RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   
  Topic: Common Descent - Evidence No.1< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Michael Finley



Posts: 19
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2005,01:21   

I would like to have a discussion on the evidences for common descent as presented in Douglas Theobald’s 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution on Talk.Origins. In particular, I would like to investigate whether each evidence (i.e., confirmed prediction) is not equally an evidence for common design. I propose to treat the evidences one by one in the order they are presented.

Quote
1.1 The Fundamental Unity of Life. According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life. Some of the macroscopic properties that characterize all of life are (1) replication, (2) heritability (characteristics of descendents are correlated with those of ancestors), (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree.

If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion). Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes.


That is, common descent predicts that all organisms are similar with respect to basic function and structure. And as function follows from structure, the prediction primarily concerns the basic structural similarity of all organisms.

It seems to me that similarity of structure is equally a prediction of common design. Consider the works of a common artist (e.g., paintings). It is a reasonable prediction that these works will share a basic structural similarity that differentiates them from works by other artists. Accordingly, an expert will be able to distinguish works by the one from those of others.

These are preliminary remarks, but should be enough to start discussion.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2005,14:40   

I sense a huge waste of time coming on here. Is there any circumstance possible that a sufficiently powerful and capricious designer does *not* explain? If not, of what possible use is an extended examination of the evidence to anyone who believes that a sufficiently powerful and capricious "designer" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) did it? The evidence will never have the slightest effect on such a belief.

The point of Douglas Theobald's essay isn't that the evidence excludes a sufficiently powerful and capricious designer who, apparently, made things look exactly like the result of common ancestry. It's that the expectations of macroevolution and common descent match the available evidence.

Quote

I'd like to make an observation on "intelligent design" in general. ID claims are aimed at obtaining a concession that evolutionary processes are insufficient to account for observed biological phenomena. After that, ID advocates hope that people will simply fill in with an "intelligent designer" of their preference to cover the gap. ID arguments are all of the negative variety: because evolution can't do this, you must accept that an "intelligent designer" did.

So, how do ID advocates wend their way toward finding evolutionary insufficiency? Do they identify phenomena with good evidential records of their origin and find that no natural mechanisms are able to cover the situation? No, they do not. ID advocates identify the systems that have the least evidence that can bear upon just how they might have arisen and whack on those. If evolutionary biologists don't have the evidence to work with, they certainly can't generate "detailed, testable pathways" that ID advocates like Rob claim it is their burden to produce. This is such a weak and pathetic strategy that the term I use for Michael Behe's arguments now is "God of the crevices". You see, Behe's claim to fame is to have taken the old young-earth creationist bleat of "what good is half a wing?" and bring it into the modern era of molecular biology, reborn as, "what good is half a flagellum?" Biochemistry, Behe says, is the basement floor, and there is no further place to go. Thus, the gaps Behe goes on about have a bottom, and are crevices.

Back in 2001, I was in a panel with William Dembski, and pointed out that the only way for ID to progress was to take up those case where there was evidence at hand. Things like the impedance-matching system of the mammalian middle ear and the Krebs citric acid cycle. Michael Behe was sitting in the audience at the time. Have ID advocates taken up those sort of systems for analysis? Not on your life.

"Intelligent design" advocates use Behe's "irreducible complexity" and Dembski's "specified complexity" as arguments to convince people to disregard theories which have some evidential support, and force acceptance of conjectures with no evidential support. It's a good trick, that.

(Source)


Without some constraint upon the "designer" that supposedly is behind "common design", I don't see any sensible way to derive "predictions" from the concept. So I reject the notion that "similarities are a prediction of common design" until we've got some agreement on a set of constraints and purposes behind the "designer". Without that, all that can possibly come of it are "predictions" that are simply ad hoc inventions that have no contact with anything that we could call real.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 30 2005,14:45

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
PaulK



Posts: 37
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2005,01:07   

I would add that in even this case a designer would have had the option of producing completely unrelated "designs" or those that embodied a radically new design element to implement one or more of these functions.  With the diversity of life it has to be considered surprising that we do not see more variation in these areas - if common design were true.

Common design is less constrained than common descent and for that reason even if the intent were to compare the two hypotheses the evidence discussed would still favour common descent.

  
Michael Finley



Posts: 19
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2005,12:32   

If the end result is some measure of clarity, even if only for myself, then I would not count the time wasted. And given your concern, I appreciate your reply.

The unity of life is an evidence for (i.e., confirmed prediction of) common descent. Is it equally an evidence for common design?

To this question you object:
Quote
Without some constraint upon the "designer" that supposedly is behind "common design," I don't see any sensible way to derive "predictions" from the concept.


Let's return to the example of the artist. I stated that "It is a reasonable prediction that works [by a common artist] will share a basic structural similarity that differentiates them from works by other artists." Do you disagree? If so, on what basis does the expert attribute works to artists (cf. handwriting experts, philologists, etc.)?

I do not deny that an artist could, for whatever reason, produce radically dissimilar works, but that would be abnormal in some objective sense of abnormal, i.e., it is usually the case that works by the same artist are similar. Otherwise, the notion of a work being characteristic of an artist would be incoherent, and it clearly is not.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2005,22:49   

My take on that is that different forms wouldn't have to be "radically dissimilar" in order to be enough different to conflict with what one would expect from descent from common ancestry.

I also think the artist analogy is too loose to consider an inference from it to be reliable.

Henry

  
PaulK



Posts: 37
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2005,02:51   

I would say that the elements under discussion represent engineering solutions more than artistic style  and so the comparison is not very appropriate.  How could we decide that these particular elements were stylistic rather than purely functional ?  

Even if we were to consider the designer a pure artist, pure artists can and do work in different media requiring different techniques.  So why not a different form of life embodying different mechanisms for one or more of the elements under discussion ?

So I don't see how we could make a strong prediction from a design perspective that any of these elements would be largely constant - let alone all of them.

  
Michael Finley



Posts: 19
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2005,10:32   

Quote
My take on that is that different forms wouldn't have to be "radically dissimilar" in order to be enough different to conflict with what one would expect from descent from common ancestry.


Agreed; though counterfactuals are not relevant to my question. I am assuming that the actual unity of life is an evidence for common descent, and asking whether it is not equally an evidence for common design. Or more generally, are the evidences for common descent and common design coextensive?

Quote
I also think the artist analogy is too loose to consider an inference from it to be reliable.


Perhaps it is, but it articulates an intuition everyone shares, viz., that the products of a person are more similar to each other than to the products of another. I think that intuition is correct, and am attempting to "tighten it up."

  
Michael Finley



Posts: 19
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2005,10:53   

Quote
I would say that the elements under discussion represent engineering solutions more than artistic style and so the comparison is not very appropriate. How could we decide that these particular elements were stylistic rather than purely functional?


