creatures. Rather, speciation is more likely at the edge of a population, where a small group can easily become separated geographically from the main body and undergo changes that can create a survival advantage and thus produce a new, non-interbreeding species. "

In other words when a new niche opens up a small population will take advantage of it. That small population will evolve much quicker since they are cut off from the moderating effects of a large population that would tend to dilute changes from the genome. Since fossilization is a very rare event a small rapidly changing population would leave little to no record.

Show bacteria evolving into something else, or fruit flies, would be a start, find all those missing transitionals, successfully model the supposedly simple algorithms touted to produce the sophistication in life we see, tons of ways it could be falsified, it just never has been

Once again, there is no change in kind in evolution. You are using a strawman argument.

Try again.

again your argument is also with the vast majority of mainstream science, you seem to have your own theory going here!

Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions

"Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either."[/quoite]

The problem is that "monkeys" is not a monophyletic term. If one defines monkeys as both Old World and New World monkeys and treat them as a proper monophyletic group then not only did we evolve from monkeys. We are monkeys. Terms in science are sometimes slow to change. Your source is a bit behind the times:

https://www.sapiens.org/column/origins/monkeys-all-the-way-down/

"Yes, we share ancestors with monkeys; we share ancestors with every living thing. But, also, to be clear: We did evolve from monkeys.
"

show how it could not have!? come on, you're not on the ropes that badly yet!

But we've sure come a loooong way from 'mountains of undeniable evidence' - to- 'okay....prove it couldn't-a happened' !!!

As I said, I don't rule it out, nor do I rule out unicorns entirely, it's just not scientifically verifiable, sorry to be such a stickler...

You were the one that made an affirmative claim. That means you put the burden of proof upon yourself. Read more here:

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

And the fact is that you have been presented with undeniable evidence. You then demonstrated that you either do not understand the nature of evidence or that you are a liar. Those are the only two possibilities that I can see. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you do not understand what is and what is not evidence. The offer still stands, running away from the discussion indicates that you know that you are wrong.

The existence of vast numbers of intermediates, contrasts with the empirical evidence that shows distinct gaps and sudden appearances

macro evolution contrasts with lab tests that show strict limitations on adaptation

The theory's central algorithm of random changes + natural selection fails to work in mathematical modelling.

I'm on the side of the cold hard empirical scientific evidence in each case v. the speculative extrapolations that claim all these lines of evidence are misleading for one reason or another- flights of fancy

But we have vast numders of intermediates. Your lack of knowledge does not mean that they do not exist. The "sudden appearances" have been continually getting smaller. And no, there have been no lab tests that show a limitation on adaptation. Or at least no one on your side has ever found one. All that you have presented are strawman arguments at best.

And where has the theory of evolution ever failed in mathematical modeling? Please provide the peer reviewed article. No fake peer review allowed. You need to find an article in a well respected professional journal.

And sorry, your last claim is obviously false since you do not understand what is and what is not evidence. You believe in magic and are trying to dress it up as science. That is why you always fail.

 

[ArtieE]

Again by atheists standards, God has already been substantiated by the discovery of the creation event- their rationale not mine.

Holding a dialogue with God was established long before that, and most people in the world today use it, I'd highly recommend it also if you haven't yet

I highly recommend that you actually read the posts you answer. Again:

Since the Bible is full of gods, I assume that the first priority of scientists who are also theists would be to first find some of these gods and then start a dialogue? Are you aware of any science projects in that direction?

I wasn't talking about God. What about all the other gods in the Bible? What are theist scientists doing to find them and get in contact with them? Surely that must be priority number 2 if they can't find the Big Boss?

The Bible’s Many Gods | Gerald McDermott

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting analogy!

Then you sir, forgot your swimming trunks, & had to borrow some from the lost property box, but they don't fit, so you defaulted, claiming you definitely would have won,... prove I couldn't have!

I must run for now but I do appreciate your thoughtful respectful responses (there were a couple in there!) and will respond more later.. take care

What? Try again in English. I know, when you are on the losing side of a debate for years your thinking does get a bit bent.

When you come back do you think that will dare to discuss the nature of evidence? I am betting that you will still run away from the topic since you can see where losing leads to.

 

[Profound Realization]

No I didn't. I wrote that as part of a formal debate I participated in a while ago.

Nothing in there addresses the specimens that I spoke about.


Then let's see it.

