Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Help required!

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2007,11:59    As the description says, I've engaged in another evo discussion recently. The guy isn't a real ID-ist, but rather someone who symphatises with them. It all started pretty cliché, that nature looks o so much like machines, that design is such a logical thing and that it is science etc etc. I explained to him why ID was not science, why his analogy with machines, nano-technology and stuff like that was flawd and couldn't be used as an argument. In other discussions I had with people like him, usually real ID-ists, they usually repeated themselfs, walked away or changed the subject to something completly different. But this guy did something I haven't seen before, he actually accepted my explanation and saw the logic in it. But ofcourse, since he sympathises with ID he sad that logic would also apply on ND/evo wich would let nothing standing of ND/evo, just like with ID. Bassicly I used the explanations from this link. Anyway, this is a rough translation of what he sad:   Quote By means of the same reasoning, as it happens, also nothing of ND/Evo, anyway no science, remains. An example, there is there more, to make this point clear. Common descent: Resemblance between DNA are no proof for affinity. One can possibly postulate it to be an indication for affinity but it proves on itself no affinity. Yes, individuals who are related to each other show lots of resemblance, but that you can't turn that around as if all resemblances in DNA automaticly implicate affinity. All cows are animals, but not all animals are cows. Notice that cladistics, strictly speaking, measures no affinity but resemblance. Affinity is an unfounded diversion from these resemblances. I used Dictionary.com, but tweaked a bit on the outcome (at least it's better then Babelfish). And if anyone here is able to speak Dutch too, then check the Dutch Science-Forum for the original text from the user named qrnlk (I'm also Assassinator there, it's a tradition ). I hope the translation makes things clear enough. I'm a bit stuck on factual arguments, and not yet deep enough in the whole spiel of evo (next semester I will get deeper in it, we'll be making a phylogenetic tree for example) so I'm asking some people here for some help on the arguments, since the topic on that forum is leaving the logical part and it's entering the factual part of the subject. Maybe some more questions will come, I can't predict how he will react. At least thanks in advance.

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2007,12:15    I would start out by simply explaining the difference between "proof" and "evidence."  Similarities in DNA are evidence of common descent, but not proof of it.  In other words your friend is invoking a strawman argument, knowingly or not.  There are other lines of evidence that reinforce the idea of common descent; common descent was proposed and generally accepted long before our present knowledge of DNA. In that sense, greater understanding of genetics has served to confirm what was already proposed. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2007,15:55    Slap me and call me a donkey, but I alwayse thought evidence and proof were 2 synonyms. Before I want to use that in that discussion, can you explain a bit more about the difference between those 2? (It's almost astonishing how much you can learn on the internet )

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2007,16:01    Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 08 2007,15:55) Slap me and call me a donkey, but I alwayse thought evidence and proof were 2 synonyms. Before I want to use that in that discussion, can you explain a bit more about the difference between those 2? (It's almost astonishing how much you can learn on the internet ;)) In science, every conclusion is provisional, and no conclusion is considered to be proven. We say that a hypothesis is or is not supported by evidence. The most powerful part of science is to use one's hypothesis to correctly predict the evidence before it is in hand, something that has never been done by a creationist/IDer.

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2007,16:09    Ofcourse, that I haven't thought of that. And now to correctly translate that too Dutch :P Anyway, so far for the starter. I predict he will say it isn't evidence either, for some random reason. I've looked around, but can't find proper links about it (e.a why it is evidence for common descent).

Richard Simons Posts: 425 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2007,20:52    Organisms fit into a nested hierarchy, which is a characteristic of things that have diverged from an original. Not only that, but using different independent traits to reconstruct family trees results in virtually identical branching patterns. The probability of obtaining such similar trees purely by chance is frequently vanishingly small. There is an introduction to the topic at TalkOrigins 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_consilience). Jim is right about proof and evidence. In science we can say that a particular theory fits all the known evidence and also that predictions made on the basis of the theory have been verified, but the theory is never proven. You can demonstrate that a brick falls when it is pushed off a roof, but it can't be proven that this will always occur. -------------- All sweeping statements are wrong.

