RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: It's all settled!...Proof God Exists!, Apparently, by asking the question does< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Steverino



Posts: 407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,07:46   

I ran across this web site that offers proof of God's existence. This is pure, uncut TARD so, be careful.

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

Apparently, by asking the question does God exists, we have proved his existance!...it's all there in a kinda twisted circular reasoning way.

Enjoy!

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,07:58   

Quote
The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.


priceless!  :D

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,08:16   

It's exactly as sound and well-supported as any other god proof I've seen.

I like the way it always ends up dumping you to the Disney site.  I bet Disney will end up making them stop that somehow.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Steverino



Posts: 407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,08:28   

This is a snippet of one of his responses:

Quote
The existence of God is not based on 'circumstantial evidence.' It is actually because God exists that anyone can call ANYTHING 'evidence.' God is the necessary precondition for the proof or evidence of anything as both presuppose the existence of universal, abstract, invariant laws, which cannot be accounted for outside of God, and are accounted for with God. You see Lisa, the very fact that you say that the site "really doesn't prove anything,' shows a precommitment to the very concept of proof which YOU cannot account for without God.

As far as you saying that it is "obvious to everyone" why I created the site, or basically, "It's true, because we all say it's true," I hope that's not your best argument, cause it that is a logical fallacy of "argumentum ad populum."

Sure lot'sof people say that "a god" exists, but it is usually not God at all, but an idol of their own making, so that they do not have to submit to the one true God of Christianity.


There...so, you can stop doing all the "sciencey" stuff.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10064
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,09:07   

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/negative-feedback.php

Quote
Here are a few samples of negative feedback I have been getting about the site, and my responses to them. Some have been sent via email, and some have occurred in various discussion forums.

I only include these rebuttals to expose the objections for their foolishness, and not to engage in argumentation with those who cannot account for the 'logic' they use in their objections.


--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
rossum



Posts: 174
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,09:15   

Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 24 2009,07:46)
Apparently, by asking the question does God exists, we have proved his existence!

So, the question is "Does the Invisible Pink Unicorn exist?"

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 738
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,09:16   

Sounds like typical Presuppositional legerdemain.

Blame Cornelius Van Til.....a Calvinist.

Like Heddle.

But CVT is dead.

Unlike Heddle.

So blame Heddle.

Who isn't dead.

But is one year closer.

Happy Birthday Heddle.

From an F1 fan.

:p

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,09:17   

"I don't know if absolute truth exists" choice gets you to

"I don't know if absolute truth exists"(again)----> "Absolutely true" or "False"

well, with a choice like that...  choosing "False" kicks you back to the first choice with the caveat "This is not a glitch:  think about it".  I thought about it and this is really dumb.

ETA  and "I don't care if absolute truth exists" gets you kicked to Disney.

fuck what a pile of stupid.  yes by all means let's blame heddle

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10064
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,09:24   

Quote
My name is Sye Ten Bruggencate. I'm 46 years old, single, and live in Ontario, Canada.


Hmmmmm

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Steverino



Posts: 407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,09:35   

Quote
My name is Sye Ten Bruggencate. I'm 46 years old, single, and live in Ontario, Canada.


left out

[qoute]...in the basement with my mom and dad.[/quote]

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Steverino



Posts: 407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,09:38   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 24 2009,09:17)
"I don't know if absolute truth exists" choice gets you to

"I don't know if absolute truth exists"(again)----> "Absolutely true" or "False"

well, with a choice like that...  choosing "False" kicks you back to the first choice with the caveat "This is not a glitch:  think about it".  I thought about it and this is really dumb.

ETA  and "I don't care if absolute truth exists" gets you kicked to Disney.

fuck what a pile of stupid.  yes by all means let's blame heddle

He doesn't like being exposed for using circular reasoning so, he tries to reframe logic all together so, "...how do you know circular reasoning is invalid?"

Gawd!

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
RDK



Posts: 229
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,11:00   

What's with all the Canadian creotards all of a sudden?  It seems Denyse has been getting more ass than we previously imagined.

--------------
If you are not:
Leviathan
please Logout under Meta in the sidebar.

‘‘I was like ‘Oh my God! It’s Jesus on a banana!’’  - Lisa Swinton, Jesus-eating pagan

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2080
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,11:23   

I blame the Olympics.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Steverino



Posts: 407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,11:33   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2009,11:23)
I blame the Olympics.

As in ..."Special Olympics"?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
paragwinn



Posts: 376
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2009,19:22   

Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 24 2009,11:33)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2009,11:23)
I blame the Olympics.

As in ..."Special Olympics"?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Sex Olympics.

Couldn't resist...therefore God exists.

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
The geological maps that realist use to make money are all surface maps. -forastero

  
Steverino



Posts: 407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2009,06:30   

TARD (now in HD....;-) )....

Well, it turns out the gentleman has made a guest appearance on......Eric Hovind show!

Get your boots on!

http://erichovind.blogspot.com/2009....-1.html

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2009,14:57   

I've always wondered why, if God is God, he [sic] could not both exist and not exist. :)

Or, if we want to get into Andre Breton's surrealism, how the concepts of the surrealist object (existence is not something that just "happens" to a thing) and of the Marvelous throws a wrench into the theist worldview. (Cue VMartin posting somewhere in JAD's wake about my "confusion" in 3, 2...)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
keiths



Posts: 2040
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2009,18:39   

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 28 2009,12:57)
I've always wondered why, if God is God, he [sic] could not both exist and not exist. :)

Or why he [sic] would trifle with something as puny and worldly as existence.  The truest testament to God's power is the effect he is able to have on human minds despite not existing.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don’t belong there and thoughts into my mind that don’t belong there. -- KF

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3259
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2009,10:47   

Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 24 2009,08:28)
This is a snippet of one of his responses:

Quote
The existence of God is not based on 'circumstantial evidence.' It is actually because God exists that anyone can call ANYTHING 'evidence.' God is the necessary precondition for the proof or evidence of anything as both presuppose the existence of universal, abstract, invariant laws, which cannot be accounted for outside of God, and are accounted for with God. You see Lisa, the very fact that you say that the site "really doesn't prove anything,' shows a precommitment to the very concept of proof which YOU cannot account for without God.

As far as you saying that it is "obvious to everyone" why I created the site, or basically, "It's true, because we all say it's true," I hope that's not your best argument, cause it that is a logical fallacy of "argumentum ad populum."

Sure lot'sof people say that "a god" exists, but it is usually not God at all, but an idol of their own making, so that they do not have to submit to the one true God of Christianity.


There...so, you can stop doing all the "sciencey" stuff.

But if God neccesary for water to exist, then why isn't he required for water to flow downhill?!?!?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2009,12:30   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2009,16:47)
Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 24 2009,08:28)
This is a snippet of one of his responses:

 
Quote
The existence of God is not based on 'circumstantial evidence.' It is actually because God exists that anyone can call ANYTHING 'evidence.' God is the necessary precondition for the proof or evidence of anything as both presuppose the existence of universal, abstract, invariant laws, which cannot be accounted for outside of God, and are accounted for with God. You see Lisa, the very fact that you say that the site "really doesn't prove anything,' shows a precommitment to the very concept of proof which YOU cannot account for without God.

As far as you saying that it is "obvious to everyone" why I created the site, or basically, "It's true, because we all say it's true," I hope that's not your best argument, cause it that is a logical fallacy of "argumentum ad populum."

Sure lot'sof people say that "a god" exists, but it is usually not God at all, but an idol of their own making, so that they do not have to submit to the one true God of Christianity.


There...so, you can stop doing all the "sciencey" stuff.

But if God neccesary for water to exist, then why isn't he required for water to flow downhill?!?!?

You, sir, would have for this very question to engage the "gentleman" known as Erasmus. If all else fails, you can still adress your demands to Yodel Elf inc., although every and all courriers sent there never made it back...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2009,17:20   

Yeah that definitely begs the question. I prefer to look at the empirical evidence to support my conclusions. In reference to the empirical evidence, what are your thoughts on where the empirical evidence leads? Can we safely say that material mechanisms are responsible for all that we observe in our universe? Is there any room for some kind of mechanism that is immaterial or at least contrary to natural selection? I know these are rather broad questions. Maybe give me what you (anyone in this forum) think are the best arguments for your view either way.

  
khan



Posts: 1479
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2009,17:23   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 03 2009,18:20)
Yeah that definitely begs the question. I prefer to look at the empirical evidence to support my conclusions. In reference to the empirical evidence, what are your thoughts on where the empirical evidence leads? Can we safely say that material mechanisms are responsible for all that we observe in our universe? Is there any room for some kind of mechanism that is immaterial or at least contrary to natural selection? I know these are rather broad questions. Maybe give me what you (anyone in this forum) think are the best arguments for your view either way.

Show me your supernatural entities.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2009,18:01   

Quote
Show me your supernatural entities.


That's what she said.


(Can't.  Help.  Self!  Force.  Too.  Strong.)

  
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2009,21:54   

Okay, I meant to send a response to Khan but I wanted everyone to be able to see it.  So here it is a second time (I think the first one just went to khan). I'm not sure what you mean Khan by your statement. Also I didn't say where I stood. I asked what are the best arguments for either view. Do you or anyone else have an answer to the question? I'm trying to get a grasp on some of the best arguments for a strictly naturalistic universe and/or arguments that leave the door open to other possibilities.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2009,22:57   

christ.

come on it ain't that difficult.

Quote
show me your supernatural entitties.

we wanna see 'em waggle around

we ain't just playing skeptic cause we like the way it sounds!

ALL YALL GET YOUR ENTITTIES OUT

and put them in the air

let us see them like your gods made you

and show us that you care!


don't got any?  STFU with all yer damn noise about X Y and Z then

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2009,04:00   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 03 2009,23:20)
Yeah that definitely begs the question. I prefer to look at the empirical evidence to support my conclusions. In reference to the empirical evidence, what are your thoughts on where the empirical evidence leads? Can we safely say that material mechanisms are responsible for all that we observe in our universe? Is there any room for some kind of mechanism that is immaterial or at least contrary to natural selection? I know these are rather broad questions. Maybe give me what you (anyone in this forum) think are the best arguments for your view either way.

Was that a slip of the tongue?
Because, natural selection is an empirical fact.

To the rest of your question: That doesn't make sense.
Empirical facts stem from repeated observation.
Let's say I conduct a simple experiment and add a substance X to some cells and measure the growth rate. I find in repeated experiments that compared to cells that I left alone the cells grow faster after I've added the substance.
So, "substance X makes that cell type grow faster" is an empirical fact - but only, if I accept that the same would happen everytime someone would do the same. If a supernatural entity can interfere at random then I can never say that "substance X makes that cell type grow faster". I could only say that "substance X makes that cell type grow faster if the supernatural entity allows it". If someone repeated my experiments and those experiments failed to show a faster growth I could say that the supernatural entity had hindered the cells from growing in those experiments.
Sounds ridiculous? Definitely.
Because it's only possible to generalise observations if those observations are based on a "material" mechanism that works the same at all times.
Does that exclude that there's a supernatural entity around or specifically, that in my hypothetic experiment it wasn't a supernatural entity that makes my cells grow faster whenever substance X is around? No. But for all practical purposes we're better off if we assume that there is no supernatural entity or if there is that it doesn't interfere. How would you even go about testing a hypothesis if your results could either mean your hypothesis is right/wrong or a supernatural entity messed with your experiment?

All science procedes as if there isn't an interfering supernatural entity. It has to. Otherwise generalisations were impossible. Hypothesis testing were impossible. And the thing is - it works. Again, that doesn't mean that there isn't a supernatural entity or that the supernatural entity, if there is one, never interferes. You can't prove a negative.
But, it is an empirical fact that experiments are repeatable. All of science shows that. So, the parsimonious explanation for the time being is that there is no interfering supernatural entity.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Quack



Posts: 1746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2009,04:51   

Quote
Sure lot'sof people say that "a god" exists, but it is usually not God at all, but an idol of their own making, so that they do not have to submit to the one true God of Christianity.


What a pity the one true God of Christianity is so reluctant to reveal himself to men.

Maybe he'd care to tell us how to detect the difference between idols and The God? Can we seduce God into unmasking himself or is he as deaf and blind as we have reasons to believe?

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Cubist



Posts: 345
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2009,05:14   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 03 2009,17:20)
Yeah that definitely begs the question. I prefer to look at the empirical evidence to support my conclusions. In reference to the empirical evidence, what are your thoughts on where the empirical evidence leads? Can we safely say that material mechanisms are responsible for all that we observe in our universe?

As best anybody can tell, yes. Science does a great job with phenomena that operate according to regular rules which are discoverable; heck, there have been scientific investigations of the power of intercessory prayer, okay? The main reason so many people think science cannot do anything with "supernatural" or "immaterial" phenomena, is that these "supernatural"/"immaterial" phenomena don't seem to operate according to regular, discoverable rules.
Quote
Is there any room for some kind of mechanism that is immaterial or at least contrary to natural selection?

That depends on what you mean by "room for". If you're asking about whether there are any aspects of the universe that we know for certain are flatly incapable of being accounted for by any conceivable concatenation of material/natural/physical mechanisms, and therefore require some sort of immaterial/supernatural/nonphysical mechanism, the answer is "no". If, on the other hand, you're asking about whether there are any aspects of the Universe that we do not yet have a decent explanation for, and for which it is therefore conceivable that some sort of immaterial/supernatural/nonphysical mechanism might be required to account for them, the answer is "yes".
Quote
I know these are rather broad questions. Maybe give me what you (anyone in this forum) think are the best arguments for your view either way.

In my view, the best argument against supernatural processes is that there are lots of things which have, at various times and places, been deemed the result of supernatural processes... and every time someone figures out a way to test one of these things, it's always turned out to have a boring, ordinary, mundane, non-supernatural explanation. Lightning used to be a product of Thor or Zeus; now it's a natural weather phenomenon. The season of winter used to be the fault of Hades (see also: the story of Persephone); now it's a natural consequence of Earth's axial tilt. Earthquakes used to be caused by powerful entities like the Midgard Serpent; now they're the result of natural tectonic processes occuring in the Earth's crust.
Apart from the fact that all supernatural "explanations" thus far have proved to be either wrong or untestable, I find it compelling that the word "supernatural" doesn't really mean anything -- it's a word without a well-defined referent, which (as fas as I can tell) is, in practical terms, interchangeably synonymous with the phrase "something I don't understand".  If you think the word "supernatural" does have any meaning beyond "something I don't understand", great! Can you tell me what that meaning is, please?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3259
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2009,07:53   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 03 2009,21:54)
Okay, I meant to send a response to Khan but I wanted everyone to be able to see it.  So here it is a second time (I think the first one just went to khan). I'm not sure what you mean Khan by your statement. Also I didn't say where I stood. I asked what are the best arguments for either view. Do you or anyone else have an answer to the question? I'm trying to get a grasp on some of the best arguments for a strictly naturalistic universe and/or arguments that leave the door open to other possibilities.

best argument I've seen against a god or gods or godesses...
http://scienceblogs.com/notrock....age.php

Personally, I agree with this.  It's amazing how 'god' allows things to occur in one culture, but not in another.  Or how one person can think one way and know it's the Truf and how another person can call the first a heathen because the second person knows the Truf and the two Trufs are different.