If you’ve read the sources from the link, you would have seen them, as well as the addressing just about all of the specimens that you spoke about.

If you’re actually interested in having a discussion, quote which sources you disagree with and why.

 

[Profound Realization]

Absolutely ... the author was you and you blew it. You made claims that are not supported by the evidence.
Where did I say you were beneath me and unworthy?
I did not misconstrue, though you may have misstated. If you wish to withdraw, that's fine.

superioristic ... not a word.

You don’t and can’t offend me, nor was I stating that you said I was beneath and unworthy. If you have a personal issue with the author from the link, as unworthy and beneath you... that’s your own problem.

Weasel tactic, though, attacking an author rather than the substance/sources they write.

 

[Profound Realization]

What? Try again in English. I know, when you are on the losing side of a debate for years your thinking does get a bit bent.

When you come back do you think that will dare to discuss the nature of evidence? I am betting that you will still run away from the topic since you can see where losing leads to.

Just about, all of your tools for debating are weasel tactics and bullying tactics. Do you ever look back and reflect on what you say, and ask yourself how is it even possible to have an honest discussion with yourself?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don’t and can’t offend me, nor was I stating that you said I was beneath and unworthy. If you have a personal issue with the author from the link, as unworthy and beneath you... that’s your own problem.

Weasel tactic, though, attacking an author rather than the substance/sources they write.

The problem is that Luskin makes claims that are not supported by scientists or evidence. At best he uses more complex quote mining than other scientists do. But if you want to bring up any of his claims and the evidence he uses to support them we can discuss them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just about, all of your tools for debating are weasel tactics and bullying tactics. Do you ever look back and reflect on what you say, and ask yourself how is it even possible to have an honest discussion with yourself?

That is not true.

When creationists are dishonest or ignorant I merely point it out to them. How is that "bullying"? How is that a "weasel tactic"? Not letting people get away with nonsense is only honesty.

So far all of the creationists here have demonstrated that they do not understand the nature of evidence. I kindly offered to discuss the topic with them. We don't even need to bring up evolution in the discussion of evidence. Sadly they all ran away. Are you going to do the same?

 

[Profound Realization]

The problem is that Luskin makes claims that are not supported by scientists or evidence. At best he uses more complex quote mining than other scientists do. But if you want to bring up any of his claims and the evidence he uses to support them we can discuss them.

They were already brought up, in the link. Care to provide substance or just character attack the author with weasel words?

 

[Subduction Zone]

They were already brought up, in the link. Care to provide substance or just character attack the author with weasel words?

Sorry, but that was not done. And if it was why not do so again?

When you use a link you should quote the pertinent part of the source. Merely linking to it does not prove anything. I offered to discuss your source with you and you just "weaseled" out of it.

 

[Profound Realization]

That is not true.

When creationists are dishonest or ignorant I merely point it out to them. How is that "bullying"? How is that a "weasel tactic"? Not letting people get away with nonsense is only honesty.

So far all of the creationists here have demonstrated that they do not understand the nature of evidence. I kindly offered to discuss the topic with them. We don't even need to bring up evolution in the discussion of evidence. Sadly they all ran away. Are you going to do the same?

Enlighten as to what “nature” means and what “evidence” means to you.

Discuss the substance, all of the jibber jabber of character attacks are not necessary? Can you refrain from this?

 

[Profound Realization]

Sorry, but that was not done. And if it was why not do so again?

When you use a link you should quote the pertinent part of the source. Merely linking to it does not prove anything. I offered to discuss your source with you and you just "weaseled" out of it.

You’re tactics are to point out your own delusions in others.

So, all of the evidence you accept are based on appearance and “may be’s?” Yet these are proofs accepted as facts?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Enlighten as to what “nature” means and what “evidence” means to you.

Discuss the substance, all of the jibber jabber of character attacks are not necessary? Can you refrain from this?

I have made no character attacks. When someone is shown to be wrong that is not an attack on character. When I offer to discuss the nature of evidence and all that happens is that creationist run away it is not an attack to recognize that as an act of cowardice.

Tell me, what do you have to lose by learning what is and what is not evidence? I support my claims with sources. I already did once, I am willing to do so again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You’re tactics are to point out your own delusions in others.

So, all of the evidence you accept are based on appearance and “may be’s?” Yet these are proofs accepted as facts?

Nope, now you are the one making "character attacks". Once again, I support my claims. You have not even offered to as yet.