For the purposes of my question, the distinction between art and engineering is not relevant. If we use the broader sense of "art," every product of design is an artefact, e.g., a painting and a jet engine are both artefacts. Accordingly, the products of a single engineer will be more similar to each other than to those of another.

Quote
Even if we were to consider the designer a pure artist, pure artists can and do work in different media requiring different techniques. So why not a different form of life embodying different mechanisms for one or more of the elements under discussion?


It seems to me that two basically different mechanisms (i.e., structures) performing the same function (e.g., replication) is not analogous to different techniques in different media (e.g., brush and paint, hammer and chisel).

  
PaulK



Posts: 37
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2005,14:48   

No, I think that we do have to consider thaty the actual observed unity is one of solutions and that it is not clearly an aesthetic preference.  THe Common Descent explanation expects these elements to be highly conserved, the Common Designer explanation has no basis for choosing these elements over any others.  Nor is there such strong grounds for expecting a single unvarying "style" over such a wide  range of - supposed - designs.

So in this instance Comon Descent is the superior explanation because it is more constrained in what it could potentially do.

  
Michael Finley



Posts: 19
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2005,16:42   

Quote
No, I think that we do have to consider that the actual observed unity is one of solutions and that it is not clearly an aesthetic preference.


The unity is a unity of structure, and does not concern aesthetic preferences. I am employing a basic metaphysical principle, viz., that sameness of cause produces sameness of effect. That principle is operative in common descent and common design.

Quote
The Common Descent explanation expects these elements to be highly conserved....


Conservation, here, is merely a reformulation of the metaphysical principle mentioned above. As such, it is proper to common design as well.

Quote
...the Common Designer explanation has no basis for choosing these elements over any others.


That is a different issue. Whatever the elements (i.e., structures) are, common design predicts that they will be common. That is, the same elements will be shared by all organisms.

  
VoxRat



Posts: 8
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2005,18:45   

Would evidence for common descent look the same as separate creation by a common designer?

I don't think so. There might be commonalities of "style" from a common designer, but why would these quantitatively (as in DNA homology, for instance) track the geneologies of the creatures?  If the same designer is responsible for starfish, chimps and humans, what - in the common designer argument - predicts any closer DNA relationship between any two of them compared with the third?

  
JRMeyers



Posts: 1
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2005,19:27   

Okay, let's run with the artist and common design idea.  Sorry for the size, but here are four images.  Which of them have a common creator?




An art historian could tell you that they are all Picasso, but the untrained eye would unlikely see the common creator.
In contrast:

and

show many similarities (music, abstract figures, domination by geometric shapes) but are done by different individuals (Miro and Picasso).
Common design is not obvious.
Especially in the case of God where we have no idea how he creates.

  
PaulK



Posts: 37
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2005,06:55   

If you were simply referring to "similar causes produce similar effects" then the choice of an artist is an odd one.  Naturally the "similar" elements produced by an artist would tend to be stylistic and thus we would expect aesthetic commonalities rather than functional ones.

Artists of all people would be the ones who most greatly undermine the simplistic use of the metaphysical principle you refer to, to apply to the output of intelligent designers.

But what amazes me most is the fact that you consider the fact that Common Descent provides strong grounds for these partiocular elements to be conserved to be a seperate issue from the fact that the Common Design does not.  But this comparison is a clear indication that Common Descent is the better explanation for the conservation of these features.  It is only by comparisons like this that we can determine which explanation is the better.

But most amazing of all is the final sentence which indicates that Common Design offers a tautology in place of explanation.

There are valid responses you could have offered - for instance an explanation of why Common Design WOULD predict that these particular elements would be conserved.   You could have looked for other common elements that better fitted the Common Design argument.  BUt you cannot claim that a prediction that maybe some elements will be common to all life is as good as a prediction that specific elements are very likely to be common to all life.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2005,13:26   

Michael Finley wrote:

Quote

Let's return to the example of the artist. I stated that "It is a reasonable prediction that works [by a common artist] will share a basic structural similarity that differentiates them from works by other artists." Do you disagree? If so, on what basis does the expert attribute works to artists (cf. handwriting experts, philologists, etc.)?


On the argument to rarefied design inferences from ordinary design inferences: This ground has been covered. John Wilkins and I have been there and done that.

The Advantages of Theft Over Toil

Basically, I'm pointing out that the claimed analogy between known designers with whom we have experience and unknown designers operating in unknown ways is illegitimate. So, yeah, I dispute Michael's claim above as having any bearing upon my original objection. There is no basis given by Michael (or anyone else from Paley right on down to today) for a claim of "prediction" of what a designer behind aspects of life must have done.

Paul Nelson argued in 1997 that the argument from suboptimality as an impeachment of design was flawed because the argument depended upon theological themata: what was "disproved" by such arguments was not design per se but rather a particular theological theme concerning a putative designer. There were problems in Nelson's argument concerning whether a principled suboptimality argument was possible (I showed that one could easily construct a relative figure of merit that did not depend upon unobservable values), but the basic insight that to make claims about such a designer is to deal in theological themes seems good to me. And the issue cuts both ways. While arguments against theological themes don't eliminate design per se, neither do theological themes provide any basis for claims of "predictions" of design, either.

Michael's conjectures about design outcomes are, at basis, dabblings in theology. They don't tell us anything about what to expect in the empirical evidence.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 03 2005,21:20

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2005,21:51   

Michael Finley wrote (on PT):

Quote

   There are three lines of argument, it seems to me, for ID.

   (1) Argue that the predictions of common descent and common design are coextensive.

   (2) Argue that the “predictions” of common descent are not predictions, but are merely consistent with common descent.

   (3) Use an inductive elimination (i.e., a destructive dilemma with an inductive disjunction) to argue against the viability of the mechanism(s) of common descent.


(1) is out because nobody has figured out how to make predictions from "common design".

(2) is out because it is a distinction without a difference. F'rinstance, the genetic codes of living organisms on earth are largely shared, giving the "canonical genetic code" that the vast majority of organisms use. In the cases where organisms use an alternative code, the differences also show a pattern of descent with modification. But that is not the way things had to be. There are many possible alternative genetic codes. Not only are there enough alternative possibilities to give every species that has ever existed its own code, but every single individual that has ever lived could have been given its own unique genetic code. If we observed such a state of affairs, we would not be trying to explain it via common descent. It is clear that empirical evidence could disallow common descent. Whether one chooses to use "prediction" or "consistency with the available evidence" is pure semantics. There are possible states of the evidence that common descent would not be able to accommodate. Douglas Theobald's FAQ goes over many of them.