You'd think god would like a little less ambiguity in his followers... unless he/she/it likes watching holy wars instead of reality TV like the rest of us. [Isn't that a depressing though: The universe is just a reality TV show for a bunch of hyper advanced aliens.]

Anyway, as I've asked before... please describe the difference (how we can measure and expected values of said measurements) between a universe that was specifically designed and one that occured via naturalistic methods.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2080
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2009,14:44   

Y'all know where this "inquiry" is head, dontcha.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2009,16:02   

Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 04 2009,20:44)
Y'all know where this "inquiry" is head, dontcha.

I expect this:
- He'll ignore everything that was said.
- He'll whine about how mean and unfair it is that supernatural explanations are not allowed and how people who dare to suggest them are laughed out of the building expelled.
- After all, what is if the evidence suggest that the supernatural explanation is correct? Shouldn't we be allowed to follow it where it leads.
- Therefore, GODDIDIT.

Extra points for including Meyer's new book as "evidence".

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 986
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2009,22:48   

Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 04 2009,14:44)
Y'all know where this "inquiry" is head, dontcha.

An A in the DrDr's class?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2009,09:20   

Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate that being brought up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?


I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws. So there wouldn’t be an obstacle for arriving at generalizations. To use the example given of conducting an experiment on a cell, you as an individual transcend the cell (you’re beyond it) and act as a cause to create an effect, the cell type growing faster. So you’re manipulating matter, and you are outside of the matter you’re manipulating. But of course you’re still in the realm of the physical world with physical qualities working with natural laws.


Now I wouldn’t necessarily attribute all acts to this supernatural source, but when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence? Or like the building, house, etc. does there have to be something beyond the natural (as defined above) that brings those things into existence? Whatever the nature of that thing is, is more of a philosophical question. But the probability of such a being/s within the universe is I think an important scientific question.

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2009,12:34   

I'm an engineer and I like the term empirical. Empirical as far as I remember means measurable. The world is full of data and as we create new instruments we find more and more data.
Since before recorded history man has tried to interpret this data. Initially, everything had a god behind it but as we got more and more data we could interpret this information and give it natural causes rolling back God(s) to smaller and smaller gaps.

Now to me God has basically two forms. One is an active God who gets involved intimately in the world. The second is a God who may have "got the ball rolling" at the start but has not been involved in the world since.

The second God we can never detect and never disqualify and will need to be taken on faith forever.

The second God will need to fit into one of these gaps and already the gaps are so small that he is looking rather odd. If he poofed creatures into existence he certainly did a bad job of it as many of the designs are extremely jury rigged. Man has been here for a very short time so he has created a very big universe a very long time ago just for us.

Now Dembski, Behe etc will tell you that the data already shows the signs of a designer. But repeatably they have demonstrated that they can only do this by ignoring a lot of the data. The recent debate between Meyer etc demonstrated this where data discovered over the last 9 years has pretty much demolished any of the IDists arguments.

To me the clincher against the second type of God is that we should find some non-random attributes to what we see as being random. Does any category of human win more/less lotteries, survive cancer, miss tornadoes better than any other kind of human?

Now the current bet is that you are some kind of creationist and as I have said this can only be achieved by ignoring or misinterpreting data.

  
Cubist



Posts: 345
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2009,14:41   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,09:20)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species?
Yeah, I'd say the old guy got it right. In this context, it's worth noting that Darwin thought natural selection was "the main but not exclusive means of modification" (last sentence of the Introduction to Origin of Species); in other words, even Darwin himself explicitly acknowledged the possibility of processes at work other than natural selection, and later scientists have identified some of those other processes.
Quote
I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature...
Fine. What does that mean? How can you tell whether or not some Being X really and truly is "in some sense beyond nature"?
Quote
...acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws.
I ain't buying your don't-think-it-would-necessarily figleaf. If "this being/s" always "work(s) along with natural laws", and never "interfere(s)... with natural laws", why bother to describe it/them as "beyond nature" -- why not just say it/they is/are natural being/s that you don't happen to understand,, and be done with it?
Quote
So there wouldn’t be an obstacle for arriving at generalizations.
Do these "being/s" you speak of ever "interfere" with natural laws? If so, then yes, there is an "obstacle for arriving at generalizations".
Quote
To use the example given of conducting an experiment on a cell, you as an individual transcend the cell (you’re beyond it)...
So in this context, you're using the word "transcend" as a synonym for "is not the same entity as"? Fine, but if so, I'd recommend that you just say "is not the same entity as", because that word "transcend" carries all sorts of extraneous connotations which can only get in the way of clearly expressing your ideas.
 
Quote
Now I wouldn’t necessarily attribute all acts to this supernatural source...
"wouldn't necessarily"? Again with the unconvincing figleaf!
"this supernatural source": Hmmm. "(T)his supernatural source". Before you were merely making nonspecific noises about supernatural entities as a general class, but now you say "this" supernatural entity, as if you have a particular candidate in mind. Fine: Exactly what sort of critter do you have in mind when you speak of "this supernatural source"?
 
Quote
...but when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence?
As far as anybody can tell, yes. There are some unanswered questions about various of the details, but in no case is there anything which flatly cannot be accounted for by natural laws.
 
Quote
Or like the building, house, etc. does there have to be something beyond the natural (as defined above)...
Hold it. "(A)s defined above"? You didn't "define" anything! You just tossed a couple of unsupported assertions in the general direction of a definition!
 
Quote
that brings those things into existence? Whatever the nature of that thing is, is more of a philosophical question. But the probability of such a being/s within the universe is I think an important scientific question.
Me, I think you really need to sharpen up your thinking and clarify your ideas. I also think you need to figure out  a way to distinguish "X is beyond nature" from "X is something I don't understand" -- which, by the by, you conspicuously do not do at present.

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2009,17:03   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,15:20)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate that being brought up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?

I accept current evolutionary theory if that is what you're asking. That's more than just natural selection. You do realise that Darwin published his theory 150 years ago and science moved on a bit since then? Actually, for speciation to occur, natural selection wouldn’t even be strictly necessary. Genetic drift alone could, over time, lead to a build up of genetic and/or behavioural incompatibilities in geographically separated populations of a species that might result in reproductive isolation, i.e. they’d become two separate species. Of course, natural selection can contribute to or accelerate this process (once there is a geographical separation).
In plants, speciation frequently involves neo- or allopolyploidy (change in chromosome number), which can result in “instant speciation” (<a href="[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senecio_cambrensis" target="_blank">Example</a>).]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senecio_cambrensis]Example[/url]).[/URL] Again, no natural selection required.
Anyway.
You don’t really expect me to collect articles and books from the last 80 years or so, that describe the evidence we have for speciation? Why don’t you go look for articles about reproductive isolation or speciation at  PubMed yourself?  
   
Quote
I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws. So there wouldn’t be an obstacle for arriving at generalizations.

If it works along with "natural laws" it is indistinguishable from them. In that case, it is not necessary to invoke such a being as the natural laws on its own are sufficient to explain whatever it is you are investigating. You can assume that it is there, but you can't test for it. As far as science goes, it is a superfluous addition.
   
Quote
To use the example given of conducting an experiment on a cell, you as an individual transcend the cell (you’re beyond it) and act as a cause to create an effect, the cell type growing faster. So you’re manipulating matter, and you are outside of the matter you’re manipulating. But of course you’re still in the realm of the physical world with physical qualities working with natural laws.

Well, I’m pretty certain that there’re some tests that would prove that I’m actually there and that it’s me putting stuff on the cells I’m working with. I’m a materialistic cause, AFAIK, and I haven’t violated any natural laws so far. So, what’s the point? No one denies that physical things can interact with other physical things.
But you say that your entity is supernatural, but not beyond nature? What does that even mean?
If it had some physical properties, we should find evidence of its existence. I wouldn’t hold my breath.
And as I said, if it is supernatural but works in accordance with "natural laws" it is indistinguishable from them.
 
Quote
Now I wouldn’t necessarily attribute all acts to this supernatural source, but when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence? Or like the building, house, etc. does there have to be something beyond the natural (as defined above) that brings those things into existence? Whatever the nature of that thing is, is more of a philosophical question. But the probability of such a being/s within the universe is I think an important scientific question.

Humans are not beyond the natural, even if they build houses. That doesn’t violate any laws of physics.
“when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence”
I think that chemistry and physics are fully sufficient to explain the origin of life.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2009,19:05   

Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate you bringing that up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?

I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws

For example, we observe people building homes, cars, etc. using natural laws to create new things. People are separate or apart from the material their working on (transcendent), utilizing the laws of nature. So it seems to me that it is possible for this being/s to operate within the realm of regular discoverable rules.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1005
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2009,19:54   

Apart from the fact that you're asking the same questions you asked earlier in the day, to which there have been multiple responses, you need to look up "transcendent"  in a dictionary, find out what it means, then be specific about the sense of the word you're using.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
jswilkins



Posts: 50
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2009,19:56   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 06 2009,10:05)
I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws

For example, we observe people building homes, cars, etc. using natural laws to create new things. People are separate or apart from the material their working on (transcendent), utilizing the laws of nature. So it seems to me that it is possible for this being/s to operate within the realm of regular discoverable rules.

Your argument would therefore be:

We observe things within nature using natural law to achieve their ends

We can therefore discover natural designers and builders

The universe and its properties are posited as being due to a designer that is not constrained by natural law

THEREFORE we can discover supernatural designers

This argument was demolished by Hume in the Dialogues. A slightly less elegant debunking is this: published version incomplete online version

in which Wesley Elsberry and I point out that you cannot make inferences from "ordinary" (that is, natural) designers to "rarefied" (that is, supernatural) designers, because nothing licenses that inference.

If God works within natural laws, then it is enough to discover and explain things through natural laws. If he doesn't, then science cannot identify his actions or distinguish them from chance or lawlike causality. Either way, God cannot be investigated by science, unless he is exactly the sort of designer that we are, and he isn't, ex hypothesi.

--------------
Boldly staying where no man has stayed before.

   
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,01:45   

John,

I might have misinterpreted your argument but I can't see why there can't be a god who is a meddler. I agree with Dembski and Behe in this. These guys are dishonest turds but say someone did find a biological structure that had NO possible evolutionary pathways? Or something less subtle such as the stars lining up and saying "Dawkins is wrong".

  
Cubist



Posts: 345
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,02:03   

Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,01:45)
John,

I might have misinterpreted your argument but I can't see why there can't be a god who is a meddler. I agree with Dembski and Behe in this. These guys are dishonest turds but say someone did find a biological structure that had NO possible evolutionary pathways? Or something less subtle such as the stars lining up and saying "Dawkins is wrong".

John wasn't denying the possibility that a meddling, trickster-type god could exist; rather, he was speaking of whether or not this "god"-thingie is something us puny humans can use science to investigate.

  
Cubist



Posts: 345
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,02:19   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,19:05)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate you bringing that up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?

I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws

For example, we observe people building homes, cars, etc. using natural laws to create new things. People are separate or apart from the material their working on (transcendent), utilizing the laws of nature. So it seems to me that it is possible for this being/s to operate within the realm of regular discoverable rules.

Why are you posting a Xerox copy re-run of an earlier post? Since it is the same set of questions, even unto copy-and-paste duplication of the phrasing used, I refer you to the response I posted the first time around; I see nothing in this 'new' post which would require a separate, different, response from me now.

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,05:20   

Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 06 2009,17:03)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,01:45)
John,

I might have misinterpreted your argument but I can't see why there can't be a god who is a meddler. I agree with Dembski and Behe in this. These guys are dishonest turds but say someone did find a biological structure that had NO possible evolutionary pathways? Or something less subtle such as the stars lining up and saying "Dawkins is wrong".

John wasn't denying the possibility that a meddling, trickster-type god could exist; rather, he was speaking of whether or not this "god"-thingie is something us puny humans can use science to investigate.

We can study god, we are already doing it in a negative way. Over the last couple of hundred years we have knocked out a whole raft of possible gods.
If there is any positive evidence that will give us a whole raft of information about god.

  
jswilkins



Posts: 50
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,05:42   

My line is that if there is a god, we could not distinguish his actions from either lawful physical causation or noise (either brought about by ignorance, or chance, or just those anomalies we inevitably find in every science). A trickster god is just more noisy. We simply cannot find anything that we cannot explain through natural processes (including evolution) or which remain as presently unsolved problems, which every science has.

I'll be away for a few days without easy internet access.

--------------
Boldly staying where no man has stayed before.

   
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,07:32   

Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,11:20)
   
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 06 2009,17:03)
   
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,01:45)
John,

I might have misinterpreted your argument but I can't see why there can't be a god who is a meddler. I agree with Dembski and Behe in this. These guys are dishonest turds but say someone did find a biological structure that had NO possible evolutionary pathways? Or something less subtle such as the stars lining up and saying "Dawkins is wrong".

John wasn't denying the possibility that a meddling, trickster-type god could exist; rather, he was speaking of whether or not this "god"-thingie is something us puny humans can use science to investigate.

We can study god, we are already doing it in a negative way. Over the last couple of hundred years we have knocked out a whole raft of possible gods.
If there is any positive evidence that will give us a whole raft of information about god.

