Well, I had an interesting discussion with one of those fun intelligent design people.
The only piece I'll give you the grief of reading is the fact that his definition of mutation is merely a change which decreases genetic information, and his definition of evolution is, basically, an evil alternative of God, which has no proof.
When I pointed out the real definitions, particularly of evolution, he merely said that that was what the evolutionists wanted me to think, and that they had nothing to do with evolution.
The actual nearly official definition of evolution, he dismisses as having nothing to do with evolution.
Of course, he later talks about specifics, and makes numerous claims, which I ask him to cite sources for. He adamantly avoids doing so. And then goes on mixing new unrelated factual information with personal bias, (all trying to show how evolution would be possible, basically, because it's too unlikely and the changes are too complex, and all intermediate changes would be utterly useless, which I know to be blatant falsehood) to the point where I don't know if any of the facts he stated are true in the first place, instead of citing his earlier claims.
... and he claimed I was the one brought in by propaganda and falsehood. He speaks things I know for a fact are false, and furthermore could not actually give anything backing up his claims. I tried to be careful not to make any claims, so he couldn't say the same back to me.
*sigh* Talking to people who not only lie but completely misunderstand the very basis of the thing we're talking about, and dismiss the actual definitions as conspiracy-based irrelevent falsehoods, is not a fun thing to do.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
If it's not fun to do then don't do it. I debate because it forces me to develop a complete understanding of my beliefs and exposes me to facts and views that I would not come to know otherwise. Don't continue a debate that you find to be equivalent to smashing your head against a brick wall.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: ... definition of mutation is merely a change which decreases genetic information
I never understood why this particular argument is so attractive and popular given the existence of observable things such as gene/genome duplication, transposons, development of bacterial resistance and associated gene transfer.
It just seems so counter-intuitive given the number of biotechnology techniques and computer science algorithms which practically rely on these things happening in real life in order to well... get any results.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Next time my experiments fail (which is pretty frequently), I should just explain to my boss that these things are all evil conspiracies so any expectation of success is foolish of him. ;-)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
You just can't discuss things intelligently with some people.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: Next time my experiments fail (which is pretty frequently), I should just explain to my boss that these things are all evil conspiracies so any expectation of success is foolish of him. ;-)
I always thought it was impossible for an experiment to "fail." Well...unless you happened to completely botch it up and get all sorts of external interference into the works...
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Well, I am at the early steps in the experiment- trying to make the mutant. I have failed to make the mutant, so I have no data yet.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Ooh: scholar, this all sounds very cool.
I bet, to a person actually DOING these things, the claims that it's all a lie is even more infuriating.
Anyway, Threads:
It's fun, in a sense, to find out the other side's view. And this guy was better than the others I spoke to that day. He wasn't ENTIRELY stupid, and seemed to know some facts. (though maybe he was just copy/pasting.) It's a pity when his first question is "why do you hate God so much?"
I seriously was beginning to think this stuff was cliche. Do they really, seriously not know our answers?
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
You can't have a rational discussion with some one who is irrational; it just doesn't work.
Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. How can you say evolution is too complex to work? This is GOD we are talking about, how could anything be too complex for him? Evolution simply documents God's hand on earth. Evolution and natural processes are simply the mechanisms by which God works his miracles on earth. Science simply attempts to document God's methods.
Those who dispute Evolution, nature, and natural processes actually diminish God in my eyes. They are people who were not made in God image, but who made God in their own very constrained and limited image, and as a consequence can't believe that God can do anything that they can't personally understand.
It seems they would rather believe in spontaneous magic, rather than think God had a long term and complex plan for the development of earth.
Personally, I see Intelligent Design people as very much anti-God.
But then, that's just my opinion.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Ooh: scholar, this all sounds very cool.
I bet, to a person actually DOING these things, the claims that it's all a lie is even more infuriating.
Well, right now as I am frustrated and annoyed with my stuff not working properly, I am thinking they have the right idea. But yeah, in our journal club, we talk a lot about the crazies. We read some of the articles that behr (darwin's little black box) sites and discussed what the data actually said- which differed a bit from what he claimed. It was kinda annoying to realize that the man actually did read the papers and still somehow came up with this wacky interpretation.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Is "true science" the new name for "intelligent design?"
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
pooka: I'd not be surprised if it was a new one.
And it's true. In the same way that the Ministry of Peace and the Ministry of Truth, the "large" size coffees at Starbucks (tiny little larges, ne?), and calling Hitler "good" are true.
Only in minds the likes of which I can scarcely even fathom.
Anyway:
"Personally, I see Intelligent Design people as very much anti-God. "
I used to think the same thing. Back when I believed in God. I don't dislike these people any more now than I did then.
But what really upsets me is when they insinuate I dislike God for some reason. No, the god I worshipped was not dislikable at all, unlike their psychopathic one.
However... well. I can't believe without evidence. So their claims that I must hate God really bug me.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Isn't it called a "Tall" not a "Large"?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Tall is small. Grande is medium. Venti is large. Ignorance is Strength.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
large, tall, whatever. The point remains valid.
Freedom is Slavery.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
In response to the first post, I have a cousin who is a die-hard creationist. When the dinner conversation shifts to how life came to be the way it is, it is a bit of a pain to sit through. We keep bringing up the same arguments; he says evolution has no proof and has been blown out of proportion by atheistic scientists, I say God could have easily created life by means of making little changes over periods of time. My cousin is such a likable guy everywhere else, and I admire his friendliness, his ability to settle a non-creationism argument, and his leadership role, but he's so hard-headed when it comes to creationism.
I wish some people would realize that there's more to Christianity than speaking hate to Darwin and all who consider his theories plausible. Of all the things supposedly Christian, devoting one's life to denying the idea that life has a common ancestral source is not at the top of my list for ways to impress God.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Well, my debate is done now. I'll send it through email to anyone who wants it.
He would simply not cite his sources. He kept making claims, and as soon as I asked for specific data backing it up, he went on to other subjects.
And he then had the gall to claim it was I who was avoiding issues. Anyone want to see?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm sure I've had the same discussion with at least a dozen different people.
Unless the one guy gets around a lot.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Thinking about to this converstaion... I think I was talking to someone from an alternate universe, through internet magic.
I mean... he spoke events which happened precisely opposite of how they happened. He spoke of evolution as if it was how his religion is. He spoke of Creation Scientists disproving so-called lies, when I know for a fact it was actualy scientists who did so.
Alternate universe. That has to be it.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
It was me. Hah!
Seriously though, I was wondering about something, because I find that a lot of the disagreement does come from different ideas of what science actually is. So in the course of my musings, I came up with a question to which the answer might be illuminating.
What is Gravity?
I don't mean, what are its effects or how is it measured. Where does it come from? What sets its strength? Is its strength independent of everything, or is it an emergent property in relation to other physical forces? That sort of thing.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't know you well, 0Megabyte, but I'm surprised by the Hitler reference. Maybe we need to bump a Godwin's law thread.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh. Resh actually managed to come up with some interesting questions for a change. The answers to each one are "Not known at this time; ask again in 20 years". With the exception of the one about emergence; I think it is reasonable to say that gravity does not emerge from the other known forces, although they may all four be emerging from some underlying physics.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
"Only in minds the likes of which I can scarcely even fathom."
And that's not your fault?
What I mean by that is not that you cannot understand how people can consider Hitler to be good, but the (extremely bigoted) implication that for the same reasons you cannot understand those of us who do not believe a 19th century theory that has been updated out of desperation.
"Large, tall, whatever. The point remains valid."
No, it doesn't. Originally there were two sizes, short (8 ounces) and tall (12 ounces). Then they added the grande (16 ounces). And then, because we Americans are such pigs, Venti (20 ounces) was added on top of that. You can still get a short at Starbucks, but you have to request it specifically. It's also called a "kid's size" now.
At any rate, if you can be wrong about the Starbucks sizes, maybe you're wrong about evolution too.
That last bit was a joke, by the way.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
'Updated out of desperation'?
It was updated because we found ways in which it was an inadequate explanation of the facts, and the updated version was a better explanation of the facts. This is called science.
If anything, evolutionary theory has been updated rather less than many areas of science, in the same time period. Such as, say, physics. Or chemistry. I mean, we only got a decent grasp on the nucleus of atoms in 1911! Was rewriting atomic theory to accomodate new experiments an act of 'desperation'?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Eh. Resh actually managed to come up with some interesting questions for a change. The answers to each one are "Not known at this time; ask again in 20 years". With the exception of the one about emergence; I think it is reasonable to say that gravity does not emerge from the other known forces, although they may all four be emerging from some underlying physics.
So was the emergence question the exception to my "interesting questions for a change" or "not known at this time"? I assume the second, and so I ask, how do you know? The other three forces are generally measured against Gravity, but of course they can all be measured against each other.
But you think if I ask again in twenty years I'll get an answer? By all appearances these are properties of nature that have their basis in some sort of metaphysical reality. It is believed that we can perhaps learn something about that reality by studying it's effects.
So my question is this: why might intelligent design be unscientific if it is the result of some supernatural creation? We know nothing of its processes itself, but if it is true, then we should be able to learn something about it by studying its effects.
My point is that I think the labeling of macroevolution as scientific and ID as not is really a matter of preference. Wouldn't you agree?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Out of desperation: If Darwin had any clue as to the incredible complexity of Life at its most basic level, do you think he would have developed his theory? If he had any clue as to how the fossil record would look 150 years later, do you think he would have developed his theory?
The "improvements" to his theory are the result of a refusal to abandon a naturalistic explanation for existence. This is the driving force behind the creative efforts to keep Darwin's theory valid.
Let me ask you this: Are unprovable scenarios that show how Evolution might possibly have happened evidence that it did happen?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:The other three forces are generally measured against Gravity
What are you talking about? The other three forces are not 'generally measured against gravity', they're part of a unified theory that has not yet been successfully reconciled with gravity.
As far as 'macroevolution' and 'ID' being equally backed, I wouldn't agree, and I rather doubt KoM would. We have abundant evidence for the subset of evolution you call 'macroevolution' having happened in the past, and we have observed some of that subset (speciation, f'instance) in the present. Strangely, we have yet to find any evidence for ID.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, I think he would have. He specifically talked about seeing complex things he was not yet able to explain, but felt greater understanding of the processes involved would lead to rational explanations for.
Unprovable scenarios? You'll have to be more specific what you're referring to, but no, they're not evidence that it happened, they're evidence that it could have happened.
Building up support for a theory happens in two parts:
One, evidence it is a feasible explanation for things we do not yet have direct evidence to explain.
Two, direct evidence for specific explanations.
Generally, the better a theory is, the more rapidly the first category is reduced and the second category is increased (though the first category never goes away, since new stuff is always being added as our understanding grows, and some things are just inaccessible, such as specific details about how certain early evolutionary steps occurred).
Discoveries are constantly moving things from the second category to the first, for evolutionary theory.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
0Meg, I don't get the point of this thread. Is it just to poke fun at/complain about someone you were having a conversation that we are not privy to with? That doesn't seem, to me, like a worthy cause for a thread.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Resh, Couldn't you just revive one of the - is it two or three now - threads on evolution that you've run away from?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: The "improvements" to his theory are the result of a refusal to abandon a naturalistic explanation for existence. This is the driving force behind the creative efforts to keep Darwin's theory valid.
*raises hand* For those of us actually using Darwin's theory to work in fields such as biotechnology and doing things such as developing new drugs or discovering causes of diseases using computer models that are based on evolution: May our refinements to Darwin's theories based on actual use and observation be exempted from the your categorization as "creative efforts"
It would at least cut down a lot on our disorientation when we find out that our applied work is purely "creative." Perhaps we could save money and trade in our lab hardware and computers for a pen and paper Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
William Dembski has, but I guess his evidence is inadmissible since he doesn't believe in Evolution. Actually, all of nature is evidence for ID. Evolution is a theory that tries to show how all of that "apparent design" ---a term I'm sure you have heard before and implies that things have the "appearance" of "design"--- is only skin deep, so to speak.
What I mean about the other forces being measured against gravity is that if gravity is given a value of 1, then the others are given a value of say, 10 to the 25th power, 36th power, and 38th power (according to Wiki). I'm sorry; maybe I wasn't clear. Let's not get off topic here.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Mucus: Newtonian Physics were useful, and in fact still are.
Mr Squicky: I suppose I could. Let me look into it. But I don't like your implication. Do you think I ran away because I thought I had lost the debate? Or could it be that I have other things in my life that take up my attention?
Fugu: Thank you for answering honestly. Now can you tell me something that is actual evidence that evolution happened?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
William Dembski has what? Given evidence for Intelligent Design?
His arguments are mathematically laughable. Anyone with a couple undergraduate courses in biology and math can tear them to shreds. Is there a particular piece of 'evidence' you feel he has for ID that you would like me to find a complete refutation of?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sure. When we breed lots of fruit flies together, doing nothing beyond selecting for certain attributes, we occasionally get new species of fruit flies.
We've seen new species appear in nature (observed polyploid speciations are practically normal).
We find ring species, where at one point of the (geographic) ring, going all the way around in one direction, individuals in the same general vicinity all breed together, but where it reaches back to the 'starting point' on the ring, the individuals do not breed together.
When we make predictions about the characteristics of genes that we haven't yet found in one species, based on genes in another species, based on how we've established they're evolutionarily related, our predictions are almost always right (that's really a lot of evidence, as we do that a lot).
And I can always link you to a few hundred thousand pages (maybe more, I don't know if anyone has counted) of scholarly work, finding particular predi
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Reshpeckobiggle: You're missing the point. What I'm asking is when we make refinements to the theory based on what we discover in the course of developing drugs or computer models of proteins, may we get an exemption for our efforts as not being "creative" or "desperate"?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I assume the second, and so I ask, how do you know? The other three forces are generally measured against Gravity, but of course they can all be measured against each other.
I do not see what that has to do with emergence; to answer your question, we know that graivty does not emerge from the other forces because, if it did, you could then manipulate matter using the other forces and see a gravitational effect. Such an effect has been looked for and not found, down to some ridiculously small limit. In addition to this experimental effect, which admittedly only applies to electromagnetism, there are strong theoretical reasons from field theory; plus of course the much more intuitively appealing argument that forces with a range of 10^-15 meters would have a hard time giving rise to a force with an infinitely long range.
quote:But you think if I ask again in twenty years I'll get an answer?
No - quite the opposite: I am convinced that there will certainly not be an answer at any time in the next twenty years. Twenty years is a lower bound.
quote:So my question is this: why might intelligent design be unscientific if it is the result of some supernatural creation? We know nothing of its processes itself, but if it is true, then we should be able to learn something about it by studying its effects.
Fine; make a prediction for your 'supernatural creation', then. One which differs, if you please, from the ones we get from ordinary naturalistic theories. If you are able to do so, then you will have managed what neither Behe nor Dembski could do: To wit, put ID on a reasonably scientific basis. Perhaps it is useful to distinguish two cases: One is the Platonic ideal of ID that I've alluded to above, which makes predictions. This is science. The other is ID as we've actually observed it these past ten years or so, which is just creationism dressed up in big words.
quote:My point is that I think the labeling of macroevolution as scientific and ID as not is really a matter of preference. Wouldn't you agree?
When intelligent design makes a testable prediction or has a useful (scientifically or practically) application, then yes. Until that time, I most certainly do not agree.
Since you now seem to be posting again, answer this: If complex system X requires a designer Y by virtue of its complexity, how is it that designer Y, presumably still more complex than X, needs no designer? And by the way, you ran away from the previous thread on these issues.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Sure, Mucus, at that level I agree the developments are based on scientific rigor.
Fugu, those pieces of evidence do not prove Evolution happened. They prove that if you apply a lot of (intelligently directed) effort at fruit flies, you can get a broadly defined "new" species. Is it no longer a fruit fly, though? Is it now a dragonfly, or a bumblebee, perhaps? When a Larus Gull is no longer capable of interbreeding, is it no longer a gull? Is it an eagle now?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Well, KoM, here's the problem: I'm not positing a theory. I think ID is what happened, but not based upon any scientific beliefs I have. I think we were created and I don't need to prove anything. However, if you want to scientifically disprove creation, you need a valid scientific theory, and I don't think Evolution does the trick.
No, it is not up to me to prove anything, and I think some of you keep forgetting that. Less than 10 percent of the American population believes you, and it's not because they are stupid (though that may be what you think.) It is because your theory is less than convincing.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Moved from the other thread, because it belongs here and because I'm really interested in the response:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Go read a definition of a counterexample. A counterexample is an example of something you have said can't happen, actually happening. I can't provide one, though, until you have given a sufficiently specific definition of what can't happen -- which means a definition of complexity.
I do not intend to provide a way in which they 'could' have increased complexity, I intend to provide a way in which they did improve complexity, which I can't do until I know what you think complexity is. If your definition is sufficiently silly, I might instead prove that no increase in complexity (by your definition) would be required to change something from one species to another.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Less than 10 percent of the American population believes you, and it's not because they are stupid (though that may be what you think.) It is because your theory is less than convincing.
Actually it's a combination of the excessive religiosity of this country combined with our sub-standard science education. Of course there may be a causal relationship between both of those as well.
EDIT: And 10% sounds pretty low. The Catholic church officially accepts evolution and there are something like 70,000,000 Catholics in the US. That's over 20% of the population right there.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
According to a poll which I can't remember where I read it, but don't worry, it wasn't a poll conducted by Focus on the Family, only 9% of Americans believe that Evolution occurred as a result of blind forces and without any direction by a supernatural creator.
You're saying that people refuse to believe Naturalistic Evolution because of "excessive religiosity of this country combined with our sub-standard science education." Do you arrive at that conclusion because people don't believe in Evolution, or are you actually not employing circular reasoning here?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:According to a poll which I can't remember where I read it, but don't worry, it wasn't a poll conducted by Focus on the Family, only 9% of Americans believe that Evolution occurred as a result of blind forces and without any direction by a supernatural creator.
Well that's a bit different. If you believe that God picked which mutations should occur or that God placed the first life on the earth, or if you believe that God kicked the universe into existence, then the modern theory of evolution is still consistent with your beliefs.
quote:You're saying that people refuse to believe Naturalistic Evolution because of "excessive religiosity of this country combined with our sub-standard science education." Do you arrive at that conclusion because people don't believe in Evolution, or are you actually not employing circular reasoning here?
I arrive at that conclusion because the vast majority of the people who I have spoken to who who do not believe in evolution have displayed an ignorance for what evolutionary theory actually says. Additionally, the US is consistently rated very low, compared to other nations, in science education. There was a report confirming this just in the last day or two (It was reported on NPR this morning).
Additionally, very few people who are not religious support the ID view and none support out-and-out creationism so religiosity is apparently a factor in evolution denial.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Perhaps. But I've also spoken with plenty of people who do believe in evolution and have little to no idea what the theory actually says. And I've spoken to plenty of people on Hatrack, on this thread in fact, who do not seem to realize how unscientific Evolution is. They seem to think that proof of minuscule changes within species can be extrapolated to massive changes from non-nucleic bacteria to human beings.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Reshpeckobiggle: Along with MattP, I too would like a definition of complexity as you would define it before we continue further.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:No, it is not up to me to prove anything, and I think some of you keep forgetting that.
The Resh story so far is: I'll fail in an epic fashion to defend Intelligent Design as a science, I'll have my logical postulates on irreducible complexity torn apart, I'll have my sources like Behe left intellectually bankrupt. In fact, I'll keep vaguely referencing information and data that I say I have that disproves evolution, then run away whenever challenged to provide that argument. After about eight times, I'll take a new tact: Why not argue from a comfortable seat of incredulity? I'll say that I no longer have to prove anything and I'll say that it's up to other people to prove evolution to me. Science may not hinge whatsoever on the bias of my convictions or my frequently unreasonable and artificial burdens of proof, but it'll just basically be a series of negative arguments -- "I can't conceive that (fill in the blank), so your theory doesn't work."
According to Gallup, between 9-13% have said they believe that humans came from evolution without God's help. The dominant opinion is traditional creationism without evolution (44-47%) - but God-guided evolution is close behind (35-40%).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Those numbers change drastically when you look at countries that don't score abysmally on tests of Math and Science ability, though.
I mean, the US isn't the world, and the numbers show that we are pretty terrible at the area under discussion. If you look at countries that greatly outperform us, per captia, in these areas, they don't tend to show this high belief in creationism.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Thanks, Tresopax. I'm sorry I'm so lazy because I could have looked it up myself.
Sam, you're like a broken record. I went back to the other big debate we had and you were doing the exact same thing: restating my position in your own words, thereby exhibiting your inability to hear anything other than what you want to hear. But you got one thing right. I don't have to prove anything. You're the one with the outmoded concept of origins with no evidence that you expect everyone to accept despite all indications to the contrary.
Mucas, Matt: What does it matter how I personally define complexity? I already know what you are going to do because this is what you do with all the key words: speciation, information, proof, science, evolution; you change the definitions so that they fit the theory. I can do it too. Complexity is something that cannot have evolved. How does your theory explain it now?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Those numbers change drastically when you look at countries that don't score abysmally on tests of Math and Science ability, though.
I mean, the US isn't the world, and the numbers show that we are pretty terrible at the area under discussion. If you look at countries that greatly outperform us, per captia, in these areas, they don't tend to show this high belief in creationism.
Another way of looking at it is that Americans are more likely to retain a belief in a Creator because they have a lees effective system of atheistic indoctrination.
Though higher Math scores would certainly be nicer.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:What does it matter how I personally define complexity?
Because you made this challenge:
quote: I don't care if Natural selection + random mutations could have increased complexity. You need to prove that it did.
fugu has accepted your challenge and has asked you to define your terms so he can be precise in his answer.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Those numbers change drastically when you look at countries that don't score abysmally on tests of Math and Science ability, though.
Yes, but given that science classes and tests tend to require students to accept evolution, it would be no surprise to see that in areas where science education is more emphasized there is also more acceptance of evolution.
Similarly, Christian or Islamic religious education tends to require students to accept the notion that God created man. I'd be willing to bet that if you looked only at nations who'd score higher per capita on tests of religious knowledge, or if you looked at nations where a greater percentage of youngsters went to religious schools, you'd find a slant towards creationism in those nations. (For instance, in Turkey religious education is a required part of school, and it also happens a nation that is very low in its acceptance of evolution.)
What this indicates is that what you are taught to believe, you are more likely to accept. It would not necessarily show that people who believe in creationism only do so because they aren't educated in science, or that people who believe in evolution only do so because they aren't educated in religion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:When we make predictions about the characteristics of genes that we haven't yet found in one species, based on genes in another species, based on how we've established they're evolutionarily related, our predictions are almost always right (that's really a lot of evidence, as we do that a lot).
This rather is evidence for evolution on the scale you're talking about.
Also, the theory of evolution predicts by itself that we won't directly see such evolution in anything less than a very long time.
However, another example of evidence for evolution at that scale is how successful we've been in predicting 'intermediary' species by the sorts of changes that would be required for evolution to have taken the paths we've predicted.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Yes, but given that science classes and tests tend to require students to accept evolution
Not necessarily. First, science aptitude will cover a broad range of subject matter. Even a biology test could only devote a small percentage to evolution. In the general scope of "science", evolution would only be a very tiny portion of the test.
Additionally, it's possible to understand the theory of evolution and still not "accept" it. I think you are less likely to not accept it if you understand it, but that's my personal bias there. But just as I can repeat religious doctrine I don't agree with, a creationist can certainly repeat evolutionary theory concepts without believing it to be true.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Another way of looking at it is that Americans are more likely to retain a belief in a Creator because they have a lees effective system of atheistic indoctrination.
I personally don't find that the ability to reason out a correct solution to a problem is inconsistent with religious belief, but I understand why you might.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Another way of looking at it is that Americans are more likely to retain a belief in a Creator because they have a lees effective system of atheistic indoctrination.
No indoctrination. Just not mentioning religion.
Do you believe that every second of every day that we aren't talking about god we are, by default, promoting atheism?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: My point is that I think the labeling of macroevolution as scientific and ID as not is really a matter of preference. Wouldn't you agree?
No. Ignoring the fact that macroevolution can be inferred without any major leaps of logic, it has also been observed through the fossil record. Transitional fossils
Reading that whole page would take a ton of time but I would recommend at least reading the conclusion.
Here's an excerpt:
quote:What Does The Fossil Record Show Us Now?