(3) is intellectually dubious. It is, precisely as stated by Lenny Flank on PT, the "god of the gaps" argument.

It seems to me that Lenny did concisely point out the fundamental errors in Michael's argument. The fact that Lenny is abrupt to the point of rudeness does not set aside the observation that he is also correct.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2005,09:19   

Michael Finley wrote (on PT):

Quote

My common design argument tries to give an answer by co-opting the evidences of common descent.


The most straightforward theological theme to use to accomplish this is as follows:

"The Intelligent Designer designed life to look as if it were not necessarily the work of an intelligent designer, but rather could have been derived via an unaided process of common descent."

That would make all of the evidence for common descent perfectly consistent with that particular theological theme. Unfortunately, it is still in no sense a "prediction" about "common design".

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
moioci



Posts: 4
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2005,15:15   

I'm not aware of any tenet of ID that says there can only be ONE designer, although that seems to be the presumption.  Thus if several or a million designers were operating throughout history, radically different designs would be possible or even likely.  Therefore the absence of common design in no way disproves ID.  The presence of features usually accepted as supporting common descent is pretty weak evidence FOR ID. And, as noted,  absence of common design doesn't count against ID, unless you argue there can only be one designer, and that comes perilously close to giving the Designer a name...

   
Michael Finley



Posts: 19
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2005,17:25   

To all,

I apologize for beginning a discussion and then ignoring it. The same topic came up on  PT, and I could not actively participate in both.

I have conceded defeat on "the unity of life" prediction. Perhaps we can discuss nested hierarchies in turn.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2005,20:26   

Michael,

The issues I brought up are general issues, not specific to discussion of "the unity of life". They aren't going to go away or change because you start a new thread.

I will be happy to repost these criticisms to whatever new thread carries on, if no change in the mode of argument occurs. One would hope that there would be some notice taken of the critiques, but I've been doing this far to long to hold out much hope for that.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
PaulK



Posts: 37
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2005,02:51   

Quote (Michael Finley @ April 04 2005,17:25)
I have conceded defeat on "the unity of life" prediction. Perhaps we can discuss nested hierarchies in turn.

So long as the designers intentions and capabilities are left undefined there is no good way to say what the designer would produce.

The best you can hope for is that in some cases a designer might produce the same result as common descent - but always the prediction would be weaker, since there is no way to say that the designer WOULD produce that result rather thna some other.

Your strategy - which I grant is the preferred strategy for ID - essentially prevents you from being able to produce positive arguments for design.  If you are serious about exploring a design explanation then you badly need to produce a far more concrete idea of the designer.

  
Michael Finley



Posts: 19
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2005,11:45   

Dr. Elsberry,

I did not mean to imply that I would go about a discussion of nested hierarchies in the same way. As no predictions follow from a designer, no predictions about nested hierarchies follow from a designer. Thus, the conclusion I reached concerning the unity of life can be generalized to cover the other predictions of common descent.

I wanted to discuss this statement of yours:

Quote
(2) is out because it is a distinction without a difference. ...Whether one chooses to use "prediction" or "consistency with the available evidence" is pure semantics. There are possible states of the evidence that common descent would not be able to accommodate.


I think the distinction presents a difference. Common descent is the theoretical claim (sentence) that "all known biota are descended from a single common ancestor." A prediction of common descent is an observation claim (cf. Quine's observation sentence) that is logically deduced from the theoretical claim, e.g., "cladistic analyses of organisms produce phylogenies that have large, statistically significant values of hierarchical structure."

A prediction is a logical implication of the theoretical claim. Accordingly, the theory can be falsified using a modus tollens:

If [theoretical claim] then [observation claim]
Not [observation claim]
Therefore, not [theoretical claim]

That is, if the observation claim is false, the theory is false.

On the other hand, an observation claim is merely consistent with a theoretical claim if both can be true together, but the falsity of the observation claim does not imply the falsity of the theoretical claim. Statements that are merely consistent with a theoretical claim cannot be deduced from that theoretical claim. For example, observation claims concerning the unity of life are consistent with my previous theoretical claim that "all known biota are special creations of a single designer," i.e., they can both be true together, but the latter does not follow logically from the former, and its falsity does not result in the falsity of the thoeretical claim.

My question, then, is whether the observation claim that "cladistic analyses of organisms produce phylogenies that have large, statistically significant values of hierarchical structure" is a prediction of common descent or whether it is merely consistent with common descent? Is there a conceivable scenario in which common descent would be true and the observation claim false? If there were, the observation claim could not be a deduction from from the theoretical claim, and therefore, it could not be a prediction.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2005,08:58   

That's folderol, Michael. "Logically produced" statements include both universal statements (to which one can then apply modus tollens to, as Popper famously noted) and existential statements (to which one cannot apply modus tollens). So even by Michael's connotation of "prediction" as a "logically produced statement", he hasn't constrained the output to the desired class of universal statements.

There is a term in logic for strict logical implication. Let's see how long it takes for Michael to comes up with it.

Then, Michael can go back to the statement by Theobald at the start of this thread and try to apply his distinction there. To me, it sure looks like that would put the theory at risk if it were found to be false. Which, I will remind Michael, was already noted by me in my statement, and which he failed to address:

Quote

There are possible states of the evidence that common descent would not be able to accommodate.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,07:03   

Hey looky ;looky major disruption to  "established" evolution common decent numer 99,978.

http://news.yahoo.com/s....VRPUCUl

Guess its back to the drawing board for the pseudoscience crowd regarding humans and chimps common ancestor.

I'm sure another fairy tale will quickly take the old one's place.. they always do.

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,07:45   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 29 2005,12:03)
Hey looky ;looky major disruption to  "established" evolution common decent numer 99,978.

http://news.yahoo.com/s....VRPUCUl

Guess its back to the drawing board for the pseudoscience crowd regarding humans and chimps common ancestor.

I'm sure another fairy tale will quickly take the old one's place.. they always do.

Really? In that case, I look forward to the Flying Spaghetti Monster replacing creationi.....ID. It has as much evidence as ID, after all.

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,08:11   

Quote (Wonderpants @ Sep. 29 2005,12:45)
Really? In that case, I look forward to the Flying Spaghetti Monster replacing creationi.....ID. It has as much evidence as ID, after all.

Lets be sensible here, of all the psuedosciences and junk science, Astrology is the only one that has more supporting evidence than ID.

Actually, it is the only one that has any evidence.  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,10:03   

Wonder and Midnight,

I see the intellectual content of your replies is up to evolutionist standards...totally void.