If we disprove that god created the earth 6000 years ago, we haven't disproved the existence of god and we haven't disproved that a god created the earth. We have disproved simply that it happened 6000 years ago. If we disprove a worldwide flood we haven't disproved that there's a god and we haven't proved that he can't, in principle, cause a world-wide flood. We have simply proved that a world-wide flood didn't happen.
Of course, if someone thinks that either his god created the world 6000 years ago and caused a world-wide flood or he doesn't exist, then we have disproved HIS version of god.
But that doesn't mean that we've disproved the existence of a god who, in principle, would be able to both create an earth or cause a world-wide flood. i.e. we haven't disproved the subcategory of earth-creating, flood-causing gods, we have just shown that this subcategory didn't do it at a proposed time or hasn't done it, yet.
At least, that's how I see it.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,11:09   

Quote (JLT @ Dec. 06 2009,07:32)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,11:20)
   
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 06 2009,17:03)
     
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,01:45)
John,

I might have misinterpreted your argument but I can't see why there can't be a god who is a meddler. I agree with Dembski and Behe in this. These guys are dishonest turds but say someone did find a biological structure that had NO possible evolutionary pathways? Or something less subtle such as the stars lining up and saying "Dawkins is wrong".

John wasn't denying the possibility that a meddling, trickster-type god could exist; rather, he was speaking of whether or not this "god"-thingie is something us puny humans can use science to investigate.

We can study god, we are already doing it in a negative way. Over the last couple of hundred years we have knocked out a whole raft of possible gods.
If there is any positive evidence that will give us a whole raft of information about god.

If we disprove that god created the earth 6000 years ago, we haven't disproved the existence of god and we haven't disproved that a god created the earth. We have disproved simply that it happened 6000 years ago. If we disprove a worldwide flood we haven't disproved that there's a god and we haven't proved that he can't, in principle, cause a world-wide flood. We have simply proved that a world-wide flood didn't happen.
Of course, if someone thinks that either his god created the world 6000 years ago and caused a world-wide flood or he doesn't exist, then we have disproved HIS version of god.
But that doesn't mean that we've disproved the existence of a god who, in principle, would be able to both create an earth or cause a world-wide flood. i.e. we haven't disproved the subcategory of earth-creating, flood-causing gods, we have just shown that this subcategory didn't do it at a proposed time or hasn't done it, yet.
At least, that's how I see it.

Which is the point of a lot of the scientist/atheist books on the subject (like Stenger) - we can disprove the actions of certain god concepts (or certain gods if you want to call it that), but there are some kinds that are immune to all investigation.  However, if you have a god who leaves no evidence, how is that different than no god at all?  Without positive evidence for such a being, why should we take such an idea seriously?  

That's the way I see it, at least.  When Inquiry is asking about this god of his (it does seem he has a specific one in mind), I'd second the call for "what evidence do you have that would ask us to consider such a being?"  As a thought experiment it's fine, but if you want to consider it as a scientific question, let's see the evidence.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,11:10   

JLT - pretty much agreeing with you, just expanding on the topic.  Eventually I'll get an edit button, but I've got a ways to go.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,14:10   

Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 06 2009,17:09)
   
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 06 2009,07:32)
     
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,11:20)
         
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 06 2009,17:03)
           
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,01:45)
John,

I might have misinterpreted your argument but I can't see why there can't be a god who is a meddler. I agree with Dembski and Behe in this. These guys are dishonest turds but say someone did find a biological structure that had NO possible evolutionary pathways? Or something less subtle such as the stars lining up and saying "Dawkins is wrong".

John wasn't denying the possibility that a meddling, trickster-type god could exist; rather, he was speaking of whether or not this "god"-thingie is something us puny humans can use science to investigate.

We can study god, we are already doing it in a negative way. Over the last couple of hundred years we have knocked out a whole raft of possible gods.
If there is any positive evidence that will give us a whole raft of information about god.

If we disprove that god created the earth 6000 years ago, we haven't disproved the existence of god and we haven't disproved that a god created the earth. We have disproved simply that it happened 6000 years ago. If we disprove a worldwide flood we haven't disproved that there's a god and we haven't proved that he can't, in principle, cause a world-wide flood. We have simply proved that a world-wide flood didn't happen.
Of course, if someone thinks that either his god created the world 6000 years ago and caused a world-wide flood or he doesn't exist, then we have disproved HIS version of god.
But that doesn't mean that we've disproved the existence of a god who, in principle, would be able to both create an earth or cause a world-wide flood. i.e. we haven't disproved the subcategory of earth-creating, flood-causing gods, we have just shown that this subcategory didn't do it at a proposed time or hasn't done it, yet.
At least, that's how I see it.

Which is the point of a lot of the scientist/atheist books on the subject (like Stenger) - we can disprove the actions of certain god concepts (or certain gods if you want to call it that), but there are some kinds that are immune to all investigation.  However, if you have a god who leaves no evidence, how is that different than no god at all?  Without positive evidence for such a being, why should we take such an idea seriously?  

That reminds me of this:



:)
 
Quote
That's the way I see it, at least.  When Inquiry is asking about this god of his (it does seem he has a specific one in mind), I'd second the call for "what evidence do you have that would ask us to consider such a being?"  As a thought experiment it's fine, but if you want to consider it as a scientific question, let's see the evidence.

I fully agree.
In my previous post, I just wanted to point out what's a scientifically warranted conclusions and what isn't. If it had been shown that there was a catastrophic flood some thousand years ago, I bet a lot of people would've taken that as "scientific" proof that the biblical god exist. But it would've been their personal conclusion not a scientific conclusion.
That's all.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
tsig



Posts: 320
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,15:29   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,19:05)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate you bringing that up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?

I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws

For example, we observe people building homes, cars, etc. using natural laws to create new things. People are separate or apart from the material their working on (transcendent), utilizing the laws of nature. So it seems to me that it is possible for this being/s to operate within the realm of regular discoverable rules.

So you're god is just a human with a bigger tool chest.

  
tsig



Posts: 320
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,15:36   

Quote (JLT @ Dec. 06 2009,07:32)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,11:20)
   
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 06 2009,17:03)
     
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,01:45)
John,

I might have misinterpreted your argument but I can't see why there can't be a god who is a meddler. I agree with Dembski and Behe in this. These guys are dishonest turds but say someone did find a biological structure that had NO possible evolutionary pathways? Or something less subtle such as the stars lining up and saying "Dawkins is wrong".

John wasn't denying the possibility that a meddling, trickster-type god could exist; rather, he was speaking of whether or not this "god"-thingie is something us puny humans can use science to investigate.

We can study god, we are already doing it in a negative way. Over the last couple of hundred years we have knocked out a whole raft of possible gods.
If there is any positive evidence that will give us a whole raft of information about god.

If we disprove that god created the earth 6000 years ago, we haven't disproved the existence of god and we haven't disproved that a god created the earth. We have disproved simply that it happened 6000 years ago. If we disprove a worldwide flood we haven't disproved that there's a god and we haven't proved that he can't, in principle, cause a world-wide flood. We have simply proved that a world-wide flood didn't happen.
Of course, if someone thinks that either his god created the world 6000 years ago and caused a world-wide flood or he doesn't exist, then we have disproved HIS version of god.
But that doesn't mean that we've disproved the existence of a god who, in principle, would be able to both create an earth or cause a world-wide flood. i.e. we haven't disproved the subcategory of earth-creating, flood-causing gods, we have just shown that this subcategory didn't do it at a proposed time or hasn't done it, yet.
At least, that's how I see it.

Your god seems a mite insane.

I prefer The Great Apis Bull

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,15:36   

pits to chesty!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
tsig



Posts: 320
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,15:41   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,09:20)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate that being brought up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?


I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws. So there wouldn’t be an obstacle for arriving at generalizations. To use the example given of conducting an experiment on a cell, you as an individual transcend the cell (you’re beyond it) and act as a cause to create an effect, the cell type growing faster. So you’re manipulating matter, and you are outside of the matter you’re manipulating. But of course you’re still in the realm of the physical world with physical qualities working with natural laws.


Now I wouldn’t necessarily attribute all acts to this supernatural source, but when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence? Or like the building, house, etc. does there have to be something beyond the natural (as defined above) that brings those things into existence? Whatever the nature of that thing is, is more of a philosophical question. But the probability of such a being/s within the universe is I think an important scientific question.

Why would this being give a big red rats ass about you.

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,19:24   

Quote (tsig @ Dec. 06 2009,15:41)
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,09:20)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate that being brought up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?


I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws. So there wouldn’t be an obstacle for arriving at generalizations. To use the example given of conducting an experiment on a cell, you as an individual transcend the cell (you’re beyond it) and act as a cause to create an effect, the cell type growing faster. So you’re manipulating matter, and you are outside of the matter you’re manipulating. But of course you’re still in the realm of the physical world with physical qualities working with natural laws.


Now I wouldn’t necessarily attribute all acts to this supernatural source, but when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence? Or like the building, house, etc. does there have to be something beyond the natural (as defined above) that brings those things into existence? Whatever the nature of that thing is, is more of a philosophical question. But the probability of such a being/s within the universe is I think an important scientific question.

Why would this being give a big red rats ass about you.

Red-assed rats?  Nah.  I'd go with "why would this being give a big red baboons ass about you."

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 212
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,00:14   

Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 06 2009,18:24)
 
Quote (tsig @ Dec. 06 2009,15:41)
 
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,09:20)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate that being brought up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?


I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws. So there wouldn’t be an obstacle for arriving at generalizations. To use the example given of conducting an experiment on a cell, you as an individual transcend the cell (you’re beyond it) and act as a cause to create an effect, the cell type growing faster. So you’re manipulating matter, and you are outside of the matter you’re manipulating. But of course you’re still in the realm of the physical world with physical qualities working with natural laws.


Now I wouldn’t necessarily attribute all acts to this supernatural source, but when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence? Or like the building, house, etc. does there have to be something beyond the natural (as defined above) that brings those things into existence? Whatever the nature of that thing is, is more of a philosophical question. But the probability of such a being/s within the universe is I think an important scientific question.

Why would this being give a big red rats ass about you.

Red-assed rats?  Nah.  I'd go with "why would this being give a big red baboons ass about you."

Jesus Loves Inquiry and so does Badger3000:



--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

  
RDK



Posts: 229
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,08:43   

Two creotards at one time?  Sweet Jesus Christ.

This could be one of two things:

1. A pair of Dembski's students looking to stiffen up their grade in class as finals approach ever closer.

2. Debmski wielding the power of not one, but two socks, to create the illusion that more people support ID than really do.

When all else fails, just lift up the dress (I.E., check the IP's.  That is unless you're into that kind of thing).

--------------
If you are not:
Leviathan
please Logout under Meta in the sidebar.

‘‘I was like ‘Oh my God! It’s Jesus on a banana!’’  - Lisa Swinton, Jesus-eating pagan

  
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,08:56   

Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 05 2009,14:41)
Again with the unconvincing figleaf!
"this supernatural source": Hmmm. "(T)his supernatural source". Before you were merely making nonspecific noises about supernatural entities as a general class, but now you say "this" supernatural entity, as if you have a particular candidate in mind. Fine: Exactly what sort of critter do you have in mind when you speak of "this supernatural source"?

 
As far as anybody can tell, yes. There are some unanswered questions about various of the details, but in no case is there anything which flatly cannot be accounted for by natural laws.

I figured the entity/entities, etc. was getting redundant. The supernatural source/s I have in mind is a designer or designers that could be in the world that caused living organisms to come into existence.


Science deals with probabilities so I’m not trying to flatly account or discount anything about natural laws. What I want to address and try to answer is the probability of living organisms coming about by way of natural laws versus a designer/s.

One of those unanswered questions is how do new species originate from already existing species. Is there anything that convinces you that there is greater probability that natural laws alone are responsible for this?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10064
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,09:04   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,08:56)
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 05 2009,14:41)
Again with the unconvincing figleaf!
"this supernatural source": Hmmm. "(T)his supernatural source". Before you were merely making nonspecific noises about supernatural entities as a general class, but now you say "this" supernatural entity, as if you have a particular candidate in mind. Fine: Exactly what sort of critter do you have in mind when you speak of "this supernatural source"?

 
As far as anybody can tell, yes. There are some unanswered questions about various of the details, but in no case is there anything which flatly cannot be accounted for by natural laws.

I figured the entity/entities, etc. was getting redundant. The supernatural source/s I have in mind is a designer or designers that could be in the world that caused living organisms to come into existence.


Science deals with probabilities so I’m not trying to flatly account or discount anything about natural laws. What I want to address and try to answer is the probability of living organisms coming about by way of natural laws versus a designer/s.

One of those unanswered questions is how do new species originate from already existing species. Is there anything that convinces you that there is greater probability that natural laws alone are responsible for this?

Well, one entity we know exists and one we don't. Also, one is more fabulous than the concept we wish to explain, so it may well violate Occam's razor.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,09:05   

Quote (JLT @ Dec. 05 2009,17:03)
I accept current evolutionary theory if that is what you're asking. That's more than just natural selection. You do realise that Darwin published his theory 150 years ago and science moved on a bit since then? Actually, for speciation to occur, natural selection wouldn’t even be strictly necessary. Genetic drift alone could, over time, lead to a build up of genetic and/or behavioural incompatibilities in geographically separated populations of a species that might result in reproductive isolation, i.e. they’d become two separate species. Of course, natural selection can contribute to or accelerate this process (once there is a geographical separation).
In plants, speciation frequently involves neo- or allopolyploidy (change in chromosome number), which can result in “instant speciation”

I could see where this may be possible. Two populations that are isolated from one another could/would go through genetic changes as they adapt to their environment. This could possibly lead to an inability for these populations to interbreed (because of geographical and genetic separation). Also smaller populations tend to genetically drift from the original genetic traits they possessed. And there is more potential in smaller populations for random genetic events. While this is okay in theory there are no known facts to support this theory.

Granted the example of plants is an example of speciation. But this type of speciation does not result in a new species. In order for the current evolutionary theory to hold there has to be evidence that a species came to be by splitting off from previous species.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,09:15   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2080
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,09:43   

The "inquiry" train is slowly coming off the rails...

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5374
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,10:56   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,10:05)
I could see where this may be possible. Two populations that are isolated from one another could/would go through genetic changes as they adapt to their environment. This could possibly lead to an inability for these populations to interbreed (because of geographical and genetic separation). Also smaller populations tend to genetically drift from the original genetic traits they possessed. And there is more potential in smaller populations for random genetic events. While this is okay in theory there are no known facts to support this theory.

...unless of course you know even an iota about biology.

'Unknown to you' is not the same as "no known facts". Your ignorance is easily curable.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5374
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,10:58   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,10:15)
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

lol, funniest thing I've read all week. Of course, textbooks tend to be a bit short on the humor...

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,11:08   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,15:05)
 
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 05 2009,17:03)
I accept current evolutionary theory if that is what you're asking. That's more than just natural selection. You do realise that Darwin published his theory 150 years ago and science moved on a bit since then? Actually, for speciation to occur, natural selection wouldn’t even be strictly necessary. Genetic drift alone could, over time, lead to a build up of genetic and/or behavioural incompatibilities in geographically separated populations of a species that might result in reproductive isolation, i.e. they’d become two separate species. Of course, natural selection can contribute to or accelerate this process (once there is a geographical separation).
In plants, speciation frequently involves neo- or allopolyploidy (change in chromosome number), which can result in “instant speciation”

I could see where this may be possible. Two populations that are isolated from one another could/would go through genetic changes as they adapt to their environment. This could possibly lead to an inability for these populations to interbreed (because of geographical and genetic separation). Also smaller populations tend to genetically drift from the original genetic traits they possessed. And there is more potential in smaller populations for random genetic events. While this is okay in theory there are no known facts to support this theory.


LOL. So, you agree that this is hypothetically possible but for you it is still more likely that a supernatural entity( for which we don't have any evidence) brings new species into being (for whic we don't have any evidence) by an unknown mechanism?

But I'm sure that you'll rethink your position after you realise that we of course DO have facts to support this theory. Go to Pubmed and search for "drosophila reproductive isolation". On the right hand site you can filter your results for free full text articles.
Unfortunately I'm at work and I've got a visitor this week, so not much time to look trough the articles and do your work for you, but I skimmed a few articles and found this one that is available for free in fulltext: Sexual conflict and reproductive isolation in flies.
They found reproductive isolation after only 41 generations of Sepsid flies. But that wasn't actually the point of the article. They tested the hypothesis whether sexual conflict increases the reproductive isolation between larger populations (of flies). It is not a question anymore that reproductive isolation occurs after few generations, that is an often shown fact, the question has already shifted to the factors that might accelerate or slow down this process.

Btw, Jerry Coyne (the author of Why evolution is true) researches speciation of Drosophila in the wild. In his book he has a chapter about speciation and not surprisingly he talkes mainly about Drosophila in it. With the search terms I mentioned you can also find this article (unfortunately not open access):
INTRINSIC REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION BETWEEN TWO SISTER SPECIES OF DROSOPHILA.
Matute DR, Coyne JA.
Evolution. 2009 Nov 5. [Epub ahead of print]

The theory of allopatric speciation generates a lot of predictions that can be tested and have been tested successfully both in the lab and in the wild.

IMO it's disingenuous to assert that there aren't any supporting facts if you've never bothered to look for them. I suggested that you go to Pubmed and search for reproductive isolation in the post you quote. Why didn't you do it if you're honestly interested in "where the evidence leads"? How do you think you'll get to know the evidence for the evolutionary theories if you never try to learn anything about it?

 
Quote
Granted the example of plants is an example of speciation. But this type of speciation does not result in a new species. In order for the current evolutionary theory to hold there has to be evidence that a species came to be by splitting off from previous species.

Where else do these new plant species come from if not from pre-existing plant species?

Interesting article in PNAS: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/08/05/0811575106.abstract
 
Quote
By combining information from the botanical community's vast cytogenetic and phylogenetic databases, we establish that 15% of angiosperm and 31% of fern speciation events are accompanied by ploidy increase. These frequency estimates are higher by a factor of four than earlier estimates and lead to a standing incidence of polyploid species within genera of 35% (n = 1,506).


So, probably one of the most important speciation mechanism in plants doesn't count because you don't like and/or understand it?

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5374
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,11:20   

Quote (JLT @ Dec. 07 2009,12:08)
Unfortunately I'm at work and I've got a visitor this week, so not much time to look trough the articles and do your work for you, but I skimmed a few articles and found this one that is available for free in fulltext: Sexual conflict and reproductive isolation in flies.
They found reproductive isolation after only 41 generations of Sepsid flies. But that wasn't actually the point of the article. They tested the hypothesis whether sexual conflict increases the reproductive isolation between larger populations (of flies). It is not a question anymore that reproductive isolation occurs after few generations, that is an often shown fact, the question has already shifted to the factors that might accelerate or slow down this process.

Aside:

Interesting that you should mention that paper. I just came across it over last weekend while doing some research of the literature for social behavior in Pan paniscus. It was linked or referenced or something in a recent article that was also discussing a paper in PLoS ONE: Reproductive Behavior Evolves Rapidly When Intralocus Sexual Conflict Is Removed, Bedhomme, Prasad, Jiang, and Chippendale, 2008.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,11:59   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,12:07   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,11:59)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

Translation:  No one has ever seen a dog give birth to a cat.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
JohnW



Posts: 2197
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,12:07   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:59)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

Are you claiming plants are all one species?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
RDK



Posts: 229
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,12:29   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,11:59)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
 
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

Inquiry, what is your scientific definition of the term species?  Perhaps after you've answered that we can get somewhere.

Thanks in advance for not answering this question and / or answering it in a vague and non-specific manner.

--------------
If you are not:
Leviathan
please Logout under Meta in the sidebar.

‘‘I was like ‘Oh my God! It’s Jesus on a banana!’’  - Lisa Swinton, Jesus-eating pagan

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,12:33   

[quote=Lou FCD,Dec. 07 2009,17:20]  
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 07 2009,12:08)
Unfortunately I'm at work and I've got a visitor this week, so not much time to look trough the articles and do your work for you, but I skimmed a few articles and found this one that is available for free in fulltext: Sexual conflict and reproductive isolation in flies.
They found reproductive isolation after only 41 generations of Sepsid flies. But that wasn't actually the point of the article. They tested the hypothesis whether sexual conflict increases the reproductive isolation between larger populations (of flies). It is not a question anymore that reproductive isolation occurs after few generations, that is an often shown fact, the question has already shifted to the factors that might accelerate or slow down this process.

Oups, I should've said "It is not a question anymore that reproductive isolation can occurs even after few generations..."
Quote
Aside:

Interesting that you should mention that paper. I just came across it over last weekend while doing some research of the literature for social behavior in Pan paniscus. It was linked or referenced or something in a recent article that was also discussing a paper in PLoS ONE: Reproductive Behavior Evolves Rapidly When Intralocus Sexual Conflict Is Removed, Bedhomme, Prasad, Jiang, and Chippendale, 2008.

Flies are never far away, as are articles about them  ;)

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,12:48   

Quote
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.


I'm dazzled.

Inquiry, you do realize that this is what you're actually saying?:

Quote
When a new species is created, it doesn't result in a new species.


--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
JohnW



Posts: 2197
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,13:07   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 07 2009,10:48)
 
Quote
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.


I'm dazzled.

Inquiry, you do realize that this is what you're actually saying?:

 
Quote
When a new species is created, it doesn't result in a new species.

Inquiry seems to have redefined "species" as "kingdom":
Quote
By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

... without noticing that he's failed to redefine "speciation" in a similar way.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,13:08   

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Dec. 07 2009,00:14)
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 06 2009,18:24)
 
Quote (tsig @ Dec. 06 2009,15:41)
   
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,09:20)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate that being brought up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?


I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws. So there wouldn’t be an obstacle for arriving at generalizations. To use the example given of conducting an experiment on a cell, you as an individual transcend the cell (you’re beyond it) and act as a cause to create an effect, the cell type growing faster. So you’re manipulating matter, and you are outside of the matter you’re manipulating. But of course you’re still in the realm of the physical world with physical qualities working with natural laws.


Now I wouldn’t necessarily attribute all acts to this supernatural source, but when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence? Or like the building, house, etc. does there have to be something beyond the natural (as defined above) that brings those things into existence? Whatever the nature of that thing is, is more of a philosophical question. But the probability of such a being/s within the universe is I think an important scientific question.

Why would this being give a big red rats ass about you.

Red-assed rats?  Nah.  I'd go with "why would this being give a big red baboons ass about you."

Jesus Loves Inquiry and so does Badger3000:


My hat is off to you, sir.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,13:13   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 07 2009,12:07)
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,11:59)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
 
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

Translation:  No one has ever seen a dog give birth to a cat.

Crocoducks!!!!111!!

Any odds on the "goo to you by way of the zoo" ?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,13:21   

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 07 2009,11:07)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 07 2009,10:48)
     
Quote
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.


I'm dazzled.

Inquiry, you do realize that this is what you're actually saying?:

     
Quote
When a new species is created, it doesn't result in a new species.

Inquiry seems to have redefined "species" as "kingdom":
   
Quote
By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

... without noticing that he's failed to redefine "speciation" in a similar way.

I think we should encourage Creationists to redefine scientific terms on whim like this. It pretty much guarantees that they'll stay marginalized forever.

So when Inquiry said:

 
Quote
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.


He really meant:

 
Quote
But this type of speciation does not result in a new kingdom.


Oh yes, that's a much less vacuous statement.

Quote
Any odds on the "goo to you by way of the zoo" ?


I hope Dave Springer's old favorite, "mud to man" doesn't go forgotten here.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,13:23   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 08 2009,03:48)
Quote
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.


I'm dazzled.

Inquiry, you do realize that this is what you're actually saying?:

Quote
When a new species is created, it doesn't result in a new species.

I think that he means biblical 'kinds'. So, harking back to the other discussion what 'kind' is a tasmanian wolf? A Kangaroo kind or a wolf kind and please show working.

As we have quite detailed fossils of the evolution of a whale from a land beastie, what kind is a whale? Is it a cow or a fish?

What does the fact that Inquiry requiring a detailed video of a species changing 'kind' have to do with his original question. As far as I can see all he is saying is gap in knowledge == God.
The worse thing is that he seems pretty ignorant on the science, but then if he wasn't he wouldn't be a creationist.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10064
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,13:31   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 07 2009,12:07)
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,11:59)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
 
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

Translation:  No one has ever seen a dog give birth to a cat.

I've seen them "trying for a family", though.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,14:37   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,17:59)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
   
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

Good grief.



--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,15:48   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2009,10:58)
lol, funniest thing I've read all week. Of course, textbooks tend to be a bit short on the humor...

Hey, if I wrote a textbook, I promise that there would be humor. Vitreous, perhaps...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5374
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,15:50   

Oh yeah, I can see that this exchange is going to be one for the books, forever preserved in the Internet Annals of Creobot Stupid Utterances.

"inquiry", I'd like to introduce you to a fella named Pastor Ray Mummert...


ETA: Anyone added this to FSTDT yet?

Edited by Lou FCD on Dec. 07 2009,16:53

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5374
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,15:51   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,16:48)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2009,10:58)
lol, funniest thing I've read all week. Of course, textbooks tend to be a bit short on the humor...

Hey, if I wrote a textbook, I promise that there would be humor. Vitreous, perhaps...

Well, let's be about that then...

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
JohnW



Posts: 2197
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,15:58   

Finally, with afdave FTK Cornelius Hunter Floyd Lee scienthuse Robert Byers inquiry, we might have reached rock bottom.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5374
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,16:04   

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 07 2009,16:58)
Finally, with afdave FTK Cornelius Hunter Floyd Lee scienthuse Robert Byers inquiry, we might have reached rock bottom.

You haven't encountered Barb yet, I see...

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
JohnW



Posts: 2197
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,16:18   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2009,14:04)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 07 2009,16:58)
Finally, with afdave FTK Cornelius Hunter Floyd Lee scienthuse Robert Byers inquiry, we might have reached rock bottom.

You haven't encountered Barb yet, I see...

True.  I just said we might have got there.  Science is provisional.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,18:30   

Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 07 2009,19:23)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 08 2009,03:48)
   
Quote
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.


I'm dazzled.

Inquiry, you do realize that this is what you're actually saying?:

   
Quote
When a new species is created, it doesn't result in a new species.

I think that he means biblical 'kinds'. So, harking back to the other discussion what 'kind' is a tasmanian wolf? A Kangaroo kind or a wolf kind and please show working.

If all plants are the same kind, then, I'm afraid, marsupials, wolfs, dinosaurs, octopi, and probably sponges all belong to one kind, too.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,21:38   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2009,16:50)
ETA: Anyone added this to FSTDT yet?

thanks for the link.  :)

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,22:37   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,12:59)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

bwahahahahaha

inquiry what is a species anyway?  i hear all these fancypants homo biollergist types using the word and i don't think they even know what it means.  i am pretty sure that the sort of divisiveness that this word creates is what JEsus meant when he said "I am come not to bring peace but a sword".  That's why I use a Christological species concept.  If you don't know what that means then you were never meant to understand.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2009,01:58   

Quote (rhmc @ Dec. 08 2009,03:38)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2009,16:50)
ETA: Anyone added this to FSTDT yet?

thanks for the link.  :)

WOW! I feel dizzy now...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Cubist



Posts: 345
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2009,03:57   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,08:56)
Science deals with probabilities so I’m not trying to flatly account or discount anything about natural laws.
I call 'bullshit' on that, inquiry. You're a Creationist (YEC? Old-Earther?), so you bloody well are trying to "discount", at the very least,  the ability of natural laws to produce living things. How about you be honest and aboveboard about your agenda, eh?
Quote
What I want to address and try to answer is the probability of living organisms coming about by way of natural laws versus a designer/s.
Good luck with that (no pun intended), inquiry. For one thing, nobody knows the specifics of how abiogenesis would work, and how the heck can you calculate the probability of a process when most-to-all of the details of that process are unknown? For another thing, the how do you calculate the probability of an unknown process? objection applies in spades, doubled and redoubled, to this "designer" thingie of which you speak. Go ahead, inquiry, educate us all: How do you calculate the probability of a "designer" having acted, in the absence of any specific information whatsoever about this "designer"?
Quote
One of those unanswered questions is how do new species originate from already existing species.

"(U)nanswered questions"? "(U)n"-bleeding-"answered questions"? Give me a flippin' break, inquiry! I can easily believe that you happen to be ignorant of the answers to these questions, but guess what? Your ignorance of those answers does not make those answers cease to exist! Since others have already given you pointers to some of the answers which you implicitly claim to be nonexistent, I see no reason to provide any more such pointers myself; you can just as easily ignore/reject any pointer I give you as you can pointers given you by someone else.
Quote
Is there anything that convinces you that there is greater probability that natural laws alone are responsible for this?
Yes: In every case where we actually do know what's responsible for a new species having arisen, "natural laws alone" are responsible for that species having arisen.

  
Cubist



Posts: 345
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2009,04:03   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,11:59)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
 
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

What's a "kind", inquiry? Given two arbitrary critters, how can you tell whether said critters belong to the same "kind" or to different "kind"s? If you can't actually tell whether two arbitrary critters belong to the same "kind", how the heck would you know whether or not a new "kind" was produced?