I think the most noticeable aspects of the vertebrate fossil record, those which must be explained by any good model of the development of life on earth, are:
1. A remarkable temporal pattern of fossil morphology, with "an obvious tendency for successively higher and more recent fossil assemblages to resemble modern floras and faunas ever more closely" (Gingerich, 1985) and with animal groups appearing in a certain unmistakable order. For example, primitive fish appear first, amphibians later, then reptiles, then primitive mammals, then (for example) legged whales, then legless whales. This temporal- morphological correlation is very striking, and appears to point overwhelmingly toward an origin of all vertebrates from a common ancestor. 2. Numerous "chains of genera" that appear to link early, primitive genera with much more recent, radically different genera (e.g. reptile- mammal transition, hyenids, horses, elephants), and through which major morphological changes can be traced. Even for the spottiest gaps, there are a few isolated intermediates that show how two apparently very different groups could, in fact, be related to each other (ex. Archeopteryx, linking reptiles to birds). 3. Many known species-to-species transitions (primarily known for the relatively recent Cenozoic mammals), often crossing genus lines and occasionally family lines, and often resulting in substantial adaptive changes. 4. A large number of gaps. This is perhaps the aspect that is easiest to explain, since for stratigraphic reasons alone there must always be gaps. In fact, no current evolutionary model predicts or requires a complete fossil record, and no one expects that the fossil record will ever be even close to complete. As a rule of thumb, however, creationists think the gaps show fundamental biological discontinuities, while evolutionary biologists think they are the inevitable result of chance fossilizations, chance discoveries, and immigration events.
It's important to note that while point 4 is a weakness, it is not very significant in the big picture. The exact path from cell to human is largely irrelevant to the overall theory of evolution. Regardless, a quick glance at the link I provided will reveal hundreds of documented examples of macroevolution.
Obviously, to believe these examples you have to believe that our dating methods are accurate. Here is a faq responding to common creationist objections to dating methods. Again, you don't have to read the whole thing (though you should), but I would recommend reading the section entitled "Constancy of radioactive decay rates." since that is probably most relevant to your objections.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Well, KoM, here's the problem: I'm not positing a theory. I think ID is what happened, but not based upon any scientific beliefs I have. I think we were created and I don't need to prove anything.
You do if you want to continue a conversation with me. If you are not interested in finding truth through debate, then I have no interest in speaking further to you. Good day.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But you got one thing right. I don't have to prove anything. You're the one with the outmoded concept of origins with no evidence that you expect everyone to accept despite all indications to the contrary.
Hah. Evolution is the 'outmoded concept of origins with no evidence'
See, you would like to make that claim, I'm sure, but it's something that can be factually rebuked. You're better off sticking towards your arguments by incredulity.
And besides, would I really expect everyone to accept evolution if I know people like you?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:You're the one with the outmoded concept of origins with no evidence that you expect everyone to accept despite all indications to the contrary.
So...creationism is somehow new and state-of-the-art?
How does that work?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, Resh, here's the problem: I'm not positing a theory. I think that you are wrong, but not based upon any scientific beliefs I have. I think you are wrong and I don't need to prove anything.
Maybe you think otherwise, but it is not incumbent upon me to disprove your theory. I don't care if your arguments could have created correctness in your argument. You need to prove that it did. Remember, I don't have to prove anything because I said so, no tagbacks.
Give me an example of how you are right, not how you might've been right.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Complexity is something that cannot have evolved. How does your theory explain it now?
Can you list something that could not have evolved?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Complexity is something that cannot have evolved. How does your theory explain it now?
Can you list something that could not have evolved?
Oh, I missed that. Come on Resh, are you seriously defining complexity as "can't be evolved" and using *that* definition to claim that evolution cannot produce complexity?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
So... in response to being asked for evidence, Resh simply has stated that evolution has no evidence?
Resh: Answer me, you jerk. Why are you still ignoring my questions?
Tell me what I've asked you, numerous times.
You say Intelligent Design is science, but then, whenever anyone asks you to back it up WITH some science, you then say that you don't really believe it because of science, so there. Why?
Why can't you just show a single piece of evidence? We can actually have a discussion then.
So, to repeat what I said to that other guy, who didn't respond either:
Cite your sources.
(further, I have the conversation saved, and I asked if anyone wished to see it. I forgot who asked what the point of this thread was [venting, partly], partly due to being not privy to the conversation. I have it to give. Not that I was perfect there, but it's there.)
Cite your sources, cite your sources, cite your sources!
If you want to make the claim somethin gis science, show the actual science!
Show the theory! Show the predictions! What does it predict that evolution does not predict? In what manner is it better at predicting reality?
Further: Criticizing science for changing it's mind is only something a person indoctrinated in religion falsely could do.
Religion claims absolute, unchanging truth. Science has never claimed this.
To criticize science for changing to fit the facts, for improving based on reality, is silly. Only one who thinks in terms of already holding absolute truth (with no evidence, of course!) could claim this.
So, in the end: You claim Intelligent Design is a science. Show me the evidence. Don't say "you don't want to know!" Because I do. I really do.
If you bothered to look before, I've been BEGGING you to show me, Resh.
Maybe this time you'll not ignore me. I'm starting to lose hope, but who knows?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Oh, I missed it too!
You're really defining complexity as something that couldn't evolve?
That's about as silly as defining evolution as "an attempt by atheists to find an alternative to God" like the guy I was talking to.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: (further, I have the conversation saved, and I asked if anyone wished to see it. I forgot who asked what the point of this thread was [venting, partly], partly due to being not privy to the conversation. I have it to give. Not that I was perfect there, but it's there.)
I'd be interested. You can use the private messaging if you don't want to paste it all here.
Thanks.
A.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
0Meg, tone it down. Name calling is not necessary.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I suppose not. But man, he won't answer. As I pointed out, I've been reduced to begging, which he ignores.
I think the comparatively mind thing I said was pretty accurate, considering the circumstances. But yes, it really doesn't help the situation. For that, Resh, I apologize. I certainyl do have a rude streak, and, well, you tend to fall victim to it more than anyone but Richard Dey over at Ornery.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
If he doesn't answer, I think that's an answer in itself.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Yeah.
But unfortunately it's the sort of answer that allows a person to really wish to deny not knowing something leeway to claim they weren't really claiming that.
Furthermore, it's much more infuriating than the response of an honorable person: The honorable answer is "I don't know."
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Saw something interesting on the History channel last night on the development of our understanding of the universe. I only came in at the point of Copernicus' contribution to the heliocentric model of the solar system.
Notably, he waited until he was on his deathbed to publish due to fear of the Catholic church.
Fear, which of course was justified, as Galileo found out to his detriment when he had the audacity to provide mathematical support to the notion.
So Resh, how are you any different from a 16th Century geocentrist? They too felt that they just 'knew' something - obviously everything they could easily observe pointed to a geocentric model, plus the church said that the bible told them so....
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
You guys must never have had this discussion with Resh before. He loves to stir up trouble and ignore any questions he doesn't have an answer to. Best to leave it lay.
For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to define "Evolution" as "anything which has happened on earth" and "ID" as "drug-induced hallucination." Let's see how effective this discussion is Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
If I don't answer, that's an answer in of itself, Matt? Is this debate about to be settled on a message board? I have a life outside the internet, so I don't think it's fair to decide that the loser of this debate is going to be the one who stops coming around for any length of time. I don't know how often I have to repeat iot. As a matter of fact, I'm in a computer lab at school waiting for class to start, which will be any minute now. But thanks for asking that name calling be restrained. Was it deleted? Because I don't see where Megabyte called me anything bad. Oh there it is. I'm a jerk, apparently. Whatever.
First let me set the record straight: I was being facetious with my statement about complexity. If none of you could see that, you all must be pretty friggin dense.
Gotta go. Be back soon.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Strangely, you have enough life to repeatedly come back and make numerous posts filled with claims you then are always too busy to back up.
And it is not easy to tell when you're being facetious, because many of your apparently serious statements are even sillier.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:If I don't answer, that's an answer in of itself, Matt?
Well yeah. When there are simple questions aimed at getting you to clarify your statements and you suddenly run out of time to discuss further, that's an answer that at the very least you aren't really all that interested in carrying the conversation beyond the superficial level you've been able to manage thus far. We haven't reached that point yet, but I was trying to help 0Meg through his angst about your non-response. Should you provide responses, then whatever a non-response means becomes moot.
quote:First let me set the record straight: I was being facetious with my statement about complexity. If none of you could see that, you all must be pretty friggin dense.
Unfortunately, many common definitions of "information" and "complexity" from DI advocates work out to something pretty similar to "that which cannot be evolved" so it wasn't clear that, unlike other DI/creationism advocates, you were actually joking. We're not dense, we're just going by experience.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Troubadour, how are you any different? Don't you just know Evolution to be true?
Here's how I'm different. I don't claim to know what is true. I have my beliefs. All I do know for certain (in a relative sense) is that Naturalistic Evolution is not true.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: First let me set the record straight: I was being facetious with my statement about complexity. If none of you could see that, you all must be pretty friggin dense.
The problem is that it's hard to tell the difference between a fundamentalist and a parody of a fundamentalist.
I realize that may come off as a joke, but I'm serious.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
It's funny even if you are serious.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But thanks for asking that name calling be restrained.
followed immediately by
quote:I was being facetious with my statement about complexity. If none of you could see that, you all must be pretty friggin dense.
nice
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Resh, I know you can't understand the difference between the vast amounts of objective scientific research developed over the course of a century and 'God did it'.
All-encompassing anti-christian conspiracy theories aside, you have presented nothing for your point of view except 'I feel it therefore it is'.
Yet you deign to look down on us as being brainwashed. Go figure.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You've claimed to know a number of things: that evolution cannot increase complexity, that Dembski has provided evidence for ID, et cetera.
Somehow, when it comes to laying the specifics of those things on the table, you retreat into "just because".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Sorry guys he has a life and as you should know anyone with a life who gots stuff ta do can't be expected to defend their claims without a pattern of conveniently vanishing in a predictable fashion whenever they're held to task and claim that they'll shortly be backing up the bold and broad apparently tested claims that they've laid out as the fundamentals of their argument.
If you had a life too you'd understand this, you friggin dense-oids.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Thankfully, his life allows him ample time to post, as long as it's not directly answering any questions.
It's like how any time spent fishing doesn't count against your time on earth - any time Resh spends making posts which don't actually answer questions posed to him don't cut into his stuff to do time Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Hello all,
How many Creation/Evolution debates has HatRack seen already, and what is the “variation” in them, besides the time frame? I myself have seen a few, and they all seem very alike.
Therefore, I propose something new: Let’s take a few steps back, toward the “square one” and see if there really is any common ground for the two sides to start from.
I mean, ask yourselves these questions: 1.1) What do I know about theology, and the premises it uses? 1.2) What do I know about science and the premises it uses, analysing also how does science use those premises? 1.3) What do I know about the “anthropic principle” and how does it relate to theology and science?
Then, if we can agree on the knowledge and the conclusions about those points, we could go further:
2.1) What do I know about ID, and how does it relate to theology in general and Creationism in particular? 2.2) What do I know about Evolutionism and how does it relate to science (and scientific method) in general and Darwinism in particular?
Then, when those points are “clear”, we could follow to search if the two scenarios (I avoid the term “theory” on purpose) are in conflict, and what each one has to back up their side on specific issues where the two sides really are in contradiction.
This, I think would help everybody to take this debate from “basis” up, toward conclusions, and not from conclusions sidewise (toward name throwing).
A.
PS: If anyone needs more explanation about why I think my post is relevant, and how, I’m willing to present it. But be warned that my posts can get fast painfully long. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:How many Creation/Evolution debates has HatRack seen already, and what is the “variation” in them, besides the time frame? I myself have seen a few, and they all seem very alike.
They are similar in character, but not necessarily in specific content. We have already had discussions about the epistemological differences between the scientific method and religion and those conversations are also all rather similar.
Personally, I'd like to hold this conversation where it is now until Resh has provided his definition of complexity. It's been incredibly difficult to get Resh to follow up in the past, but this is such a very simple question. After stating simply that evolution cannot produce complexity, I can't imagine that it should take any substantial amount of time to either a) provide his definition of complexity or, b) concede that for any reasonable definition of complexity that evolutionary processes do produce complexity.
Perhaps a new, separate thread that explores your questions would be a better idea?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
MattP, I see your point. I won't insist more here.
Anyway, starting a new thread could be a bit delicate for me right now. I'll give it a little while before taking on your (very welcomed, btw) suggestion.
A.
PS: I'm also interested in hearing Resh's answer to the pending question about "complexity".
(edited for spelling errors)
[ December 05, 2007, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: suminonA ]
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Troubadour, how are you any different? Don't you just know Evolution to be true?
Here's how I'm different. I don't claim to know what is true. I have my beliefs. All I do know for certain (in a relative sense) is that Naturalistic Evolution is not true.
I swear, every time I think the upper limit for unintentional irony has been reached, Resh comes along (in a new thread, of course) and shatters the record.
Considering how many evolution threads we've had just within the past year, and the relative amount of data presented by the two camps, I highly doubt a single Hatrack evil-utionist "just knows" evolution is true. We've swamped this forum with so many examples of how evolutionary theory explains past data, makes testable predictions, and has been supported over and over again by new experimental and observational data, that you'd have to be actively avoiding any thread with mention of the word "science" NOT to be pretty well-versed on the evidence at this point.
So. If you "know for certain" that "Naturalistic Evolution" is not true, what is your explanation for that mountain of data? And don't resort to your usual "it's a huge conspiracy among the atheist cabal" bullcrap, please. Because for those of us who've actually bothered to read some of the primary literature, and who have first-hand experience with just how torturously exact scientists have to be in their hypotheses and conclusions to avoid being ripped apart by their own colleagues, that particular argument would be offensive if it weren't so gosh-darned hilarious.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I don't know for certain that it's not true, hence the "relative sense" caveat. But I have still not been told anything that is evidence for Naturalistic Macroevolution, to be specific. Where are the answers to my questions? When is a fruitfly no longer a fruitfly?, or a gull no longer a gull? What transitional fossils exist? I keep being told that there are some out there, but then I get nothing.
And I'm not going to play the game with the question about complexity. You expect me to specifically define a concept as vague and malleable as that? I may as well define religion for you, and then when you hold me to my definition after using it as a weapon against me, you'll accuse me of redefining my definitions in order to avoid accepting the truth. Sorry, but I fallen victim to enough of your rhetorical traps to fall for this one.
Why don't I believe in Evolution? I'm looking at a pen on my desk right now. Do you expect me to believe it just appeared out of nowhere, by accident? I don't care how elaborate an explanation you give me ---which is exactly what your theory is; an explanation of how things that have order arose from chaos--- I know things don't just become, not without purpose.
But maybe they do. I'll let you entertain me with your explanations. I've already shown how all you can do is show how Evolution could have happened. Show me how it did. Tell me one thing about Evolution that is provably true(and when I capitalize evolution like that, I mean Evolution from non-life to humanity).
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:When is a fruitfly no longer a fruitfly?, or a gull no longer a gull?
Neither "fruitfly" nor "gull" is a species and even the term species as it's currently used is primarily a term of convenience. Generally accepted definitions of species usually include an element of reproductive isolation resulting in two or more populations which can no longer reproduce either with each other or with their progenitors. So, when you get a fruitfly that can reproduce with genetically similar fruitflies but can not reproduce with an earlier generation of its ancestry, you now have a new species of fruit fly.
quote:What transitional fossils exist?
Tiktaalik is an excellent example, partly because its form and location were predicted by scientists prior to its discovery.
quote:These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.
So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a “fishopod,” beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.
Tiktaalik had limb-like fins, with elbows and wrists, able to partly support it’s weight but not strong enough to walk fully out of the water. He lacked gill supports which gave him a more flexible neck, and he had a stronger rib cage for more support is shallow water. Tiktaalik also shows signs of both gills and lungs.
quote:And I'm not going to play the game with the question about complexity. You expect me to specifically define a concept as vague and malleable as that?
You chose the term. Try to be more precise next time. Complexity has a number of accepted meanings and none of them preclude evolution. If complexity is a meaningless or vague term to you, then don't use it.
quote:I may as well define religion for you, and then when you hold me to my definition after using it as a weapon against me, you'll accuse me of redefining my definitions in order to avoid accepting the truth.
Well that is sort of the problem. IDists routinely say evolution can't do "X" and when X is shown to be obtainable by evolution, they change the meaning of X. I'd be interested to see where this goes though. Let us know what you meant by "complexity" when you first used it and if you need to amend that definition to accommodate counterexamples, I won't hold it against you. I still submit that you won't be able to produce a reasonable definition of complexity which evolutionary processes are incapable of producing.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Why don't I believe in Evolution? I'm looking at a pen on my desk right now. Do you expect me to believe it just appeared out of nowhere, by accident? I don't care how elaborate an explanation you give me ---which is exactly what your theory is; an explanation of how things that have order arose from chaos--- I know things don't just become, not without purpose.
Resh...from your statement above, the only conclusion I can draw is that you don't understand the theory of evolution. Perhaps you just haven't looked. Perhaps you're keeping yourself willfully ignorant on the subject. I don't know. But either way, you don't understand it.
Evolution does not say that something comes from nothing. Never has, never will, no matter how many times you say it.
Now, if you want to talk non-life to humanity, we need to touch on abiogenesis, which is not evolution. Should we cover this with you as well?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Why don't I believe in Evolution? I'm looking at a pen on my desk right now. Do you expect me to believe it just appeared out of nowhere, by accident? I don't care how elaborate an explanation you give me ---which is exactly what your theory is; an explanation of how things that have order arose from chaos--- I know things don't just become, not without purpose.
- - - emphasis added - - -
I’m sorry, but I can’t help it: Are you familiar with the anthropic principle? I really think it is relevant, not because it proves anything, but because it addresses the “purpose behind the Universe” issue as a possibility.
quote:At the end of one week of continuous operation Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed. Nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) themselves were not formed. As observed in all consequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture. However, the experiment also produced a substance which, to most life, would be a "toxic carcinogenic"[4] substance. However, these compounds, which include formaldehyde and cyanide are "necessary building blocks for important biochemical compounds, including Amino Acids".[5]
There you have it Resh. An example of the building blocks of life being formed from non-life.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Why don't I believe in Evolution? I'm looking at a pen on my desk right now. Do you expect me to believe it just appeared out of nowhere, by accident?
I would be very interested in seeing an evolved pen Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Mucus, I think the point was that the pen has a Creator. But then again, maybe you already knew that.
A.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I don't know for certain that it's not true, hence the "relative sense" caveat. But I have still not been told anything that is evidence for Naturalistic Macroevolution, to be specific.
No, you've been told a ton, you just ignore everything you are told that doesn't agree with the way you want things to be.
Did you ever read, for instance, any of the articles about the evolution of the eye?
quote:Where are the answers to my questions? When is a fruitfly no longer a fruitfly?, or a gull no longer a gull? What transitional fossils exist?
The first two are probles of labeling. At what wavelength of light is the photon blue, and not green? We observe that organisms can't be put into perfect neat boxes. We see slow transitions.
The third I am sure you have been given a thousand times. Go to the transitional fossil page on talkorigins.
quote:I keep being told that there are some out there, but then I get nothing.
I asked you this question on the other board, and you ignored it.
If you believe and post something factually false, something where the correct data is easily availible, who is responsible?
1) Your mommy 2) evil lib'rals 3) strangers on a message board 4) You.
We all think the answer is 4, but you seem to think the answer is 3.
You should put yourself on record explicitly before proceeding any farther. It will clear up lots of confusion.
quote: And I'm not going to play the game with the question about complexity. You expect me to specifically define a concept as vague and malleable as that?
How can you know that evolution can't look like X if you can't describe what "X" is? You might as well say that evolution can't create sploovavility, as you can't define that either.
quote:Why don't I believe in Evolution? I'm looking at a pen on my desk right now. Do you expect me to believe it just appeared out of nowhere, by accident?
No, but life doesn't look like a pen. Among other things, life reproduces, and pens don't.
quote:I don't care how elaborate an explanation you give me
Here you go again valuing "innovative" and "elaborate" explanations over, say, well-evidenced ones.
Everyone you are arguing thinks exactly opposite you on that score. See, that's why no one cares about your "elaborate" expanations. We only want the evidence.
quote:I know things don't just become, not without purpose.
Chemistry? Do you make your car rusty on purpose?
quote:I've already shown how all you can do is show how Evolution could have happened.
See again, you have a far different definition of "show" that the people on this board. They think that in order to show anyone, you have to provide evidence, not just yammer on "elaborately". No one here thinks that you have provided evidence to back up anything you've said.
quote:Show me how it did
We have. Fossil evidence. Genetic evidence. Live observations of populations. Check past discussions for links.
quote:Tell me one thing about Evolution that is provably true(and when I capitalize evolution like that, I mean Evolution from non-life to humanity).
Evolution isn't about the origin of life. It covers how life evolved from that start.
It's like how the heliocentric theory covers how the planets move today, not how the solar system began.
It is provably true that when one builds a phyogenetic tree using virtually any gene across, say, all animals, or all mammals, the sequence similairty is not random between organisms, but instead builds a nested tree, and the tree is largely the same no matter what gene you use. And it is provably true that this is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts we should get.
Or something a little shorter: It is provable that phosphplipids will spontaneously form closed cells in aqueous solutions.
[ December 05, 2007, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: swbarnes2 ]
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: What transitional fossils exist? I keep being told that there are some out there, but then I get nothing.
Did you look at the transistional fossils link Threads provided earlier in this thread? There seems to be a lot of information there about what transitional fossils exist.
On a somewhat tangential note, I have a question for everybody who's trying to debate Resh, and then one for Resh. Given the following categories, which most accurately sums up your belief or position: A: Evolution with Abiogenesis, definitely without a creator/designer/deity. B: Evolutionary Theory stands up as an explanation of species on its own without a creator/deity, but doesn't necessarily mean that there couldn't be a creator/deity guiding it as a process and/or getting it started. C: Evolutionary Theory is useful on some levels but can't stand on its own without a creator/deity to either guide it or start its process.
I realize these are hardly all-encompasing, of course.
Resh, if I'm understanding you correctly, C is what you're calling "micro-evolution" and A is what you're calling "Naturalistic Macro-Evolution". What I'm curious about is what you think of category B? (I don't mean this as an attack or trap, I'm mainly curious because it's my guess that nearly everybody here but KoM is more in category B than A.)
--Enigmatic
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:On a somewhat tangential note, I have a question for everybody who's trying to debate Resh, and then one for Resh. Given the following categories, which most accurately sums up your belief or position: A: Evolution with Abiogenesis, definitely without a creator/designer/deity. B: Evolutionary Theory stands up as an explanation of species on its own without a creator/deity, but doesn't necessarily mean that there couldn't be a creator/deity guiding it as a process and/or getting it started. C: Evolutionary Theory is useful on some levels but can't stand on its own without a creator/deity to either guide it or start its process.
Definitely a B here. No evidence to which I've been exposed yet suggests that non-materialistic processes are necessary to explain the existence or diversity of life but that doesn't preclude the existence of such processes.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Even if my signature is always "A", I'm on B by these categories. Science in general and Evolutionary Theory in particular isn't meant (to me) to disprove divinity. It merely describes the reality that we perceive.
A.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
"Evolution does not say that something comes from nothing."
But, Javert, it does. In the beginning, there was no life on Earth. Now there is. Life today is the extension of the information encoded in DNA. That information did not exist at one point. But now it does. And it just came.... from nowhere!!!
Well, not nowhere. There is an imbalance of energy within the solar system, and the since life has been proven to have self-ordering properties, abiogenesis was as inevitable as salt crystals, or snowflakes (awwww!) The Miller-urey experiments show that!
No, not true. The difference between salt crystals and genetic information is the difference between abcabcabcabcabc and this sentence. This sentence has information, and it came from my intelligence. Genetic sequences have information, and natural selection + randomness does not produce information.
And if you want to actually defend the Miller-Urey experiments, be my guest. Your example of the building blocks of life being formed from non-life also included a mixture from which those building blocks could never possibly have been utilized. That experiment was a failure, and does more harm to your theory than you apparently realize. Laughable. I imagine your colleagues will quietly let you know that you're fighting a losing battle with that one.
Speaking of laughable: swbarnes. "We observe that organisms can't be put into perfect neat boxes. We see slow transitions."
