by cofty 195 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
From the OP:
Evolution allows for physical life to continue (adapt and survive) in a living, changing, moving and physical universe.
There might be consequences (parasites for instance); but would there be physical life at all, in this universe, without it?
Peace,
tammy
So we agree that nobody has ever seen/observed/tested macro evolution.
No, it has not been directly observed as occurring in 150 years. It has been tested in a million ways. Science tests things it cannot directly observe all the time.
This is why i say it is an extrapolation theory.
That is incorrect. Extrapolation is going beyond the data to make conclusions outside the scope of data points you are using. If we had ONLY seen examples of micro-evolution, and then hypothesized, 'well if there are a billion year regress of little adaptations, those woud probably add up to big changes over time' with no corroborating evidence, then that alone by itself would be extrapolation.
But no, that is not all the evidence there is. That is just the hypothesis. The theory is shown true when you consider the genetic evidence of living creatures, the chemical evidence in living creatures, the fossil evidence, the geological evidence, etc. It ALL shows that the original hypothesis is true. We have billions of years of evidence. No one is extrapolating fossil remains. They are there, from hundreds of millions of years ago, all showing exactly what every other line of evidence shows: that evolution happened.
Darwin et al provide countless data demonstrating micro evolution and adaptation.
Forget about Darwin. All he had was the IDEA. Nothing was proven in Darwin's day. It was just a hypothesis at that point and the evidence would come later with the thousands of scientists that have tested and refined his postulation over time.
But over the evolutionary cycle this reprents about 0.00000001% of the whole evolutionary process postulated. It is remiss that "scientists" and i use the term loosely use such minimal data to support the other 99.999999 of theory that they have a pre-conceived notion about. This is why i say it is extrapolation theory. This is my point. I hear what you say about continental drift theory and i accept the analogy is a good one. On the latter you may be right. You could also be right about macro evolution but i personally disagree. A stock market analyst can guess on two companies using 0.0000001% of statistical data and other facts. He may predict both right, neither, one but not the other. My other point here is who would put their mortgage on an analyst getting his prediction right on such minimal data. If the data proved say 50% that the evolution theories were tested etc. then it may be a slightly different story. 70/30 even more so. But as it is we have 0.00001% fact and 99.999999 extrapolation THEORY. Dawkins believes this theory is well documented like other theories such as the earth revolving around the sun and/or gravity. Really this is a very great lie and should be clarified as such. My final point to you on the subject is you may be right or maybe wrong like the stock market analyst. But consider that the 0.000001% data also sits nicely with the biblical creation model. God created each one according to their kind and designed them to adapt to their environment, as per the data. I could be right or wrong. We both have faith.
No, not really. Thats not how science (or statistcs) works at all.
Suppose you had a pharmaceutical drug. The biology says, in theory, it should reduce cholesterol. The math checks out. The animal experiments check out. They test the drug on 1000 people and, indeed, it reduces cholesterol on all of them. Do you say, "wait a second. you've only tested the drug on .0000001% of the world's population. There's no way to say that it reduces cholesterol. Who knows what it does. Its just faith if you think it reduces cholesterol on the other 99.9999999% of the population. I will only accept that it reduces cholesterol in a human being if you test it on 50% of the world!!!! That is absurd. Yet it is the level of rigor you are requiring of evolutionary theory. Already every piece of data supports evolutionary theory from every line of evidence.
binadub
I think you see Intelligent Design as an organization, equating it with the Discovery Institute...I see "intelligent design" as simply meaning a superior intelligence is responsible for creation as opposed to atheism.
I explained clearly in my OP what I meant by ID and how it differed from TE. I hoped that would avoid confusion. Let me try again for the third time.
Intelligent Design is a specific term that refers to ideas invented by Micahel Behe and his colleagues and promoted by the Discovery Institute. It pretends to be science but it is in fact creationism in disguise.
Creationism is not restricted to the Young Earth variety, although that is at the extremely stupid end of the spectrum.
The line that divides creationism from science is "methodological naturalism" - the working assumption that there are naturalistic answers to every scientific question. ID breaks that rule with its pseudo-scientific waffle it calls "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity". These are nothing more than arguments from ignorance and modern versions of the Paley's Watch argument.
Despite its public position the real motive behind ID is revealed in a number of statements given by its leading spokesmen that reveal it to be religiously motivated.
"Theistic Evolution" is on the other side of the line. Proponents of TE accept evolution completely and apply scientific principles rigorously.
ID looks at highly complex details and declares it could never come about without an external intelligent agent. TE, along with scientists who happen to be atheists, have no common ground with this unscientific approach.
ID asserts that a designer can be perceived in the complexities of life: TE does not.
Proponents of TE are not Deists they are theists. Miller and Collins pray to god and expect a response.
The only difference between Dawkins and Collins & Miller is that Collins & Miller believe in a god that explains why anything exists rather than nothing.
Hope that helps.
Cofty:
I know what you have been saying ID and creationism is. I have explained why I disagree with you.