You referred to an article by Luskin, if I remember correctly. Luskin is not a biologist. He has a MS in Earth Sciences, his specialty was paleomagnetism. From his own CV:

Bio of Casey Luskin - CaseyLuskin.com

" My master's thesis focused on the paleomagnetism of the Snake River Plain in southern Idaho. "

There is nothing in there to indicate that he is an expert on evolution in any way at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You’re tactics are to point out your own delusions in others.

So, all of the evidence you accept are based on appearance and “may be’s?” Yet these are proofs accepted as facts?

All you did here was to confirm my claim that you do not understand the nature of evidence. Please note, there is evidence on my side. There is no scientific evidence on yours. There is no reliable evidence on the side of creationists. That is why they lose in court battles where judges are experts on the nature of evidence.

And as I have pointed out time after time, creationists will do anything that they can to avoid discussing the nature of evidence.

 

[Profound Realization]

I have made no character attacks. When someone is shown to be wrong that is not an attack on character. When I offer to discuss the nature of evidence and all that happens is that creationist run away it is not an attack to recognize that as an act of cowardice.

Tell me, what do you have to lose by learning what is and what is not evidence? I support my claims with sources. I already did once, I am willing to do so again.

What you call running away and cowardice(which are character attacks) are people expressing a nature of self control. When you dodged my questions for you the other day, I wouldn’t call you a coward or running away (although you would call yourself one if self-aware) as to what you do to others but not hold yourself accountable.

A method that can perhaps help you overcome this, is to have a self vs. self debate. If you were debating yourself, how would or could you respond to yourself?

Other people see evidence differently than you, see as in see with eyes and also see as in see with awareness. Not everyone is naive and guillable enough to demand “may be’s,” “could be’s,” “believed to be’s” as facts.

There is nothing wrong with mystique and not knowing, or having beliefs, or middle ground. In my opinion, when someone is overly needy for answers, they start generating a legion of “may be’s,” “could be’s,” “believed to be’s,” as factual evidence and are too far gone to even discern facts from beliefs or facts from fiction. Rather than de-engineer this uncontent, hyperactive needy mentality for answers, they tend to demand its evidence as fact instead in order to attempt to force their need for control and dominance over others.

Personally, I don’t have anything to lose. I have no pledge of allegiance to certain group ideologies only, or reputation/image to keep no matter what the cost. So, what do you have to lose? Image/reputation, allegiance to a certain group ideologies only?
I am content that I cannot know everything, content with mystique, content with clearity to see from any side, content in appreciating what other fellow humans believe, even when differing from my own.

 

[Profound Realization]

All you did here was to confirm my claim that you do not understand the nature of evidence. Please note, there is evidence on my side. There is no scientific evidence on yours. There is no reliable evidence on the side of creationists. That is why they lose in court battles where judges are experts on the nature of evidence.

And as I have pointed out time after time, creationists will do anything that they can to avoid discussing the nature of evidence.

What is creationism?

Earlier you on, you described accidents or chance in an exact same way creationism can be described. Why turn a blind eye to one?

When we get back to the intital causes and information in everything performing its intent.... your beliefs are as equal and as valid as anyone else’s.

 

[Sapiens]

Nope, now you are the one making "character attacks". Once again, I support my claims. You have not even offered to as yet.

You referred to an article by Luskin, if I remember correctly. Luskin is not a biologist. He has a MS in Earth Sciences, his specialty was paleomagnetism. From his own CV:

Bio of Casey Luskin - CaseyLuskin.com

" My master's thesis focused on the paleomagnetism of the Snake River Plain in southern Idaho. "

There is nothing in there to indicate that he is an expert on evolution in any way at all.

Luskin is a lawyer, not a credentialed scientist. He has a B.S. and M.S. in earth science and was employed as a low level technician at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (which he calls, in his bio, "Scripps Institution for Oceanography" an error no scientist would make), the rough equivalent of washing the test tubes.

 

[Profound Realization]

All you did here was to confirm my claim that you do not understand the nature of evidence. Please note, there is evidence on my side. There is no scientific evidence on yours. There is no reliable evidence on the side of creationists. That is why they lose in court battles where judges are experts on the nature of evidence.

And as I have pointed out time after time, creationists will do anything that they can to avoid discussing the nature of evidence.

If evidence has a nature, I already asked you to clarify it’s nature/characteristics/attributes in your own interpretation.

All of this stuff of me not understanding, evidence on your side, judges in court are irrelevant.