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2007,07:11    A, I remember that link, bad thing is that he countered that with this link. To bad I was never able to find a critique on that.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2007,08:45    [devil's advocate] [anti-harshness filter] Assassinator - Perhaps, given that you aren't very familiar with the methods, epistemology and evidence that compels the conclusions of contemporary evolutionary biology, you aren't the right person to press that debate. If you don't really know the basics of your position, how do you know your discussant isn't right? Slinging links addressing material you don't really understand, or is entirely new to you, is Ftk territory. And it's a no-win proposition, because a large repertoire of ad hoc creationist flapdoodle has been crafted to address each of the main points of evolution. For every link you produce, he'll produce another, and some familiarity with the literature is often required to make apparent the flaws in each creationist argument. Just a thought. [/devil's advocate] [/anti-harshness filter] -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2007,09:04    That's why I came here for help, to understand arguments he brings better ;) Just here to learn. I'm alright with the logical part, but still not that at home on the factual part. I'm to learn about those flaws.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2007,09:41    Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 09 2007,07:11) A, I remember that link, bad thing is that he countered that with this link. To bad I was never able to find a critique on that. That's odd. Ashby Camp apparently was able to locate such:   Quote NOTE:  The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this article—and changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded.  Neither this article, nor Mr. Camp’s response to Theobald’s criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobold’s on-going adjustments and modifications. Though you may note that Camp doesn't bother to share links to resources other than his own or with similar views, so you are left on your own to find what he refers to. So, just how did Camp determine that there was a response? If you go to the TalkOrigins Archive, hit the "Search" button, and plug in "Ashby", you get this result, and the top hit returned is "A Response to Ashby Camp's "Critique"". Of course, the first grey "sidebar" style box in Theobald's essay has this content:   Quote Other Links: A Critique of Douglas Theobald's "29 Evidences for Macroevolution"    Lawyer, Churches of Christ minister, and young-earth creationist Ashby Camp argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish that all organisms share the same biological ancestor. Theobald Responds to Ashby Camp's "Critique"    The author of this essay has written a response to Camp. Theobald apparently has no problem linking to Camp. One wonders why Camp has an apparent problem linking to Theobald. This all leads to a question: Just how diligent a search was made in looking for Theobald's response to Camp? -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2007,10:02    I overlooked the obvious. Well thanks for that, I've got some reading now ;) That guy isn't alwayse an honest discusser, he almost refuted to accept arguments from TalkOrigins because he says they're produced by atheïstic madmen. Ridiculous ad hominem ofcourse.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2007,10:13    Ass, this guy is probably a presuppositionalist.  There is an essay on the web, somewhere, by a philosopher who has debated many of these folks and has a great set of advice about how to deal with presuppositionalist arguments on logical grounds that are independent of the factual context of the debate.  It could be about anything, but the post modern relativism of pre-supps is always a good thing to keep hammering. -------------- 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

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2007,10:21    Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 09 2007,10:02) I overlooked the obvious. Well thanks for that, I've got some reading now ;) That guy isn't alwayse an honest discusser, he almost refuted to accept arguments from TalkOrigins because he says they're produced by atheïstic madmen. Ridiculous ad hominem ofcourse. Theobald is not an atheist. I'm not an atheist. The TalkOrigins Archive is not an anti-theist organization. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2007,12:57    Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 09 2007,08:02) ... he almost refuted to accept arguments from TalkOrigins because he says they're produced by atheïstic madmen. I resemble that remark! (Groucho Marx, sometime ago) -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Richard Simons Posts: 425 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2007,14:31    Quote Any set of objects, whether or not they originated in an evolutionary process, can be classified hierarchically.  Chairs, for instance, are independently created; they are not generated by an evolutionary process: but any given list of chairs could be classified hierarchically, perhaps by dividing them first according to whether or not they were made of wood, then according to their colour, by date of manufacture, and so on.  The fact that life can be classified hierarchically is not, in itself, an argument for evolution. (Ridley 1985, 8.) I did not read all of the material in the link (to a Critique of 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution) but if this is typical of the level of argument I am not impressed. Ridley (and Camp) missed the whole point, which is that to be comparable with what is found in biology, not only the chairs could be arranged in a hierarchy, but comparisons of the chemical composition of the stains or paints, the fabric used to cover the seats, the methods used to join the pieces together, would all result in the same hierarchy. I just noticed this   Quote The cytochrome c data on which Dr. Theobald relies present some puzzles from a Neo-Darwinian perspective.  First, the cytochromes of all the higher organisms (yeasts, plants, insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) exhibit an almost equal degree of sequence divergence from the cytochrome of the bacteria Rhodospirillum.  In other words, the degree of divergence does not increase as one moves up the scale of evolution but remains essentially uniform. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Yeasts, plants, insects and humans have all had the same amount of time to evolve away from the common ancestor of us and Rhodospirillum. Based on this comment, I would suggest that the rest of the piece is not worth reading in detail. -------------- All sweeping statements are wrong.