I would be interested in your credentials.
~Binadub
ninja-matty
I'm not sure why I'm spending time on a cheeky creationist who has never bothered to read a book on evolution but thinks they are entitled to an opinion on it but here goes...
Presumably you are suggesting macro evolution has been seen/observed. This is the only explanation of why you would say this.
No.
I explained how the evidence for evolution that Darwin had available to him is tiny compared to what we have today. You were criticising evolution based on a total lack of knowledge of 150 years of research.
You also said "so many blunders in one short post." What blunders? There aren't any of course. You are out of your depth and unable to support your said statements.
Blunder 1 - "Are you suggesting macro evolution has occured in the past 150 years and has been observed?"
I explained that evolution happens gradually over very long periods of time and that your request for observed major change in the past century demonstrates woeful ignorance.
Blunder 2 - "But dawkins herring gull is i'm afraid the ultimate fail."
You keep going on about Herring Gulls but clearly have not the slightest idea why you feel compelled to do so. Let me help.
Dawkins has used ring species to demonstrate how arbitrary all attempts are to define species. Gulls are an excellent example of a ring species.
Perhaps you would like to have a go at defining species?
Blunder 3 - "The theory is still theory."
This is the unmistakable hallmark of somebody has not the slightest clue about science. Please google "theory science definition" and save yourself from future embarrassment.
Blunder 4 - "There is no evidence of macro evolution."
I asked you to define this unscientific term but you have still to respond.
The evidence that every living thing descended from a common ancestor is beyond dispute. Only those who are ignorant of the facts (no shame in that) or willfully ignorant for reasons of religious dogma can deny the evidence. In particular paleontology and genetics provide the most compelling evidence.
If you are interested we could present a few highlights of this evidence for you but nobody is likely to take time to explain complicated stuff to sombody who isn't manging to follow simple stuff.
Blunder 5 - "Nobody has ever observed it like we have observed the effects of gravity etc."
So what? If you ever serve on a jury (god help us) will you ignore all the physical evidence, all the forensics and DNA because nobody observed the crime happen?
The exact same techniques that prove court cases beyond all reasonable doubt also prove you descended from a common ancestor with a chimp.
So as I said - "So many blunders in 1 short post"
Until you answer the above it is clear that any discussion with you will not be fruitfull. I will continue to debate with others who have more wit.
I have spent about 12 years reading about evolution. I also understand all shades of creationism very well.
Tell us again how many books on evolution written by scientists you have bothered to read? This is the fourth time I have asked you the same question.
You have at your disposal here a lot of people who understand evolution really well. You could ask for help and debate the questions respectfully or you could continue to act like a home-schooled fundie teenager. Your choice.
God created each one according to their kind and designed them to adapt to their environment, as per the data. I could be right or wrong. We both have faith.
No you have faith that can only be sustained by avoiding evidence to the contrary. Faith has no place in science.
If you would like us to reccommned a reading list for you just ask. I suspect you prefer willful ignorance.
binadub - What precisely do you disagree with in my post 4458 above?
Your casual use of specific terms is extremely confusing.
Cofty:
Your Question:
What precisely do you disagree with in my post 4458 above?
Answer:
Intelligent Design is a specific term that refers to ideas invented by Micahel Behe and his colleagues and promoted by the Discovery Institute. It pretends to be science but it is in fact creationism in disguise.
~Binadub
binadub - The first sentence is true by definition.
google "Intelligent Design" and survey the 53 million results. Here is the first result from Wiki...
Intelligent design ( ID ) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute . The Institute defines it as the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection ." [1] [2] It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God , presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". [3] The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank , [n 1] [4] and believe the designer to be the Christian deity . [n 2]
If you wish to show that the second sentence is wrong you have all your work to do to show that ID is scientific.
binadub:
Another analogy was attributed to Newton as I heard it, that saying there is no god is like saying you get Webster's dictionary from an explosition in the printing shop. Or the arrangement of letters of the alphabet in this post are, as I understand it, an example of "specified complexity," not likely to happen by random chance.
I'm no scientist, but I personally do not consider that to be pseudo-science. It is observable, testable, and falsifiable. I think some scientists agree.
Sorry I cant help myself, nothing gets my out of the woodwork as Dembski. I think i can understand why his ideas resonate with a lot of people since they make a lot of intuitive sence, and if he wanted to use "complex specified information" in a loose sence like biologists use "complexity", "sofistication" or "DNA which code for something" I would not have an issue with it.
The problem is when he tries to argue (1) he has a mathematically stringent definition of Complex Specified Information (in the sence it should be compared to shannon information theory, a claim which is simply laughable but often made by proponents of Dembski), and more importantly, (2) when he argues nature cannot produce CSI in the "quantities" required to explain something like a flagellum: He simply fail to make a case because he ignore the basics of how evolution work. I think this is why his work to the best of my knowledge has been ignored by all of contemporary mathematics, there is simply nothing to discuss.