No we don't. We see fully formed species appearing out of nowhere. No early bats. No early cats. No early anything. The Tiktaalik is not an early frog. It's just a Tiktaalik. There are just bats, and cats, and whales, and people. And so we have a new interpretation of what a transitional, or intermediate. "Why, they're all transitionals!" Nice try. Ok, all life forms are transitional. Do you not realize that this is not proof of evolution, but rather the consequence of evolution? You still haven't proven evolution!
"Did you ever read, for instance, any of the articles about the evolution of the eye?"
Yes, and what you have there are some nice little stories with no evidence that they actually happened. Oh, you have some things that you call evidence. But mere existence is evidence of evolution for you, because we're here right? So we must have evolved. No, conceivability does not equal necessity.
"No, but life doesn't look like a pen. Among other things, life reproduces, and pens don't."
This is your defense? Life is much more complicated than a simple pen, therefore it is the product of chance while the pen is not?
"Chemistry? Do you make your car rusty on purpose?"
I could if I wanted to. But degradation of order is what you are describing. Salt crystals forming are a better example of purposeless order, but they are the result of provably natural processes. You have no provable process for the increasing complexity of life (and by complexity here, I am referring to increasing genetic information). You have an observable process (natural selection), and you apply it to a billion year process, thereby rendering it untestable. This is science?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, now define genetic information. I should warn you, by all the definitions scientists use (which there are several), we have numerous examples of observed increases.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: No, not true. The difference between salt crystals and genetic information is the difference between abcabcabcabcabc and this sentence. This sentence has information, and it came from my intelligence. Genetic sequences have information, and natural selection + randomness does not produce information.
Can you define "information" as you are using it for us? Please be as thorough and exact as possible.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Enigmatic, A is indeed what I am calling Naturalistic Macroevolution, or just Evolution (with a capital "e") for short.
C is not what I am calling Microevolution. A Creator/Deity does not enter into the equation. Microevolution is basically just Natural Selection +randomness/chance/mutations without purpose. Its effects can be observed.
What do I think of B? I think that most open-minded people who accept Evolution would concede this to be the case, because you can't disprove a Creator. Besides, the Big Bang theory seems to imply it (but then again, so does biological design.)
I don't buy it, though. I recognize that I was naturally inclined to disbelieve Evolution after years of trusting my teachers and textbooks, because of my concurrent belief in God. But when the weaknesses of the theory were pointed out to me, they appeared insurmountable, and the defenses of the theory only appear effective if you already take it for granted that Evolution happened. This is what I recognize in all the so-called "proofs" everyone continues to throw at me. They look like proofs to you, but you aren't skeptical, like me.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Btw, aren't you being very circular? You're saying its a transitional species because . . . it has a name? It exists? You haven't given any reason. You said that an A isn't a transitional species because it is an A.
You're not much of a skeptic. You keep making definitive statements about what is possible (not the mark of a skeptic), but then aren't willing to clarify them sufficiently that anyone could prove or refute them (also not the mark of a skeptic).
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
No, I can't Mucus, or rather I won't, and for the same reasons that I refuse to define complexity. Again, I recognize a trap when I see it. Why don't you just define it for me, and then Fugu can show how it has been naturally increased. I'd like to know what he may be referencing, though I think I already know what he's going to say.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
No, fugu, I'm saying A isn't a transitional species because transitional species don't exist. All species are transitional if we evolved, except for the last of the evolutionary dead ends.
Since I deny evolution from the get go, all species are just what they are. I believe they may be the transitionals from a devolutionary standpoint, however.
[edit] Let me amend that. The initial creation process may have required an framework of increasing complexity, but then at a certain point we've all just been devolving. This is something I consider to be a possibility, but I won't back it up so don't ask me to.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Resh I provided a link that gives hundreds of documented transitional fossils.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I know. But read what I've been writing these last few posts. Here's a thought experiment: Imagine we didn't evolve. What would all those transitionals be if that were the case?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Resh. The Miller-Urey Experiment didn't fail, because it wasn't meant to demonstrate the exact conditions of ancient earth. It was meant to show that the building blocks of life could be formed from non-living substances. They can, as is shown in that experiment.
And again, evolution is the process of life once it has begun. It doesn't matter for evolution whether or not it was abiogenesis or your god or a magic unicorn created life. Evolution is what happens after life begins.
Now, you say you accept microevolution. (No such thing, there's only evolution, but for the sake of argument we'll use the silly creationist term.)
How can you keep from walking a mile if you take one step at a time?
Seriously. Do you think that once a species has changed a certain amount god picks them up and resets them?
Now, if you want to be shown everything exactly how it happened with no gaps and no mysteries or else you won't believe it...by all means, let's discuss why you believe your religion.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Again, I recognize a trap when I see it.
How is asking you to define your terms a trap? The only way it could be considered a trap is if you are using these terms for rhetorical advantage rather than to objectively describe an aspect of reality as you see it. Is that what you are doing?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Well put, with the last sentence there. I don't need it to be that comprehensive to believe it. But what I d o need is some sort of reason why I should that observable variations within the species, or as far out as to what is essentially the same species (fruitflies, for instance), and extrapolate that out to massive changes in orders, phylum, kingdoms, divisions, or what have you. That is the fallacy of composition: "when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole (Patrick Hurley)" Comparitively miniscule changes within a species does not imply the amount of variation required for all the species that have existed.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
No, not true. The difference between salt crystals and genetic information is the difference between abcabcabcabcabc and this sentence.
Oh, so you can count information, can you?
Order the below sequences by information: You should have no problem figuring out which is the original sequence, which has lost information due to a mutation, and which two the result of my typing a random string, and changing one letter.
If you want more sequence info, I'd be happy to get it for you.
But you won't even try to address this question.
If you can't count information, then all your claims about how information increases, or can't increase, are completely blown away.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I don't need it to be that comprehensive to believe it.
But it needs to mean something to believe it, doesn't it? If you are not able to precisely articulate that belief, then there is no chance that any evidence could ever sway that belief, is there? You can just define everything that evolution is ever shown to do as being "not information" and "not complex" without "information" or "complexity" actually meaning anything other than "not evolved" and if that's all it means, then it would be a lot simpler to express your opinion as "I don't believe in evolution" and dispense with the nonsense about "complexity" and "information."
If you insist on using words that have meaning, expect people to challenge you when your statements, using normal definitions of those words, are demonstrably false.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I know. But read what I've been writing these last few posts. Here's a thought experiment: Imagine we didn't evolve. What would all those transitionals be if that were the case?
It would be an extremely weird coincidence. Assuming creationism, why would God create all of these fossils to appear exactly like transitional fossils? The looks and ages of the fossils line up too well for it to be a random coincidence. Creationism is obviously possible in theory but doesn't make sense given the data.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: No, I can't Mucus, or rather I won't, and for the same reasons that I refuse to define complexity. Again, I recognize a trap when I see it. Why don't you just define it for me, and then Fugu can show how it has been naturally increased. I'd like to know what he may be referencing, though I think I already know what he's going to say.
So what you're saying is that you're using terms like "complexity" and "information" but refusing to actually explain what you mean by them, whether they are equal to commonly accepted definitions or even whether they *have* a definition in your own world.
To be honest, I'm not sure we should be having a debate about evolution. We really need to find out what you think about the *whole concept* of language and communication.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Resh: If I stand in the middle of a pond full of frogs and throw every frog with long toes into my cook pot, eventually all the frogs in the lake will have short toes.
Randomness (toe length) + natural selection (my cook pot) has produced a group of frogs with only short toes. Clearly I'm not their creator, nor do I have any supernatural powers.
Allow me another, more straight forward example.
Let us assume that the letters E, H, and T naturally tend to group together, due to the chemical bonding forces in their composition. After they have bonded together, they make exact copies of themselves.
In a pool of 3 of each letter. We find the following groups:
EHT HTE THE
But in this pool, only English words are viable. So EHT and HTE die, while THE survives, producing more and more THE offspring. If a mutation occurs, and one of the offspring is ETH, it dies before it can reproduce.
The letter grouping is random, the survival is directed, but not by any omnipotent creator, simply by the rules of the system.
In a real example, the rules might be that the creature must be able to digest the plants in its immediate area, or it must be unappetizing to local predators.
The point is that natural selection IS selection, it isn't completely random, as you have suggested that it is. The selection process takes the randomness, and only allows the random variations which have conformed to a survivable status to continue.
Take enough random letters and watch them combine, and eventually you'll find a word, which you keep. Allow billions of years for random chemicals to combine, and eventually some will arise which are able to survive and reproduce.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Resh said: " All species are transitional if we evolved, except for the last of the evolutionary dead ends."
DUH!
We're ARE all transitional. Furthermore, looking at the fossils, we can actually see the transitions!
So, Resh. You do realize that, without a definition a word is meaningless, right?
You are a burmagalshwarp.
I shall refuse to define this word for you, though.
And if you deign to suggest it has a meaning, I'll just disagree with that meaning. It's really easy to do, if I hadn't defined it clearly in the first place.
Resh, in science, every word has a precise definition. It has to, to describe what the heck we're talking about. To be clear. Vague words don't work in science, and only work to obfuscate the issue.
Stop obfuscating, start defining, and if you find your definition is incorrect, correct it for us to see!
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I don't understand your point, swbarnes.
Mightycow, yes, yes, they'll all have short toes. But are they still frogs? If you stop eating the long-toed frogs, will the population return to normal? Like big-beaked finches, perhaps? Is this really what you consider proof that fish become amphibians become reptiles become birds?
The word "the" is a far cry from a hundreds of thousands of pages of a precisely written language. Sure, given enough time with your method a beautiful book may be written. But who wrote the book? Using Gould's example, if you want to spell "tobeornottobe" with a computer program that randomly assigns letters and only keeps the letters that work, you need to program the computer to only look for letters that fit the pattern "tobeornottobe." Your claim is that natural selection looks for the letters provided for it by random mutations. I don't think it could. It's never been observed to happen, and there is no indication that it ever will.
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I know. But read what I've been writing these last few posts. Here's a thought experiment: Imagine we didn't evolve. What would all those transitionals be if that were the case?
It would be an extremely weird coincidence. Assuming creationism, why would God create all of these fossils to appear exactly like transitional fossils? The looks and ages of the fossils line up too well for it to be a random coincidence. Creationism is obviously possible in theory but doesn't make sense given the data.
They don't look like transitionary fossils to me. The look like highly ordered groupings of different body types generally arranged from smaller to larger bottom to top. Kinda like if you have a jar full of different sized pebbles and you shake it for a while. All the big ones end up on top. They appear arranged according to evolutionary theory because that is what the theory requires them to do.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Mucus, Megabyte, why don't you just tell me what science says the definition of information or complexity is.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There isn't a single definition of either. There are a number of definitions, especially for information. For instance, there's an information entropy measure of information (which evolution regularly increases). However, it doesn't much matter. You're the one making the assertion. You have made a specific, factually checkable assertion . . . or you will have, once you let us know what you actually meant. I guess I shouldn't expect that, since you've never been willing to make any of your vast, sweeping, absolute statements specific enough that it is even possible to talk about one coherently.
As for it never being observed that natural selection keeps the genes that are beneficial, that's absurd. There are numerous examples we've observed of a population of bacteria without resistance to a disease gaining resistance to a disease through a mutation, and that spreading throughout the population. That's just the easiest and most numerous sort of example. How is that not 'keeping the letter that helps form the word'?
Again with the absolute statements, btw. Skeptic, are we?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I know. But read what I've been writing these last few posts. Here's a thought experiment: Imagine we didn't evolve. What would all those transitionals be if that were the case?
It would be an extremely weird coincidence. Assuming creationism, why would God create all of these fossils to appear exactly like transitional fossils? The looks and ages of the fossils line up too well for it to be a random coincidence. Creationism is obviously possible in theory but doesn't make sense given the data.
They don't look like transitionary fossils to me. The look like highly ordered groupings of different body types generally arranged from smaller to larger bottom to top. Kinda like if you have a jar full of different sized pebbles and you shake it for a while. All the big ones end up on top. They appear arranged according to evolutionary theory because that is what the theory requires them to do.
Sorry, evolutionary theory cannot change the data. You seem to be claiming that it's a matter of interpretation, however, you ignore the fact that each of those fossils has been dated. You can't change dates and the dates are what show the transitions.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Mightycow, yes, yes, they'll all have short toes. But are they still frogs? If you stop eating the long-toed frogs, will the population return to normal? Like big-beaked finches, perhaps? Is this really what you consider proof that fish become amphibians become reptiles become birds?
Let's say instead of Mightycow eating all of the long-toed frogs, a new predator settles in the frog's habitat, and finds the long-toed frogs easier to spot and catch due to their super-long toes. Frogs with shorted toes will not get eaten.
Exchange this new predator for a new climate, or some nasty chemical that is especially damaging to the cuticles on the long-toed frogs' toes. Combine this change-in environment / change-in-populations with a never-stable-for-long environment (i.e. our planet) and you've got a species of constantly changing creatures.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
No, you've got a population of frogs with a fluctuating average toe-length. What is so hard about this? You still have a frog. You don't get a lizard, much less a shrew. A hundred-billion-billion-billion micromutations do not necessarily add up to a new species. You must show that it does, but you can't.
Threads, it is a matter of interpretation, and the vast majority of the dating is done based upon the rocks they are found in, and the rocks are dated based upon the fossils that are found in them. The exceptions, where actual radiometric and other techniques are use, come back with far more inconsistencies than many geologists, biologists, and paleontologists would like to admit. Many times they've all have to put their heads together and come up with an acceptable compromise. I've even read about instances where there was a major inconsistency and they went back and tested until they got a result they needed. Sorry Megabyte, I cant cite my source because I read it in a book and I don't remember which one. This isn't a dissertation.
Scientists are people too, and not only that, many of them take it for granted that evolution happened so when inconsistencies occur they assume the data must be wrong. I remember another case where the mathematician community was showing some evidence contradictory to Evolutionary theory and someone, it may have Ernest Mayr, said "the math must be wrong. We are comforted by the fact that evolution occurred."
[edit] I found the quote online, and it was Mayr: "Somehow or other by adjusting these [the mathematicians'] figures we will come out all right. We are comforted by the fact that evolution has occurred."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It has become obvious that Resh is just going to retreat behind his veil of ignorance and inability to define the terms he himself has made absolute statements about whenever pushed far enough.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Btw, Resh, what part of the following do you not understand:
A prediction was made that a certain sort of species would be found, based on the theory that it is possible for animals to change from species to species, even drastically, given enough time (which isn't hard to imagine, as the whole idea of a species is an approximation, anyways, much less the idea of a mouse).
This prediction was tested, and found to be accurate.
Therefore the accuracy of the prediction is evidence that the original theory is true.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Mucus, Megabyte, why don't you just tell me what science says the definition of information or complexity is.
Well, for the obvious reason that you've already made a statement about "information" and "complexity" using definitions that probably do not match the scientific definitions of those words and we want to figure out what you meant? Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:I remember another case where the mathematician community was showing some evidence contradictory to Evolutionary theory and someone, it may have Ernest Mayr, said "the math must be wrong. We are comforted by the fact that evolution occurred."
Yeah...because the scientists wouldn't be desperate for a new field of research that would give them lots of new work, new chances to become well known and, a very human motivator, grant money!
If anyone would have a reason to disprove evolution, if for no other reason than to get more money, it would be the scientists.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
It's obvious to me you have no answers. You just told me there is no single scientific definition of complexity or information. If I give you some narrowly defined version of either, I'm sure you've got a pat little answer for it. I'm not going to play your game. Guess what: I don't need to convince you of anything. You're the ones who are having such trouble making inroads into the consciousness of the people with your theory. Blame it on ignorance or religion (one and the same as far as you're concerned.) But if it's so obviously true, why do so many smart people have devastating arguments against it? As I said before, it's only obvious if when you believe it in the first place. Kinda like being a Christian.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Your claim is that natural selection looks for the letters provided for it by random mutations. I don't think it could. It's never been observed to happen, and there is no indication that it ever will.
See, this is where your own bias shows itself.
Natural selection doesn't look for anything.
Random mutations happen and happen all the time. This has been observed.
Occasionally, a random mutation will confer a positive benefit on the mutated population that allows it to compete better in its natural environment.
It can also happen that the environment changes and that standard mutations which were always a part of the population now confer either advantage or disadvantage.
Either way, population pressure is exerted and natural selection takes care of those best able to compete in their given environment.
It doesn't require the "guided hand" that you're biased towards in the above statement - it's all quite elegant, simple and beautiful without that.
One excellent point that I think is important is also regarding time - I don't think you appreciate the vastness of time that life has had to evolve on this planet. There's been an awful lot of time on our collective hands/fins/pseudopods/tentacles/etc in which any mutation has had time to prosper or fail.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Btw, that quotation was about work by Ulam, who said the following about it.
quote:"In my talk I will give you a whole set of such parameters with values it is important to know. The trouble is that at present realistic definitions of these parameters, not to mention numerical values, are completely unknown."
In other words, the whole point of the research being commented on was to adjust the figures. In fact, it was quickly discovered that a parameter Ulam had used in calculating the average number of descendants (called gamma, with each individual having 1 + gamma descendants) was quickly found to be far lower than we know it to be in animals.
It is hardly surprising that a calculation done with the wrong constants (which can be checked against reality) reaches a conclusion inconsistent with evolution.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Btw, the guy you like so much, Dembski, agrees that natural selection selects for more advantageous mutations. He's put forward a highly flawed mathematical argument that this isn't enough, but he doesn't think it doesn't happen. Or are you only agreeing with him when it is convenient for you?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Javert, I highly doubt that. History has shown that scientists are just as dogmatic as the clergy. Just like the church needs an occasion Martin Luther to shake things up, so does science. This is not to downplay the value of dogmatic paradigms: when a worldwide community is working with a common set of ground rules, a lot can get done.
Fugu, I will concede that that is compelling evidence in favor of Evolution. But its like a firefly in the void as far a I can tell. Fire enough bullets and you'll eventually kill one of those mosquitoes.
Mucus, I use those words, like most others, in their most commonly understood sense. If scientists need extremely precise definitions that change depending on the context in which they are being used, more power to them. But I'm not a scientist, and so when I say complex, I mean "not simple," and when I say information, I mean... well I mean "information." Just like everyone else.
When winning your argument requires you to tell your opponent that he can't use words like "complex" and "information" unless they are precisely defined, well, you aren't going to win many converts that way, I can tell you.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Resh, you're the one who made an absolute statement about evolution being unable to explain something. Let us imagine you said "evolution is unable to increase ooglibooginess". That's a pretty strong statement . . . well, it would be, if we knew what ooglibooginess was. Until we know what it is (which only you can tell us, you're the one who made the statement), its so much nonsense you're making up to 'support' your own views.
Also, the argument has never been that a mouse suddenly turns into an elephant. The argument has always been that a mouse turns into something like a mouse, which turns into something like a mouse, which turns into something like a mouse, which turns into something like a mouse, et cetera, and that at each stage, the difference is very small from what has gone before.
It is the accumulation of all those tiny changes that results in the drastic differences we observe, not any drastic change.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: But if it's so obviously true, why do so many smart people have devastating arguments against it?
Er, which ones? You've yet to show us a single devastating argument that you can back up in any way shape or form.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lets go back to bacteria.
We have observed populations of bacteria without any resistance for a particular antibiotic.
We have later observed a mutation that gave one of the bacteria resistance, and this resistance quickly spread so that most of the population had it.
Thus, before mutation, the bacteria as a population had a certain set of features they could express.
After the mutation, they had one more set of features they could express.
This makes the bacteria more complex by the colloquial definition, and have more information, also by the colloquial definition. Or do you disagree?
And that isn't one firefly in the void, we've done similar predictions (usually about genetic features we will see, such as gene locations chromosome structure) over and over. We're right most of the time. I mean, heck, people routinely make such predictions as part of graduate, and sometimes undergraduate biology, its not even esoteric.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troubadour:
Natural selection doesn't look for anything.
I was speaking figuratively, and I would have hoped anyone would understand that.
quote:
Random mutations happen and happen all the time. This has been observed.
Occasionally, a random mutation will confer a positive benefit on the mutated population that allows it to compete better in its natural environment.
Shouldn't "occasionally" be substituted with "hypothetically"?
Fugu, I would agree that advantageous mutations would be selected by Natural Selection, but there are major issues with what constitutes an advantageous mutation. This is generally defined as something which increases the likelihood of reproduction. But that is just a reiteration of Natural Selection. This is a tautology and conveys no meaningful information.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Threads, it is a matter of interpretation, and the vast majority of the dating is done based upon the rocks they are found in, and the rocks are dated based upon the fossils that are found in them. The exceptions, where actual radiometric and other techniques are use, come back with far more inconsistencies than many geologists, biologists, and paleontologists would like to admit. Many times they've all have to put their heads together and come up with an acceptable compromise.
That's actually incorrect. Using rocks to date fossils only works in specific circumstances because rocks are often much much older than the fossils embedded in them. You also need to be more specific about what you mean by "inconsistencies". In other words, citing a few examples where dating did not work does not count as an inconsistency. You need to show that, as a whole, radiometric dating is totally unreliable. That's going to be difficult to do because there are countless examples of different dating techniques agreeing with each other (within their respective error bars of course). This would be hugely improbable if the samples were contaminated. Read my link on the age of the earth.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Fugu, your example is pathetic. The bacteria actually have one less feature. A mutation causes the bacteria to be unable to restrict production of a certain enzyme that protects it from the antibiotic. Under normal conditions this would be greatly detrimental to its survival, but a new environment (i.e; filled with antibiotics) and now you've got a highly resistant strain of the bacteria. Evolution in action? Hardly. You have a better adapted, less complex creature.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Which bit do you think is hypothetical? That random mutations occur, or that it's possible for a mutation to confer a benefit on a population?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
"Restrict production"? It wasn't producing any enzyme before. It had no gene to produce the enzyme. What previously was a section of DNA doing something else now produces an enzyme. That's an additional characteristic.
And note, I talked about populations. The population of bacteria has every single gene before, and one more gene.
How is it less complex to have everything you had before, working just fine, and have one more thing? Evolution doesn't work at the level of individuals.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Threads, from what I understand, and I may be wrong here, rocks are much less like to be dated with radiometric techniques because it is far easier to date them according to their fossils. The rocks are not older, they are the same age as when the animal was deposited there. Otherwise, how did the creature get down there?
I gotta go, but I'll be back later.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You're not phrasing the statement right.
The statement is (or is closer to, there are considerations like mixtures of genetic combinations), mutations which increase the reproductive likelihood of individuals carrying the mutation (note: this might not be the same individuals as the ones expressing the gene, which explains non-reproductive individuals) in a population are more likely to be increase in representation in the population than ones which don't.
Yes, it is obviously true. That's part of why scientists are pretty certain that its true. It is also measurable, and we have measured that it is true, which is another reason scientists are pretty certain that its true.
Remember, there is no better in evolution. Beneficial mutation is just a shorthand for one which has the property mentioned above, not something that needs to be proven to be equal to it. It is a definition, not a theory.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Btw, the individual hasn't necessarily lost something, either. Individuals being created with increased chromosomal material is extremely common.
For instance, something like one in every few thousand human babies is born with an extra chromosome. Most of them have some condition associated with it, but a substantial percentage are otherwise perfectly normal humans.
If a beneficial mutation were to occur on that chromosome, the person would have every gene they had originally (since they still have the duplicates), plus one.
This is even more common in less complex species. Many species, particularly plants, but some animals, can have an extra copy of every single chromosome and breed with other individuals with the same duplication. We've seen it happen in nature and recreated it in the lab.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: Given the following categories, which most accurately sums up your belief or position: A: Evolution with Abiogenesis, definitely without a creator/designer/deity. B: Evolutionary Theory stands up as an explanation of species on its own without a creator/deity, but doesn't necessarily mean that there couldn't be a creator/deity guiding it as a process and/or getting it started. C: Evolutionary Theory is useful on some levels but can't stand on its own without a creator/deity to either guide it or start its process.
C, but I don't believe there is any specifically scientific evidence to support it (as distinct from B).
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Fugu, I would agree that advantageous mutations would be selected by Natural Selection, but there are major issues with what constitutes an advantageous mutation. This is generally defined as something which increases the likelihood of reproduction. But that is just a reiteration of Natural Selection. This is a tautology and conveys no meaningful information.
It sounds like you've been reading some Egnor. In any case, this response to his claim about evolution being a tautology answers your complaint pretty well:
quote: The theory of gravity? If you let go of something, it will fall - therefore, if you let go of something, it will fall.
Relativity? Light bends when it passed through a gravitational field - therefore, if I shine a light through a gravitational field, it will bend.
Evolution? The things that survive to reproduce are the things that survive to reproduce.
Tautological statements of theories don't invalidate the theories; and they don't mean that the theories are useless and have no explanatory value. The only time that a tautological statement of a theory is a problem is when it's the only statement of the theory - that is, when the theory itself consists of nothing more than a tautological structure. A theory that consisted of nothing more than the fundamental statement "A=A" isn't a theory - it's gibberish dressed up to look like a theory.
quote: To return to Egnor: he asserts that the theory of evolution is irrelevant to bacterial resistance to antibiotics, because after all, all that evolution says is "If you have an antibiotic that doesn't work on a bacterium, then that antibiotic won't work on that bacterium".
Well, yeah. It does say that. But it also predicts that if you use antibiotics on some population of bacteria, and you don't kill all of them, that over time, the population of bacteria will change to become resistant to the antibiotics.
I've read that sometimes things are tautologies simply because they are self evidently true. This may very well be the case for Natural Selection. I have never once expressed any doubt about Natural Selection. But as a mechanism for Macroevolution, I don't think so. I don't think there is a mechanism for it, because I don't think it happened. Giving me examples of Natural Selection in action is not going to change my mind.
Since large-scale Evolution cannot be recreated in a Lab ---and I'm sure you would all admit that is true--- it seems that the theory holds a place in the scientific story of creation as one that only must be conceivably possible in order to be believed. This relegates it to a position no higher on the scale of subjective truth than God.
My only request to you all is that you recognize that you are not privy to some special knowledge that those of us who do not believe the same are ignorant of. Stop insisting that it be taught as a fact, for it is not. Allow some alternate views to be presented, for they may be valid (even in the sphere of science.) And open your mind to some possibilities that a naturalistic worldview does not allow.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Resh: What you seem to be saying is that the ONLY way you'll believe in Evolution, is if you were able to go back in time to the beginning of life on earth, and you yourself physically watch the entire process unfold.
So basically, as far as you're concerned, all history is complete garbage, because we can't actually SHOW you that it happened?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
So.
Why do whales have vestigial legs?
Why do we see animals in the rocks that are morphologically similar to whales, but live on the land. And, later, animals that live in the water that are morphologically very similar to those earlier animals, but even more like whales, and so on?
Subjective truth? Show me some reasonable explanation for what I mentioned above. And if you want to see them, I can show them to you. I can back up my claims of fact, and I and the others will happily do so.
Show me a reasonable explanation. Please. What does your theory state? That is, the theory of the people you trust?
---
We can't recreate the murder of a specific person in a specific place in a lab, you know.
I suppose we shouldn't allow the use of forensic evidence, you know, DNA evidence, physical remains, things like hairs, fibers, skin flakes, possessions left at a crime scene, etc, since they don't prove anything, after all. And we CERTAINLY shouldn't put anyone in jail that we never actually saw commit a crime!
Following your logic, of course.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Resh: Have you ever seen large-scale Creation shown to be true? Just wondering if you hold ID to the same standards.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
My problem continues to be that you:
- refute scientific proof because it's unobservable (in action, if not in the actual fossil record), while ignoring the huge body of evidence that supports evolution - refuse to provide a similar level of evidence for 'intelligent design' - yet insist they're equally credible
The reason I have a problem with this is that evolution is actual science whereas ID is just creationism, religion, trying for equal status for purely political reasons.
ID belongs in church, it belongs in Sunday School, it belongs in religion classes because it is purely and solely a matter of faith with no body of supporting evidence beyond "This is so wonderful it must be proof of God".
To come back to a previous point regarding the US abysmal rating in science schooling and the consequent widespread acceptance of the political lobbying for ID's equal status. You posited that other countries were indoctrinated in atheism, hence would be predisposed to evolutionary theory.
In Australia, everyone of my generation was taught 'RE' (religious education) from kindergarten until year 7 in all schools, public or private. This was a class taught weekly, alongside all the other regular subjects.
Unfortunately I have to admit to not being able to find data on Australian acceptance of evolution.
Anecdotally (and Ironically), it was a priest who finally convinced me of the scientific validity of evolution, something not a single highschool biology teacher managed to achieve.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Resh plays the funnest games.
- Asks for evidence of transitional fossils, then says that they are not transitional fossils by his own estimate because he cannot conceive of them to be. An argument by incredulity.
- Refuses to define complexity, says it is a trap, then walks into that trap.
- Mistakes abiogenesis for evolution despite having been corrected on that point 8 times now (counting!)
- Claims he has no evidence for his position, just faith, and only knows that he knows evolution not to be true, then claims that 'we' see fully formed species forming out of nowhere. Refuses to provide evidence for this claim.
- Asks people to tell him 'how evolution DID happen, not how it COULD' and then says he will only accept an answer which explains how abiogenesis happened because that is how HE defines evolution. If you were to explain how evolution happened the way evolution is actually described, you would fail his 'test.'
- Adds incredulity to his repartee by saying (literally, as a man who once parroted Behe) "you aren't skeptical, like me"
- Says large-scale evolution can't be created in a lab, like that's an efficient defense of his arguments from ignorance. Know what else we can't re-create in a lab? Nearly all geologic phenomena. I guess we have to throw out plate tectonics as well since it must only be conceivably possible to be believed.
- gives the perfect example of cyclical illogic: A isn't transitional species because transitional species don't exist, transitional species don't exist because I deny evolution from the beginning. Fundamentally incurious self-defense.
- Turns his own illogic on transitional fossils in on itself to attempt to define the holes in HIS own logic as compositional fallacy on the part of others.
- Talks about inconsistencies in rock dating. It would make a great point if it were capable of debunking strata relative ages, but this is evidence, and as Resh has pointed out multiple times before, he isn't in the business of using evidence, he's just in the business of saying something that he assumes is true and then not backing it up. Let's see where that goes, yeah?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Out of curiosity, what do you (by you, I mean any person currently responding to resh) hope to accomplish by taking resh seriously? Certainly it should be clear by now that his is an illogically closed mind incapable or unwilling to comprehend what you say to him?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
I think we can learn to be more and more eloquent, and present better and better arguments, in a way that most of the "undecided" bunch that follows this discussion might find useful for their own education.
A.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
This thread is providing me with a fantastic absurd escape from finals. Thanks! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I've read that sometimes things are tautologies simply because they are self evidently true.
This is not what the word "tautology" means.
quote:My only request to you all is that you recognize that you are not privy to some special knowledge that those of us who do not believe the same are ignorant of.
But that is precisely the case, Resh. We are privy to information, and you are ignorant. We are trying to give you that information and thus make you less ignorant, but you're actually complaining about our attempts to help you.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Out of curiosity, what do you (by you, I mean any person currently responding to resh) hope to accomplish by taking resh seriously? Certainly it should be clear by now that his is an illogically closed mind incapable or unwilling to comprehend what you say to him?
If we can't put our ideas and knowledge about a subject into words then we probably don't understand the subject very well.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Allow some alternate views to be presented, for they may be valid (even in the sphere of science.) And open your mind to some possibilities that a naturalistic worldview does not allow.
But that's not science, for a raft of reasons that we've already covered in other threads.
This is probably a good time to quote Philip Johnson, DI fellow, who is described both inside and outside the ID movement as the "father of Intelligent Design" on what he thinks about the scientific explanatory power of intelligent design and the appropriateness of teaching it as evolution's equal.
quote:I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.
And, should those ID scientists actually do science, other scientists will welcome them at the table. We're all still waiting...
[ December 06, 2007, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Since large-scale Evolution cannot be recreated in a Lab ---and I'm sure you would all admit that is true--- it seems that the theory holds a place in the scientific story of creation as one that only must be conceivably possible in order to be believed. This relegates it to a position no higher on the scale of subjective truth than God.
Why is it necessary to recreate it in a lab? We can observe it directly in the fossil record. "Observable" basically means anything that can be measured.
Maybe we can focus this debate a little more. If we assume that our datings techniques are correct, then does the fossil record provide significant evidence for macroevolution? I don't think you could argue that it doesn't because there is no other rational way to explain why transitional forms all appear in order with the proper ages. The fossil record does not show HOW macroevolution occurs, but it definitely shows that it DOES occur.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troubadour: In Australia, everyone of my generation was taught 'RE' (religious education) from kindergarten until year 7 in all schools, public or private. This was a class taught weekly, alongside all the other regular subjects.
Unfortunately I have to admit to not being able to find data on Australian acceptance of evolution.
Considering that students had the option of taking an alternative class (at the school I attended in Canberra for 6 weeks, it was me and a couple dozen other kids), I doubt there is any relationship. The class was only taken by those whose parents wanted them there, neh?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Out of curiosity, what do you (by you, I mean any person currently responding to resh) hope to accomplish by taking resh seriously?
I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure it is more than would be accomplished by not taking resh seriously.
quote:We are privy to information, and you are ignorant. We are trying to give you that information and thus make you less ignorant, but you're actually complaining about our attempts to help you.
So why do you, as an atheist, complain about Christian attempts to "make you less ignorant" about the information that they believe they are privy to?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: So why do you, as an atheist, complain about Christian attempts to "make you less ignorant" about the information that they believe they are privy to?
As an atheist, I don't complain about it. I may complain if it's the same argument I've heard many times in the past, but I'll still listen. I'll debate and argue and discuss.
If the evidence points to your information being true, I'll jump right on board.
I can only speak for myself, of course.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
When have you heard me complain about Christian recruitment drives?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I wasn't talking about recruitment drives. I was refering to when people make claims about the truth of their religious views on this forum and rather than responding along the lines of "Thank you for informing me about these facts I wasn't privy to", you instead react like Resh is responding now. My question is why do you react that way, rejecting the so-called "help", instead of simply accepting the "help" of the people who are "informing" you?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I wasn't talking about recruitment drives. I was refering to when people make claims about the truth of their religious views on this forum and rather than responding along the lines of "Thank you for informing me about these facts I wasn't privy to", you instead react like Resh is responding now. My question is why do you react that way, instead of simply accepting the "help" of the people who are "informing" you?
I haven't seen anyone be snarky when a christian was giving them an actual fact, like "Mormon doctrine says this about that subject", or "documents shows that some early Christians believed this".
But surely you see the difference beween a statement like this:
"The human genes SAMD9 and SAMD9L are right next to each other on the chromosome, and are 58% identical and 72% similar. This is what we would expect to see if there had been one gene in the ancestral genome, which was then duplicated, and subsequently both mutated differently. Macaques and chimps also have both genes. Mice, rats, cows, dogs, etc have only have one, and their gene is more similar to SAMD9L than to SAMD9. This is what we would expect if the duplication originated in an organism that was an ancestor to all primates, but not an ancestor to the other groups of mammals.
And this statement:
"Jesus is real, I just know it".
The first statement is just cold fact. If you questioned it, you could order DNA and do the sequencing yourself. Or every person on this baord can go to ensembl, look up the genes, get the sequences, and BLAST them themselves. No need to take my opinion on the matter at all. Anyone on this board could have collected that information for themselves, and taught anyone else who asked them exactly how to do it themselves.
Can you say any of the above about the second statement?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I've taken science courses in college, but it is definitely not true that I am capable of sequencing DNA myself. I am not a scientist. I, like the vast majority of people, really DO need to take somebody else's opinion on the matter.
It should be noted that this is exactly what folks are expecting Resh to do: Nobody has told Resh to go out and get a Ph.D. in genetics in order to study DNA. People are expecting Resh to simply trust their claims that somebody out there did do this stuff, and they did it correct, and they correctly interpreted the results, and that that interpretation supports Evolution and not Creationism. I do not think anyone should find it surprising or irrational for Resh to refuse to have faith in such a claim, given that it conflicts with other authorities that Resh seems to trust more than just some people Resh knows on an online forum.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Nobody has told Resh to go out and get a Ph.D. in genetics in order to study DNA.
Actually, in several prior conversations, people have recommended that Resh do exactly this if he has such a passionate interest in the subject. Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
You don't need to sequence it yourself, Tres. As swbarnes said, you can very easily look up all the relevant sequences on ensembl (a free, openly available archive of genetic sequence data- so much for the myth of the exclusivist scientist, incidentally). And there are similarly free programs available online to compare them for similarity.
And it seems to me that expecting Resh to go out and, if not get a PhD, at least do some very basic research on the subject before spouting off about it, is exactly what folks have been suggesting. Since he is clearly unwilling to do so, we really don't have any other choice than to try to communicate the facts to him ourselves. All right, I guess we could ignore him, but as several people already noted earlier, trying to teach someone as obstinate and aggressively ignorant as Resh is at least somewhat useful for improving our own writing.
As for "trusting claims that somebody out there did do this stuff," well... if you can't accept that, then god forbid you ever use any modern technology at all. It's all based on people taking results presented by other people and using them as a foundation for further study and refinement. If Resh really can't trust scientists to the extent that he refuses any evidence presented to him unless the experiment is done directly in front of his face, then he should damn well not be driving cars, taking medication, or even typing his posts onto the Interwebs. Because all of that was only made possible by the painstaking work of scientists, publishing their work in exactly the manner that evolutionary biologists do, and undergoing the exact same level of scrutiny.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:You don't need to sequence it yourself, Tres. As swbarnes said, you can very easily look up all the relevant sequences on ensembl (a free, openly available archive of genetic sequence data- so much for the myth of the exclusivist scientist, incidentally). And there are similarly free programs available online to compare them for similarity.
Yes, but that only helps insofar as you trust those databases and programs, and trust your own ability to interpret them. In the same way you could simply go to the Bible and look up that Jesus exists - but that too depends entirely on how much you trust the Bible.
quote:If Resh really can't trust scientists to the extent that he refuses any evidence presented to him unless the experiment is done directly in front of his face, then he should damn well not be driving cars, taking medication, or even typing his posts onto the Interwebs.
You don't really need to trust scientists in order to use most technology, unless you are one of the first users. Usually, for instance, you can just look to thousands of other drivers to see that their car did not blow up when they turned the key, and infer that yours won't either. Now, if a scientist gave you a pill that nobody had ever taken before, but the scientist told you he was confident it would not have any adverse effects, would you trust that scientist? Some would but some would not.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Yes, but that only helps insofar as you trust those databases and programs, and trust your own ability to interpret them. In the same way you could simply go to the Bible and look up that Jesus exists - but that too depends entirely on how much you trust the Bible.
Except you CAN go and learn those things for yourself. Until Pastwatch is created, we can't confirm anything the Bible says that isn't historically verifiable.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Tresopax: You're edging slowly into conspiracy theory territory. Those databases are usually maintained by publically funded organizations such as the US National Institute of Health, the European Molecular Biology Laboratory, and so forth.
These resources are used by thousands of scientists everyday of all kinds. New sequences are input every day by scientists working on various sequencing projects and some big projects such as the Human Genome Project are very visible and even include private sector competitors such as Celera which pretty much duplicated much of the work of the public project (multiple times by now).
In order for those databases to be seeded with data that fakes evolution, you would need to organise multiple governments into creating fake data, somehow convince private companies into doing the same, and then the whole thing would messed up if there was ever a big discrepancy between a newly sequenced sequence and the existing copies in the database. Additionally, many companies and researchers also need to sequence proteins and from there, it is a simple task to extrapolate back to the DNA sequence(s... the mapping is not unique of course) and double check. In fact, this step is required for tasks such as homology protein modelling.
In short, the level of organization and the number of people involved required in order to fake the data in the databases in order to fake proof of evolution would be by far outclass most of the conspiracy theories even shown on "The X-Files."
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:You don't need to sequence it yourself, Tres. As swbarnes said, you can very easily look up all the relevant sequences on ensembl (a free, openly available archive of genetic sequence data- so much for the myth of the exclusivist scientist, incidentally). And there are similarly free programs available online to compare them for similarity.
Yes, but that only helps insofar as you trust those databases and programs, and trust your own ability to interpret them. In the same way you could simply go to the Bible and look up that Jesus exists - but that too depends entirely on how much you trust the Bible.
Oh please. Unlike the Bible, I can go and re-sequence any of the sequences available on ensembl to make sure they are correct. In fact, biologists are constantly checking and rechecking (and updating when necessary) to make sure our databases maintain the highest possible accuracy. I trust it because the very nature of scientific enterprise makes it extremely difficult to get away with falsifying data- in other words, you can't just say anything and expect to get away with it, because you will be torn to shreds. Can you honestly say that any religious text undergoes the same level of scrutiny?
Edit: Looks like Mucus has already made my point, and more eloquently to boot. Thanks man.
quote:You don't really need to trust scientists in order to use most technology, unless you are one of the first users. Usually, for instance, you can just look to thousands of other drivers to see that their car did not blow up when they turned the key, and infer that yours won't either. Now, if a scientist gave you a pill that nobody had ever taken before, but the scientist told you he was confident it would not have any adverse effects, would you trust that scientist? Some would but some would not. [/qb]
Do you really not get it? By looking at all those other drivers, you are in fact applying exactly the same logic as the scientists who originally figured out the physical and chemical principles required to build the car in the first place. It's ALL inductive reasoning.
As for the pill, if that scientist has gone through all the usual channels- i.e. studied the effects of the active ingredient in vivo and in vitro, demonstrated its efficacy and tested for potential risks in mouse and primate models (and naturally, publishing all of these results in peer-reviewed journals along the way), and then passed the necessary screening process for human testing, absolutely I would. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that scientists just pull new medications out of thin air, and then promptly try them out on human subjects without any prior study.
As a side note: the fact that using mouse and primate models works at all (and believe me, it works very well) is in itself further confirmation of the theory of evolution. There would be absolutely no point in using such model organisms in medical research if we didn't share common ancestry with them- i.e. if evolution had not occurred.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Out of curiosity, what do you (by you, I mean any person currently responding to resh) hope to accomplish by taking resh seriously? Certainly it should be clear by now that his is an illogically closed mind incapable or unwilling to comprehend what you say to him?
The longer he talks, the more work he does for others in helping destroy the credibility of the Intelligent Design movement and advancing the credibility of evolutionary theory.
He is literally so impossibly bad at debate and logic that he galvanizes people against his hackery and compels people to give, frequently, more and more well-worded and compelling answers to even the most steadfast evolutionary theory denial.
In addition, he's a cautionary tale for reasonable folk who don't believe in evolution but would like to have open and logical discussion about it; he makes all the mistakes that creationists used to make constantly and he's helping remind everyone why you sound like a knuckle-dragger when you say something like "evolution is just a theory, not a fact" or "we haven't observed speciation" or "there are no transitional fossils" or "behe was right."
Besides, one doesn't have to take him seriously just by replying to him.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
"I know it, Its true. You should believe it too." is not an argument.
Two people meet. One says Jesus. One says Allah. There are three ways to decide who is right. You can both agree to discuss the facts in a logically consistent manner so that some decision could be made. You can wait until you both die, and see who's right. Or you can kill the idea that disagrees with yours. Since the other doesn't agree with you, and won't change his mind, well we must kill him in order to kill the idea.
Resh says "God, not Evolution." There is nothing we can say that will make him change his mind. Most of us are content to let him continue believing that until he meets God and is either proven right, or wrong.
But Resh goes on to demand that we deny science in favor of his faith. He is demanding that we change our mind, and though he sounds like he wants to discuss this in a logically consistent manner, instead he just keeps telling us he's right, we are wrong, and we must accept it.
Volume is not a way to win a debate.
At least we haven't yet dropped to the level of murdering those who don't convert.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Except you CAN go and learn those things for yourself. Until Pastwatch is created, we can't confirm anything the Bible says that isn't historically verifiable.
Again, no I can't. I lack the knowledge and resources to sequence DNA. I assume Resh, and most other people, do too.
quote:In order for those databases to be seeded with data that fakes evolution, you would need to organise multiple governments into creating fake data, somehow convince private companies into doing the same, and then the whole thing would messed up if there was ever a big discrepancy between a newly sequenced sequence and the existing copies in the database. Additionally, many companies and researchers also need to sequence proteins and from there, it is a simple task to extrapolate back to the DNA sequence(s... the mapping is not unique of course) and double check. In fact, this step is required for tasks such as homology protein modelling.
It really wouldn't take a conspiracy. All it would take is for scientists as a community to be fundamentally wrong in some significant but consistent way that would alter all their results or their interpretation of their results.
But besides that, you are skipping over what is probably the more important half of why most people could not trust things they'd learn from such a database: Because it is easily possible to misunderstand what the data given means. To a person who is not well-versed in genetics, such data is probably almost entirely meaningless as evidence, no matter how accurate the data might be. To such a person, they really do have to trust some scientist to tell them what it means.
quote:In fact, biologists are constantly checking and rechecking (and updating when necessary) to make sure our databases maintain the highest possible accuracy. I trust it because the very nature of scientific enterprise makes it extremely difficult to get away with falsifying data- in other words, you can't just say anything and expect to get away with it, because you will be torn to shreds. Can you honestly say that any religious text undergoes the same level of scrutiny?
Yes, I'm fairly sure the Bible has undergone much more scrutiny - after all, it has existed for 2,000 years as one of the most read, most scrutinized, and most religiously important texts in the world. It has been studied not just by Christians, but people of many religions and many cultures, some of whom are very very intent on proving it false.
There is one significant difference about the scrutiny of the Bible though - after the first few centuries of scrutiny, people stopped allowing it to be altered based on that scrutiny. Infer from that what you will....
quote:The longer he talks, the more work he does for others in helping destroy the credibility of the Intelligent Design movement and advancing the credibility of evolutionary theory.
Possibly so. That's why I think it is a good idea to take all theories seriously - because I think taking them seriously helps you make more clear the truth of true theories and the wrongness of false theories. Whereas you learn nothing by not taking them seriously.
[ December 06, 2007, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [QB] I've taken science courses in college, but it is definitely not true that I am capable of sequencing DNA myself. I am not a scientist. I, like the vast majority of people, really DO need to take somebody else's opinion on the matter.
Sigh.
First of all, you don't need a lab to look in ensembl. You need an internet connection and a browser. And you obviously have those. You just go to www.ensembl.org, search for SAMD9 and SAMD9L in humans. From there, you can jump to the orthologs in other organisms, and you can get the protein sequence.
Second, relying on the opinion of experts is a perfectly acceptable thing to do in this case. And the consensus of virtaully all biologists is that evolution is real.
quote:It should be noted that this is exactly what folks are expecting Resh to do: Nobody has told Resh to go out and get a Ph.D. in genetics in order to study DNA.
Well, yes. If a person thinks that all the experts are wrong about something, and wishes to be taken seriously, and not as a crackpot, he needs to demonstrate that he too is an expert.
If someone went into your workplace, and told you that everything you were doing was totally wrong, and that your conclusions were widly unfounded, would you pay attention to this person if they demonstrated that they knew less about your work than the intern who started last week?
quote:People are expecting Resh to simply trust their claims that somebody out there did do this stuff
,
Why does Resh have to trust the the similarity between SAMD9 and SAMD9L is what I said? He can look it up himself.
Why does he have to trust when someone says the bacteria evolved the ability to to diget nylon? He can read the paper himself.
Why does he have to trust us when we say that people have done many studies on the evolution of the eye? He can read the papers himself.
Resh can read a talkorigin link, and then go to the end notes, and read the peer-reviewed papers that it cites.
The problem is, if Resh can't intelligently read the papers, then he has no business saying that he understand biology better than the people who can. But that's pretty much his argument.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Rivka - primary school was a long time ago for me
My entire class had RE, so while I have to assume it would be voluntary, at the time it seemed a normal part of my schooling.
Also, I'd imagine you'd have a larger attendance at RE in SE Queensland than in Canberra!
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Clearly we have to trust something. We can't all test that the food we eat is safe and healthy, we can't personally test that gravity will work everywhere on earth, we can't test that germs are actually responsible for our sickness instead of unbalanced humors or evil spirits.
We can trust science to tell us these things, because it's basically unbiased as it's practiced by people all over the world with widely different ideals and beliefs. We DO trust science to tell us all sorts of things every day, without ever questioning.
Why does it make sense to blindly believe when science tells us that we should take an antibiotic to keep an infected limb from needing amputation, even though we've never seen a germ or personally tested the effect and safety of the medicine?
If we should doubt all the science behind evolutionary theory, shouldn't we doubt the science which effects our daily lives even MORE?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:We DO trust science to tell us all sorts of things every day, without ever questioning.
Actually, we question science all the time. It's one of the reasons why it produces a useful, measurable result in many practical fields.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Science IS questioning. At least that's the first part.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
But do most non-scientists take part in this vital questioning, is what he was asking.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Also: Resh, remember all those questions I asked in the past? Those really important, vital ones?
I'm still waiting. Why don't you answer them now?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I agree, that science itself questions constantly, but when science comes up with a very well-established answer, common people don't demand to see it in action in order to believe it. We don't all go out and test antibiotics on bacteria and perform individual Stage 3 clinical trials before we take our penicillin.
We trust that other people have done ample research and know what they're talking about, especially when so many people agree on the same answers and have so much backing evidence to show the validity of their findings.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troubadour: Rivka - primary school was a long time ago for me
IIRC, you're only slightly older than I. The "summer" I was in Australia was 1982.
quote:Originally posted by Troubadour: Also, I'd imagine you'd have a larger attendance at RE in SE Queensland than in Canberra!
I have very little knowledge of the relative concentrations of religiosity in Oz. IIRC, other than the recent immigrants from <the island nation I cannot remember the name of> and me, almost everybody took the religion class. (At least until the daughter of the new Israel consul joined the class. But she and I only overlapped for a week or two.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: It really wouldn't take a conspiracy. All it would take is for scientists as a community to be fundamentally wrong in some significant but consistent way that would alter all their results or their interpretation of their results.
Incorrect. You're slowly edging your way past conspiracy theory to parts beyond. You're really barking up the wrong tree here. It is almost as if you're imagining that a bunch of scientists are taking pieces of people, putting them into huge optical microscopes and then writing down the sequences as they see it.
Instead, scientists have to use many different ways of measuring each of DNA sequences, RNA sequences, and protein sequences using completely different techniques. Furthermore, there is no interpretation, we are at the stage where most of the work is done in a purely automated fashion with no human intervention. In addition, the actual sequences are used in developing drugs and understanding disease. The simplest error and mismatch between the database sequences and the real sequences in a person could mean the difference between a drug that works and a drug that kills.
As an analogy, imagine that you have a building under construction. Every day while it is being built, you go there and you find a new way of measuring the height. Maybe one day you use a really big ruler, maybe one day you use a small ruler and repeatedly put it end to end all the way down, maybe another day you throw a ball down and measure the time it takes to hit the ground and solve based on the force of gravity, maybe another day you shoot a laser at a mirror on the ground and measure based on the speed of light, then another day you check how many girders of steel were required and extrapolate.
At the end of the entire process, you collect all the measurements. This is data. This is what goes in the database. When it comes to modern sequence databases, it is as if all of those methods of measurements came to the same measurement +- a few cm.
Now evolution is the interpretation of that data. Maybe you want to find out if that building is too tall to be stable, that is the interpretation and that is at least debatable to some extent in the details.
See, as insane as a conspiracy involving all the world's scientists is to fake data *for* evolution, it is still more likely than there being a systematic way in which all the methods of measurements are flawed but exactly in the same way, and *randomly* in a way that allows faking evolution.
It is as if you went back to all those different methods of measuring the height of a building and instead of finding that same measurement +- a few cm, you found a billion pink fairies staring back at you and a beer of Smirnoff where the building was, yet still being able to climb up to the top of the building and grab a cup of coffee from your penthouse suite.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I should like to thank Reshpeckobiggle for engaging in debate on this thread.
I could quibble about your debate tactics/rehetoric, but I'll just leave this a positive post.
With one small proviso: randomness, complexity, and information all have technical definitions that are more nuanced than their common usages. It's easy to misinterpret them in scientific debates, which is one reason why some (including me) want the specific definitions you use for these terms. It's necessary to facilitate communication.
Plus, it's a trap. Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Well, your welcome, Morbo. I wish I was technically-minded enough to know how to define those terms in such a way that I would not have to constantly redefine them in order to remain coherent (to myself, at the very least.)
Those really important, vital questions, megabyte? I'm sorry, I forgot what they were. I vaguely remember something about having to define my positions and my understanding of certain things, presumably so I could be led by the hand into another rhetorical dead-end. That is obviously not my intention on this thread; I have since come to realize that defending why I disbelieve Evolution is not only futile when accosted from a half-dozen different experts with a dozen separate angles apiece (something I willingly bring upon myself; I'm not looking for sympathy), but is also completely unnecessary. I'm not trying to convince any of you, I am inviting you to convince me, the ultimate skeptic of Evolution. If you can make inroads with me, then you have a chance with anybody.
A quibble: Tarrsk: "At least do some very basic research on the subject before spouting off about it."
Have I displayed a lack of fundamental understanding of the theory? This statement is evidence of the belief that no one who doubts the theory could possibly understand it as well; understanding implies belief, does it not?
Mucus, the methods of measurement are based on the theory they measure.
"[Evolution] is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypothesis, all systems must henceforth bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow..." -Pierre Teilhard.
This is the mindset of those studying, testing, developing, perfecting it. Data is interpreted according to the Law of Evolution. This is not a conspiracy. This is the way science operates. Much is accomplished when a global community of scientists operate according to a set understanding of the universe, and with a common goal in mind. But sometimes, they're just wrong.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
So are you saying that scientific methods of measurement are reliant on the theories that they happen to confirm and that without the theory, the actual *data* that the measurement method creates is invalid?
So say I have a ruler and a watch. I drop an apple, measure the time it takes to drop and how far it drops. Then I realise, "Whoa this data could be used to support Newton's laws of motion!"
Does that mean that the *actual measurements* are invalid if the theory of gravity happens to be augmented by relativity many years later? Does that mean that if I look at the ruler again, I'll get a different result simply because I have a new theory in my head? Thats just bizarre.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
This is a rhetorical trick so common as to be universal. "Just compare Evolution to Gravity. People know gravity is real, so if you force them to compare the two, they'll see why they are both Laws of nature." Where is your ruler and stopwatch in Evolution? Where is your falling apple?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I googled Pierre Teilhard. If you believe that somehow a Jesuit Priest's one quote gave marching orders to scientists around the world, then my friend, you are talking "Conspiracy".
The above quote is theological in tone, not the cautious accurate tone used by science.
Tres--You compared the ongoing work of scientists studying the DNA research done with the study done for thousands of years done on the bible.
May I point out 3 big differences...
1) If two DNA scientists have a dispute over findings it almost never results in one group killing another.
2) The scientists study not only what the data represents, but also they study how accurate and true the data itself. People of faith study what the bible means in current and past times, not how accurate or true it is.
3)If the source of a scientists data is flawed, he can get more DNA. Not many faiths allow you to get more "Word of God" when needed.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Have I displayed a lack of fundamental understanding of the theory?
Actually, you have. When you insist that evolution is just random events, and that there is no way randomness will ever build complexity, you aren't talking about evolution at all.
Randomness plus selection (which you keep ignoring) is entirely capable of building complexity.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
More on those term defintions from me later.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Well, your welcome, Morbo. I wish I was technically-minded enough to know how to define those terms in such a way that I would not have to constantly redefine them in order to remain coherent (to myself, at the very least.)
[...cut...]
Mucus, the methods of measurement are based on the theory they measure.
"[Evolution] is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypothesis, all systems must henceforth bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow..." -Pierre Teilhard.
This is the mindset of those studying, testing, developing, perfecting it. Data is interpreted according to the Law of Evolution. This is not a conspiracy. This is the way science operates. Much is accomplished when a global community of scientists operate according to a set understanding of the universe, and with a common goal in mind. But sometimes, they're just wrong.
That is not the mindset of every biologist and other scientists studying evolution. It may be the mindset of a subset.
Just as a subset of Christians believe evolution is a key part of Satan's master plan, with the willing participation of scientists.
Also, Teilhard was a philosopher as well as a scientist, and his writings overlapped and mixed these subjects. Personally I think his vision of the universe is beautiful and awe-inspiring, whether or not it's true. Even pipe-dreams have their place.
edit: Also, from what little I've gleaned about Teilhard via Julian May's and Dan Simmons' novels, Teilhard's view of evolution became inextricably wrapped up with his faith in God. He saw an inevitable progression from dumb matter to living beings to sentient beings culminating in the Omega Point (possibly = to God?) All biologists do not agree with this.
[ December 07, 2007, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Dan, Yes, he was a Jesuit Priest, but he was quite unorthodox. Particularly in his devout acceptance of Evolution as the guiding force behind our existence. I just used that quote because of its eloquence. I do think it is representative of the underlying philosophy behind science's search for truth.
I don't think Tresopax's comparison is entirely adequate, although for different reasons. If two scientists argue over genetics, there may not be wars, but if Darwinism is carried out to what someone may consider its logical end, eugenics may result (have resulted, and may again in the future when gene manipulation is perfected a la Gattica.) Also, people do study the accuracy of the Bible, be it its historical, prophetic, or philosophical accuracy. Your third point is mostly correct, although continuing interpretations and implications of the Word are allowed (for the Bible, not necessarily certain other holy books.
Mighty Cow, why don't you read the first two posts on page three. Although I certainly hit on it many other times, those two should be sufficient. I then ask that you admit you are wholly wrong.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Where is your ruler and stopwatch in Evolution? Where is your falling apple?
The ruler and stopwatch would be Edman degradation or mass spectrometry based protein sequencing and shotgun DNA sequencing. The apple would be the human, mouse, E.coli, and wheat genomes and proteomes (for a start).
Now please tell us how those methods of measurements would change what measurements they would return if we had a different theory other than evolution.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
To address your statement itself, does Evolution occur without randomness? If Naturalism is true, is there anything in this universe that is not the result of chance processes? Doesn't a universe without purpose imply that even Natural Selection is the product of chance occurrences? Are not our own actions just the result of random interactions between molecules?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:If two scientists argue over genetics, there may not be wars, but if Darwinism is carried out to what someone may consider its logical end, eugenics may result (have resulted, and may again in the future when gene manipulation is perfected a la Gattica.)
Actually no, that would be Intelligent Design. Evolution describes undirected selection. You propose selection at the hands of an intelligent agent which is taking advantage of our understanding of the effects of selective breeding (which were pretty well understood long before Darwin) to achieve a desired end.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Why don't you use a layman's argument when arguing with a layman? If you think I'm impressed enough by jargon that I'm just going to concede defeat, you're wrong.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:To address your statement itself, does Evolution occur without randomness?
No, but chocolate shake doesn't occur without milk. That doesn't make the statement "milk cannot produce a shake" meaningful.
quote:Doesn't a universe without purpose imply that even Natural Selection is the product of chance occurrences?
But we're just talking about evolution, not the nature of the universe.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Matt, you missed the point both times.
Ok, you added something that is valid. Supposing we are just talking about Evolution and not the nature of the universe. If you are allowing for the possibility of of purpose in the universe, then why is a Naturalistic explanation required? This isn't really my argument anyway. If yo believe that Evolution occurred, but as the result of some purpose, then I won't argue. It may very well be what happened. My beef is with Naturalism as a whole, and Evolution as the story of how this all happened without any force outside of the material universe.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well, let's try to dumb it down a bit.
Ruler => DNA sequencing Stopwatch => protein sequencing Apple => genomes and proteomes of bacteria, plants, mice, and humans
Each of those terms either before or now are searchable in Wikipedia by the way
Now please tell us how those methods of measurements would change what measurements they would return if we had a different theory other than evolution.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:If you are allowing for the possibility of of purpose in the universe, then why is a Naturalistic explanation required?
It's not required, but it fits the data better than any other explanation. If you want to give God credit for the random mutations and say, essentially, that God directed evolution, that's not inconsistent with the theory, it just isn't a necessary addition as it provides no additional explanatory power. We don't find better drugs to combat virii if we assume that their resistance to previous drugs was directed by God.
Evolution says that (apparently) random mutations occurred and were selected for. It seems to be quite possible *without* any external force, but it doesn't explicitly exclude external force.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I'm starting to disagree with your tone, Mucus (which may be unintentional; I know how nuance gets lost around here). But the problem remains: you are comparing someone using a stopwatch and a ruler to test for gravity with a highly technical concept like genetic sequencing. They are not the same, and I would guess that genetic data is still subject to interpretation. You still seem to be arguing that we religious types should accept your negation of our beliefs (or at least modify our beliefs to accommodate yours) based purely on faith.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:You still seem to be arguing that we religious types should accept your negation of our beliefs (or at least modify our beliefs to accommodate yours) based purely on faith.
I think he's inviting you to learn more about these subjects and he's suggesting that it may be *necessary* to learn more before you dismiss the entire field as a hoax.
It's not necessary, however, to get a graduate degree in genetics to do this though. Many of us are not working scientists, but have taken it upon ourselves to educate ourselves in this area because we find it fascinating stuff. The fact that you are willing to engage in a debate on the subject indicates that you might also find it fascinating enough to pursue.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:If you are allowing for the possibility of of purpose in the universe, then why is a Naturalistic explanation required?
It's not required, but it fits the data better than any other explanation. If you want to give God credit for the random mutations and say, essentially, that God directed evolution, that's not inconsistent with the theory, it just isn't a necessary addition as it provides no additional explanatory power. We don't find better drugs to combat virii if we assume that their resistance to previous drugs was directed by God.
Evolution says that (apparently) random mutations occurred and were selected for. It seems to be quite possible *without* any external force, but it doesn't explicitly exclude external force.
And I'm saying that I don't think randomness is sufficient to explain increasing complexity (in the sense that a human is more complex than a bacterium, and a bacterium is more complex than a pool of amino acids; so please don't ask me to define complexity anymore!) I've yet to see anyone give me an example that it is. I know what's coming: you think I've been given examples and I'm just ignoring them. I'm telling you that they are only good example to someone who believe in the first place the theory they purportedly explain.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:And I'm saying that I don't think randomness is sufficient to explain increasing complexity
What you seem to disagree with is not that randomness can increase complexity, but that randomness can produce sufficient complexity. Is this correct?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
But I am learning more about these subjects, Matt. What I have learned has resulted in a further cementing of my belief that a supernatural force created everything. I don't think the field is a hoax, anymore that the Ptolemaic model of the universe was a hoax. But I do think it is the history of scientific paradigms repeating itself.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:And I'm saying that I don't think randomness is sufficient to explain increasing complexity
What you seem to disagree with is not that randomness can increase complexity, but that randomness can produce sufficient complexity. Is this correct?
I don't know that it can't, and I've heard plenty of examples about how it could, but I have yet to be shown anything conclusive that shows that it has.
[edit] I should add ---and this is key to my skepticism--- that I have seen firsthand an overwhelming preponderance of the fact that randomness decreases complexity. Your theory requires I believe something other than what my every encounter with randomness has shown me.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
There is a really good paper out there that shows exactly how one type of transmitter changed to a different type (I am sick today and so my brain is really fuzzy). But that would give you more complexity- cause you duplicate the gene and then follow this step by step process and bam- now you can pump two moleculars instead of just one. Also, Resh, you should take a few minutes to go learn how DNA is sequenced. This webpage has a pretty picture: http://www.scq.ubc.ca/genome-projects-uncovering-the-blueprints-of-biology/ This is not necessarily the best explanation, but I like pictures.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I don't know that it can't, and I've heard plenty of examples about how it could, but I have yet to be shown anything conclusive that shows that it has.
Well, if you agree that it can produce *some* complexity, then that's a particular bridge we don't have to worry about crossing. Many IDists have a dogmatic belief that randomness is incapable of producing complexity, period. That is demonstrably false for every colloquial and technical definition of complexity that I've ever heard of.
So, you agree that evolutionary theory is plausible, you just think it's highly unlikely and lacking in positive evidence?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Again, I don't know that it can't. I find it highly unlikely that it could produce very much, it is fighting an uphill battle against the normal effects of randomness, and whatever complexity arises comes from a certain level of complexity that already existed in the first place.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Again, I don't know that it can't. I find it highly unlikely that it could produce very much, it is fighting an uphill battle against the normal effects of randomness, and whatever complexity arises comes from a certain level of complexity that already existed in the first place.
Well if the nature of any complexity that is generated is such that it is preserved, then it would seem there would be no upper bound to the amount of complexity that could arise. That's why selection is such a key element.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Resh: You're right, I misinterpreted what you said. When you first said
quote: Why don't I believe in Evolution? I'm looking at a pen on my desk right now. Do you expect me to believe it just appeared out of nowhere, by accident? I don't care how elaborate an explanation you give me ---which is exactly what your theory is; an explanation of how things that have order arose from chaos--- I know things don't just become, not without purpose.
You denied that ordered things can arise without a purpose, but selection IS a purpose, the purpose is to continue to reproduce.
But, then you clarified with:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Genetic sequences have information, and natural selection + randomness does not produce information.
So I suppose that I'm incorrect in saying that you ignore natural selection completely. What I should have said is that you don't believe that natural selection can produce information, which people have provided you with multiple examples of how it can, and you have ignored.
I apologize for criticizing you on the wrong aspect of your intentional misunderstanding.
Edit: You know, just on this very page you wrote, "And I'm saying that I don't think randomness is sufficient to explain increasing complexity"
So I wasn't wrong after all, you continue to ignore the effects of selection. It isn't just randomness!
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Again, I don't know that it can't. I find it highly unlikely that it could produce very much, it is fighting an uphill battle against the normal effects of randomness, and whatever complexity arises comes from a certain level of complexity that already existed in the first place.
How do you know that evolution can't make "enough" complexity when you can't quantify "how much" is needed?
If you can't count how much complexity there is in those tiny DNA sequences I gave you, how on earth can you pretend to know how much complexity evolution can manage, and how much more compelxity organisms possess?
Second, there's no uphill battle. Indeed, it's downhill. Mutations that hurt their bearers will be selected against, those few mutations that help their bearers will be over-represented.
Let's say that in every generation, there are 10 lethal mutations, and 10 really helpful mutations.
So what does the 100th generation look like? Those 1 good mutations a generation will still be in the population. So the population will have 100 good mutations it didn't have before. And the bad mutations? Their bearers didn't survive, so the bad mutations don't show up in the later generations.
So 100 generatiosn later, you have 100 good mutations, and the same random 10 bad ones.
Randomness channeled by selection. That's what drives evolution.
Lastly you can't say "I don't know, but I'm sure I'm right".
It's just nonsensical. (But thanks for being so upfront about the fact that your beliefs in this area are indeed nonsensical)
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Resh:
You must have a very short memory.
I mean, really short. It wasn't much more than a couple months at most the last time I brought it up.
All those questions about your theory. Why don't you go look them up in the multiple threads I asked you in.
Why don't you, in fact, respond to my pleas for your information? For your theories?
Would your theory predict how the human chromosomes are?
We have 46. Other apes have 48.
You can't just lose two chromosomes full of information, just like that. It wouldn't work.
What would your Intelligent Design predict?
I won't tell you the answer. I just want to see what your theory predicts. Can you show me that?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I'm starting to disagree with your tone, Mucus (which may be unintentional; I know how nuance gets lost around here). But the problem remains: you are comparing someone using a stopwatch and a ruler to test for gravity with a highly technical concept like genetic sequencing. They are not the same, and I would guess that genetic data is still subject to interpretation. You still seem to be arguing that we religious types should accept your negation of our beliefs (or at least modify our beliefs to accommodate yours) based purely on faith.
Thats just it, the basic principles behind genetic sequencing are not highly technical. Now, the full range of confirming techniques is beyond the scope of most people, but the basic ideas and concepts behind DNA sequencing would have been plastered all over the mass media coverage of the Human Genome Project. Furthermore, you've demonstrated an interest in evolution, but DNA sequencing is literally one of the most fundamental steps in understanding genetics, hence my frustration.
Secondly, there is no interpretation to be done really. As I've said multiple times, all high-throughput DNA and protein sequencing is completely automated. Also, as I painstakingly noted, the existence of multiple confirming techniques based on vastly different principles prevents the possibility of systematic error by one technique for sequencing.
Lastly, we were discussing the accuracy of DNA sequencing and sequence databases. What religion would be negated by the *mere existence* of accurate DNA sequences and databases?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why don't you use a layman's argument when arguing with a layman?
Well, for one thing, when they use layman's arguments, you say you're unconvinced and want additional proof. You're well aware, Resh, that you're not arguing here in good faith; you aren't actually listening to what people say to you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Comparing resh's present tone with his posts in the past almost makes me think like there is a different, yet equally incurious creationist arguer behind the name.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Reshpeckobiggle, it seems to me, from your latest posts here, that you are a bit frustrated because you’re asked the same questions over and over, even if you already answered, and that your own questions are avoided/ignored because “the other side” only hears what they want to hear.
I propose you, therefore, a new list of questions, all oriented toward helping you find for yourself the answer to one of your previous questions here. There was some discussion about frogs with long and short toes, some fruitflies, gulls and stuff.
Oh, here’s your question:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Where are the answers to my questions? When is a fruitfly no longer a fruitfly?, or a gull no longer a gull? What transitional fossils exist? I keep being told that there are some out there, but then I get nothing.
If you’re not satisfied with MattP’s answer that followed, and you’re still interested in that question, I’d like to propose a way, following small steps, and probably a lot of my questions.
I will concentrate on dogs. They are fairly common today in the world and I think that might help more than thinking about a bunch of extinct dinosaurs
If you are interested, we’ll be going “all over the place”, from the “paradox” of the egg and the chicken, to Noah’s Ark and without avoiding the question :”If man comes from monkey, as evolutionism claims, why don’t we see today such an event?”
I am surely simplifying the concepts and I might not be 100% scientific in my formulation (my own limitation), but I’m open to be corrected along the way by anyone ready to do so.
So, Reshpeckobiggle, do you think this to be a good idea?
A.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
Ah, the ape and chromosome thing. Isn't evidence very strong that those two chromosomes apes have fused to create our human chromosome #2? Remains of the original telomeres in the middle of chromosome 2, as well as an identical banding structure to that of the aforementioned ape chromosomes...
I've looked all over, but I haven't found any claims/evidence that a fusion did not occur, so what is the most common argument against these findings? Coincidence? God tricking us :/
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Saephon:
Aww! You mentioned it! I wanted to see what his theory would predict that this absence meant!
Anyway, evolutionary theory predicted, before we looked for it, that the chromosomes would be fused in the manner that they are.
The prediction was right. The question I want to know is, of course, what his intelligent design would have predicted.
He did not respond to my questions about predictions, in the past. He must not remember that, among my other vital questions. Since he seemed to feel that trying to insult me, and belittling me with something completely unrelated was a useful debate tactic.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
I'm curious: what is the difference between evidence that something did happen and evidence that something could have happened? Is it merely a matter of degree? or is there a qualitative difference between the two? or are they one and the same?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
I think is something along the lines: If I see an egg crushed on the floor, next to the table, upon which I see several other eggs out of their box (I had taken them out and I had to run to the phone) I have to wonder: Did the egg really fell off the table (because the windows was open and the wind made it move), or did someone put it there really carefully (purposefully), making it appear it had fallen from the exact same height as the table?
Now, if I knew that I’m all alone in the house, then It must have fallen, right? But as I can’t rule out the existence of ghosts that I can’t detect but at the same time they (the ghosts) can push eggs around, well, there is no reason to trust my first conclusion.
A.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The egg might have always been on the floor, but you just failed to notice it until now.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Mike, the difference (as far as I can tell) is that evidence that something could have happened is sufficient when it comes to proving the unprovable. Suminon's example does not approach the amount of acceptance of the unprovable that evolution requires.
Megabyte, why don't I answer your questions, even though you are begging me to? Because your begging is embarrassing. No, actually it's because you aren't listening to me. I've already said several times I'm not interested in proving anything. What I believe in is unprovable: that we were created. My argument here is based on a refusal to accept an alternative theory that sets out to disprove what I believe, and uses logic that requires me to disbelieve what I believe in the first place, and also ignore my own personal experiences with both the supernatural and with the effects of randomness in nature.
Speaking of:
quote:Originally posted by Mightycow: What I should have said is that you don't believe that natural selection can produce information, which people have provided you with multiple examples of how it can, and you have ignored.
I apologize for criticizing you on the wrong aspect of your intentional misunderstanding.