Of course my entry referred to and quoted an article in a peer reviewed journal announcing the discovery and its implications for the formerly held explanations of the divergence of chimps and human ancestors, etc. namely the former explanation was ruled out and an entire new explanation has to be developed. As usual the overturning of evolutionary explanations by messy facts in no way diminishes the theory since it can accommodate any occurrence or finding imaginable being completely plastic, having no quantitiative aspects of consequence and being founded upon sky hooks hanging upon nothing.

You kids need to get back to class the buzzer just sounded.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,10:28   

If one accepts that the universe, solar system, earth itself, its atmosphere, biosphere, chemical makeup etc. preceeded life and I think there is common agreement on that premise; then what life forms could be created except those who had to successfully inhabit a world with an atmosphere and food source common to them all in large part and governed by the same physical laws of gravity, thermodynamics, chemistry, atomic theory etc.

Thus within limited variation a purposeful designer would by necessity and as a consequence of prior creative choices preceeding life have to have common design elements for respiration, energy conversion, metabolism, waste elimination, sensory perception, movement and motion in a gravitational field.

The only other boundaries on such a designer would be his own character and sovereign intentions, that would be sufficient.

Of course one can choose the ultimate in inefficiency, the most unintelligent approach to design ,, but that would be evolution by random mutation and natural selection.

Clearly no one serious about accomplishment in finite time and finite cost ever chose that method.. it simply could never create anything of any modest complexity... we can be sure of that by our use of mathmatical statistics and many have done so.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,11:13   

peach:  Your month old article you just found at some ID bloggers site, well on the same site they have this: New findings boltster case for ancient human ancestor  I guess it is like the typical creationist to trumpet victory before any science has been done.  Its funny how when dealing with teeth, they aren't good enough for any argument supporting evolution, but all it takes is a few teeth for this IDC parrot to jump around in jubilation at the defeat of the evil darwinists.

   
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,11:43   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 29 2005,15:03)
Wonder and Midnight,

I see the intellectual content of your replies is up to evolutionist standards...totally void.

Well, you know what they say: If you can't beat them (fundies, by using your God-given brain), join em (by removing every trace of rationality and logic). So I thought I'd play at being a fundie tonight.   ;)

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,04:43   

Midnight Cowboys


As usual your nonsensical, vacuous responses contain no chain of logic, no critical thinking elements just blather and invective.

I printed off your last half dozen posts and had the prof who  teaches Elements of Critical Thinking at our college read them in context.

He just chuckled and said you two people were just untrained and largely uninformed zealots and I was probably wasting my time trying to discuss things requiring considerable intellect.

I guess I should allow you the opportunity to prove him wrong, so do you have anything with intellectual content to say that supports your theory.

In passing, the article on the huge problem for common decent between chimps and people was taken directly from the various peer reviewed journal abstracts I subscribe to and only published in the last ten days.

Now if you care to address the prior post on common design elements in a logical fashion or better the helium to brain issue ... well its your chance boys .. prove my prof wrong.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,05:48   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 29 2005,15:28)
Thus within limited variation a purposeful designer would by necessity and as a consequence of prior creative choices preceeding life have to have common design elements for respiration, energy conversion, metabolism, waste elimination, sensory perception, movement and motion in a gravitational field.

The only other boundaries on such a designer would be his own character and sovereign intentions, that would be sufficient.

Evopeach,
Don't you subscribe to the Christian god as your designer?  Is not the Christian god omnipotent?

If that is the case, then why would the designer have limitations, necessities, and boundaries?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,08:48   

GCT,

Omnipetence is just one characteristc among many as with human personality. God is also consistently logical in His actions and would have a plan of action which in this case was the creation sequence from ex nihilo to the 7th day. He pronounced it good as in mature and perfect (prior to corruption and fall) as to operation and completeness. Thus any limitations or boundaries are self imposed so that for instance He cannot act to conflict with any of his characteristics. He cannot make imperfect plans which of His own choosing are flawed as opposed to results of actions permitted under free will which clearly cause enourmous problems and difficulties.

Thus the creation is logically consistent as portrayed and certain design choices naturally have to be consistent and complimentary it is actually a system of minimum complexity, maximum efficiency and remarkable reliability compared to our own creative efforts.

If your chief car designer made one line to burn wood, another coal, another diesel, another gasoline and another plutonium; one with three wheels , another with four, etc. would he be you designer for long.

Wasn't it Einstein who sad the universe is as simple as it can be and not one ounce less complex than it has to be.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2005,03:46   

Beautiful and Devastating to the Evos


I think this quote from the Scopes trial says it all.

The following statement of Dr. E.N. Reinke, Professor of Biology in Vanderbilt University, is repeatedly quoted in briefs of counsel for the defense:

"The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology and its kindred sciences. To deny the teacher of biology the use of this most fundamental generalization of his science would make his teaching as chaotic as an attempt to teach astronomy without the law of gravitation or physics without assuming the existence of the ether."

Which two of those two referenced theories are no longer valid in their own discipline and no longer taught as the best explanation of the natural universe being overturned in their entirety.

Watch what happens when this is admitted,

Evopeach

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2005,22:02   

^^~P34cH~^^

You really need some help in getting your points across (if you actually have any).  Every post of yours is just a new rant often having nothing to do with any of your previous "arguments."  I once again strongly urge you to google paragraph cohesion, but other than that speek gud englush yoo do.

Additionally, how is the above quote "devastating", and where is the "other theory" in that quote?  I count 2 laws 1 theory or 2 laws 3 theories, but I know you'll demand a recount.

Better luck next time Skip.

   
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,03:21   

So you think the theory of electomagnetic wave propagation in the ether context was part of Newton's law of gravitation.

Yep!  You're as dumb as a post.

Devastating as in the current and recurrent theme from evos that teaching biology et al from an ID point and not evolution is impossible because evolution is proven without a doubt to be the ultimate bioogical thuth yet both of the previous theories from the quote ... similarly used in Scopes have been totally discarded in theoretical science.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,10:43   

Quote
Yep!  You're as dumb as a post.


Oh, the irony!

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,12:18   

evopreach,

To answer your question, no.

This just in from the AP.  The Scopes trial is over, the monkey lost.  If that ancient quote was so "devastating" where was it in 1987?  I am sick of hearing the IDC people yapping on about how devastating all their stuff is going to be, yet there is never any devastation (except on the science education of those they influence.)

So, you stated that you believe in a one time supernatural causation for the origin of life on Earth (exactly as it is accounted for in the Bible.)  Let me ask you this, what is the definition of supernatural?  You want the supernatural in the science classroom and you're the even keeled one?

Take your blasphemy somewhere else evopreach, you are not the mouthpiece of God and calling us all kinds of names is certainly falling far short of making disciples of all nations.

   
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2005,18:43   

That Scopes quote cannot possibly be true for the simple reason that by 1925, both classical Newtonian gravitation and the concept of "aether" had already been disproven, in 1915 and 1905, respectively.  Thus, I do not know where or when you found that quote, but neither of those concepts were seriously accepted by scientists at the time of the Scopes trial.

As for how one would determine the difference between "Common Design" and common descent, let's make a really simple hypothesis and test it out:

Let's look at birds and bats for a second.  Both fly using wings, so one could conclude that if they were a product of "common design," then their wings should be structurally very similar, since they were "designed" to perform very similar tasks.  On the other hand, if their wings were a product of descent with modification from ancestors within their separate classes, we should see very distinct differences.

Now, looking at their wings, we see a very serious difference almost instantaneously:  Birds' wings are modified from arms, and in fact retain many of the structures found in all terrestrial vertebrate arms, but modified for flight.  Bats' wings, on the other hand, are modified fingers with webbing in between, not arms.  While their fingers are similar to other terrestrial vertebrates, they are modified for flight, but in a completely different manner from birds.

Furthermore, one would expect that the collarbones for both animals would be similar, since both were "designed" for flight, right?  Well, not really.  For starters, birds' collarbones have a particular "wishbone" shape, whereas bats' collarbones are shaped more similarly to those of other mammals.  Furthermore, the bones of birds are structured differently on their interior, with hollow crevices, whereas again, bats' bones resemble those of other mammals.  One would also expect that their skulls would be more similar to each other, were they designed, since the strains of flight are similar.  But no, again, we find that birds' skulls are built more similarly to those of reptiles, with two fenestral openings and multiple jawbones, while bats' skulls are similar to mammals, with one fenestral opening and one jaw bone.

So, looking at this evidence, we can conclude that it does not match what we would expect if these two species were designed.  Designed flying animals would be more similar to each other than to walking animals. The evidence does, however, support a conclusion that birds and bats evolved from separate classes of walking animals, independently gaining the ability to fly.  Incidentally, when examining insect wings, we find that they are structurally very different from either bat or bird wings, a profound difference which makes no sense if flying animals were all designed, but fits perfectly with the theory that they evolved from walking animals from a completely different phylum.

Thus we find that the observed evidence disconfirms a design hypothesis, but is consistent with a hypothesis of descent with modification.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,04:49   

Hyper,

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/statcase.htm

The briefs and transcript from the appeal to the Tennessee Supreme court. So shove it butthead.

Your stupid bat bird example is typical of the red herring strawman approach and is meaningless. Common design does not mean identical design or can't you differentiate between say a volkwagon and a mecedes. Probably think they both decended from a chariot by small incremental design changes.

Macro evolution has never been observed, never will be observed... sort of by definition since it takes a few million years to occur. Speciation as you define it by micromutation is accepted by everyone just attributed to accounts other than purely mutation and natural selection.

The number of transitional fossils is pitiful and arguable in every case where even Darwin said there should be billions to examine.. none. not.. never. That alone should have killed this fairy tale years ago.

And all this time I thought bats were mammals and birds weren't .. you know different in about two jillion ways.

Please tell me you people have someone who can play in the big leagues and not these sophmoric types.

In the meantime may I send you Duane Gish's book "Evolution the Fossils Still Say No"... which will cause you to go sleepless for a week or two as your world falls away to oblivion.

See lies can't live forever even with George Soros, Satan and the ACLU behind them.

  
Moderator



Posts: 32
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,04:56   

I'll post this in this thread, too: Read the board rules. Those who don't conform will be gone.

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,05:37   

hahahahaha

By the way, be nice to George Soros, he spent millions of dollars to fight communism in Eastern Europe.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,08:36   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 30 2005,13:48)
GCT,

Omnipetence is just one characteristc among many as with human personality. God is also consistently logical in His actions and would have a plan of action which in this case was the creation sequence from ex nihilo to the 7th day. He pronounced it good as in mature and perfect (prior to corruption and fall) as to operation and completeness. Thus any limitations or boundaries are self imposed so that for instance He cannot act to conflict with any of his characteristics. He cannot make imperfect plans which of His own choosing are flawed as opposed to results of actions permitted under free will which clearly cause enourmous problems and difficulties.

Thus the creation is logically consistent as portrayed and certain design choices naturally have to be consistent and complimentary it is actually a system of minimum complexity, maximum efficiency and remarkable reliability compared to our own creative efforts.

If your chief car designer made one line to burn wood, another coal, another diesel, another gasoline and another plutonium; one with three wheels , another with four, etc. would he be you designer for long.

Wasn't it Einstein who sad the universe is as simple as it can be and not one ounce less complex than it has to be.

Omnipotence means no boundaries.  Design choices do NOT have to be consistent with an omnipotent god.  There need not be physical laws of the universe either.  It simply does not follow.

Also, your contention about a car designer is flawed as well.  An omnipotent god does not need to worry about such things.  Of course, your contention also means that if we find examples of bad design, then your contention is wrong, correct?

So, let's talk about bad design....
Giraffe necks
Human eyes
Human reproductive canal

Those examples should get you started.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,10:19   

CGT, First God planned, then He acted in agreement with His plan because otherwise He would be imperfect in His planning and not God, He would therefore in acting sequentially He created using common design elements as man always does for a variety of engineering and "economic" interests that are apparently beyond the grasp of biology types. As to physical laws, since He made them, defined them and put them into operation His creation should and would be consistent with them otherwise they wouldn't work, live etc. ... that's common sense .. something evos don't have or appreciate.

Immutable: Unchangeable, but really do you really think an atheist god-hater has any possible knowlege to pass on about such matters ....please.

Every so called bad design argument has been dealt with by people with more expertise than I no need to rehearse. I have posted a devastating critique of the so called mammalian eye's bad design on this forum... learn to read.

How about that 100% reversal by your evo club on the bird dinosaur lineage... guffaw  ... another icon of forty years down the toilet.

"Thing just aren't adding up for feathered dinosaurs," said lead researcher, avian evolutionist and paleobiologist Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He described the prevailing theory that birds descended from theropods as paleontological "wish-fulfillment" based on "sloppy science."

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,10:42   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 11 2005,15:19)
CGT, First God planned, then He acted in agreement with His plan because otherwise He would be imperfect in His planning and not God, He would therefore in acting sequentially He created using common design elements as man always does for a variety of engineering and "economic" interests that are apparently beyond the grasp of biology types. As to physical laws, since He made them, defined them and put them into operation His creation should and would be consistent with them otherwise they wouldn't work, live etc. ... that's common sense .. something evos don't have or appreciate.

Immutable: Unchangeable, but really do you really think an atheist god-hater has any possible knowlege to pass on about such matters ....please.