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2009,05:05   

What kind is tiktaalik? You could flip a coin but in any case the distance between it and a fish or it and an amphibian is smaller than the difference within some of your kinds.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2009,08:15   

you mighta broke thattun

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2009,08:33   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 08 2009,08:15)
you mighta broke thattun

No way.

Evidence and reasoning have never had the slightest effect on a creationist.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5374
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2009,10:09   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Dec. 08 2009,02:58)
Quote (rhmc @ Dec. 08 2009,03:38)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2009,16:50)
ETA: Anyone added this to FSTDT yet?

thanks for the link.  :)

WOW! I feel dizzy now...

Sorry fellas. FDA regulations clearly stipulate that warning labels should be attached to all links to FSTDT. I totally dropped the ball on that one.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2009,21:00   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 08 2009,11:09)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Dec. 08 2009,02:58)
Quote (rhmc @ Dec. 08 2009,03:38)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2009,16:50)
ETA: Anyone added this to FSTDT yet?

thanks for the link.  :)

WOW! I feel dizzy now...

Sorry fellas. FDA regulations clearly stipulate that warning labels should be attached to all links to FSTDT. I totally dropped the ball on that one.

yeah, there is some serious ass hattery goin' on in that site.  
swmbo took a look and said some of them were "dumber than a headless chicken".

it's not the high grade tard-ore found in other sites but it is tailings of a high enough grade to make one want to drown most of humanity.

  
Robin



Posts: 1427
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2009,09:22   

Quote (JLT @ Dec. 07 2009,18:30)

Quote
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 07 2009,19:23)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 08 2009,03:48)
   
Quote
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.


I'm dazzled.

Inquiry, you do realize that this is what you're actually saying?:

     
Quote
When a new species is created, it doesn't result in a new species.

I think that he means biblical 'kinds'. So, harking back to the other discussion what 'kind' is a tasmanian wolf? A Kangaroo kind or a wolf kind and please show working.

If all plants are the same kind, then, I'm afraid, marsupials, wolfs, dinosaurs, octopi, and probably sponges all belong to one kind, too.


Too limiting. Clearly everything is one "kind" except humans. We are another "kind", though as the bible shows we are, at least in God's eyes, anything but kind. And God is clearly still another "kind" and got a bit kinder as over the course of the bible...

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2009,14:33   

These guys need to go back to kindergarten

  
Robin



Posts: 1427
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2009,14:41   

Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 09 2009,14:33)

Quote
These guys need to go back to kindergarten


You think they'd get more out it the second time around?

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2009,20:14   

Quote (Robin @ Dec. 09 2009,09:22)
[quote=JLT,Dec. 07 2009,18:30][/quote]
Quote
 
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 07 2009,19:23)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 08 2009,03:48)
     
Quote
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.


I'm dazzled.

Inquiry, you do realize that this is what you're actually saying?:

     
Quote
When a new species is created, it doesn't result in a new species.

I think that he means biblical 'kinds'. So, harking back to the other discussion what 'kind' is a tasmanian wolf? A Kangaroo kind or a wolf kind and please show working.

If all plants are the same kind, then, I'm afraid, marsupials, wolfs, dinosaurs, octopi, and probably sponges all belong to one kind, too.


Too limiting. Clearly everything is one "kind" except humans. We are another "kind", though as the bible shows we are, at least in God's eyes, anything but kind. And God is clearly still another "kind" and got a bit kinder as over the course of the bible...

It quite clearly says "mankind" not "man-and-ape-kind" - so the words themselves give away the truth.  Just like wolves and marsupial wolves - they have the same name so they must be the same.  Mankind and apekind are separate kinds.  Simple, really (in more ways than one).

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2009,13:31   

Since I had numerous responses I’m going to try to respond to as much as I can by posting a series of replies. I apologize in advance if you feel this is too much at once, but I figured it is the best way to address everyone’s (more or less) comments.

Evolutionary / Darwinian species  
A group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, some members may diverge from the main population and evolve into a subspecies, a process that eventually will lead to the formation of a new full species if isolation (geographical or ecological) is maintained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definitions_of_species


I think this most accurately defines what I mean by species. Additionally, species for me includes organisms that are asexual (bacteria for example), able to sexually reproduce, and no longer living (found in the fossil record).

  
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2009,13:32   

Now I agree that we do see modifications within existing species. For example, flies with a high number of bristles bred with flies with a low number of bristles after twelve generations resulted in two populations of flies that resulted in differences in hair number and partial isolation (J.M. Thoday & J.B. Gibson, 1962). Yet they remained flies.

In the 1980’s George W. Salt and William R. Rice exposed fruit flies to eight different environments, then put the flies that preferred the two most extreme environments together to breed. After thirty generations the flies did divide into two populations. However they remained flies.

JLT referred me to articles on-line that showed that fruit flies can and do undergo certain modifications. I’m not disagreeing with this. I’m not disagreeing that reproductive isolation is possible.

I agree with what Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff said in Developmental Biology, “Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but micro- evolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest.” (Scott F. Gilbert, John M. Opitz, and Rudolf A. Raff, “Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology,” Developmental Biology 173 (1996): 357-372)

Microevolution- Small scale changes in organisms (structurally and genetically).

Macroevolution –Large scale changes (structurally and genetically).

(In case any one asks)

  
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2009,13:33   

If an organism is in an environment where having a characteristic is particularly beneficial then genes can/do combine in such a way to produce the characteristic/s that is beneficial for survival in that environment. Birds for example may have shorter extremities and larger bodies or vice-versa depending on the climate they’re in. A person living in Iceland may have different physical characteristics than someone living in south Florida. Natural selection can help this process in favoring a gene combination that enables an organism to survive in its environment.  

The question I have is how do we go from species that are modified in some way (flies with differences in wing size, etc.), to a completely new species? (fish to amphibian, reptiles to mammals). JLT mentioned the possibility of two separate species coming about by the separation of a population that could eventually lead to an inability to reproduce (due to the genetic changes from the differing environments), hence two separate species.

JLT, can you tell me how you define species? Are saying that the environment has an effect on the species to change it in some way to adapt, yet the species remains the same thing (a monkey remaining a monkey yet the shape of its tail changes for example)? And eventually there is enough genetic change in both separated populations that reproduction cannot occur between these monkeys? (Of course this would not explain how we get from reptiles to mammals, etc.)

What I’m looking for is what material mechanisms can account for fish to amphibians to reptiles, etc. Where is the actual evidence that shows us where this evolutionary process has taken place? So far what I have read and been referred to has shown microevolution as empirically true.  Where is the evidence for macroevolution?

  
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2009,13:34   

I think JLT referred to change in chromosome number in particular with plant speciation (BTW thanks JLT for responding with reasons why you believe what you do and providing resources). If I understand this correctly, chromosome mutation brings about replication of sections of DNA. This can result in replication of a section of DNA that could then be potentially used to serve some function independent of the gene it was replicated from. But this replicated section is dependent upon either further chromosome mutation or point mutations (which are extremely rare and usually damaging). I know this is a popular theory for macroevolution but it seems to have significant problems. For a more detailed explanation: “Simulating  Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features that Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science 13 (2004): 1-14. It’s written by Michael J. Behe (not your favorite person I know) and David W. Snoke

  
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2009,13:36   

What follows are some reasons I believe a designer is a more probable explanation for biological organisms. When looking at these organisms they are not just a combination of various structures but a combination of coordinated structures. I can throw all the necessary components of a building together at random, but that does not result in a fully formed and functioning building.

What needs to happen (taken from Dembski another one of your favorites) is all of the parts that make up the system have to be available, available at the right time, the parts have to be able to break free from systems they are incorporated with at the time (without damaging that system), other harmful parts have to be excluded, the parts have to be compatible with one another (structured in such a way that they fit together to form a system that can function), the parts have to be assembled in the right order, and they have to be arranged correctly in order for the system to function

How does random variation and natural selection account for this? Further random variation and natural selection is only interested in what’s profitable for the moment not for what may come in the future. An intelligent designer/s plans and coordinates with a particular end in mind. This being the case this agent or agents can coordinate everything that needs to happen in order to get the final product. For example, in building an apartment complex an intelligent agent/s know the benefit of building a foundation, walls, etc. for the end goal of making this an inhabitable place to live. Darwinian mechanisms can only see an immediate benefit such as putting on a roof for protection from bad weather but doesn’t know to accumulate other parts for some greater end goal.

In other words since Darwinian mechanisms do not have an end goal in mind it seems highly improbable that these mechanisms account for such complex biological structures that serve specific purposes.

  
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2009,13:39   

There exists within the cell highly complex machines. These molecular machines are made up of multiple parts that perform a specific function.  If any part of the system is tampered with it no longer can perform the original function. This is known as the irreducible core. Can natural selection account for such irreducibly complex machines? In direct Darwinian pathways natural selection improves upon a system through the evolutionary process, yet the function of the system remains the same throughout the process. However, the irreducible core for the cell is quite complex. The function of the cell is dependent upon its complex components. In order for a direct Darwinian pathway to be a viable option the complexity of the cell came about by the evolution of simpler systems that had the same function. But if you any of the parts of the cell are missing it can no longer serve its function. Therefore, there could not be prior simpler systems that performed the same function.  Natural selection supposedly starts to work on a simple organism, yet nothing more simplified could perform the same function as this complex system. The only option would be for the complex system to come to be all at once. An alternative to a direct pathway is an indirect pathway whereby the system and the function itself evolve over time. As far as I know there is no empirical evidence to support such a claim.

  
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2009,13:40   

Design proponents have offered ways to measure probability in particular when it comes to detecting specified complexity (something that is both complex [not reproduced easily by chance] and specified [independently given pattern]. Something is specified when a specific pattern repeats over and over again like a tile pattern on a kitchen floor. Complexity is defined as a complex pattern that is random such as pouring alphabet soup into a bowel with the letters of the alphabet randomly floating around in the broth. Neither one of these phenomena would be considered a product of an intelligent designer per se. However when the letters in the soup come together to form a sentence we have both a specified and complex pattern and are led to believe a designer caused it. Specified complexity has three components: probabilistic complexity deals with the improbability for something to occur by chance. A combination lock is often used as an example. The more possible combinations (the more complex) the less likely the lock can be opened by chance (the greater the complexity the smaller the probability). This is the complexity aspect of specified complexity. Descriptive complexity refers to how easy it is to describe the pattern. In order for something to show specified complexity it has to have both a low descriptive complexity (easy to describe) yet highly unlikely to happen by chance. Probabilistic resources pertains to the amount of opportunities for something to take place and be specified. This helps to determine whether or not something that you witness is designed or a chance occurrence. This is divided into replicational (number of opportunities for an event) and specificational (number of opportunities to specify an event).

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2080
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2009,14:51   

Quote
Design proponents have offered ways to measure probability in particular when it comes to detecting specified complexity (something that is both complex [not reproduced easily by chance] and specified [independently given pattern].


And yet, for some reason, they've never actually, you know, done the measurement.  What are the units, and how do you apply them? Come on, inquiry, the Nobel awaits!

What's the CSI rating of E. coli K-12? Drosophila melanogaster?  The slippers I'm wearing?

You clearly know fuck all about how evolution actually works. You got all your misinformation from creationist literature, didn't you?

Are you going to play the "no transitional fossils" card, too? (That card is a joker, by the way)

How about C-decay?  Vapour canopy? 2LOT?

Dude, just admit it. You think GODDIDIT is an explanation because that's the explanation you want to be true.  Well guess what: reality doesn't give a flying what you want.

Grow up.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2009,15:08   

Irreducible complexity? Seriously? Next you'll be asking, "What good is half a wing?" Try using an argument that hasn't already been demolished a thousand times already.

Oh, right. There aren't any.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
JohnW



Posts: 2197
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2009,15:13   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 10 2009,11:40)
Complexity is defined as a complex pattern that is random such as pouring alphabet soup into a bowel with the letters of the alphabet randomly floating around in the broth.

Congratulations, inquiry!  You win the Disturbing Mental Image Of The Week Award.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Cubist



Posts: 345
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2009,15:16   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 10 2009,13:31)
Since I had numerous responses I’m going to try to respond to as much as I can by posting a series of replies. I apologize in advance if you feel this is too much at once, but I figured it is the best way to address everyone’s (more or less) comments.

Evolutionary / Darwinian species  
A group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, some members may diverge from the main population and evolve into a subspecies, a process that eventually will lead to the formation of a new full species if isolation (geographical or ecological) is maintained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definitions_of_species


I think this most accurately defines what I mean by species. Additionally, species for me includes organisms that are asexual (bacteria for example), able to sexually reproduce, and no longer living (found in the fossil record).
Groovy. Now, what the heck is a 'kind'? I ask because now that you agree with real scientists that evolution can indeed produce new species, your 'reasons' for rejecting evolution appear to have been reduced to yeah, but that's just new species and not new kinds, so I really want to know what, exactly, this 'kind'-thingie decently is. Because if you can't tell what 'kind' a critter is, complaining that evolution can't produce new 'kind's is exactly as meaningless as complaining that evolution can't produce new 'zibbleblorf's. Okay?

  
JohnW



Posts: 2197
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2009,15:20   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 10 2009,11:31)
Since I had numerous responses I’m going to try to respond to as much as I can by posting a series of replies. I apologize in advance if you feel this is too much at once, but I figured it is the best way to address everyone’s (more or less) comments.

Evolutionary / Darwinian species  
A group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, some members may diverge from the main population and evolve into a subspecies, a process that eventually will lead to the formation of a new full species if isolation (geographical or ecological) is maintained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definitions_of_species


I think this most accurately defines what I mean by species. Additionally, species for me includes organisms that are asexual (bacteria for example), able to sexually reproduce, and no longer living (found in the fossil record).


Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 10 2009,11:33)
The question I have is how do we go from species that are modified in some way (flies with differences in wing size, etc.), to a completely new species? (fish to amphibian, reptiles to mammals). JLT mentioned the possibility of two separate species coming about by the separation of a population that could eventually lead to an inability to reproduce (due to the genetic changes from the differing environments), hence two separate species.

You're still using "species" in radically different ways in different posts.  Within minutes of each other.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Cubist



Posts: 345
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2009,15:28   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 10 2009,13:33)
The question I have is how do we go from species that are modified in some way (flies with differences in wing size, etc.), to a completely new species? (fish to amphibian, reptiles to mammals).
What do you mean when you say "completely new species" (emphasis added)? I ask because if I take the words of that phrase at face value, it's not clear whether any species on the planet can truly be considered to be completely new. Take a look at us humans -- we breathe oxygen (not something which originated in humans); we use hemoglobin (not something which originated in humans) to carry oxygen to our cells; we use the same genetic code as Christ knows how many other, older, species than our own. So do we humans qualify as a completely new species, or not?

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2009,15:30   

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 10 2009,15:13)
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 10 2009,11:40)
Complexity is defined as a complex pattern that is random such as pouring alphabet soup into a bowel with the letters of the alphabet randomly floating around in the broth.

Congratulations, inquiry!  You win the Disturbing Mental Image Of The Week Award.

When given for creative spelling errors, that award should be named the FtK Disturbing Mental Image of the Week Memorial Award.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2009,15:33   

Quote
evolution can't produce new 'zibbleblorf's.


Hey! I'm still working on that!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Cubist



Posts: 345
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2009,15:45   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 10 2009,13:34)
I think JLT referred to change in chromosome number in particular with plant speciation (BTW thanks JLT for responding with reasons why you believe what you do and providing resources). If I understand this correctly, chromosome mutation brings about replication of sections of DNA. This can result in replication of a section of DNA that could then be potentially used to serve some function independent of the gene it was replicated from. But this replicated section is dependent upon either further chromosome mutation or point mutations (which are extremely rare and usually damaging). I know this is a popular theory for macroevolution but it seems to have significant problems. For a more detailed explanation: “Simulating  Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features that Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science 13 (2004): 1-14. It’s written by Michael J. Behe (not your favorite person I know) and David W. Snoke

Been there, done that. Or, less cryptically: Ian F. Musgrave, Steve Reuland, and Reed A. Cartwright demolished Behe & Snoke's conclusions in Theory is as Theory Does. I'm sure that an upstanding, truth-seeking Christian such as yourself will be sure to read and understand the criticisms in that response, and if you still think the B&S paper is valid, you'll be able to point out all the bits where Musgrave & co. went wrong in their criticism. Right? Because you are a truth-seeker -- someone who follows the Truth wherever it leads, and not someone who only follows the Truth if it leads to where he's comfortable with it going -- aren't you?

  
JohnW



Posts: 2197
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2009,16:06   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 10 2009,11:33)
The question I have is how do we go from species that are modified in some way (flies with differences in wing size, etc.), to a completely new species? (fish to amphibian, reptiles to mammals).

Tiktaalik, inquiry.  Fish or amphibian?

How about Panderichthys?  Or Acanthostega?  Ichthyostega?  Eusthenopteron?

If fish-to-amphibian is such a huge gap, you have a reliable methodology for classifying these, yes?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Cubist



Posts: 345
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2009,16:21   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 10 2009,13:39)
There exists within the cell highly complex machines. These molecular machines are made up of multiple parts that perform a specific function.  If any part of the system is tampered with it no longer can perform the original function. This is known as the irreducible core. Can natural selection account for such irreducibly complex machines? In direct Darwinian pathways natural selection improves upon a system through the evolutionary process, yet the function of the system remains the same throughout the process. However, the irreducible core for the cell is quite complex. The function of the cell is dependent upon its complex components. In order for a direct Darwinian pathway to be a viable option the complexity of the cell came about by the evolution of simpler systems that had the same function. But if you any of the parts of the cell are missing it can no longer serve its function. Therefore, there could not be prior simpler systems that performed the same function.  Natural selection supposedly starts to work on a simple organism, yet nothing more simplified could perform the same function as this complex system. The only option would be for the complex system to come to be all at once. An alternative to a direct pathway is an indirect pathway whereby the system and the function itself evolve over time. As far as I know there is no empirical evidence to support such a claim.
"Direct Darwinian pathway" is Behe's term for a multi-step process in which every step is "add a new part to the system". This is all well and good, but it's worth noting that evolutionary changes aren't limited to just adding new parts; in addition, an evolutionary change can also (a) remove an existing part, and (b) modify an existing part. Therefore, there are any number of Darwinian pathways which include at least one step other than "add a new part to the system" -- which means there are any number of Darwinian pathways which do not fit Behe's definition for "direct Darwinian pathways"
Personally, I think Behe is right that his "direct Darwinian pathways" aren't capable of generating an irreducibly complex structure. Where he and I differ is that he thinks this restriction on "direct Darwinian pathways" applies to any and every Darwinian pathway whatsoever, direct or otherwise, and I call bullshit on that.
Now, Behe has already acknowledged that very simple Irreducibly Complex systems can arise by chance, no Designer needed. So let's look at a hypothetical IC system with only two parts, A and B. Since this system is IC, both of these parts are required for the system to do its job; if either part A or part B should be broken or absent, the system don't do its job. So this simple, two-part system chugs along, doing its job, until a mutation adds a new part, C, to it. At this point, part C is something the system can take or leave; the presence of part C might be helpful, but its absence won't hurt anything, either. And so our three-part system chugs along, doing its job with part C as a helpful-but-unnecessary attachment... until a new mutation hits part A, modifying part A in such a way that now part A needs part C in order to do its job. This modification of part A has rendered part C a necessary component of the system; at this point, what had formerly been a two-part IC system is now a three-part IC system. And there's nothing to keep new parts D, E, F, G, etc, from being incorporated into this IC system, with each new part being incorporated by an add-a-new-part/modify-an-existing-part tango.
Again: For Behe, a direct Darwinian pathway consists entirely of "add a new part" steps, so the scenario I just outlined, which includes a "modify an existing part" step, is not what Behe would call a direct Darwinian pathway! Therefore, everything Behe says about direct Darwinian pathways does not apply to the scenario I just outlined.
If Behe, or anybody else, wants to argue that evolution cannot produce IC systems, fine: All they have to do is figure out what's going to prevent mutations from modifying biological systems in such a way that parts of those systems get 'promoted' from helpful-but-unnecessary to required-in-order-to-function-at-all.

  
phantom menace



Posts: 7
Joined: Dec. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2009,23:07   

Hey folks, just thought I would drop in on this conversation and add a few observations.

1) I noticed several refernces to natural law in relation to the origin of biological diversity, but I didn't see an account given of natural law itself from what appears to be some unexamined materialist assumptions. Anyone care to explain why the universe has "laws" rather than just chaos? And by explain, I mean give us your empirical observations since that seems to be the only grounds for knowledge you guys consider valid.

2) It would seem to me that the issue of isolated populations is an example of devolution and not evolution. In fact it is becoming quite clear that genetic entropy accounts for this phenomena much better than natural selection, beneficial mutations, etc. Since negative mutations far exceed positive mutations (assuming that there are some actual net-positive mutations) it is no wonder that organisims can actually lose functionality when isolated.

3) Inquiry - the definition you offered for "species" assumes evolution to be true. You are equivocating on the term if you then try to argue against the formation of a new species through natural processes. Don't worry though, Darwin's definition is just an assumption that he made and has no biological necessity to it. If we assume the process of evolution in defining a species then of course evolution has "produced" new species. What I would like to know is if your opponents can define a species apart from an evolutionary assumption?

4) I would hope that those who choose to respond to my posts would do so with actual arguments and evidence, rather than the silly name calling that has so far permeated this thread. Remember, you are betrayed as unable to answer your opponent as soon as you stoop to name calling. Just listen to Sean Hannity and you will see what I mean. But I suppose some of you will insist on imitating him.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3544
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2009,23:35   

Speaking to the question of natural law: laws are generalizations -- usually expressed in an equation -- of observed phenomena. Laws are subject to refinement based on additional or more precise observation.

Laws are often limited to a range of conditions and fail at the extremes of those conditions. So what exactly is it about laws that requires explanation?

Populations either survive or not. Isolated populations may develop successful adaptions to new conditions, or they may go extinct. It may seem a bit tautological, but living populations have not gone extinct due to genetic entropy. Considering that most living things are single celled, and reproduce in minutes rather than years or decades, genetic entropy doesn't appear to be much of a threat to the survival of populations.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3544
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2009,23:41   

The term "species" existed long before Darwin. It has never had a perfect definition.

Evolution assumes that transitions to new species are gradual, and that there is never a child that is obviously of a different species from its parents. For this reason, evolution has no trouble dealing with awkward problems of interspecies fertility. If you assume that all things are cousins, you are not surprised when cousins are interfertile. Fertility between species is a continuum.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Cubist



Posts: 345
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,04:25   

Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 10 2009,23:07)
1) I noticed several refernces to natural law in relation to the origin of biological diversity, but I didn't see an account given of natural law itself from what appears to be some unexamined materialist assumptions.
So what? What it's true that we do not yet have a good explanation for how come natural laws exist, it's also true that the existence (or lack thereof) of said natural laws is not in any way affected by our lack of an explanation for their origin. Yes, it would be nice if we did have a good explanation for how come natural laws exist... but we don't yet, and for all I know, we may never have such an explanation. What of it? Is it your position that our understanding of biological diversity is somehow flawed as a result of our not having a good explanation for how natural laws come about? For bonus points, please explain why the lack of an explanation for how natural laws came about is especially problematic for biology in particular, as opposed to being equally problematic for all fields of science in general.
And what "unexamined materialist assumptions" do you refer to, please? Are you laying the foundation of a later "evolution = TEH ATHEISM" argument, by any chance?
Quote
Anyone care to explain why the universe has "laws" rather than just chaos? And by explain, I mean give us your empirical observations since that seems to be the only grounds for knowledge you guys consider valid.
I can 'explain' it in two words: "Beats me." If you think you've got a better explanation than that, how about you lay it out so's I can take a look at it?
Quote
2) It would seem to me that the issue of isolated populations is an example of devolution and not evolution. In fact it is becoming quite clear that genetic entropy accounts for this phenomena much better than natural selection, beneficial mutations, etc. Since negative mutations far exceed positive mutations (assuming that there are some actual net-positive mutations) it is no wonder that organisims can actually lose functionality when isolated.
Hold it. What do you think "genetic entropy" means?
Quote
3) Inquiry - the definition you offered for "species" assumes evolution to be true. You are equivocating on the term if you then try to argue against the formation of a new species through natural processes. Don't worry though, Darwin's definition is just an assumption that he made and has no biological necessity to it. If we assume the process of evolution in defining a species then of course evolution has "produced" new species. What I would like to know is if your opponents can define a species apart from an evolutionary assumption?
First: It's worth noting that if evolution is true, this "species" concept should be difficult to define -- there should be "edge cases", critters which are genuinely difficult to classify because they've got a mosaic/mixture of traits from different species. But if Creationism is true, there's no reason at all to expect any such "edge cases" to exist -- not unless you know the Creator's mind/goals/will, and Creationism has historically been very explicit about how us puny humans do not and cannot know the Creator's mind/goals/will. Personally, I've never been clear on how it helps science to invoke a poorly-defined entity which is literally capable of doing anything at all, at any moment, for reasons which we humans are intrinsically incapable of comprehending... do you think you could explain that for me, PM?
Second: You want a "species" concept which is not based on an "evolutionary assumption"? Fine: Try the Biological Species Concept on for size.
Quote
4) I would hope that those who choose to respond to my posts would do so with actual arguments and evidence, rather than the silly name calling that has so far permeated this thread. Remember, you are betrayed as unable to answer your opponent as soon as you stoop to name calling. Just listen to Sean Hannity and you will see what I mean. But I suppose some of you will insist on imitating him.
Gosh, PM, it sure is a good thing you don't sneer at your opponents or make veiled accusations of intellectual incapacity or anything like that, because if you did, that would make you some kind of hypocrite...

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,05:38   

PM

"I don't know" is a valid scientific answer.

"Goddidit" is not.

What is your explanation for "why the universe has "laws" rather than just chaos"?

Thanks in advance.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,08:31   

Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 10 2009,23:07)
3) Inquiry - the definition you offered for "species" assumes evolution to be true. You are equivocating on the term if you then try to argue against the formation of a new species through natural processes.

Good point, although I wasn't necessarily agreeing with this defintion as much as I was trying to include certain things under the term "species" for further investigation, point well taken.

  
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,08:38   

Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 11 2009,04:25)
Second: You want a "species" concept which is not based on an "evolutionary assumption"? Fine: Try the Biological Species Concept on for size.

Could you elaborate on that a little bit more? Thanks

  
Robin



Posts: 1427
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,09:05   

Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 10 2009,15:16)

Quote
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 10 2009,13:31)
Since I had numerous responses I’m going to try to respond to as much as I can by posting a series of replies. I apologize in advance if you feel this is too much at once, but I figured it is the best way to address everyone’s (more or less) comments.

Evolutionary / Darwinian species  
A group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, some members may diverge from the main population and evolve into a subspecies, a process that eventually will lead to the formation of a new full species if isolation (geographical or ecological) is maintained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definitions_of_species


I think this most accurately defines what I mean by species. Additionally, species for me includes organisms that are asexual (bacteria for example), able to sexually reproduce, and no longer living (found in the fossil record).
Groovy. Now, what the heck is a 'kind'? I ask because now that you agree with real scientists that evolution can indeed produce new species, your 'reasons' for rejecting evolution appear to have been reduced to yeah, but that's just new species and not new kinds, so I really want to know what, exactly, this 'kind'-thingie decently is. Because if you can't tell what 'kind' a critter is, complaining that evolution can't produce new 'kind's is exactly as meaningless as complaining that evolution can't produce new 'zibbleblorf's. Okay?


Um...not really, no. Seems Inquiry is not quite on the same page as Wiki or scientists on what a species is:

Quote
The question I have is how do we go from species that are modified in some way (flies with differences in wing size, etc.), to a completely new species? (fish to amphibian, reptiles to mammals). JLT mentioned the possibility of two separate species coming about by the separation of a population that could eventually lead to an inability to reproduce (due to the genetic changes from the differing environments), hence two separate species.


Seems Inquiry isn't aware that there are many species of fruit flies within the family Drosophiladae and in turn there are many families of flies within the order Diptera and in turn there are many orders of insects within the class insecta and so on.

So you understand what you are asking, Inquiry, fish to amphibian would be a completely new class - waaaay beyond merely a change in "kind" or "species". It's no wonder you don't understand or accept evolution - you think it about changes at levels that evolution doesn't speak to.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,09:17   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 11 2009,08:38)
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 11 2009,04:25)
Second: You want a "species" concept which is not based on an "evolutionary assumption"? Fine: Try the Biological Species Concept on for size.

Could you elaborate on that a little bit more? Thanks

More Information Here

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Robin



Posts: 1427
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,09:23   

[quote=phantom menace,Dec. 10 2009,23:07][/quote]
Quote
Hey folks, just thought I would drop in on this conversation and add a few observations.

1) I noticed several refernces to natural law in relation to the origin of biological diversity, but I didn't see an account given of natural law itself from what appears to be some unexamined materialist assumptions. Anyone care to explain why the universe has "laws" rather than just chaos? And by explain, I mean give us your empirical observations since that seems to be the only grounds for knowledge you guys consider valid.


Before I can answer this I need some additional information. For starters, why do you presume that there must be one or the other? In other words, what other universes have you seen or what evidence have you seen that leads you to conclude that there could be an alternative to this universe having laws? Why do you presume that there's a possibility that this universe could have been "just chaos?"

Quote
2) It would seem to me that the issue of isolated populations is an example of devolution and not evolution. In fact it is becoming quite clear that genetic entropy accounts for this phenomena much better than natural selection, beneficial mutations, etc. Since negative mutations far exceed positive mutations (assuming that there are some actual net-positive mutations) it is no wonder that organisims can actually lose functionality when isolated.


I need further information on this claim too. For starters, what do you mean by "devolution" as opposed to "evolution"? I mean, evolution - that is the process - doesn't describe a specific direction of change. It merely describes change. So gaining light sensitive organs and the ability to use light sensing as a means to make decisions about the environment vs losing light sensitive organs are both the result of evolution at least as far as the ToE goes.

Secondly, can you elaborate on what you mean by "genetic entropy accounts for this phenomena"? I can't find any need for a reference to entropy for the phenomenon of loss of functionality in isolated organism populations.

Quote
3) Inquiry - the definition you offered for "species" assumes evolution to be true. You are equivocating on the term if you then try to argue against the formation of a new species through natural processes. Don't worry though, Darwin's definition is just an assumption that he made and has no biological necessity to it. If we assume the process of evolution in defining a species then of course evolution has "produced" new species. What I would like to know is if your opponents can define a species apart from an evolutionary assumption?


Um...sure:

Species - American Heritage® Dictionary
NOUN: 1. Biology a. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. See table at taxonomy. b. An organism belonging to such a category, represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.

Doesn't require an understanding of evolution at all. Does require an understanding of scientific taxonomy though.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,10:04   

Quote (Robin @ Dec. 11 2009,09:05)
So you understand what you are asking, Inquiry, fish to amphibian would be a completely new class - waaaay beyond merely a change in "kind" or "species". It's no wonder you don't understand or accept evolution - you think it about changes at levels that evolution doesn't speak to.

So in other words there is no evidence to support the idea of macroevolution?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10064
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,10:09   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 11 2009,10:04)
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 11 2009,09:05)
So you understand what you are asking, Inquiry, fish to amphibian would be a completely new class - waaaay beyond merely a change in "kind" or "species". It's no wonder you don't understand or accept evolution - you think it about changes at levels that evolution doesn't speak to.

So in other words there is no evidence to support the idea of macroevolution?

Not at all. There's loads:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Robin



Posts: 1427
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,10:19   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 11 2009,10:04)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 11 2009,09:05)
So you understand what you are asking, Inquiry, fish to amphibian would be a completely new class - waaaay beyond merely a change in "kind" or "species". It's no wonder you don't understand or accept evolution - you think it about changes at levels that evolution doesn't speak to.


So in other words there is no evidence to support the idea of macroevolution?


There is abundant evidence to support macroevolution as provided - phylogenic evidence, historic evidence, molecular evidence, functional evidence, etc. Macroevolution isn't a separate process - it is merely an accumulation of microevolutionary events.

But then your question doesn't follow your preceding statements where you only mentioned "evolution" vs "kind", never defining "evolution", "kind", or "speciation". This was particularly confusing since you insisted that the development of new species of fly wasn't speciation, when in fact that is, by definition, an example of speciation and evolution - both micro and macro. So you seem not to understand the nature of the claims you are making.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,10:22   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 11 2009,11:04)
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 11 2009,09:05)
So you understand what you are asking, Inquiry, fish to amphibian would be a completely new class - waaaay beyond merely a change in "kind" or "species". It's no wonder you don't understand or accept evolution - you think it about changes at levels that evolution doesn't speak to.

So in other words there is no evidence to support the idea of macroevolution?

For the ToE, the only difference between micro and macro evolution is loads of time.  There is lots of evidence for macroevolution in the fossil record.  Take a look at Tiktaalik as one example of macroevolution.  Tiktaalik is but one stop in the transition from fins to limbs.  That's macroevolution.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10064
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,10:25   

ERVs are probably the best evidence for human Macroevolution.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3544
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,13:49   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 11 2009,10:25)
ERVs are probably the best evidence for human Macroevolution.

Which may be why Behe failed to mention them as evidence for evolution in the Edge.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10064
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,13:57   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 11 2009,13:49)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 11 2009,10:25)
ERVs are probably the best evidence for human Macroevolution.

Which may be why Behe failed to mention them as evidence for evolution in the Edge.

Actually, they're quite a good "Signature in the cell"

 
Quote
Just a quick not that my random insertion into this ape genome has gone great and even if I'm not functioning anymore I do feel that I can live on, my lateral gene transference giving this hairy little fella a source of variation that might prove useful


--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,15:05   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 11 2009,10:04)
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 11 2009,09:05)
So you understand what you are asking, Inquiry, fish to amphibian would be a completely new class - waaaay beyond merely a change in "kind" or "species". It's no wonder you don't understand or accept evolution - you think it about changes at levels that evolution doesn't speak to.

So in other words there is no evidence to support the idea of macroevolution?

No, it means you made a category error.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Cubist



Posts: 345
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,15:37   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 11 2009,08:38)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 11 2009,04:25)
Second: You want a "species" concept which is not based on an "evolutionary assumption"? Fine: Try the Biological Species Concept on for size.

Could you elaborate on that a little bit more? Thanks
I think perhaps your question might be more profitably directed towards Phantom Menace, since PM is the one who introduced the notion of "evolutionary assumption" in this context. I am unsure what PM means when PM says "evolutionary assumption"... but the Biological Species Concept depends only on the ability (or lack thereof) of two critters to interbreed, so I figure it's at least a good bet that the BSC is not a species-definition that PM would deem based on "evolutionary assumption". We shall see, if PM ever chooses to grace this forum with their presence again.
Oh, and are you ever going to respond to all the people who pointed out problems in your recent posts, inquiry? Are you ever going to respond to any of those people?

  
jswilkins



Posts: 50
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,16:45   

It's also worth pointing out that the BSC precedes any evolutionary view but Maupertuis' by a good decade or so; it was proposed first so far as I can tell, by Blumenbach in the late 18th century (contrary to claims of originality by Mayr).

--------------
Boldly staying where no man has stayed before.

   
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,18:53   

I'd like to add that Inquiry explain why he seemed to cut-and-paste what looks like Behe's book, down to the lame "all the machines in the cell had to evolve from things with the same function" idea.  Mutations happen, and many gene duplications (and mutations) can cause new functions to appear (as one example in general).  The idea that what exists now must have either (a) always existed, or (b) evolved in one go-round to something like it's present state is really a creationist one.  Evolution works on everything living, and new functions (and other things) arrive all the time.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1005
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,20:32   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 11 2009,10:04)
 
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 11 2009,09:05)
So you understand what you are asking, Inquiry, fish to amphibian would be a completely new class - waaaay beyond merely a change in "kind" or "species". It's no wonder you don't understand or accept evolution - you think it about changes at levels that evolution doesn't speak to.

So in other words there is no evidence to support the idea of macroevolution?

I always use this to answer the stupid micro=good, macro=no way:



From our friends at Jesus and Mo

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,22:59   

Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 11 2009,18:53)
I'd like to add that Inquiry explain why he seemed to cut-and-paste what looks like Behe's book, down to the lame "all the machines in the cell had to evolve from things with the same function" idea.  Mutations happen, and many gene duplications (and mutations) can cause new functions to appear (as one example in general).  The idea that what exists now must have either (a) always existed, or (b) evolved in one go-round to something like it's present state is really a creationist one.  Evolution works on everything living, and new functions (and other things) arrive all the time.

Behe or Dembski?  Did I confuse the two?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Henry J



Posts: 3999
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2009,16:04   

Quote
Behe or Dembski???Did I confuse the two?


Aren't those two always confused?

Henry

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5374
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2009,18:03   

Hey, you know what would be great fun at parties? Line up a nice transitional series of fossils, then bring the creobots in one at a time and have them point to where they draw the micro/macro this species/that species line. We could start one end with an extant species, at the other end another extant species, and gradually meeting at the common ancestor in the middle.


That'd be a barrel of laughs. I'm sure there'd be a drinking game involved.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2009,07:44   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 13 2009,00:03)
That'd be a barrel of laughs. I'm sure there'd be a drinking game involved.

As long as a homeopath mixes the drinks...

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Steverino



Posts: 407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,18:45   

Bump!...this was great!

Inquiry and the other logical fallacy guy, please come back!

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
phantom menace



Posts: 7
Joined: Dec. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,20:06   

Quote
I am unsure what PM means when PM says "evolutionary assumption"... but the Biological Species Concept depends only on the ability (or lack thereof) of two critters to interbreed, so I figure it's at least a good bet that the BSC is not a species-definition that PM would deem based on "evolutionary assumption".


You are correct. However, I am not the one interested in defining species, I was just curious if anyone here would offer a definition that didn't begin with an assumption of the validity of evolution. You win the prize. Now, can you distinguish your definition from Inquiry's kind?

  
phantom menace



Posts: 7
Joined: Dec. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,20:13   

Quote
So what exactly is it about laws that requires explanation?


Their consistency, rationality, force, etc. Why is there order when there should be disorder? Just think thermodynamics - something within physics itself is working to burn this universe out, what started it up? Why are natural laws rational? Why do you have a mind that grasps them? Why can you count? Etc. It would seem to me that science PRESUPPOSES a rational universe, one that can be understood. That is precisely why science arose in a Christian worldview as opposed to a Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, etc. worldview. Early scientist believed in the order of the universe because they believed it was created by a rational God who ordered.

  
phantom menace



Posts: 7
Joined: Dec. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,20:22   

Quote
Is it your position that our understanding of biological diversity is somehow flawed as a result of our not having a good explanation for how natural laws come about? For bonus points, please explain why the lack of an explanation for how natural laws came about is especially problematic for biology in particular, as opposed to being equally problematic for all fields of science in general.
And what "unexamined materialist assumptions" do you refer to, please? Are you laying the foundation of a later "evolution = TEH ATHEISM" argument, by any chance?


1) No.

2) I never said it was more problematic for biology than for other fields.

3) No, there are theistic evolutionists so evolution cannot be an argument against God. At best it can only serve as a very poor excuse for not believing in God because it alleges to answer the origin of life question (at least in some minds). Of course, it doesn't actually speak to origins, only diversity so it can't be used in the atheism / theism debate.

  
phantom menace



Posts: 7
Joined: Dec. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,20:26   

Quote
Gosh, PM, it sure is a good thing you don't sneer at your opponents or make veiled accusations of intellectual incapacity or anything like that, because if you did, that would make you some kind of hypocrite...


Touche! But my point was to try to head it off by making the case against it. I did so not because I assumed that there were some folks here who interacted that way, but because they had already demonstrated a propensity for it. P.S. what makes you assume that I was speaking to my opponents? I hate it even more when those who are on my side do that stuff. It in no way helps their case, just makes them look childish.

  
Steverino



Posts: 407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,20:37   

Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 15 2009,20:13)
Quote
So what exactly is it about laws that requires explanation?


Their consistency, rationality, force, etc. Why is there order when there should be disorder? Just think thermodynamics - something within physics itself is working to burn this universe out, what started it up? Why are natural laws rational? Why do you have a mind that grasps them? Why can you count? Etc. It would seem to me that science PRESUPPOSES a rational universe, one that can be understood. That is precisely why science arose in a Christian worldview as opposed to a Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, etc. worldview. Early scientist believed in the order of the universe because they believed it was created by a rational God who ordered.

mmmmmm....Rational God.  So, you can offer proof of god?

Please do.  Oh, and as usual, don't assume if A is incorrect that proves B.

Carry on.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
phantom menace



Posts: 7
Joined: Dec. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,20:52   

Quote
"I don't know" is a valid scientific answer.

"Goddidit" is not.

What is your explanation for "why the universe has "laws" rather than just chaos"?


1) No it's not. It is a non-answer. The very term "science" means knowledge. "I don't know" means ignorance. Nothing wrong with ignorance if something is beyond our intellectual capabilities but let's not pretend that ignorance is knowledge.

2) Of course "God did it" is not a scientific answer. Do you expect scientific answers to non-science questions? Can science tell you if the person you love really understands you? Can science to tell you it is an act of compassion to feed the hungry? Not all questions are scientific questions. Some questions are historical, or emotional, or testimonial, etc. The origin of life may very well not be a scientific question. If life was started by a supernatural cause then all the looking in the world will never turn up a natural one (which is basically where we stand now).

3) I believe the universe has laws because it was created by a Lawgiver, a Mind who instilled order in the universe and who also gave us the rational capacity to understand that order, to analyze it, and to control/use/maintain it. I believe this because of rigorous philosophical examination, not as a simple whim. For more on this topic I suggest Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Norman Geisler, and others.

Quote
Hey, you know what would be great fun at parties? Line up a nice transitional series of fossils, then bring the creobots in one at a time and have them point to where they draw the micro/macro this species/that species line. We could start one end with an extant species, at the other end another extant species, and gradually meeting at the common ancestor in the middle.


That'd be a barrel of laughs. I'm sure there'd be a drinking game involved.


You could use the alleged evolution of the horse and then explain how the toes kept evolving forwards and then backwards until it ended in one giant toe with a huge nail. Of course, that would be a case of animal LOOSING complexity rather than gaining it so that doesn't really explain how animals have evolved from "lower" forms to "higher" more complex forms.

By the way, the fact of biological change via mutation is not in dispute. What is disputed is that mutation/natural selection can account for an increase in GENETIC INFORMATION. In fact, can anyone here tell me what takes place genetically when dogs are bred to exhibit specific traits? Are those traits created through breeding or are all the unwanted traits simply eliminated? Does a doberman have more genetic potential than say a mutt?

  
phantom menace



Posts: 7
Joined: Dec. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,20:57   

Quote
mmmmmm....Rational God.  So, you can offer proof of god?

Please do.  Oh, and as usual, don't assume if A is incorrect that proves B.

Carry on.


If time were on my side, maybe. But for now I will stop and wait for responses to my posts (if everyone hasn't given up that is - I have been distracted by my truck dying on me this week and was not able to respond promptly).

  
Steverino



Posts: 407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,21:08   

Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 15 2009,20:57)
 
Quote
mmmmmm....Rational God.  So, you can offer proof of god?

Please do.  Oh, and as usual, don't assume if A is incorrect that proves B.

Carry on.


If time were on my side, maybe. But for now I will stop and wait for responses to my posts (if everyone hasn't given up that is - I have been distracted by my truck dying on me this week and was not able to respond promptly).

"If time evidence were on my side, maybe."

Fixed that for ya.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,23:57   

Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 15 2009,20:52)
Quote
"I don't know" is a valid scientific answer.

"Goddidit" is not.

What is your explanation for "why the universe has "laws" rather than just chaos"?


1) No it's not. It is a non-answer. The very term "science" means knowledge. "I don't know" means ignorance. Nothing wrong with ignorance if something is beyond our intellectual capabilities but let's not pretend that ignorance is knowledge.

2) Of course "God did it" is not a scientific answer. Do you expect scientific answers to non-science questions? Can science tell you if the person you love really understands you? Can science to tell you it is an act of compassion to feed the hungry? Not all questions are scientific questions. Some questions are historical, or emotional, or testimonial, etc. The origin of life may very well not be a scientific question. If life was started by a supernatural cause then all the looking in the world will never turn up a natural one (which is basically where we stand now).

3) I believe the universe has laws because it was created by a Lawgiver, a Mind who instilled order in the universe and who also gave us the rational capacity to understand that order, to analyze it, and to control/use/maintain it. I believe this because of rigorous philosophical examination, not as a simple whim. For more on this topic I suggest Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Norman Geisler, and others.

Quote
Hey, you know what would be great fun at parties? Line up a nice transitional series of fossils, then bring the creobots in one at a time and have them point to where they draw the micro/macro this species/that species line. We could start one end with an extant species, at the other end another extant species, and gradually meeting at the common ancestor in the middle.


That'd be a barrel of laughs. I'm sure there'd be a drinking game involved.


You could use the alleged evolution of the horse and then explain how the toes kept evolving forwards and then backwards until it ended in one giant toe with a huge nail. Of course, that would be a case of animal LOOSING complexity rather than gaining it so that doesn't really explain how animals have evolved from "lower" forms to "higher" more complex forms.

By the way, the fact of biological change via mutation is not in dispute. What is disputed is that mutation/natural selection can account for an increase in GENETIC INFORMATION. In fact, can anyone here tell me what takes place genetically when dogs are bred to exhibit specific traits? Are those traits created through breeding or are all the unwanted traits simply eliminated? Does a doberman have more genetic potential than say a mutt?

1)  Actually, "I don't know" is an answer.  It may not be a satisfying one, but it gives the limit of current knowledge (at least of the speaker).  To be honest, knowledge of ignorance is knowledge as well - just not the best kind.  There is so much we are ignorant of that in some areas we are only just discovering what we don't know, but scientists are steadily filling the void.  The best answer, short of actual knowledge is "I don't know, but I will try to find out."  This is the step that creationists jump over, going straight to "I will make shit up."

2) you spelled "non-science" when you meant "nonsense" - just fixing that for you.  Considering advances in neurology and the scientific study of ethics, perhaps some day those questions can be answered (albeit not to some people's satisfaction) - we can look for chemicals and effects in the brain that might indicate "understanding" - if our knowledge progresses that far, or we can look for other cues (body language, etc).  I doubt it's as reliable as asking a person, but we can design a study that does just that.  But trying to define "really understands you" in a meaningful way would be the difficult part, but it can probably be done.  However, the problem you have is that we are actually making progress into the mechanisms by which life may have risen, but if you want to postulate a "supernatural" (whatever that means) cause that started it all, but left no proof...well, why bother with it at all?  If it leaves no proof, then we cannot detect it, and if we can't detect it, then how can we distinguish it from nothing at all?  Waste of time.

3) Gak.  Judge Dread uses a Lawgiver.  The Orangutan on the ape planet was a Lawgiver.  Non-existent mental constructs that appease people's egos and fears...not so much.  We've come a long way since those people (except Geisler, who appears to be another in the long line of apologist hacks - from a quick review that I did, he seems to repeat the same tired and debunked arguments that others of his ilk do).  "yawn"

It's amazing that the hole is perfectly shaped for the puddle.  Must be Intelligently Designed.

Goody - genetic information.  Please define what you mean by information.  This should be interesting.  

You may want to scan the board and look for this topic, since it really comes up with the IDiots who have no understanding of it, and you want to be sure not to make the same mistakes they are making.  (You might also want to avoid the inane "ALL CAPS" - they do not add emphasis, but make you look a bit of a noob, and it's "losing" complexity (although even that claim may or may not hold water depending on how you define "complexity."  You may also want to drop the idea of lower/higher completely and just stick with the terms "simpler" and "more complex" (in the popular usage of the terms) - or say "unicellular to multicellular" - since evolution is not on any direct arrow, as things evolve they can indeed lose features and become "less complex" (common usage).  Nothing in evolutionary theory that says they shouldn't.

You might also want to look a little bit more into genetics before making such insipid claims about dogs.  Dogs that exhibit certain traits (that arise through mutation) are selected for those traits, and bred with similar animals so that the trait solidifies (more or less, this is pretty simplistic).  The traits are not created by the breeding, although they are refined.  And, no, all unwanted traits are not simply eliminated, since there are atavisms occasionally  and the inbreeding that produces some breeds can have negative consequences - physical and mental.  I have no idea what you mean with "genetic potential" - are you assuming some sort of Ideal that dogs must go towards, or are you referring to the potential for genes to mutate, or what?

Damn, that's a lot to write.  Any critiques from anyone else reading - did I screw anything up?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Cubist



Posts: 345
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2009,00:29   

Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 15 2009,20:52)
By the way, the fact of biological change via mutation is not in dispute. What is disputed is that mutation/natural selection can account for an increase in GENETIC INFORMATION.
This is a fairly common Creationist argument. In my experience, I have never yet encountered any Creationist who manages to accompany this argument with a good definition of this "genetic information" thingie -- certainly not a definition of "genetic information" that anyone can actually use to measure the stuff, and thereby confirm that mutations are incapable of "increasing" this "genetic information" stuff.
If Creationists do indeed have a definition for "genetic information" which would allow the stuff to be measured... well, it's got to be one king hell humdinger of a definition. Now, I can see how deletion mutations (i.e., something like starting with cccgtcagagtc and ending up with cccagtc) would be a loss of "genetic information", so that's not a problem. What is a problem is, how the heck do you get a loss of "genetic information" from an insertion mutation (i.e., something like starting with gtataacca and ending up with gtataaatacgattacca)? I just don't see it, myself. But what the heck; maybe you can succeed in dispelling my confusion/ignorance, PM! If you actually have a useable definition of "genetic information", you should be able to, y'know, use said definition to determine how much "genetic information" there is in any given sequence of nucleotides, right? So here are two nucleotide sequences for you to play with:

Nucleotide sequence one: tct gct att ttg gcg tcc gcc tcc gta act gtc tga aag cat gct gcg gtt ctt tac ggg gga gga ccc gag tga cgg agg cga agt gtg cag aag gaa gtt tac ccc tcg aga cgt ccc gct gcg gtc acc agg ttc tga agg aac act

Nucleotide sequence two: tat gag ctg acc cca caa cct gta cac gag agt aat gaa act agc tcc caa gac gat ccg caa aat cct tgg cta cta tta gta ggt cgc gat aca aac aga gtt gat aat ttc tca acg aag ccg att att tga gat gag aac ccc cag

Please, PM, would you be so good as to tell me which of these two nucleotide sequence has more "genetic information" in it -- and, more importantly, explain how you determined which sequence has more "genetic information"?

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2009,05:55   

Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 15 2009,20:52)
 
Quote
"I don't know" is a valid scientific answer.

"Goddidit" is not.

What is your explanation for "why the universe has "laws" rather than just chaos"?


1) No it's not. It is a non-answer. The very term "science" means knowledge. "I don't know" means ignorance. Nothing wrong with ignorance if something is beyond our intellectual capabilities but let's not pretend that ignorance is knowledge.

2) Of course "God did it" is not a scientific answer. Do you expect scientific answers to non-science questions? Can science tell you if the person you love really understands you? Can science to tell you it is an act of compassion to feed the hungry? Not all questions are scientific questions. Some questions are historical, or emotional, or testimonial, etc. The origin of life may very well not be a scientific question. If life was started by a supernatural cause then all the looking in the world will never turn up a natural one (which is basically where we stand now).

3) I believe the universe has laws because it was created by a Lawgiver, a Mind who instilled order in the universe and who also gave us the rational capacity to understand that order, to analyze it, and to control/use/maintain it. I believe this because of rigorous philosophical examination, not as a simple whim. For more on this topic I suggest Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Norman Geisler, and others.

As others have already pointed out, a scientist can say "I don't know" and remain true to scientific methodology. That is not pretending that ignorance is knowledge; it is admitting that the knowledge has limits.

More to the point, asserting, without a shred of evidence and in the absence of any mechanism, that "the universe has laws because it was created by a lawgiver" is begging the question and unscientific. Here's how a scientist would approach it.

1) Observation - The universe has laws.

2) Hypothesis - These laws arise because of the actions of a lawgiver (many auxiliary hypotheses underlie this, and probably should be explored as well).

3) Prediction - If the universal laws are the result of the actions of a lawgiver, then I should see ??????

4) Experiment - ??????????

5) Conclusion - The experiment is consistent/inconsistent with the hypothesis.

You seem to have skipped the prediction and experiment parts and used your hypothesis as a conclusion. Basically you are saying that if universal laws are the result of the actions of a lawgiver, then I should see universal laws. Science doesn't work that way, even if you think so.

Please fill in the ????? blanks in the outline above, and then we can talk about science some more.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Quack



Posts: 1746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2009,06:49   

Quote
By the way, the fact of biological change via mutation is not in dispute. What is disputed is that mutation/natural selection can account for an increase in GENETIC INFORMATION.

Since I know computers better than I know genetics, what if

I take a top-down computer computer program an decide I want to make it shorter? I search for code sequences that are repeated in several places. I save one of the sequences, put it in a subroutine, delete all the original sequences, replacing them with just a call to the subroutine. Voila: Less code, same amount of work done!

It is not just about amount of code, number of bytes or whatever, it is about how the code is used, how it works. There are more ways than one of writing a complex program!

Creationists are sadly lacking in knowledge.

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1005
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2009,10:24   

Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 15 2009,20:52)
 
Quote
"I don't know" is a valid scientific answer.

"Goddidit" is not.


1) No it's not. It is a non-answer. The very term "science" means knowledge. "I don't know" means ignorance. Nothing wrong with ignorance if something is beyond our intellectual capabilities but let's not pretend that ignorance is knowledge.

I'm a lowly layman wrt science in general, but I know that "knowledge" includes being aware of what you don't know. How could science proceed otherwise? Thomas Edison, in discussing his search for a viable filament material for his electric light, allegedly remarked that he had not failed--he knew 1000 things that wouldn't work. Science is continually filling gaps in knowledge (ignorance) with empirical reality, but it seems that you would prefer reference to an indescribable "designer" --or worse, a magic ghost--as "knowledge."

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Robin



Posts: 1427
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2009,12:15   

[quote=phantom menace,Dec. 15 2009,20:13][/quote]
Quote
Quote
So what exactly is it about laws that requires explanation?


Their consistency, rationality, force, etc.


Already been done. See descriptions of Boyle's Law, E=MC^2, Laws of Thermodynamics. Quite lengthy explanations actually.

Quote
Why is there order when there should be disorder?


Two things come to mind here: 1) you are presuming there is order by definition, but you haven't actually explained what "order" is as opposed to disorder from a universe perspective. 2) You still haven't provided any evidence that there's a reason to think that universes could be any other way than the way this one is.

Quote
Just think thermodynamics - something within physics itself is working to burn this universe out, what started it up?


Inaccurate premise. There is nothing "in physics" period. Physics is an area of study, not a object. What I suspect you mean is that there is a property in the universe - in nature - burning things out. In any event, what evidence do you have that the properties of this universe could or should behave any other way?

Quote
Why are natural laws rational?


They aren't - natural laws don't think and aren't intelligent. Perhaps you meant to ask why natural laws induce organized processes. In which case I'd answer, because that's part of the definition of the term "law"

Quote
Why do you have a mind that grasps them
Why can you count? Etc.


We have a mind that can grasp laws because such a capability is an advantage to us. Ditto for counting.

Quote
It would seem to me that science PRESUPPOSES a rational universe, one that can be understood.


Well you'd be incorrect. Science doesn't presuppose a rational universe - science merely notes the parameters of the universe that have been discovered thus far. When someone shows that there are elements to the universe that do not behave in accordance to a repeatable process, science will take note of that instead.

Quote
That is precisely why science arose in a Christian worldview as opposed to a Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, etc. worldview. Early scientist believed in the order of the universe because they believed it was created by a rational God who ordered.


Perhaps, but such is merely question begging, not science.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5374
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2009,18:06   

Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 15 2009,21:52)
You could use the alleged evolution of the horse and then explain how the toes kept evolving forwards and then backwards until it ended in one giant toe with a huge nail. Of course, that would be a case of animal LOOSING complexity rather than gaining it so that doesn't really explain how animals have evolved from "lower" forms to "higher" more complex forms.

Your language choices belie the assumption of your conclusion.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Cubist



Posts: 345
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2009,04:37   

Anybody seen Phantom Menace around in the past few days? I was looking forward to seeing how he responds to my "which sequence has more 'genetic information'?" question...

  
Keelyn



Posts: 40
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2009,08:42   

Quote
Cubist ...

Anybody seen Phantom Menace around in the past few days? I was looking forward to seeing how he responds to my "which sequence has more 'genetic information'?" question...


Well, it has only been four days. He may still be analyzing. :)

 
Quote
phantom menace ...

I believe the universe has laws because it was created by a Lawgiver ...


No, no, I was wrong! I submit, I bear myself to the will of Landru! No! Lawgivers! Help! Help me!

--------------
This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. -- Wolfgang Pauli

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. -- Mark Twain

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1005
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2009,12:01   

Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 20 2009,04:37)
Anybody seen Phantom Menace around in the past few days? I was looking forward to seeing how he responds to my "which sequence has more 'genetic information'?" question...

I think maybe he and inquiry have spent enough time in enemy territory to qualify for Dembski's extra credit, and I'm sure he's very proud of them.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
  160 replies since Nov. 24 2009,07:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]