Edit: You know, just on this very page you wrote, "And I'm saying that I don't think randomness is sufficient to explain increasing complexity"
So I wasn't wrong after all, you continue to ignore the effects of selection. It isn't just randomness!
If you had followed my line of reasoning, you would have seen that I have no argument with Natural Selection and anything that it might be capable of. It is specifically the randomness aspect of the equation that I have little confidence in. So if you think I misunderstand the mechanism of the theory, you are the one who is intentionally misunderstanding.
Tom, I'm not arguing in good faith? What is it that you're doing then? Jeering from the sidelines, just to let me know that I'm not on the home team?
Matt and swbarnes: the only to who do seem to be trying to engage me in good faith (oh yeah, and suminon. I'll get to you in a minute.) Matt, the only way there could be no upper bound is if there was an infinite amount of time available. Now billions of years seems like a lot, and maybe it would be enough. But I've read some statistical calculations that set a ridiculously high upper bound for time and chemical processes, and still there was little chance that much would be accomplished: not my area of expertise, but it goes to show that that the numbers can be manipulated to fit whatever solution one has in mind. And if you expect me to believe that those numbers are wrong because that mathematician was biased, I don't know why you expect me to believe the calculations in favor of Evolution are immune to bias, given my already expressed doubts about the objectivity of those who believe the theory in the first place.
Which brings me to swbarnes. Conceptually, yes, that makes sense, and you aren't teaching me something new here. But again, there is no evidence that this is what has happened. It is a logical deduction that arises from a need to explain existence from a purely Naturalistic perspective. It's creative, and a lot of effort has gone into proving it to be correct (rather than disproving it, which is what should be the goal of evolutionary science.) Now let's look at it more realistically, as empirical studies have shown. Let's say that for every 1000 mutations, one is not harmful. This mutation must convey some benefit upon the species in a way that causes its increased likelihood of being passed on. Just because the mutation causes the horse to run faster does not make it more likely to reproduce. Maybe it is more likely to break its leg. So there must be some tangible benefit to the mutation. Either that, or there is an accumulation of neutral mutations that are finally activated by one more mutation, like the straw that breaks the camel's back. Whatever the case, this is the purported mechanism for allowing natural selection to do its part. The idea is that this happens often enough that we have a massive increase in complexity over millions of years.
I am being told that there is a mountain of evidence that this has happened. My attention is directed toward the archaeopteryx and the tiktaalik, and the occasional added chromosome to human DNA that actually doesn't cause considerable developmental harm. I am shown variations in Finches beaks and spotted moths. And then I am told that "the ruler and stopwatch would be Edman degradation or mass spectrometry based protein sequencing and shotgun DNA sequencing." And then when I say I don't find any of that to be very convincing, I am told that I am willfully ignoring the evidence, not arguing in good faith, and that I simply don't understand the theory. Of course I don't! Understanding implies belief!
No. Belief implies understanding. Of course scientist find confirming evidence for it all the time, because disconfirming evidence could not possibly exist, or if it did it can be explained. As a last resort, if the evidence cannot be ignored (i.e; the fact of stasis in the fossil record) the theory is adjusted to accommodate the evidence (i.e; punctuated equilibrium). The Marxists could always point to the the capitalist who actually did exploit the workers, and the Freudians would occasionally examine someone who really did want to sleep with his mother. Similarly, Evolutionists are going to find some gene sequencing thing between monkeys and humans and the beautiful thing about that kind of evidence is that most people are too intimidated by the jargon to argue.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Saephon: I've looked all over, but I haven't found any claims/evidence that a fusion did not occur, so what is the most common argument against these findings? Coincidence? God tricking us :/
Before I get to suminon, I just wanted to ask; are you saying that a negative must be proved? In order for this piece of evidence to be rendered invalid, we must prove that the fusing didn't happen?
[ December 08, 2007, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Reshpeckobiggle, it seems to me, from your latest posts here, that you are a bit frustrated because you’re asked the same questions over and over, even if you already answered, and that your own questions are avoided/ignored because “the other side” only hears what they want to hear...
If you’re not satisfied with MattP’s answer that followed, and you’re still interested in that question, I’d like to propose a way, following small steps, and probably a lot of my questions.
I will concentrate on dogs. They are fairly common today in the world and I think that might help more than thinking about a bunch of extinct dinosaurs
If you are interested, we’ll be going “all over the place”, from the “paradox” of the egg and the chicken, to Noah’s Ark and without avoiding the question :”If man comes from monkey, as evolutionism claims, why don’t we see today such an event?”
I am surely simplifying the concepts and I might not be 100% scientific in my formulation (my own limitation), but I’m open to be corrected along the way by anyone ready to do so.
So, Reshpeckobiggle, do you think this to be a good idea?
A.
Not so much "frustrated" as "amused." But sure, go for it. Be warned, I have a habit of just disappearing for weeks. You know, if I see that I'm actually going to have to come to terms with my ignorance.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
So, Resh. You don't care about predicting things.
You don't care about whether something's useful or not.
You simply do not care about whether something predicts things more accurately than other. You don't care about knowing things at all!
Your mindset, if applied equally throughout the world, would have made the survival of most of us impossible. It would have made our current form of communication impossible. It would have made many things impossible. Because you don't actually care about results. You care about beliefs.
You act as though changing theories to fit new evidence is somehow some kind of weakness. But that's actually the very essence of science. Science does NOT work the way you feel. Scientists do NOT look for confirming evidence, and ignore disconfirming evidence.
Do you realize just how many of our discoveries came from the answer being opposite of what the people doing the experiments believed it would be? Shall I list a few? How many times entire theories were thrown out the window, because the evidence suggests something else?
You say you don't find mass spectrometry based protein sequencing and shotgun DNA sequencing convincing. Why not? What do you know about them, how they work? Do you disagree that these mechanisms physically exist? Or do you disagree that the evidence they use shows evolution?
You claim understanding implies belief. Where do you get that? If I understand the mindset of another human being, does that mean I believe it? If I understand an outdated idea that obviously does not work, does that mean I actually believe in it?
So: Where is the disconfirming evidence?
Oh, wait. You don't CARE about evidence! You said so yourself! You'll merely dismiss it. I doubt you'd believe it even if you DID see it with your own eyes.
Okay: You say your arguement is a refusal to accept a theory that disagrees with your preset beliefs. That's what you said. It does not matter to you if it predicts reality accurately, yes? You don't care about evidence, about prediction, about reality.
You are the antithesis of science. You are the antithesis of truth. You are the ultimate subjectivist, holding your subjective understanding of the universe as higher than the reality around you, the physical, objective world.
You make fun of me for demanding you to treat your own theory with the same rigor that the scientists you disdain use. You in fact mock that rigor. You claim you're not interested in proving anything. How do you know, if you can't prove it?
How do you know? Based on what evidence do you believe?
Belief without evidence is the actions of a fool. Anyone can believe that, say, they can jump off a building. Why is your belief any better, any less foolish, then that? The difference is evidence, is it not?
If not, then wha tis the difference between one who believes, without proof, that they can fly, and you, who believe without proof that the world and man was magically created, as is, with genes full of crap, broken things that other species have and all sorts of other oddities, and the universe itself all acting as though it's old, without evidence?
What is the difference?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Tom, I'm not arguing in good faith? What is it that you're doing then? Jeering from the sidelines, just to let me know that I'm not on the home team?
Leaving aside the bit about the home team, yes.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
What is the difference between you and one who believes the Earth is flat? I've seen them argue, and they dismiss any evidence that the Earth is round, and say very similar things as you. How are yuo different? How?
How do you discern whether your belief is more valid than the belief that the Earth is sitting on top of a giant turtle? How do you tell? How?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: ... And then I am told that "the ruler and stopwatch would be Edman degradation or mass spectrometry based protein sequencing and shotgun DNA sequencing." And then when I say I don't find any of that to be very convincing, I am told that I am willfully ignoring the evidence, not arguing in good faith, and that I simply don't understand the theory. Of course I don't! Understanding implies belief!
... Similarly, Evolutionists are going to find some gene sequencing thing between monkeys and humans and the beautiful thing about that kind of evidence is that most people are too intimidated by the jargon to argue.
First, "Evolutionists" did not invent the procedures for DNA and protein sequencing. In the cases that I can think of, either biochemists or molecular geneticists where involved.
For example, Edman degradation for protein sequencing, named after the biochemist that discovered the process. DNA sequencing starts with Sanger, an English biochemist with two Nobel prizes in Chemistry, not biology. Mass spectrometry obviously has a background in analysis of simple ions, gases, small molecules, and the like before moving onto the more complex organic molecules such as peptides and proteins. Craig Ventor and shotgun sequencing: biochemist by trade.
Now, you may ask the question, why were "Evolutionists" or as scientists would prefer the term, "evolutionary biologists" not more involved?
Well, for the simple reason that they tend to have degrees in higher level subjects rather than fiddling with individual atoms and ions, Dawkin's background is in zoology, Stephen Jay Gould's is in paleontology.
Secondly, there is a lot of money in sequencing genes and proteins. While some people are debating about evolution and the like, that is not where the money is, many people have real problems in biotechnology, pharmaceutical development. Sanger sequenced insulin to figure out how it works, to aid further drug development. This is where the money is mostly headed.
So get it straight, DNA sequencing, protein sequencing, these are the tools, invented mostly by biochemists to produce *data*, for many different reasons.
This data is then interpreted later by people interested in evolution, like evolutionary biologists or "evolutionists" if you prefer, who create the *theory* to explain the data.
While data may be used to support evolutionary theory, the data is usually created for very different purposes, do not conflate the two. The US government did not spend ludicrous amounts of money to create the Human Genome Project just to prove evolution. Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
If it would help the conversation, I could give a basic explanation of sequencing and related techniques, since that's sort of what I do at work. I can also point to some resources for those who want to look at sequences themselves. The NCBI, for one. I love that site.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
Resh: I never said that a fusion did in fact occur and that a negative is needed to prove it wrong. I merely reported evidence supporting the case that that is what indeed happened to human genetic structure. I've seen the pro-evolution take on these findings; I'd like to know if ID or anti-evolutionists have a different interpretation.
I'd like to believe that in a truly debatable subject, no one side has the burden of proof. Both sides should have interpretations/evidence and be allowed the same respect when presenting their case. However, the act of not having an answer or interpretation to certain findings is in itself helpful evidence to the opposition. Unless of course one side believes the subject isn't debatable because they "know the truth" and don't have to prove anything. In that case, there's no point in trying to have a meaningful discussion.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I left you out of the list of people who are attempting to engage me honestly, Mucus. Thanks for being honest, Tom. I should just make a list of people whose posts I gloss over without bothering to think about a response (Sam, Megabyte, KoM). Tom's are short and entertaining enough I actually read them, and I believe that when he actually takes time to make a point they are usually worth reading.
Anyway Mucus, when I say evolutionists, I don't just mean biologists or paleontologists. Anyone who believes Evolution is a sufficient explanation for life on earth is an evolutionist.
But in this case, I actually was referring to the Dawkins and Goulds of the world when I said that about evolutionists finding some gene sequencing thing between monkeys and humans or a perfect transitional between fish and amphibians. It doesn't matter who does the research. A Biblical literalist could have made the discovery. My point is that if you look hard enough and long enough, you can find proof of anything.
Finally, even if you had a winning point there, does that make Evolution true?
Shigosei, that would be great. I'm not sure how much it would contribute, especially if you make it simple enough that I can understand it. But you never know til you try!
Saephon, you have a point about not having an answer. The thing is, my answer is inadmissible to a scientific debate as the rules of scientific debate are defined. Namely: I think there is a supernatural explanation, or at least I believe the possibility exists and have no problem with the idea that a scientific explanation may not be adequate.
This is where I have gone wrong before. I tried engaging some of the more, shall we say, scientific-minded persons here on their terms. But that game is rigged. What good is the negation of a theory without something to replace it with? Oh sure, Creationism could conceivably replace it, but not if the scientists have anything to do with it. Hard to blame them, especially considering that methodological atheism is probably the surest ticket to natural knowledge. But it is the philosophical atheism that confuses the methodology with reality that irks me, and has, in my view, hijacked science.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Oh sure, Creationism could conceivably replace it, but not if the scientists have anything to do with it. Hard to blame them, especially considering that methodological atheism is probably the surest ticket to natural knowledge. But it is the philosophical atheism that confuses the methodology with reality that irks me, and has, in my view, hijacked science.
See, first of all, scientists balk against the idea of a supernatural explanation because there's no evidence, not even a 'this is how it could have happened' that holds water against the evidence. While science has at its advantage actual evidence for its theories.
Also, if you want to talk hijacking of science, you can look no further than creationists attempts to introduce religion back into classrooms in the guise of psuedoscience.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Could I refer you to the thread entitled "Tu Quoque" that I started awhile ago?
Of course they balk at it. Refusing to invoke supernatural causes is the methodological atheism that I was referring to, and something I do not have a problem with, and would even encourage. But dismissing outright the possibility of the supernatural is not something that can be defended on scientific grounds. Yes, true science has evidence backing it up. This is the point of the whole thread, and every other I've participated in on this subject: Evolution does not qualify as science. It is pseudo-science, a logical deduction of Naturalistic philosophy.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
I'm not sure I really want to wade into this debate as it's been covered here many times before...yet, here I am writing a post.
First let me point out that Religion has always been the strongest adversary of science. They simply can not stand anything that contradicts there absolute authority over knowledge.
When Galileo said the earth revolved around the sun, religion said he was a liar and a fraud, that the man was the center of the universe and anyone who contradicted the Church on the matter was in league with the devil.
Of course, despite their absolute belief in the rightness of their position, hundreds of years of science have proven them wrong.
When Marco Polo returned from China and spoke of Fireworks, the Church swore that he was a liar, and that it was impossible for colored lights to shoot across the sky, and that if it did happen it was the work of the devil.
The man who invented the microscope, which is a pretty simple device, took a drop of pond water, and said, look there are tiny little creatures in the water. Of course the church representatives refused to look and swore that these creatures didn't exist and that if they did exist they were the work of the devil.
Again, hundreds of years of scientific proof have proven them absolutely wrong on these and countless other scientific points.
Now along comes evolution, and religion swears that it is absolutely wrong, and if it is right, it is the work of the devil. (OK, somewhat metaphorical)
But notice a pattern; notice the element of doubt in every case. First the church swears that this new information is absolutely positively utterly and completely wrong, but then they add, but if it is right, it's the work of the devil. Whether it is the work of the devil is irrelevant, but the fact that they concede it might be true and attribute it to the devil, tells me clearly that they never have and never will know what the hades they are talking about.
What the church want is to control the world and all thought and knowledge in it. When something challenges the petty small minded notion of what is true and right, first the disclaim it, then they attribute it to the devil. All meant to control free thought.
Now let's get scientific. Electricity is a theory. Chemistry is a theory. Physics is a theory. We don't know how any of these things work, but we have developed a reasonable working model that allows us to use them. When you turn on the light switch, the lights usually come on, and I assure you it is not the work of the devil.
The atomic theory that explains electricity fails to explain chemistry, and the model that explains chemistry fails to explain electricity. Yet, in our world we are surrounded by applied chemistry and applied electricity.
The same is true of Evolution. No it is not a complete science, no it doesn't explain everything we would like to know, but like electricity and chemistry, we have a sufficient working model that we can clearly demonstrate that it is real and how it works.
You complain that 'Naturalistic philosophy' (whatever that is) is pseudo-science, but NATURE is the Hand of God on earth. And just because the Hand of God on earth doesn't fit your petty small minded world view (a general statement, nothing personal), you denounce it. That seems extremely unChristian to me.
Because science deals with an understanding of nature, and nature is God's Hand on Earth, science simply documents God to the best of its ability with the understanding it has at the moment. And across the endless span of history, science has done consistently better job of documenting God that they Church has ever done.
It is the Christians who deny God's Hand on Earth and cling to out-dated out-moded fantasy beliefs that are the real detractors from truth.
Christian Creationists cling to flawed failed fantasy, Scientific Creationist cling to the truth on earth as it is revealed to them through the Nature of God's Hand; though the workings God set into motion by the Natural processes that can only come from him. Christian Creationist also cling to the power and control of all thought and belief on earth, failed and flawed as it might be, and that is really sad.
In my opinion, the alleged Christians who challenge scientific documentation of the wonder of the Natrual Processes God set to work on earth, only prove how small minded and Godless they really are.
You heard it here first. (with apologies for the frank harshness of my statements, though I do not and will not retract them)
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Excepting of course that many Christians accept and embrace the idea of Evolution as God's mechanism and hold the belief that science and religion can quite happily co-exist.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Your opinions are your own. But do they prove Evolution?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: If you had followed my line of reasoning, you would have seen that I have no argument with Natural Selection and anything that it might be capable of. It is specifically the randomness aspect of the equation that I have little confidence in. So if you think I misunderstand the mechanism of the theory, you are the one who is intentionally misunderstanding.
What aspect of the randomness don't you have confidence in? Do you not believe that randomness occurs, or that randomness cannot produce sufficient change, or that selection cannot eliminate the negative aspects of randomness and keep the positive elements?
One thing I'll give you, is that I imagine you win a lot of arguments by making the other person not want to bother any more. I guess that's something.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Your opinions are your own. But do they prove Evolution?
“Opinions can’t prove anything” is virtually equivalent with “science” On the other hand, knowing that opinions can’t prove Evolution, what is it that CAN?
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Refusing to invoke supernatural causes is the methodological atheism that I was referring to, and something I do not have a problem with, and would even encourage. But dismissing outright the possibility of the supernatural is not something that can be defended on scientific grounds. Yes, true science has evidence backing it up. This is the point of the whole thread, and every other I've participated in on this subject: Evolution does not qualify as science. It is pseudo-science, a logical deduction of Naturalistic philosophy.
- - - emphasis added - - - Now, this is a CLAIM that you should defend better than just by saying “it is not science because I don’t believe in it (being a skeptic)”. Also, I suppose that when you say “Evolution” (a fact that may have happened or not) you mean “Evolutionism” (the scientific theory that studies how would Evolution work). No scientist will try to PROVE that Evolution happened as Evolutionism describes it, as it is always possible (while very undlikely) that an undetectable ghost “put it all there” to look as if it did, and we can’t know that for sure.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Not so much "frustrated" as "amused." But sure, go for it. Be warned, I have a habit of just disappearing for weeks. You know, if I see that I'm actually going to have to come to terms with my ignorance.
Ok, I agree to your terms too.
Now, the first point would be: What is a “dog” (as opposed to say… a “wolf”)? We have to outline exactly when an animal is a dog and not a wolf or cow or monkey, to be able to agree on the criteria for deciding when “a dog becomes a non-dog”
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Mike, the difference (as far as I can tell) is that evidence that something could have happened is sufficient when it comes to proving the unprovable. Suminon's example does not approach the amount of acceptance of the unprovable that evolution requires.
I’m willing to take the egg parallel a lot further (It’s not just a random example!), but first I’d like to know what you mean by “the unprovable that evolution requires”.
A.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
So, Resh. No answer. Still no answer. You don't even care about giving an answer, and said that yourself.
You've never answered my questions.
Get out of my thread. This is my discussion, about my problems, not yours. Leave. I'd like to ocntinue discussing things without you bringing your stench.
This is my thread, and if you don't care to talk to me, stop posting. Just get out. Get the hell out!
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
0Megabyte, getting all upset and frustrated doesn’t help anyone.
I really see here (at least declaratively) the intent and willingness to learn. There is another reason of why I think that talking seriously with Reshpeckobiggle is not all bad, in a previous post.
A.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Your opinions are your own. But do they prove Evolution?
Did anyone ever claim that just opinions prove evolution?
No. You are the only person who is claiming that an opinion alone proves a side of the argument, here.
The opposition to you is repetitively submitting heaps of evidence which do much to establish evolution's overwhelming credibility, and your tactic so far has been to just say "What evidence? It can't be evidence; I cannot see it or otherwise do not recognize it."
You counter it by stating to effect "Oh, there's something that disproves that" but when pressed to qualify that statement, you back up to a tired line where you retreat to a claim that you don't need to prove anything and are not trying to.
Despite the fact that this is a lie -- and numerous other unfathomable anti-logical stances -- you then pepper your assault on others with hazy accusations of named logical fallacy.
What you've accomplished so far is to drive everyone nuts! I'm surprised it took this long. Maybe you're trying to earn some vitriol and pretend that your position is granted some kind of reprieve or credibility if it drives people totally bonkers. I've seen it before. You just say "Ah, look at how frustrated the Darwinists/Evolutionists (sp) get when they try to handle my amazingly self-assured statements!" We're talking some pretty hardcore ferrous cranus here.
Or maybe you're trying a new tact to save face for your last thread where lost your cool devil-may-care exterior under pressure from people who knew what they were talking about, and called everybody pathetic nobodies.
But what's best is that we've slipped a little bit lower, here -- before, you claimed to be able to prove your position. You would actively quote things and make logical statements like "Evolution cannot be true because <scientific argument here>" and brought up several gems like irreducible complexity and half-an-eyes and fossil transition and stuff about there being no proven speciation and nonce about theories. You would be countered on these one-liners and then subsequently say something like "You just aren't looking at the real information. I can easily back all of this up! Easily" then promptly vanish, then promise to go back and tie up all the loose ends, then vanish again.
Here, you're doing something different. You're providing us with the cleanest example of negative argumentation. The side you claim you don't have to prove is "We were designed." Then you make attacks from this position by asserting the impossibility of other people's weighted claims. Nevermind trying to wrest definitions of design from you, as you've labeled this a 'trap.' Not very clever, but there you go.
Then, from this position, you make quick jabs at the disproof of evolution and think you can safely run back to the same position. Transitional fossils suddenly aren't transitional fossils because you don't believe them to be. Why don't you believe them to be? Oh, right, for reasons you say you don't have to prove. Sequence complexity and chemical structures can only work the way you think they work, in a manner which makes increasing species complexity impossible. Why is this? Oh, right, for reasons you say you don't have to prove. Evolution is impossible. No, I don't have to prove that. That's excellent information against my viewpoint, but it's irrelevant. No, I don't have to prove that, remember?
You're wrong. I don't have to prove that. Oh, by the way, here's why you're wrong. I don't have to prove that either. I'm amazed you think that this counts as proof. Why? Who cares, I'm not trying to prove anything. La la la, I can't hear you, I was never trying to prove anything, la la la.
Oh wow! It's so fun!
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
Resh, when you talk about the 'impossibility' of things (organisms, specifically) to become more 'complex', I believe that you're referring to the concept of Entropy. Which, in a very cut down definition, means that things will tend to go from a state of order to disorder. In general, I might agree with you on this point, except for the key phrase 'tend to'. At this point, the entire argument becomes a battle of probabilities with no 'proof' to be had for either side.
You mentioned the 'upper bounds' of probability projected concerning the likelihood of human evolution. I counter with this: The probability that humans even EXIST is so astronomically, ludicrously improbable that the only way we can convince OURSELVES that we exist is to see it with our own eyes. It is only the concept of infinity (or at least a huge amount of time, that tops even these insane probabilities, that this universe has been in existance) that allows me to believe in these things. Monkeys, typewriters, Shakespeare. On a long enough time line, ALL things with any probability will happen (and maybe HAS happened, if you believe in some of the more far-fetched quantum theories).
Of course, if you happen to not believe in these huge improbabilities, then this entire discussion is a moot point, because the people you are arguing with ASSUME these things to be true, and assume that you do too. It's like arguing Art with someone who sees an entire different spectrum. Your foundations have to be similar.
Do you believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? Do you believe that Universe itself is 13.7 billion years old? Do you believe in the Big Bang? If you said no to any of these, then we're wasting our time. If you said yes to any of these, then your argument is flawed. The reason for this: I think any religious person has 3 options as far as these questions are concerned.
1: God started everything off at the Big Bang and has been letting things run ever since, possibly even planning everything that exists/happens.
2: God created everything for, and including, humanity at the same time just the way he/she/it wanted it (God can't make mistakes, after all, so it must have been right the first time).
3: God is playing with the Earth like a bored teenager with a Myspace account, meaning he just changes anything, anytime. He makes species willy-nilly whenever he feels like it and everything improbable is because of him.
If 1, then Evolution is the most likely explanation, as it is the only way we could have come from Nothing to what we are, assuming God is leaving us to our own devices. This is the only version of God that I MIGHT be able to bring myself to believe, until I die at least, at which point I assume I'll find out for sure and not have to guess any more.
If 2, then why are you even here? If you believe in this, then you don't WANT proof. That your even interested in the subject (or feigning interest) is kinda weird considering that you MUST know how people will react.
If 3, then once again, we have nothing to discuss. If your explanation for everything is "God did it.", then you frighten and bewilder me.
Or maybe you think that God set off the Universe and took a nap, setting his alarm to 9.2 Billion years so he could wake up in time to start the Humans up.
Explanation 1 is the only one that I conceive of that doesn't throw your entire religion into question; that being the belief in an omnipotent God. If their is a God as you believe in him, then their is no reason that he didn't do everything right the first time, and hence, no need to meddle. Some would argue that situation 3 could be brought off by the same god, but I say why would he go through all of the trouble to make this world and the universe in place with all the proof needed to point to the Big Bang and later Evolution when he has it within his power to actually DO the Big Bang/Evolution? Why fake something so perfectly when you make it genuinely just as easily? What, was he in a HURRY? Not to mention, if we COULDN'T prove Evolution, or some non-divine origin of Humanity, wouldn't that then break the rule that their can be no hard PROOF of god?
Is this the point where you change your beliefs to fit the logic the way you claim scientists change their theories to fit the evidence?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Conceptually, yes, that makes sense, and you aren't teaching me something new here.
Yes, we all know that you prize the “innovative” and “elaborate” over the factual. Sorry, no one here shares your opinion there, so expect to be constantly disappointed in that regard. You will continue to get facts and sound arguments from the likes of us, and not crowd-pleasing extravaganzas of bombast.
quote: But again, there is no evidence that this is what has happened.
But there is. People do experiments on bacteria, and generate mutants which survive better in their environments than their predecessors do. Random mutations, couples with the selection imposed by the environment (such as the presence of an antibiotic). And they DON’T necessarily lose genetic information, however you want to measure it, doing so.
quote: It is a logical deduction that arises from a need to explain existence from a purely Naturalistic perspective.
So essentially, you are arguing that science should spend more time studying angels that it currently does.
That’s just wonderful. Funny how no Christian universities with working biology research programs seem to agree with you. Why do you think that is?
quote:Let's say that for every 1000 mutations, one is not harmful. This mutation must convey some benefit upon the species in a way that causes its increased likelihood of being passed on.
Let’s say that it rains spaghetti every Tuesday. It would be as accurate as your assertion. But reasoning off of obviously false assertions won’t demonstrate a thing.
Most mutations are neutral. That’s empirical fact.
However, of non-neutral mutations, the bad ones outnumber the good.
quote: Just because the mutation causes the horse to run faster does not make it more likely to reproduce. Maybe it is more likely to break its leg.
If a mutation causes its bearer to break its leg more often, then by definition, that’s not a beneficial mutation. It’s a bad one.
Beneficial does mean “whatever mutation causes a phenotype that looks at a cursory glance to be nifty”. It means “a mutation that makes its bearer more likely to reproduce more than others in its population”. If you are going to make up definitions to words, no one will understand you. (See multiple people have told you to be rigorous in your definitions? Doesn’t this suggest that this is a rhetorical problem for you? Do you even care?)
quote: Either that, or there is an accumulation of neutral mutations that are finally activated by one more mutation, like the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Care to explain the mechanism by which this takes place?
Oh yeah, you can’t. You just made it up. It’s bad enough that you are convinced by your own imaginary arguments, but don’t you see that it makes you look like a lunatic when you expect others to be convinced by them?
And when people who actually know a thing or two tell you that this isn’t a likely scenario at all, you will ignore them. And you will make the same claim on some other board in 6 months. Your invincible ignorance strikes again!
quote: Whatever the case, this is the purported mechanism for allowing natural selection to do its part.
No its not, it’s a scenario that you made up. It’s not what evolutionary theory predicts, and it doesn’t match with what the data shows. But since you won’t look at the data, and you won’t listen when someone tries to teach you better, you will continue to argue like a lunatic.
quote: The idea is that this happens often enough that we have a massive increase in complexity over millions of years.
Again with the “massive” complexity. Do you really not understand that everyone on this board knows that you are totally unable to count complexity, even in something as simple as a tiny DNA sequence, so when you claim that you can count it in whole organisms, it makes you look insane?
You want to be privately crazy, fine. But do you not see that not a soul on this board finds your craziness to be worth considering?
I guess the question is “Do you think that your positions are reasonably supported by logic and evidence” and “Do you think that you have presented a case that is supported by evidence and reason?”
Because I bet you think that the answer to both is “yes”, but not a soul on the board agrees with you, and I think you should consider that a bit before worrying about the specifics of a subject that you admit you are wildly ignorant in. You don’t want to define your terms. You make up evidence, and expect everyone to think its real, even if their real-life experience tells them its not. If you are going to stick with tactics like these, you should just expect to spectacularly lose every argument you will ever have with intelligent, honest people.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I've got a bit of advice for you, Resh. I gave this advice to Irami, and I'm giving it to you. There's only one consistent way to win an argument here against the majority. It involves two parts:
1. Do more research than anybody else here on the subject, by a lot...to the degree that no Hatracker can argue intelligently on your level on the subject. You haven't reached that point on the subject of evolution, just in case you were wondering.
2. Keep the subject area very, very narrow. This is a necessary corollary to #1, given the high intelligence and education level of many Hatrackers. You're not doing this successfully, either.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
On that note, I'm interested in one of Resh's repeated statements - I'm curious to know what, exactly, are his encounters and experiences with 'randomness' that so strongly influences his beliefs.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
His imagination, perhaps...?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Wow, this is getting good. I'm sorry if you feel like your thread has been hijacked, Megabyte. Let us know if you plan to delete it so we can continue it elsewhere.
Sam, I'm obviously driving someone crazy. But I'm not sure exactly how much of the blame lies with me. You're right about me losing my cool last time. All I can say is that I promise not to post after several hours of drinking and losing at poker. As poor as it is, at least I have an excuse. What's yours?
On to the serious stuff. Suminon, I know a statement like "Evolution is pseudo-science" needs to be backed up, and saying "This is just what I believe" is not enough. I've been explaining why I think this way for the last five pages, and in numerous other threads (and I think I'm becoming progressively more effective, judging by the way Sam considers every new thread to be a "new low.") It's pseudo-science because it is not a fact, but taken to be the most basic fact of existence. No "real" scientist doubts it, and does not seek do disprove it. Anything that is considered evidence must be confirming evidence, because how could something that is true discomfirm the truth? The evidence must be wrong. Karl Popper said that a scientific prediction that had a high probability of being wrong would be impressive evidence for a theory if the prediction came true. Can someone give me a prediction about Evolution that has a high probability of being wrong? The location of a transitional between fish and amphibians right where one would be expected to be found, like the tiktaalik? If nothing was found there, would that have cause any doubts about the theory? How many similar predictions have been made and nothing comes up? Who knows, because no one is going to report it. The theory is true, and nothing disproves it. Someone said in a different thread that a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian would change things. Does that person really think that's going to happen? Of course not, otherwise he wouldn't have said it.
I know it's a pseudo-science because I hear the same stories that have been going around for a century and a half now. Dogs! Come one suminon, I'll play along. When is a dog no longer a dog? When it doesn't bark and hump your leg. According to the theory, there should be a direct continuum between dogs and a pig, perhaps. The change should be so gradual that you would not see any real differences until at one point you find you are looking at something that is more pig-like than dog-like. Unfortunately, there is not one example of this ever occurring between any of the major phylum. Regardless of the types of horse fossils you find, they are all horses. All bats, all whatever. And that's all they are for as long as they are found. Hundreds of millions of years without change, sometimes. Fortunately for the truth-seekers out there, the enormous variety of species out there allow for some creative storytelling, and all those minute transitions are just as real in your imagination as you think the resurrection of Christ is in mine.
As Sylvrdragon says, it's pseudo-science "because the people [I am] arguing with ASSUME these things to be true, and assume that [I} do too." It's pseudo-science because I am given three options, and all of them require me to give an explanation of what did happen. This is literally the most common defense of Evolution:"You don't think this is what happened? Then give me a better alternative, and it had better be one that doesn't "frighten and bewilder me," or you will be dismissed outright. Of course none of those three options come close to looking like what I actually believe, but that's all I'm given.
It's pseudo-science because disagreement is greeted with mockery and dismissal. I have nothing worth saying because I've already proven my ignorance by stating my disbelief. The best you can hope for is to kindly teach me. But why are you being met with so much resistance? I say it's because I'm skeptical, but that can't be true, because only someone who does not believe in God could be skeptical. Obviously I'm just brainwashed, blindly holding on to my faith and refusing to look at reality.
It's so ironic, that you think that only a universe without purpose or reason can allow you reasonable, and that those of us who believe that the universe was created with purpose and reason are the ones incapable of reason.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
No, your disagreement is greeted with mockery and dismissal, because you insist that the evolution for evidence doesn't exist, when you've been presented with vast mountains of it - you just refuse to look at it.
And ID is garners the same derision due to its insistence in being treated as an equal scientific possibility, when the creationist crowd can't come up with anything even remotely plausible in the way of evidence.
If ID's were happy to leave creationism where it belongs, that is, purely as a religious concept, then there would be no issue, as that's where it belongs.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Resh, one thing that causes me to not see where you're coming from is the fact that humans have been steadily defecting from strict Young-Earth Creationism for at least the last 250 years. 200 years ago, almost everybody in the US believed in Creationism, and probably Young-Earth Creationism. As scientific knowledge has progressed, a smaller and smaller percentage of the population believes in YEC. I don't think our civilization has everything right. I think there are things we overreact to, and I think most of us are fools for eating the way most of us do. That doesn't mean that the civilization that made it to the Moon first isn't the best on the planet when it comes to scientific knowledge.
This isn't an issue of everybody who's not on your side is an atheist. We have lots of devout people here, like Dana, who is a minister, or plenty of the LDS folken, who are anything but Young-Earth Creationists. Many/most of them are as smart as you, as well-educated, or more so, and...like I said, I don't know where you're coming from.
Again, I don't love everything about this society, just like I don't love everything about OSC. However, OSC knows how to write a gripping story, and this society, relative to the rest on the planet, knows its science. Criticizing the Western scientific establishment's consensus on Evolution is like saying the French know nothing about wine, or the Chinese know nothing about tea. It's hard not to laugh at that a little.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Regardless of the types of horse fossils you find, they are all horses. All bats, all whatever. And that's all they are for as long as they are found. Hundreds of millions of years without change, sometimes."
Cite your sources.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"I know it's a pseudo-science because I hear the same stories that have been going around for a century and a half now."
Funny. You just described Creationism.
But every day there's new information, new experiments, in the field of evolution. New fossils are being found, transitions are being discovered, like, say, the transition of whales from land animals to aquatic ones.
If you'll like, I'll cite MY sources.
Or are you not going to just jeer at my daring to mention something like that?
Are you really going to claim that the animals which walked on land were still "just whales"?
I mean, if you really wanted, I could find you large numbers of different fossils. I could find you plenty. You want me to? Just say the word, I'll bring you plenty.
You want me to show you how mutations occur? Do you want me to show you beneficial mutations, which did not exist before? I can show them to you. Merely ask.
But better yet: Answer my questions.
Answer them! Stop ignoring them! Answer my questions!
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
How do you know your position is accurate, if you don't hold it on evidence?
Even if evolution is true, that in no way proves your belief.
Let's pretend evolution NEVER HAPPENED.
Does that prove your beliefs? No.
Certainly no. And there are plenty of other people who claim all sorts of things on the subject of how the world was created, who disagree with you, and would also claim that the idea they believe is something without proof. But they KNOW it. And would claim you're wrong.
How would a person go about seeing which of these myriad beliefs which do not have evidence are correct? How?
How can you justify believing that God created us through magic, holes in our socks and all? How do you hold this higher than the idea that Prometheus made humans, as his brother made the animals, and eventually gave us fire and was chained to a rock and tortured for it until Hercules freed him, and then human beings degraded over several ages, shrinking in physical size as well as ability?
Why do you believe the one and not the other?
Why? Assuming evolution is false, why should I believe you over, say, a Hindu, or someone who says humanity has existed in its current state for billions of years, and the Earth is on the back of a turtle?
Why do you believe the one and not the other? They have or had faith that they are right, too, you know. How do you know?
How do you know?!
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Lot's of posts in the time that I wrote that, which was immediately after sylvrdragons.
Steven, you are saying that only an expert should bother. That relegates me and about 99 percent of the American population to a role of "shut-up and listen, and don't argue."
Troubadour, why don't you give me an encounter with randomness (that isn't in your imagination) that resulted in a higher degree of order.
swbarnes: "Beneficial does mean “whatever mutation causes a phenotype that looks at a cursory glance to be nifty”. It means “a mutation that makes its bearer more likely to reproduce more than others in its population”"
Are you saying that the only criteria that should be measured against the fitness of an animal should be its increased ability to reproduce, however that is accomplished? In other words, a species is considered more fit if has a greater ability to survive as a species? That the fittest are more likely to survive? That survival of the fittest is a concept where the fittest survive? Are you catching on, yet? That natural selection is a statement that is true no matter what you think about anything? Natural selection is not a mechanism for anything. It is not an explanation of anything. It is a tautology.
You say most mutations are neutral. That does not jibe with what I was taught in a biology class, right out of the textbook). However, I'm surely not going to argue with you about it, seeing as how I distrust everything I've ever been taught about the official story of creation. However, the part about an accumulation of neutral mutations was not made up. I don't remember who it was, but it was an attempt to explain how saltation events could have occurred. No doubt there were detractors, but I would appreciate it if you would not accuse me of either lying or simply being crazy.
Here's something curious: "No its not, it’s a scenario that you made up. It’s not what evolutionary theory predicts, and it doesn’t match with what the data shows. But since you won’t look at the data, and you won’t listen when someone tries to teach you better, you will continue to argue like a lunatic."
This is in response to my saying that Natural Selection works on changes that result on random genetic events. If the random genetic event incurs some advantage on the creature, or (I left this part out) environmental changes give one creature an advantage over another (and the only reason why the two are different in the first place is because of random genetic events), then Natural Selection selects for the advantaged species. This is the argument of a Lunatic? This is the the argument of Evolution. Seriously, how is this wrong? How would natural selection work on species with no differences between them? You think insulting me is the only way to defuse my argument? I think you're getting desperate.
"So essentially, you are arguing that science should spend more time studying angels that it currently does."
Yep, definitely getting desperate. This is called a false dichotomy. You immediately follow with: "Funny how no Christian universities with working biology research programs seem to agree with you." This is called an appeal to authority. You should really take a course in logic, you'll learn how to avoid doing all these things.
Do you even care? You just made it up your own imaginary arguments you look like a lunatic Your invincible ignorance it’s a scenario that you made up you won’t look at the data you won’t listen you will continue to argue like a lunatic. it makes you look insane You want to be privately crazy not a soul on the board agrees with you you admit you are wildly ignorant You make up evidence You should just expect to spectacularly lose every argument you will ever have with intelligent, honest people.
Hmm. I've changed my mind in the face of your compelling arguments.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Steven, I'm not a Young-Earth Creationist. I believe the Big Bang happened, for instance. Why? Because we can actually see Cepheid variables, and red shifting. Astrophysicists made stunningly precise predictions that had a real chance of being wrong, and they weren't. Cobe has proven a hot big bang event. The thing is, I allow for the possibility that we could be massively wrong about everything, even that. The entire universe may be only a few thousand years old, if for instance, all that stuff happened before time was created. That's a bit of a mind bender, and one I like to dwell on from time to time.
Megabyte, for the last time: I'm not interested in proving anything! Something happened, I don't know what, I have my beliefs. What I don't believe is Evolution, and I'm inviting all of you to convince me that I should. So far, it looks like you've all given up.
[Edit] Hmm, maybe that's not entirely true. I am actually trying to show that by not allowing certain possibilities to enter into your heads (like, your starting assumptions may be all wrong), you are unable to perceive the emptiness of your theory.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Steven, you are saying that only an expert should bother. That relegates me and about 99 percent of the American population to a role of "shut-up and listen, and don't argue."
I sure wish you would shut up. As far as the rest of the population goes, the percentage of YEC believers has been going steadily DOWN the last 250 years, not UP.
I will admit there's probably less chance of picking up an STD or a cocaine addiction at Bob Jones U., or Liberty, or Pensacola Christian College. However, you really should give credit where credit is due. Those institutions are not pinnacles of science.
Seriously, give credit where credit is due. Which movie would you rather watch, one made on a 100 million dollar budget by African pygmies (how that would happen I don't know), or one made by Spielberg on 1/10 the cash? Which plane would you rather fly on, one built by OSC, or one built by Lockheed-Martin? Give credit where it's due.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
OK, Resh, if you can accept that the Earth itself is billions of years old, then listen to this. There are fossil-containing rock strata that have been found, by multiple dating methods, to be hundreds of millions of years old. Plenty of the fossilized life forms in those old rock strata have gone extinct. Others have shown up. If you can accept astrophysics, then you have to accept geology. If you accept geology, you have to accept that vertebrate life forms have been here for over a hundred million years. You also have to accept that plenty of those life forms are gone, gone, gone, and that others have arrived since then.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Sam, I'm obviously driving someone crazy.
Yeah, arguing dishonestly and stupidly sometimes tics off honest and intelligent people. Don’t say you haven’t been warned.
quote:But I'm not sure exactly how much of the blame lies with me.
We know. You aren’t sure of anything, except that evolution is wrong. You don’t know exactly what the theory of evolution predicts, you know almost none of the evidence supporting it, but you know it can’t be right, because biologists don’t study angels enough.
quote:On to the serious stuff. Suminon, I know a statement like "Evolution is pseudo-science" needs to be backed up, and saying "This is just what I believe" is not enough. I've been explaining why I think this way for the last five pages, and in numerous other threads (and I think I'm becoming progressively more effective, judging by the way Sam considers every new thread to be a "new low.")
See, here’s the disconnect. We all think that evidence-free explanations are worthless. You obviously don’t. You will never convince anyone here of anything, because saying “It’s too complex” or “scientists should be studying angels more” isn’t evidence, and never will be.
quote:It's pseudo-science because it is not a fact, but taken to be the most basic fact of existence. No "real" scientist doubts it, and does not seek do disprove it.
You have it backwards.
200 years ago, all European scientists were Creationists. Their faith told them it was the right answer, and they knew of no data to contradict it. Evolution and the fact of an ancient earth were hardly “basic facts of existence”
Then, they started collecting data. And when their data contradicted their YEC beliefs, they trusted the data.
It wasn’t an atheist conspiracy, it was the data. And the data has only gotten stronger for evolution. Even if we lived on an earth that permitted no fossilization at all, the genetic data alone would be more than enough evidence of evolution. Fossils are just a neat addition.
quote:Anything that is considered evidence must be confirming evidence, because how could something that is true discomfirm the truth?
It can’t, because the truth is defined by the evidence. When the evidence tells you that your “truth” is wrong, you stop holding it as the truth.
What evidence do you have that evolution is wrong? And you CAN’T use complexity unless you are going to quantify it. You can start with quantifying the complexity of those teeny tiny DNA sequences I gave you, and then you can move on to whole genes, and whole organisms.
quote:The evidence must be wrong. Karl Popper said that a scientific prediction that had a high probability of being wrong would be impressive evidence for a theory if the prediction came true. Can someone give me a prediction about Evolution that has a high probability of being wrong?
Sure. The 29 examples of macroevolution link that I’m sure you’ve been given has at least 29 examples.
What about the odds of taking 100 orthologs, drawing phylogenetic trees from them, and having those trees all be nearly exactly the same?
If you are such an expert in probability for us, why don’t you calculate the odds of that happening by chance?
quote: Someone said in a different thread that a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian would change things. Does that person really think that's going to happen? Of course not, otherwise he wouldn't have said it.
Well, if you think our examples are bad, why don’t you give an example of evidence that would convince that Creationism is wrong. Or an example of evidence that would prove that heliocentrism is wrong.
quote:I know it's a pseudo-science because I hear the same stories that have been going around for a century and a half now.
Again, that’s not a weakness to anyone else. You are the one who values “innovation” over factual.
quote:When is a dog no longer a dog? When it doesn't bark and hump your leg.
So a wolf is or isn’t a dog? What about the offspring of a wolf and a dog.
quote:According to the theory, there should be a direct continuum between dogs and a pig, perhaps
Direct? Evolution doesn’t predict that. And more importantly, there is no such fossil evidence or genetic evidence that this is the case.
Evolution predicts that they have a common ancestor, and dogs evolved one way, and pigs another. Is there a “direct” continuum between you and your second cousins?
Really, you have outdone yourself in proving that you have literally no idea what evolution says. We need to have a lot of people keeping hard links to this post as the number one evidence that you don’t understand evolution at all. Honestly, bright middle schoolers could have told you that that was wrong. It’s like saying that gravity predicts that everyone should be attracted to everyone else, so why aren’t we all stuck together? Or like trying to refute heliocentrism by pointing out that the moon doesn’t orbit the sun.
I predict that now that you have typed that evolution predicts a direct line between pigs and dogs, you will forever believe that the theory of evolution states this. You will repeat this assertion over and over again, and nothing anyone says to you will change your mind. You will never wrap your head around the idea that you might be wrong, and you will never accept that only a person whose understanding is deeply, deeply flawed could have made such a ridiculous statement.
At the end of this thread, you will have convinced yourself that you have one more line of invincible evidence that evolution is wrong.
quote:The change should be so gradual that you would not see any real differences until at one point you find you are looking at something that is more pig-like than dog-like.
If you substituted “homo erectus” and “homo sapiens” for “pig” and “dog”, then you’d have a true statement , not only of what evolutionary theory predicts, but of what the fossil record actually shows.
But what you have written is just crazy.
“Regardless of the types of horse fossils you find, they are all horses.”
The ancestors of whales had legs. How is that “still a whale”?
quote:Then give me a better alternative, and it had better be one that doesn't "frighten and bewilder me," or you will be dismissed outright.
We know. Sorry, but all we have are the facts. You keep asking for us to give you something else, and we just aren’t going to. Your insistence that you want something else is remarkable in its frankness.
quote: It's pseudo-science because disagreement is greeted with mockery and dismissal.
Sorry, but rank stupidity deserves mockery and dismissal. Denial of facts in favor of “innovative” and “elaborate” is likewise deserving. Your belief that evolution predicts a dog-to-pig transitional series is, for instance, well worth mocking.
If you want people to stop mocking your ridiculous statements, stop making them. Stick to the factual instead of the innovative.
quote:I have nothing worth saying because I've already proven my ignorance by stating my disbelief.
Utterly and totally wrong. You have nothing worth saying because you have nothing of fact to say. You have your made up dog-to-pig-transitional stories, and hand waving about “It’s too complex”. We don’t want elaborate and innovative fantasy. We want facts. And you have proven over and over again in the eyes of every person on these boards, that you don’t.
quote:The best you can hope for is to kindly teach me
Ah. I asked you before if you were responsible for the accuracy of the claims you make here. I see that once again, you are denying that you are responsible, and making everyone else responsible instead.
It’s a cowardly stance.
We expect little better from Creationists, and we are seldom surprised.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote: Someone said in a different thread that a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian would change things. Does that person really think that's going to happen? Of course not, otherwise he wouldn't have said it.
The reason it's thought unlikely is because evolutionary theory suggests that it is unlikely. If you don't believe in evolutionary theory then the discovery of that fossil (or many others) in the Cambrian would not be an unreasonable idea. Whether the evolutionist that proposed it thought it was unlikely is irrelevant. In fact, the more unlikely he thought it was, the stronger it's refutation of evolution would be.
Also the "rabbit in the Cambrian" is just shorthand for "anything dramatically out of place" as the fossil record largely reflects what evolution predicts.
If the "fish with legs" fossil preceded both the legless fish and legged amphibians who's traits it shares, then we might suspect it was not an evolutionary bridge between the two. Similarly if the "whale with legs" fossil were found *after* the whale without legs and the land animals and whales who's features it shares, then we wouldn't identify it as a bridge between those two forms. But time and again, these transitional fossils do appear in the order we would expect them to be.
It's unfortunate that the conditions required for fossilization are relatively rare, so that we are left with only a small fraction of the life that has ever lived to examine, but what we do find consistently fits the theory.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Are you saying that the only criteria that should be measured against the fitness of an animal should be its increased ability to reproduce, however that is accomplished? In other words, a species is considered more fit if has a greater ability to survive as a species? That the fittest are more likely to survive? That survival of the fittest is a concept where the fittest survive?
Definitions are not tautologies. They are definitions. Fitness is defined by how well the organism reproduces. And I wasn’t talking about whole species, I was talking about individuals. You just made up that thing about species. An individual is fitter than other individuals of that species if it has more offspring than others.
quote:You say most mutations are neutral. That does not jibe with what I was taught in a biology class, right out of the textbook).
If this is the same textbook that taught you to expect a direct transitional series between pigs and dogs, then it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on, no matter how innovative it is.
quote:However, the part about an accumulation of neutral mutations was not made up. I don't remember who it was, but it was an attempt to explain how saltation events could have occurred.
Cite the peer-reviewed journal in which this was reported, and preferably, the peer-reviewed articles in which the mechanism was laid out. I suspect that you limit your reading in this area to Creationist sources, so you won’t have any viable evidence to back this up.
Most of the genome of eukaryotes just doesn’t do anything useful. Slapping another CA onto a sequence of CACACACACACACACACACACACACACACA just isn’t going to do anything, and no “activating mutation” is going to change that. Having a random G->T mutation that is 60 kb downstream from the nearest gene just isn’t going to do anything.
If you think otherwise, by all means, layout the mechanism.
quote:No doubt there were detractors, but I would appreciate it if you would not accuse me of either lying or simply being crazy.
Stop arguing like a crazy person. It is, for instance crazy, to say that there is “too much” complexity in organisms” when you have demonstrated that you are completely unable to quantify the complexity in the tiniest sequence of DNA, let alone the complexity in a whole genome, or organism. If you imagine that your Creationist pals can do better, consult their works to help you answer the DNA sequence question. I warn you, you won’t find much there.
quote: Here's something curious: …This is in response to my saying that Natural Selection works on changes that result on random genetic events.
The scenario of neutral mutations hiding sinisterly in the background, waiting for one more to “break the camels’s back” is what I was calling crazy. You left out the quote I was responding to on purpose.
If you present good evidence that I am wrong, then I’ll look crazy. But you won’t. If you don’t, then I look justified, if a little picturesque in my language.
quote:If the random genetic event incurs some advantage on the creature, or (I left this part out) environmental changes give one creature an advantage over another (and the only reason why the two are different in the first place is because of random genetic events), then Natural Selection selects for the advantaged species.
You see how you use the term “creature” and “species” in the same sentence? They are hardly the same thing. You should defend your notion of how evolution works on members of a population before moving into how it works between species. The appearance of equivocation between individuals and species will not help your argument, or your reputation for arguing honestly.
quote:This is the argument of Evolution. Seriously, how is this wrong?
The workings of evolution on individuals, is fairly straightforward: those genetic sequences which allow their bearers to reproduce better will become over-represented in the population in which that bearer breeds.
Once you talk about how evolution works between species, or between two populations that might or might not be drifting into different species, that’s more complicated, and I admit I don’t know all the finer points. You’d have to talk to a real evolutionary biologist.
quote:How would natural selection work on species with no differences between them?
If you had two different species of closely related bird, one red, and one blue, and a predator developed much better blue vision than red, such that it was able to catch blue birds easier than red birds, then the blue population would dwindle, and the red population would increase. Less blue variants would breed better, and the bluer one would die out, and eventually, you would not have a forest with blue and red birds, you would have a forest with a larger red bird population, and a smaller population of not very blue birds. Whether the not-blue birds are the same species as the old blue population is a tricky question, the partially depends on genetics, partially on behavior, partially on how one defines species. The data don’t usually allow for a simple classification scheme.
So how is the above scenario different from what you think happens?
quote: Do you even care? You just made it up your own imaginary arguments you look like a lunatic Your invincible ignorance it’s a scenario that you made up you won’t look at the data you won’t listen you will continue to argue like a lunatic. it makes you look insane You want to be privately crazy not a soul on the board agrees with you you admit you are wildly ignorant You make up evidence You should just expect to spectacularly lose every argument you will ever have with intelligent, honest people.
Hmm. I've changed my mind in the face of your compelling arguments.
You ignore the data that you are presented with. You keep saying over and over again that you want “innovation”. Calling you crazy is innovative, and it got a response. Why am I responsible for your choice of how you want to be addressed?
If you wish to be addressed with exclusively rigorous arguments, present only arguments which are rigorous. If you wish only to be presented with the facts, present your own facts to support your arguments.
Really, this isn’t about proving evolution on this board. That’s already been done for 100 years. What it’s about is whether or not you can support your arguments. Do you think that a anyone on the board believes you have?
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Troubadour, why don't you give me an encounter with randomness (that isn't in your imagination) that resulted in a higher degree of order.
See, I've never claimed personal encounters with randomness. You however have.
I'm just curious as to what those are that they are so convincing to you.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Are you saying that the only criteria that should be measured against the fitness of an animal should be its increased ability to reproduce, however that is accomplished? In other words, a species is considered more fit if has a greater ability to survive as a species? That the fittest are more likely to survive? That survival of the fittest is a concept where the fittest survive? Are you catching on, yet? That natural selection is a statement that is true no matter what you think about anything? Natural selection is not a mechanism for anything. It is not an explanation of anything. It is a tautology."
Are you saying complexity is something that evolution cannot do? In other words, something is complex if it is something evolution cannot do? Evolution cannot create complexity? Are you catching on yet?
You still haven't explained anything. Your idea of complexity explains nothing. It's a tautology.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Or... are you going to continue ignoring my statements and respond by mocking me again?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Whether a mutation is harmful or beneficial is often dependent on the environment. Additionally, there are often trade-offs. Some beneficial mutations have downsides even if on the whole they are helpful. And some are beneficial to those who have one copy of the gene, but harmful to those who have two.
An example of environment-dependence:
There's a mutation called CCR5delta32. It more or less breaks the CCR5 gene. That doesn't really cause much trouble and it offers protection from certain kinds of viruses, including most types of HIV. So if you're in an environment where you're likely to be exposed to HIV (an IV drug user, for example), then it's a beneficial mutation. But this mutation also makes it more likely that you'll have a serious or fatal West Nile virus infection. So if you're in the middle of a swamp full of infected mosquitos, it's a harmful mutation.
Is CCR5-delta-32 harmful or beneficial? That depends on whether HIV or WNV is a bigger threat to your health.
Also, many mutations in a gene will not change the protein product because there are several different ways to code for most amino acids. It's pretty hard for a mutation to be other than neutral if it doesn't change the protein.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Sam, I'm obviously driving someone crazy. But I'm not sure exactly how much of the blame lies with me. You're right about me losing my cool last time. All I can say is that I promise not to post after several hours of drinking and losing at poker. As poor as it is, at least I have an excuse. What's yours?
I'm not allowed to point out your position is based on bogus logic and negative argumentation without an 'excuse?'
I never knew that logical counterpoint was so offensive to you, but hey.
quote:I am actually trying to show that by not allowing certain possibilities to enter into your heads (like, your starting assumptions may be all wrong), you are unable to perceive the emptiness of your theory.
"By not allowing certain possibilities that cannot be tested for to be allowed to render any possibilities that can be tested for impossible in a scientific mindset, I'm asserting that I'm right and you're wrong."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: It's pseudo-science because disagreement is greeted with mockery and dismissal. I have nothing worth saying because I've already proven my ignorance by stating my disbelief. The best you can hope for is to kindly teach me. But why are you being met with so much resistance?
The problem here is that you're not providing viable arguments against evolution, you're attacking it as a whole. Because evolution is such a complex and multi-faceted theory, claiming that the entire thing is wrong would require you to disprove every element, which you haven't even come close to doing.
In actuality, it is real science, because if you were to bring up a specific working theory or piece of factual evidence which seemed to contradict a different theory or piece of evidence, we (both the people here discussing this with you and the scientific community on the whole) would be happy to consider it.
The problem seems to arise when, rather than actually participating in the scientific process and discussing various elements of the evolutionary theory, you do treat it as pseudo-science, and assume that making blanket statements about its unsuitability will make us realize how foolish we've all been by looking at the evidence and building educated theories upon it.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Are you saying that the only criteria that should be measured against the fitness of an animal should be its increased ability to reproduce, however that is accomplished? In other words, a species is considered more fit if has a greater ability to survive as a species? That the fittest are more likely to survive? That survival of the fittest is a concept where the fittest survive? Are you catching on, yet? That natural selection is a statement that is true no matter what you think about anything? Natural selection is not a mechanism for anything. It is not an explanation of anything. It is a tautology.
Another example where you seem to believe semantics plays a role in science.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Humans need to breathe air to survive, therefore, it is only humans who can successfully breathe who are able to survive.
Well, obviously that's a tautology, and therefore untrue and completely worthless in understanding human biology or survival. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I already provided a clear refutation of the "natural selection is a tautology" argument, Resh.
You've acknowledged that you believe that I am arguing with you in good faith so I'd appreciate it if you'd return the favor. If you disagree with the refutation I provided immediately following your initial tautology claim, please explain why rather than just ignoring it and continuing to make the claim.
[ December 09, 2007, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Also, many mutations in a gene will not change the protein product because there are several different ways to code for most amino acids. It's pretty hard for a mutation to be other than neutral if it doesn't change the protein.
There are some papers arguing that even silent mutations can change the protein due to rare codon usage. Not that that is important to the discussion at hand, but it is kinda interesting.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I thought about mentioning that, but I figured it would just complicate the issue too much.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
I'll admit right up front that I don't debate very much, and indeed, I'm more interested in honing those skills in this thread than I am of convincing you of anything.
Having said that, I realize that in my last post, I used a few wrong words. Words like 'Assume', and then setting only a limited number of choices set me up for exactly what happened. In my defense, however, you proceeded to cherry pick my post, take things out of context, and then ignore my points.
My probability argument was aimed to change your stance from Complexity being 'Impossible' to 'Improbable', which have a world of difference.
My next argument was attempting to point out that the entire theory of Evolution can only stand up in a certain version of Reality (or set of versions), and if you don't share the fundamentals of that set, then nothing we say can possibly convince you otherwise.
I don't have a bunch of facts and links to throw at you. I'm not trying to convince you of anything really. I'm just trying to give the perspective. Trying to put it into context, if you will.
It goes back to my Art example. I wouldn't have much success trying to explain a color painting to someone that sees in Black and White; or a sculpture to someone who sees in 2D. I'm sure someone could write a beautiful symphony using nothing but dog whistles, but no human would be able to appreciate it.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I know it's a pseudo-science because I hear the same stories that have been going around for a century and a half now. Dogs! Come one suminon, I'll play along. When is a dog no longer a dog? When it doesn't bark and hump your leg. According to the theory, there should be a direct continuum between dogs and a pig, perhaps. The change should be so gradual that you would not see any real differences until at one point you find you are looking at something that is more pig-like than dog-like. Unfortunately, there is not one example of this ever occurring between any of the major phylum. Regardless of the types of horse fossils you find, they are all horses. All bats, all whatever. And that's all they are for as long as they are found. Hundreds of millions of years without change, sometimes. Fortunately for the truth-seekers out there, the enormous variety of species out there allow for some creative storytelling, and all those minute transitions are just as real in your imagination as you think the resurrection of Christ is in mine.
- - - emphasis added - - -
Me and my dogs So, we’ll take as a “working definition” the observation that dogs bark and hump legs (I hope they don’t do it only on mine ). The result would be that an animal, descendent of a dog, that no longer barks and/or humps legs is a non-dog (being a “new species” we don’t have yet a name for it!). Note: that definition of a dog is not scientific, but I think it will serve the purpose quite well anyway
Now, about the dogs and pigs. I have noticed, (even if others didn’t), that you ended that sentence with the word “perhaps”. I appreciate that you said it. Nevertheless, you should understand that this is a claim that will outrage any scientist working on Evolutionism, simply because there is no such “prediction” from that theory. It is a ridiculous claim and unfortunately can be used against you to “prove” that you have quite a mistaken idea about what “Evolution” is. It is as if I’d say that Creationism is about a deity that that is afraid of humans and therefore created the Universe for the sole purpose of pleasing us.
So, there are no “transitional” or “continuum” between dogs and pigs (actually, it they were found, it will be a nice puzzle for the scientist to solve, and it might prove evolutionism partially wrong).
I propose to concentrate on talking about any possible transition/continuum between dogs and non-dogs, knowing that a pig is a non-dog just as a chicken is a non-dog, but that evolutionism doesn’t say that a dog “would evolve” from a chicken, or that it ever did.
Ok, I give you my next question: How many types of dogs are you aware of (by the “working definition”)? I personally searched “dog” on Google Images and found many different types, and I’m fairly certain they can fit our “understanding” of a dog (I’ve seen many of them IRL too manifesting their “dogyness” ).
A.
PS: I’m still interested in the answer of my previous question about what is it that you think could “prove” evolutionism.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
There have been a few things mentioned recently in this thread that are actually not quite as cut and dried as they are at first glance. I know that by going into the details, I am probably opening myself up to a whole new world of Resh's cherry-picking-based approach to "criticism," but honestly at this point, I'm more interested in talking about what modern evolutionary theory states (and how modern biology supports rather than refutes it) than going over the basic evidence ad nauseum, especially since the target audience is apparently incapable of making even the slightest effort in understanding it. I'll go into one example below- if people are interested in discussing the details of evolutionary biology more, I'd be happy to continue. I love this stuff.
quote:Also, many mutations in a gene will not change the protein product because there are several different ways to code for most amino acids. It's pretty hard for a mutation to be other than neutral if it doesn't change the protein.
As a fellow graduate prisoner, er, student, I know Shigosei is well aware that you can have all sorts of neat effects from mutations that have no effect on protein sequence, but here are some details for anyone else who is interested.As Shig and scholar both mentioned, codon usage can play a factor- we've found that many organisms favor particular codons over others, although the exact reason(s) are unclear at the moment.
In addition, you can also get mutations in so-called regulatory regions- sequences of DNA that don't actively code for protein, but do play a role in controlling when other genes are expressed. For example, every gene is preceded by a "promoter" sequence, which binds various proteins that assist in transcription of the gene from DNA to RNA (the first step in generating a new protein). These proteins are commonly called "transcription factors." Mutations in the promoter can change the ability of the promoter to bind to its transcription factors, either increasing or decreasing binding affinity.
You can therefore modulate the expression of a given gene by mutating its promoter. Gene expression is also controlled by non-coding elements called "enhancers" and "silencers," which like promoters act to modulate expression of a gene, but aren't necessarily directly adjacent to the gene. Enhancers can be quite far from their target genes- in fact, we've found enhancers that aren't even on the same chromosome as their target!
Now, to bringing all this molecular biology back to the subject of evolution, I'll need to go briefly into development. As I've mentioned in previous threads, the morphology and physiology of any multicellular organism is dependent on its development. I'm going to focus on animals for now since that my area of expertise, but keep in mind that much of this is true for plants/ fungi as well. Development, broadly speaking, is change in an animal's body over time, as laid out by its genetic code. The field of developmental biology places particular emphasis on changes in the embryo, since that is when the vast majority of "patterning" takes place, but development technically occurs throughout life- for an obvious example, think about puberty.
So developmental biology, when merged with our modern understanding of genetics and molecular biology, allows us to study exactly how an animal goes from a fertilized egg to a complete adult. What genes are expressed, at what times, and at what places? How do these genes interact to generate the complex structures we observe? What distinguishes "top" from "bottom" when, during early development, an animal is nothing more than a spherical blob of undifferentiated cells? What about right versus left? Front versus back? Inner versus outer? Why does the intestine curl in one direction and not the other (and why does this occasionally flip around in certain individuals)? We can address all of these questions today, and all of them are highly relevant to evolution.
In particular, I've mentioned in several threads before the idea of master regulatory genes. These are generally transcription factors that are responsible for activating (or suppressing) a whole host of downstream genes, which in turn are responsible for activating and suppressing yet more genes, and so on and so forth, until we get to the genes that actually do stuff- enzymes that synthesize ATP, surface receptors that distinguish a T cell from a B cell, globins that carry oxygen in red blood cells, etc.
The master regulators often have very simple expression patterns: for example, the fly gene bicoid is expressed in a simple diffusion gradient from front to back in the early embryo. Its transcription factor activity is directly based on its local concentration, so it activates a different set of genes in the front of the embryo than in the back. There's more to it than I have time to go into here, but suffice it to say that the genes it activates at each region in turn generate finer and finer gradients, until the embryo is cleanly segmented. When coupled with similar regulatory systems patterning the left/ right axis as well as the top/ bottom axis, you get a classic Cartesian coordinate system in which every little point in the embryo is experiencing a different combination of regulatory gene expression. It's not hard to see how you can go on from this to laying out exactly where the heart forms, or how to form the brain so that the cerebellum is beneath the cerebrum.
All right, so development is awesome. How does this tie back to the original point about non-coding mutations? Well, since bicoid and its fellow master regulators are transcription factors, you can imagine how a mutation in their target promoters/ enhancers/ silencers could have wide-ranging effects on an animal's final morphology. This, by the way, is an example of how Resh's argument about how evolution "cannot create information" is utterly irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether a promoter mutation increases or decreases binding affinity to bicoid (and IIRC, both types of mutations have been identified in promoters for numerous regulatory factors). Either way, you are effecting a change in the resulting organism.
Let's say you get a G->T substitution in the promoter of orthodenticle, one of bicoid's target genes. If this mutation results in increased affinity to bicoid, then you increase orthodenticle expression. If it results in decreased affinity, you get reduced orthodenticle expression. You get the picture. orthodenticle is involved in eye and antennae specification. I don't know the exact molecular details, but let's say, hypothetically, that it controls eye size- a not-unreasonable conjecture. So under our hypothetical model, upregulation of orthodenticle results in a larger eye, and downregulation results in a smaller eye. Now let's say that our G->T mutation makes it harder for bicoid to bind its target promoter (generally a more likely scenario anyway). We therefore get less orthodenticle expression, which produces a smaller eye.
You could imagine situations in which a smaller eye would be detrimental to the fly's fitness pretty easily, I think- less eye means less sight, which presumably means more difficulty in dodging hungry insectivores, which in turn probably means more death. However, what if our fly is part of a cohort that just colonized an underground cave? Caves are completely light-free, and often have very little in the way of active predators. So what would have been a really nasty mutation on the surface doesn't have nearly the negative impact on our fly's fitness when it's in the cave. Now, remember that any sort of growth requires a certain amount of resources- growing an eye is itself a cost. By specifying a smaller eye genetically, our fly is actually saving some energy during its development, which confers some small but significant benefit to its fitness. What happens when the benefit of a smaller energy requirement outweighs the cost of crappier eyesight? Natural selection takes over, and your small-eyed flies are now favored to greater reproductive success. Over a number of generations (and when we're dealing with master regulators, it doesn't even need to be that many), our fly cohort's eyes continue to shrink, until they are completely gone. In the meantime, they're severely ramped up their other senses so that they can hear and sense vibrations in the air extraordinarily well, allowing them to effectively fly around in the dark without having to see.
Now, let's reintroduce some of these flies back onto the surface. Their inability to see is once again a huge disadvantage, so they'll probably die out, but leave that aside for now. These flies have spent the past several thousand years adjusting to mating in the dark. The cues they use to identify their mates has gradually changed in that time- for example, maybe they used to identify mates visually based on exoskeleton color, but now favor touching other individuals and feeling for the right bristle pattern. Will our reintroduced cave-adapted cohort mate with the wild-type flies still on the surface? Unlikely! Even if they could technically still form viable young if you forced their egg and sperm together, they probably wouldn't mate naturally because they wouldn't recognize each other as potential mates! So these two cohorts will already never mate again. As more time passes, even if both cohorts survive and coexist in the same area, they will only continue to diverge, including at a genetic level well below the master regulators. Eventually, something like a translocation or chromosome fusion will undoubtedly occur, and the flies will become incapable of generating viable offspring even in vitro. Viola- speciation has occurred.
As a final note- if anyone wants more details on transcription factors, master regulators, and bicoid in particular, here is a fantastic summary of the system. It's really an amazing example of how modern biology synthesizes all of its sub-fields (genetics, embryology, molecular biology, etc) to reveal how we can go from the simple to the complex in a stepwise fashion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:When is a dog no longer a dog? When it doesn't bark and hump your leg. According to the theory, there should be a direct continuum between dogs and a pig, perhaps. The change should be so gradual that you would not see any real differences until at one point you find you are looking at something that is more pig-like than dog-like. Unfortunately, there is not one example of this ever occurring between any of the major phylum
Interestingly enough, the major macroevolution example that has been established through the fossil record is a transition between a land mammal that (if I recall correctly) had some piggy features into whales. Still, it isn't a dog-type creature, so I'm guessing that this doesn't really count.
I did once see a movie of a dog wearing scuba gear, though. That should count for something.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
I once saw a program that went into detail about, oddly enough, the link between pigs and insects. I wouldn't mention it normally, but I think it comes from a very reliable source. Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
"... the entire theory of Evolution can only stand up in a certain version of Reality (or set of versions), and if you don't share the fundamentals of that set, then nothing we say can possibly convince you otherwise."
I couldn't agree with you more, sylvrdragon. I'm sorry you thought I was cherry picking. Nothing to fear from me there, Tarrsk. I have no clue what any of that means.
Thanks suminon. I thought the whole thread had derailed there. I pretty much just ignored every post after that, except for Matt's. It just turned into a hatefest. Yes, I said perhaps, and that was very much purposeful. That was a hypothetical lineage that I was using out of ignorance of any actual ancestor of dogs (or pigs.) Nothing unusual there, I'd like to know what Evolution says is the direct ancestor of a dog.
My point is that there should be a direct continuum of animals between any animal and its direct ancestor, no matter how far you go back. The theory [b]requires[/i] this. There should be a direct, unbroken line of daughter to mother all the way from my own mother to the very first life form. If I am wrong here, let me know. And every step of the way there should be a gradual change, so small as to be nearly unnoticeable (unless you entertain saltationist theories, and if you do, please tell me about them.)
The fossil record indicates that if Evolution is true, then that rate of change is highly irregular. The rule is stasis. All life forms are found with fully developed features, all major groups are completely distinct from each other, with the extremely rare instance of possible transitionals, and the various phenotypes maintain their forms with very little change for millions, even billions of years for some of the earliest types. This fact must be accommodated by the theory, punctuated equilibrium being the most famous example of this accommodation.
However, as MattP says, "it's unfortunate that the conditions required for fossilization are relatively rare, so that we are left with only a small fraction of the life that has ever lived to examine, but what we do find consistently fits the theory."
You can't have it both ways. Is the fossil evidence so spotty that it does not represent the actual development of life on earth? Or is it very strong evidence, but of something other than a direct and very gradual development of Man from bacteria?
I'm sick of having to scroll past all the vitriol, so I going to start a new thread. I ask that only people who believe they can refrain from childish name-calling attend. Suminon, sylvrdragon, MattP, Mightycow, you guys are unconditionally invited. Steven, just take back what you said about how you wish I would shut up, or just tell me it was just a joke. A few of you other guys (shigosei, Tarrsk, scholar) the only condition I ask is that you please avoid using too much jargon, because you're making me feel stupid. Megabyte, swbarnes and Samprimary, it's a free forum, so post as you please, but I'm officially ignoring you from now on.
So look for my very own thread about evolution! I'll start with something MightyCow said and we'll see how things go.
Of course, if you guys really want to make me feel like a loser, then no one respond. Jeez, that would be embarrassing...
[ December 10, 2007, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
" All life forms are found with fully developed features"
Define "fully developed" features. How would you tell if a feature was partly developed or fully developed in the first place? Further, you are holding these things as fully or incompletely developed compared to what standard?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: " All life forms are found with fully developed features"
Define "fully developed" features. How would you tell if a feature was partly developed or fully developed in the first place? Further, you are holding these things as fully or incompletely developed compared to what standard?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
But yeah, in our journal club, we talk a lot about the crazies. We read some of the articles that behr (darwin's little black box) sites and discussed what the data actually said- which differed a bit from what he claimed. It was kinda annoying to realize that the man actually did read the papers and still somehow came up with this wacky interpretation.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)