Every so called bad design argument has been dealt with by people with more expertise than I no need to rehearse. I have posted a devastating critique of the so called mammalian eye's bad design on this forum... learn to read.

How about that 100% reversal by your evo club on the bird dinosaur lineage... guffaw  ... another icon of forty years down the toilet.

"Thing just aren't adding up for feathered dinosaurs," said lead researcher, avian evolutionist and paleobiologist Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He described the prevailing theory that birds descended from theropods as paleontological "wish-fulfillment" based on "sloppy science."

Your nasty comments on the religious beliefs of scientists are not only inappropriate, but wrong as well.  Many evolutionists are Christians or believers in other religions, and as has been pointed out, it is only a minor sect of Christianity that has a problem with evolution.  And it is localized mainly in one particular country, which makes Dawkins’ meme idea seem very apropos.  

You really do need to rehearse, as your performances on this board obviously need considerable rehearsal before they are meaningful.  I might also suggest that better punctuation might make your posts more comprehensible.  I know you mock the proper use of language, but language is a communication tool, and the easier it is to comprehend someone’s writings, the better the tool is being used.

Individual bad design arguments may come and go, but the point is still valid, and none of your posts have negated the basic principle of such points.  As has been pointed out, scientists make mistakes and discover new things – that is science.  Yet another reason why ID is not science, but religion.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,11:37   

See more civility really great. If all theories were constantly permitted to take liberties such as evolution does progress would grind to a halt.

1) Macro evolution is assumed and never demonstrated because its impossible to do so ... but that's solid science.

2) There are no or pitifully few transitional forms where even Darwin said there would be billions .. just time to find them was required... never ever found  period. But its ok we'll find them someday.

3) Every conflict no matter how impactful is accommodated and not taken as a fault or a possible line of falsification.. why.. because evolution is a proven fact beyond dispute.. no matter what.  That is not science.

4) Evolution demands life from non-life by chance ... but cannot demonstrate it,,, cannot even make it plausible and now denies its a logical imperative... thats not science.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,13:32   

Evopeach

1) Ma = Mm + Mm + Mm +Mm + Mm +...
where Ma represents macroevolution and Mm represents microevolution.

2) All forms are transitional as no offspring is identical to a parent (save for a clone)

3) As new discoveries are made, a theory is developed, modified or discarded. Rabbit fossils in pre-Cambrian deposits would be a problem for evolutionary theory.

4) Evolution begins after abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a separate problem. Robert Shapiro thinks more work needs to be done and present theories are weak. He is not, however, a creationist, and believes that good science can address the problem.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,05:08   

Foxy,

Gee then with all those billions of MA's for every one of the billion species there should be 10**18 transitional fossils clearly illlustrating all the nearly continuous changes say from a land mamal to a whale or from the first replicator to the jelly fish.

I would imagine you would like any any any fossil in the period from abiogenesis to the pre-cambrian somewhere close to an invertbrate since there are absolutely none.

Rediculous!!

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,06:35   

Please call me Alan

Jellyfish have a hard time being discovered as fossils. They are eaten, when they die they decay, there are no hard parts such as bone to fossilise. Most fossils that do exist remain undiscovered, still buried in undisturbed strata. I find it amazing that so much fossil evidence has been discovered.

Not nearly continuous, really continuous. All living organisms on Earth have descended with modification via viable antecedents from a common ancestor. Well that's the theory. I feel that you disagree. Would you have an alternative theory to propose, or are you just in denial about evolution?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,08:24   

After reading a few of evopeach's posts here, I wonder why anyone bothers responding to his posts. It basically has the effect of seriously degrading the S/N ratio of the discussion.

I've had some experience attempting to have a constructive debate with these guys who make ludicrous claims like there's a complete absence of transitional forms, there's absolutely no evidence for evolution, there are no examples of sub-optimal design, etc. etc. etc. Presenting them with evidence of their errors makes no impression; they either ignore your evidence, claim you don't understand the debate, change the subject, or just call you names.

It's entertaining for a while, but then it starts to get tedious.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,08:46   

Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 12 2005,13:24)
After reading a few of evopeach's posts here, I wonder why anyone bothers responding to his posts. It basically has the effect of seriously degrading the S/N ratio of the discussion.

I've had some experience attempting to have a constructive debate with these guys who make ludicrous claims like there's a complete absence of transitional forms, there's absolutely no evidence for evolution, there are no examples of sub-optimal design, etc. etc. etc. Presenting them with evidence of their errors makes no impression; they either ignore your evidence, claim you don't understand the debate, change the subject, or just call you names.

It's entertaining for a while, but then it starts to get tedious.

I agree with you.  I only do this for the entertainment value.  When I get bored, I drop it until it's entertaining again.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,08:49   

Eric,

I've had experience with these guys who claim to show solid evidence of transitional fossils, common decent, macro evolution, abiogenesis and supposed answers to the myriad of extraordinary mathmatical calculations that have been done in great detail by more evos than by IDers or YEC.

1) I can read books like Duane Gish Phd in Microbiology two books in fact on all the so called transitional fossil record, macro evolution, etc. and also Mike Denton's book, same sort of background and an MD as well.

2) I can read Shapiro, Hoyle,Crick and all the others who having exhausted all possibility of explaining abiogenesis, which if it did not occur means evolution did not happen period in the sense you present it,  now ascribe to science fiction and cultic religious paradigms... that's desperation.

I have no more time to waste with this group of brainwashed true believers.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,09:53   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 12 2005,13:49)
Eric,

...

I have no more time to waste with this group of brainwashed true believers.


Somehow, evopeach, I don't think this is going to be your last post.

But in any event, given your ignorance of even the most obvious facts in general science, your opinions on any aspect of evolution are pretty suspect, to put it mildly.

It's easy to say you've read all the critiques of ID. It's another thing entirely to explain why they're all wrong. That's a challenge I'm convinced you're simply not up to.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,10:16   

Quote
EvoPooch wrote: It's easy to say you've read all the critiques of ID. It's another thing entirely to explain why they're all wrong. That's a challenge I'm convinced you're simply not up to.
Fortunately, it's really up to the creationists (1) to explain why virtually every working biologist is wrong about evolution, and (2) to explain why ID - or any other brand of creationism - is a viable challenge. So far, they've failed utterly.

BTW, Poochy, Gish's PhD is in biochemistry, not microbiology.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,11:25   

Russell:

I think you may have misinterpreted my post, which was directed to evopeach. I agree with you completely that it's up to ID apologists like evopeach to explain why virtually the entire scientific community is wrong in thinking the new synthesis of neodarwinian evolution and genetics is up to the task of explaining the evolution of life. So far they've failed spectacularly to do so. Generally their response to critiques of ID is, "yeah, I've read that, and it's crap."

There's this one guy on telic thoughts who does that. I gave him 5,000 words (with extensive references) on why IC, CSI, and the EF have all been thoroughly discredited as  supporting a design inference. His response: "Your arguments weren't any good."

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,11:35   

Quote
I think you may have misinterpreted my post
Of course, you're right.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,07:48   

To all of you true believers: The 400 scientists who plus many  more IDers and Creationists are not all idiots, incompetents publicly reounce neo-darwinina evolutionary mecnanisma period.. There is a body of literature from Denton to present day written by credible people who dispute macroevolution very credibly.

I aways thught science was experimentally based and evidentiary in nature. Yet by definition nothing in abiogenesis is repeatable, nothing in the common decent theory is experimentally reproducable and macroevolution has never been observed because by definition it takes eons to occur.

Evolution other than micro which is usually trivial and increasingly explanable by built-in adaptive genetic machinery (turns out so-called junk DNA, leftovers from evolution, is actually in many cases useful and active and important), micro RNA, etc. Evolution fits none of the historic criteria for real science.

It is "Science by Inference" not by objective evidence.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,08:03   

evopeach,

Is plate tectonics "not science" because it can't be observed, can't be duplicated, and isn't experimentally reproducible?

You seem to think that astrophysics is science. Can primoridal nucleosynthesis be reproduced in the lab? Can we observe the first three minutes of the existence of the universe in the lab? How do we know hydrogen and helium were created in the first few minutes after the big bang? No one was there to witness it.

As it happens, evopeach, evolutionary biology uses the same techniques any historical science, like geology or cosmology, uses to draw inferences about the past from evidence available in the present. These kinds of arguments are so utterly vacuous it's simply breathtaking that ID apologists like yourself continue to use them.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,09:16   

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subject....s.shtml

This reference states the fact that plate tectonic movements and speeds and tension forces have been measured and the theory varified by these direct measurements currently and thus have no counterpart with unmeasureable macroevolution for instance.

Who says I believe in them any more than macroevolution, common decent etc. they're just discussed because they are the logical imperative for neo-darwian jibberish and point out the fact that there is no logical underpinning for your theory period.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,10:07   

evopeach:

The evidence for neodarwinian evolution is just as compelling, just as logical, and just as irrefutable as the evidence for plate tectonics. The difference is, neodarwinian evolution threatens your worldview in a way plate tectonics doesn't.

Your argument isn't even an argument from incredulity. It's an argument from deliberate blindness.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,11:49   

Aything that has zero empirical, repeatable, demonstrable evidentialry capability is mopdern mythology and does not meet scientific credibility. In addition it is founded on a wild unwarranted, unsubstantitated basis of abiogenesis which is mathmatically indistinguishable from impossibility.

Tectonics has been measured, it is known to be going on now, it is measureable and demonstratble now , it can be simulated in a primal sense now, it passes the test for scientific investigation. The tools of the trade are seismic, accelerometry, presure sensors etc. not bone fragments and teeth or unsettled assumptions.

Your logic is based on purposed ignorance.

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,12:12   

Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 13 2005,15:07)
Your argument isn't even an argument from incredulity. It's an argument from deliberate blindness.

More precisely, it's an argument where Evopeach has his eyes shut tight, his fingers jammed in his ears, and his head stuck under a pillow, while coming up with all sorts of rubbish.

As evidenced by the post just above mine, where he makes ludicrously erroneous claims about abiogenesis and the evidence for evolution.

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,12:27   

This is exactly why it's a waste of time arguing with people like you, evo. You ignore evidence you don't like. I could give you links to articles presenting plausible pathways from abiotic beginnings to the first precursors to life, but it won't matter. You'll dismiss them out of hand.

Your whole argument about how abiogenesis is impossible can be characterized as "Lies", Damned Lies, and Statistics."

The evidence for evolution is a bit more extensive than reference to a few bone fragments. The evidence for common descent with modification might be characterized as mountainous.

And I can't fail to note that you have proposed no alternative theory explaining the rather obvious fact that life does actually exist. Did god "poof" it into existence?

You can't make an entire theory out of criticisms of another theory. If you think "God (or some other supernatural entity) did it," good luck coming up with an explanation for how he (or it) did it.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,00:26   

Oh, but Eric, just read the Bible and all will be clear. :D

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,03:47   

Since the Herd mentality characterizes this group of true believers I'll just respond to the Herd.

Of course you can make up several just so stories about any and every aspect of evolution.. thats the entire theory beyond modest changes within kinds called microevolution.

People make up stories that could have happened all the time but in life their called fiction because although plausible they never happened.

People make up stories that at broad brush seem plausible but upon examination turn out to be "cold fusion" , thats abiogenesis for 100 years of fraud and failure.

People make up stories they want people to believe to sell books but upon close examination of the facts are nothing more than fairy tales.. thats general evolution.

See just so stories are just that until they are observed, tested experimentally, reviewed, repeated by independent groups successfully etc. then you have a believable theory.

Evolution beyond micro-evolution has never accomplished any of the above.

Thats not science thats conjecture and mythology.

And there are no wild statements about abiogenesis because it is a totally unproven concept.. can't even make a mathmatically believable hypothesis of it.

Tick Toc Tic Toc

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,04:13   

Evopeach,
Again, you have made the charge of fraud...back it up.

Let's also put the Bible under the same scrutiny, shall we?  I mean, you accept the Bible as the definitive word on how the universe began, where man came from, etc. so why shouldn't we scrutinize it?

Can you observe the events in the Bible?  Can you experimentally test the events in the Bible?  Can you review them?  Can they be repeated by independent groups?

The answer to all those questions is, "No."

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,04:28   

No charge of fraud just the observation that your theory is believed because you want to believe it as part of your world view, your credentials and career are totally dependent on your devotion to it, for many their tenure and taxpayer subsidized grant money depends on it, being published depends on it... etc.

Creationism is in the same boat as evolution regarding origins except they say very clearly that regarding origins their statements are not scientifically varifiable. IDers do not make any statement regarding any particular religious explanation period other than the Designer of life is an entity and not a random process.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,04:31   

So, Evopeach,
If you reject evolution for those reasons, why do you not similarly reject Creationism/ID for the same reasons?  Where is your intellectual honesty?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,05:20   

Because evolution is not intellectually honest, is hostile to all other explanations, wastes time, talent and taxpayer resources on useless work driven by the atheists desire to prove God doesn't exist and has no possible useful outcome.

Creation and ID simply take the world as it is, assume it was designed, analyze it from that perspective not worrying about 15 billion years ago but rather about how to learn from the beauty and intricacy of the design, mimic it, fix it where broken and generally search out methods and techniques for using the knowledge to benefit mankind and the entire ecosystem.