It is hard to find an analogy which sound remotely plausible, but having read some of Dembskis articles I really feel it is akin to saying: "Clearly a telephone must require a miracle to work, because sound couldnt possible travel very well through a thin cobber wire". The argument simply ignore how telephones supposedly work.
Ofcourse I havent demonstrated the two claims above (and do not expect you to buy them from an analogy), but I could in either PMs or as a new thread if you are interested.
With regard to Dembskis ideas being testable, i would say ofcourse they are and they have been shown to be false, genetic algorithms being an obvious example as are the explicit examples of evolution happening in the laboratory.
Dembski would disagree and there is a string of generic (and very bad) arguments which are applied to "proove" the point. An example: The moment you are allowing for natural selection to happend in a genetic algorithm, you are "smugling" in information about nature. But thats simply evolution, letting the agents adapt to nature through natural selection!
After you apply the arguments the ideas are no longer testable. A while back i believe there was a proponent of Dembski who made the big mistake of getting so exited of his ideas she asked on a thread on DI's forum/blog for an example of applying CSI to detect design on an actual system. As I recall there was a long, angry and confused discussion and no results after which I believe the thread was locked; that pretty much sums up my observation regarding how testable CSI is.
at Caedes
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
Please see above for a single easy to understand example of evolution in action.
In simple terms bacteria have evolved an ability to 'eat' an entirely man made substance - nylon.
This ability clearly shows a living organism adapting and evolving to suit its environment.
All of the changes that we are likely to see in a single human lifespan will be small, evolution is merely the accumulation of those small changes.
As others have already pointed out in science we like to clearly define terms and there is no definition of 'micro' or 'macro' evolution. If you don't define the terms (even if it is only as you see it) how can anyone present evidence of one or the other. The example I have provided of bacteria exhibiting an entirely new ability is a prime example of the kind of changes predicted by science. However if you believe that 'macro' evolution involves us sprouting wings or somesuch nonsense then it is best to get that out in the open early on so nobody has to waste any time presenting evidence which you are never going to accept."
You show evidence of adapation nothing more. This does not conflict with the biblical creation model. These observations are not mutually exclusive to evolutionary theories - they sit just as easily in the creation models.
You are not the first to ask about the difference in macro and micro. For this reason i will answer the question. I am just surpised i need to. so this is straight from wiki, very crude i know, but in principle this is what i am talking about
"Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. [ 1 ] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, [ 2 ] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. [ 3 ] The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it."
In my own words microevolution is minor changes within species. So think of varieties in dogs, cats etc. The minor changes in the north american wolf that darwin spoke of. Adaptiation etc. Macro evolution is the change from one distinct kind to another kind i.e. amphibian to fish to reptile to mammal etc. etc.
At Simon17
"It has been tested in a million ways."What ways please identify. Please do not say fruit fly mutation experiments...
"The theory is shown true when you consider the genetic evidence of living creatures". What evidence points soley to evolution in direct conflict with the biblical creation model... please identify
"the chemical evidence in living creatures" What evidence points soley to evolution in direct conflict with the biblical creation model... please identify
"the fossil evidence" Give me a break. If you really want to go there raise this again...
"Suppose you had a pharmaceutical drug. The biology says, in theory, it should reduce cholesterol. The math checks out. The animal experiments check out. They test the drug on 1000 people and, indeed, it reduces cholesterol on all of them. Do you say, "wait a second. you've only tested the drug on .0000001% of the world's population. There's no way to say that it reduces cholesterol. Who knows what it does. Its just faith if you think it reduces cholesterol on the other 99.9999999% of the population. I will only accept that it reduces cholesterol in a human being if you test it on 50% of the world!!!! That is absurd. Yet it is the level of rigor you are requiring of evolutionary theory. Already every piece of data supports evolutionary theory from every line of evidence." Simon this is a very poor analogy and misleading to boot. As mankind all come from the same two progenitors we all share similarities. If one drug works on one then there is a good chance it will work on another. If it works on the majority of a sample population there is a good chance it will work on the majority of the mass population. But were simply stating the obvious. We already know all this context in the drug/man scenario. But this line of reasoning does not work with other examples where context is not known. So for instance if you see the following math - 1+2=3. 2+3=5. 3+4=7. Whats next? You might be right in saying 4+5=9. But you might also be totally wrong if you do not know the context of what you are looking at. What is the 100 equation and its answer? Will the math continue in like manner when into the billions? From 3 small equations it is remiss for anyone to bank their mortgage that when we are onto the trillionth equation it will still follow the same pattern. It might, but there are a trillion possibilities in between where it might alter. We do not know the context. Micro evolution sits just as nicely in the biblical creation model as it does evolutionary theory. What if the biblical creation model is the correct context!?!!! I repeat micro evolution does not conflict with the bible. At best you start with a 50/50 guess which is the correct conclusion, but you then have to weigh up the other evidence.
I look forward to seeing your responses to the four lines of evidence above that you talk about.