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2008,17:30    *cough cough* Pfew, some dust on this one. But I've got a few questions again. The discussion has reached some kind of stalemate. He says he knows that evolution happens, that he understands why. For him, the question is where the boundaries of evolution are, he gives this book as reference, but I'm not able to read it. He says that countless of experiments say that the theory of Universal Common Descent contains boundaries wich evolution can't cross. Now because I'm not able to read the book, I have no idea what he's talking about (wich experiments for example). I also wonder what that book from Behe says then about boundaries. I wish I was able to read all those books, I've seen so much book links here and on other forums wich I'm dying to read

Coyote Posts: 21 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2008,21:18    Here is a good rebuttal to Behe's The Edge of Evolution: http://www.ncseweb.org/resourc....007.asp Behe has not fared well with his ideas outside of creationist/ID circles. His works have been demolished by numerous scientists, and his testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case made him look like a complete fool.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2008,21:40    Quote He says that countless of experiments say that the theory of Universal Common Descent contains boundaries wich evolution can't cross. Does it say if any observed life forms are on opposite sides of any of those boundaries? After all, afaik the current theory doesn't imply that there aren't uncrossable boundaries, just that existing life forms would all be on one side of such. (Excepting perhaps species that have been tampered with by humans.) Henry

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2008,08:48    Thanks Coyote and Henry J :) But I still have some questions, next to rebutals of Behe's book, does anyone know what Behe says in his book? Does anyone also knows wich experiments the guy I'm discussing with is reffering to? I've asked, but he ignored it. Does anyone also new were the article in the 3th link in Coyote's link went? It seems like really interesting rebutal, but it's kinda gone.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2008,11:22    Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 09 2008,06:48) Thanks Coyote and Henry J :) But I still have some questions, next to rebutals of Behe's book, does anyone know what Behe says in his book? Does anyone also knows wich experiments the guy I'm discussing with is reffering to? I've asked, but he ignored it. Does anyone also new were the article in the 3th link in Coyote's link went? It seems like really interesting rebutal, but it's kinda gone. Disclaimer - I haven't read Behe's book.  I'm 45 and there are a lot of great books I want to read before I die.  I'll get to Behe around the time I get to L Ron Hubbard and Kevin Trudeau. Mark Chu-Carroll has a splendid review of the horrible mathematics at the core of Behe's argument: Quote The part of the book that is most annoying to me, and thus the part that I'll focus the rest of this review on, is chapter three, "The Mathematical Limits of Darwinism". This is, basically, the real heart of the book, and for obvious reasons, it seriously ticks me off. Behe's math is atrociously bad, pig-ignorant garbage - but he presents it seriously, as if it's a real argument, and as if he has the slightest clue what he's talking about. The basic argument in this chapter is the good old "fitness landscape" argument. And Behe makes the classic mistakes. His entire argument really comes down to the following points: 1.  Evolution can be modeled in terms of a static, unchanging fitness landscape. 2.  The fitness landscape is a smooth, surface made up of hills and valleys, where a local minimum or maximum in any dimension is a local minimum or maximum in all dimensions. The fitness function mapping from a genome to a point of the fitness landscape is monotonically increasing. The fitness function is smoothly continuous, with infinitessimally small changes (single-point base chanages) mapping to infinitessimally small changes in position on the fitness landscape. A "fitness landscape" can be thought of as a map (in many dimensions) of survival probabilities - as the size, shape, or behaviour of a species changes, the psoition on the "landscape" changes (get bigger and we move a bit this way, turn a darker colour and we move a bit that way, etc.) and hence the probability of survival changes.  Behe's claim is that species become "trapped" at a local maximum in the fitness landscape - if we move a bit in any direction, the probability of survival decreases.  This means that evolution is no longer possible.   This claim is rubbish for many reasons, as outlined in Mark's demolition referenced above.  (Read the whole thing.  It's brutal).  Just as an example, this argument only has a chance if the fitness landscape never changes - which of course it does.  Climates get warmer or wetter.  Continents drift.  Mountains rise and fall. Regarding the "experiments" your opponent is referring to - why don't you ask him for a reference?  Don't let him escape by saying "lots of them" - if they are, as he says, countless, then it should be easy for him to find them.  As there have in fact been no such experiments, if you press the guy on this, he's going to either cite something silly, or be forced to back down. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2008,15:53    VoxRat at IIDB (Internet Infidels) and others did a long waltz with a creationist calling him (or her?) self Lee_Merrill about the specifics of some of Behe's claims that there were limits to evolution. Please note that VoxRat is a molecular biologist.  Febble, who also appears, is a virologist, I think (easy enough to check the various profiles). Here's the thread (it's long; VoxRat makes his first appearance on p. 3...): http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=223997 A spinoff thread is good right from the get-go: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=228441 This link also leads to good stuff: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=233261