Because creation and ID are srtaight forward and truthful in their claims and presentations and any reading of them affirms same.

There is a well respected, scholarly, multidisciplinary and quite accepted book of knowledge that supports my belief, the Bible. Though of course not a book of science per se I have no problem with its explanations of irigins though again they are not scientific.

ID id not creationism period and even Henry Morris says it plain and clear... they have no relationship in their repsective work.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,05:33   

The Bible has not changed in how many years?  Do you not think that we have learned anything since the Bible was written?

Again, you have made the baseless claim that evolution equals atheism, which I once again challenge you to back up.

Tell me how Creationism/ID helps to benefit mankind.  How does one go about doing that using Creationism/ID.

As for the honesty of Creationism/ID, perhaps you have never seen the Quote Mine Project on Talk Origins?  What about the Index to Creationist Claims?  Of course, I know you have seen those and ignore them.

What you are really saying here is that you accept the Bible without any question, but if another idea comes up, like evolution, then it must be questioned until it is found wrong in your opinion, just so you can continue to follow the Bible without question.  That's not at all consistent.  You should hold all evidences to the same standard and I challenge you to do that with the Bible.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,06:05   

evopeach:

I'll extend you the courtesy of assuming you've actually read the links I've provided. Your next assignment is to show me, in detail beyond "they're all just crap," exactly why you think they're crap. So far you haven't said anything that leads me to believe you have a single scrap of an argument to rebut anything in either of those links.

Until you've done that, I think I can safely ignore your rants.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,06:10   

The bible has withstood 2000 years of criticism and scholarly examination and its still the most owned and read book in the world and followed by many, many millions of people as the central guide to their way of life.

Equating Darwin and Dawkins writing with scripture is laughable in terms of impact on human life and authority.

ID and Creation beliefs are not hostile to good science and many IDers and Creationists work effectively in many scientific discliplines that may very well result in drugs, etc. that benefit people. NOt because of ID necessarily but because origins and fossils and such contribute nothing to their work nor to most work in the fields of science in the context of science that actually benefits mankind directly.

Contrary to the rantings herein teaching the debate would have no practical adverse effect on beneficial science and certainly not on the progress of the students.

Maybe talk.origins should be renamed talk.afterlifestarted since abiogenesis is not important or necessary to evos theories.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,07:39   

Origins does not necessarily refer to the origins of life.  It could very easily refer to the origins of species.

The Bible has been around for a long time, that is true, but as soon as you start taking your science from it, you should put it under the same scrutiny as other science.  You are more than willing to scrutinize evolution, but not the "science" you get from the Bible.  I ask again, why is that?

You also admit that Creationism/ID does not lead to any benefit to mankind, I'm glad we can agree on that.  But, let's examine that a little more, shall we?  If these scientists that believe in creation are helping manking, but not because of ID, then it's safe to say that they are doing it while separating their religious convictions from their work, correct?  But, you want to do the exact opposite when you get your science from the Bible.  That, once again, is not logically consistent.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,08:33   

Actually I have never taken a technical or scientific subject where the Bible was a textbook. The Bible is not a book of science primarily but where history impinges on science by necessity I suggest it is as well supported as general evolution. It simply does not speak to 99% of science period.

I do not agree that IDers and YECs theories have no impact on the results of thier work in science.

1) I have outlined elsewhere the impact of using the tols normally associated with systems design, analysis, debugging, securing etc. has been extraordinary in the genome project and subsequent outcomes. This is consciously or unconsciously the direct result of a design implication rather than a random walk through animal space, there could not be a greater dichotomy.

2) We would never waste time talent and resources on origin of life experiments over 100 years, space alien research, panspermia research but rather direct empirical science of understnading the marvelous designs and learning how to apply them to helping mankind.

3) It is the Bible's provence to lift the spirit and hope of mankind outside of science which is a large part of existence, actually.

Didn't your mommy teach you not to mistate other peoples positions?

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,08:45   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 14 2005,13:33)
Actually I have never taken a technical or scientific subject where the Bible was a textbook. The Bible is not a book of science primarily but where history impinges on science by necessity I suggest it is as well supported as general evolution. It simply does not speak to 99% of science period.

I do not agree that IDers and YECs theories have no impact on the results of thier work in science.

1) I have outlined elsewhere the impact of using the tols normally associated with systems design, analysis, debugging, securing etc. has been extraordinary in the genome project and subsequent outcomes. This is consciously or unconsciously the direct result of a design implication rather than a random walk through animal space, there could not be a greater dichotomy.

2) We would never waste time talent and resources on origin of life experiments over 100 years, space alien research, panspermia research but rather direct empirical science of understnading the marvelous designs and learning how to apply them to helping mankind.

3) It is the Bible's provence to lift the spirit and hope of mankind outside of science which is a large part of existence, actually.

Didn't your mommy teach you not to mistate other peoples positions?

In answer to:

1.  How does saying, "This is designed" lead to figuring out the genome sequences?  That's just ridiculous.

2.  You can't say that Creationism/ID helps mankind by....helping mankind.

3.  That only applies for Christians.  What about other religions?  Also, you are the one that is using the Bible as an accurate account of the origin of life.  Now, you say that it is only to be used as a way of lifting spirits?  So, now, where do you turn to for your backing of the origin of life story in the Bible?  Do you turn to the same Creationists that admitted under oath in Court that their "science" is based on the Bible?  Do you even see the circular reasoning there?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,09:55   

GCT

I never said that figuring out the genome sequences depended on a design committment, I said the tools used were transferred from the disciplines of systems, IT and were of enormous assistance to the project and they by definition start from a design perspective.

Since one team was headed by a purely materialistic evolutionist, Craig Vetner, and the other by a practicing Christian, Francis  Collins it is clear that good science was performed in both cases.

Thus the work was enabled using tools that assume a design, look for logic and propose solution methods based such whether they are themselves IDers or not.

Truth is not the captive of the mindset of the inquisitor or investigator but of the efficacy of the method used in finding it.

A simple example: I know that on average e is the most popular letter used in English language written expression, followed by t,a,o,i,n,s,r when I solve a cryptogram. Knowing that is quite important in terms of pace and success. I know it is a code with a certain logic, conceptual thought behind it and is rational as to purpose, etc.

If I assume the crytogram is a sequence of randomly chosen letters from a uniform distribution with replacements then whereever shall I start in my investigation. I shall adopt the same trial and error method and be searching for sense when the last star burns out.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,09:59   

GCT, I did not say the Bible only lifts spirits I said it was one aspect of helping mankind.. among many.

The Spiritual aspects are not appropriate to this forum.

  
  75 replies since Mar. 30 2005,01:21 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]