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,07:49    Thanks for those links I've asked indeed about the experiments, at first he ignored them but now he sad he would look something up. Note though, that this guy isn't anything close to a biologist. He's an informatic, and he has it's own business. It seems that he copied his views about evolution almost directly from both Behe and Demski, and he's looking at life like he's looking at huma technology. I have also rebutted his silly analogy's, I wonder if it came through though. Ironically enough, he has this in his signature:   Quote What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong? People like him make me go: (God I love that picture )

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,15:39    Assassinator, for what's it's worth, I've read Behe's book and it is essentially an attack on random mutation as a viable mechanism for the observed genetic diversity.  The "Edge" he refers to is the boundary between random and non-random mutation.  My problem with this argument is it approaches semantics.  At a point at which you define one mutation as non-random then any example of a random mutation may be nothing more than ignorance on our part.  Personally, I don't believe in random mutations but after reading the book I was not convinced that this was the way to refute them.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,16:09    Quote Personally, I don't believe in random mutations Could someone translate this for me?  I'm not sure what in the holy hell it is supposed to mean. -------------- 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: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,16:34    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 10 2008,16:09)   Quote Personally, I don't believe in random mutations Could someone translate this for me?  I'm not sure what in the holy hell it is supposed to mean. "Personally, I don't believe in random mutations" = Goddidit. There, that was simple enough, wasn't it? -------------- 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

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,17:05    Could be a space alien too. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,17:46    No, it means that there are no random mutations.  That sure seems simple enough to me.  All mutations are caused by something and not random rearrangements of base pairs.  IMO, citing random mutations is nothing more than hand waving.

Annyday Posts: 583 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,18:04    Mutations appear functionally random to all known methods of analysis. What magic method have you devised that can tell that what looks random isn't actually random? Or, in other words: unless you have evidence for guidance of mutation, this makes you a theistic evolutionist who thinks that God's hand is visible in seemingly-random mutations. This would be logically viable, if unparsimonious, but not remotely incompatible with evolution. -------------- "ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,18:06    Poor skeptic. Do you even know what is meant by "random" in this context? It's not difficult to understand. "Random" means random with regard to fitness. That is, whatever causes a given mutation is irrelevant to discussions of the range of variation selection has to work with. The handwaving is all yours. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,18:07    Quote (skeptic @ Jan. 10 2008,18:46) No, it means that there are no random mutations.  That sure seems simple enough to me.  All mutations are caused by something and not random rearrangements of base pairs.  IMO, citing random mutations is nothing more than hand waving. Recyling a post from long ago: Mutations, and the impact of those mutations, need not be, and indeed are not, utterly "chance events" in the quantum sense to which Einstein objected. Indeed, each one has, at least in principle, a causal story (as does a coin flip). Rather, however they are determined, mutations are "random" in the sense that they occur without respect to their impact upon the local fitness of a given organism in the context of its ecological niche.  Similarly, we flip a coin to assign the ball at the start of a football game not because coin-flips introduce quantum indeterminancy into the NFL: we flip coins because the outcome of the flip occurs without respect to the fortunes of either team. It is this sense of "without respect to their impact upon local fitness" that distinguishes random mutation from hypothetical design events (descent with meddling). Stephen Gould writes about this at length in "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory." -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard