PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     "Evolution is a religion!"
       Not so, unless you can explain these points!

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***Perhaps enemy is the wrong word - Deception is better***

Deception is good. CS Lewis described it as the biggest lie ever foisted on mankind. And its just illogical if one cares to study it in detail. It was in a genetics and evolution class about 30 years ago that a light bulb went off in my head and I said to myself, what a crock based on no facts at all.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 6:16 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are aware of the 101 scientists who signed the petition on the PBS special on evolution, aren't you?

And you are aware of Project Steve, are you not?  science isn't done by a majority vote.

How can you forget the greatest spiritual leader of them all - Charles Darwin, a humanist.  Evolution is called 'Darwinism' or 'Neo-Darwinism'.  

Darwin is God and Richard Dawkins is his prophet!!  Praise Darwin!  

Time to put away the toys and let the grown ups talk gup.
Gup, we had this discssion before.  Evolution does not fit any model of religion unless you grossly distort the definition to include everything from patriots to hobbyists.



-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 6:42 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***And you are aware of Project Steve, are you not? science isn't done by a majority vote.***

Well, sure. But that was a ‘tongue in cheek’ project. My point was that it simply isn’t true that radical Darwinism is accepted by everybody. It certainly is by the majority but this is a direct result of selection. Did you know that unless one accepts Darwinism then one cannot get a biology PhD at the majority of public institutions? Why would we be surprised many are Darwinist in the teaching profession? They won’t let anyone else get the credentials to teach it.

Do a survey of private colleges I would expect some surprises.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 6:54 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jerry-Don-Bauer at 6:16 PM on May 6, 2004 :

It was in a genetics and evolution class about 30 years ago that a light bulb went off in my head and I said to myself, what a crock based on no facts at all.


I don't suppose that you recall exactly what turned on the light bulb for you, do you?  Genetics is a very young science, and it's possible that whatever you disagreed with has been modified or even discarded in the last 30 years.  It's possible that if you re-examined the current science of evolution you might not object to it any more.  
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 7:28 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

radical Darwinism

How is it radical?

Did you know that unless one accepts Darwinism then one cannot get a biology PhD at the majority of public institutions?

That's akin to saying that someone who doesn't accept the quadratic equation can't get a mathematics degree.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:29 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***I don't suppose that you recall exactly what turned on the light bulb for you, do you? Genetics is a very young science, and it's possible that whatever you disagreed with has been modified or even discarded in the last 30 years. It's possible that if you re-examined the current science of evolution you might not object to it any more.***

It wasn’t the genetics part I had a problem with it was evolution.

Of course, I support the parts of evolution based on science. But when they began feeding me facts from 500 million years ago, where they had no DNA to test, no way of detecting speciation, and these facts cannot be falsified under the scientific method, they were leaving the realm of science and entering a realm I could not understand.

Perhaps I’m wrong in that the gist of evolution is religion. But if I am, then it must be a philosophy, but in any case, it certainly is not science.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 7:54 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***That's akin to saying that someone who doesn't accept the quadratic equation can't get a mathematics degree.***

But that equation is not controversial, is it? Evolution is highly controversial. There's a big difference. You won't find me arguing gravity with you. ;)
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 7:57 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But that equation is not controversial, is it? Evolution is highly controversial. There's a big difference. You won't find me arguing gravity with you. ;)


Evolution is almost exclusively  controversial only with those who have some religious reason to oppose it, typically fundamentalists.  And as I have pointed out here, the Theory of Gravity is much more likely to undergo significant revisions before the Thoery of Evolution.

(Edited by Apoapsis 5/6/2004 at 9:01 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:59 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course, I support the parts of evolution based on science.


OK, good start.

But when they began feeding me facts from 500 million years ago, where they had no DNA to test, no way of detecting speciation, and these facts cannot be falsified under the scientific method, they were leaving the realm of science and entering a realm I could not understand.


1.  How are fossils not a way of detecting speciation?

2.  Why wouldn't you consider the correlation between relationship trees derived from fossil and morphological characteristics and the molecular phylogenetic data of extant species to be evidence for common descent?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:21 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***Evolution is almost exclusively  controversial only with those who have some religious reason to oppose it, typically fundamentalists.***

You offer no premises to suppot this conclusion, therefore it is a non-sequitur .

***And as I have pointed out here, the Theory of Gravity is much more likely to undergo significant revisions before the Thoery of Evolution.***

This is supposition rather than logical conclusion as well.

 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 9:32 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***1. How are fossils not a way of detecting speciation?***

By the very definition of the word species: Sexual species: two organisms who can interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring and do so in the wild.

Do you see how obviously corrupt this “science” is? There’s no way to go back 500 million years to see what species was what. They would have no way in determining this. But the saddest is the veracity that it can’t be falsified. Therefore, according to the scientific method, this is not even science.

***2. Why wouldn't you consider the correlation between relationship trees derived from fossil and morphological characteristics and the molecular phylogenetic data of extant species to be evidence for common descent?***

Because one cannot determine speciation via morphology.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 9:42 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***Evolution is almost exclusively  controversial only with those who have some religious reason to oppose it, typically fundamentalists.***

You offer no premises to suppot this conclusion, therefore it is a non-sequitur .


This statement is based on years of observation on fora like this one, as well as a considerable amount of time spent with both religious and scientific friends, who are often one and the same.  You offer nothing in the way of refutation other than glib dismissal.

***And as I have pointed out here, the Theory of Gravity is much more likely to undergo significant revisions before the Thoery of Evolution.***

This is supposition rather than logical conclusion as well.


This statement is based on personal association with projects that resulted in new limits on various theories of gravity and conversations with the scientists involved.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:00 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***This statement is based on years of observation on fora like this one, as well as a considerable amount of time spent with both religious and scientific friends, who are often one and the same. You offer nothing in the way of refutation other than glib dismissal.***

I need not refute it, because you do not show it to be true. You cannot extrapolate your observations to everyone’s observations. That’s not logical in argument.

***This statement is based on personal association with projects that resulted in new limits on various theories of gravity and conversations with the scientists involved.***

Please see above. <:0)
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 10:05 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think I may see what you're saying, and can offer an explanation.  If you look at, for example, at modern day beetles, they're a ton of species, and you can examine each one and come up with a very detailed and verifiable family tree.  You can't do that for species that were around 500 million years ago, so claims about relations between these species are not supported scientifically.  Is this what you're saying?

While it's true that we can't create a fully fleshed out phylogenic tree going back 500 million years, we can make some reasonable deductions.  For example, fossils below a certain depth don't have a specific bone structure.  A little higher we see one dinosaur fossil with a new bone structure.  Higher than that, many, but not all, dinosuars have a similar struture.  From this we can hypothosize that the fossils from the higher level with the interesting bone structure are descended from the fossil from the middle layer that first showed the structure.  This isn't the rock solid proof you would get from a genetic analysis, and it may not allow you to devide things cleanly by species, but you can divide things by family or genus, it's still science.  
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 10:33 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Kronus:  While it's true that we can't create a fully fleshed out phylogenic tree going back 500 million years, we can make some reasonable deductions.  For example, fossils below a certain depth don't have a specific bone structure.  A little higher we see one dinosaur fossil with a new bone structure.  Higher than that, many, but not all, dinosuars have a similar struture.  From this we can hypothosize that the fossils from the higher level with the interesting bone structure are descended from the fossil from the middle layer that first showed the structure.  This isn't the rock solid proof you would get from a genetic analysis, and it may not allow you to devide things cleanly by species, but you can divide things by family or genus, it's still science.  

But even these suppositions are being challenged by continuing findings.  Recently, more than 500 fossils of Haikouichthys have been found in Early Cambrian strata in China.  This is significant because they are vertebrate, and it pushes the 'supposed evolution' of fish to an extremely short period of time at the very beginning of the Cambrian.  This is clear evidence that evolution never happened.  It is well known that a major gap exists between invertebrates and vertebraes.  Supposedly, some invertebreate had to evolve into a vertebrate in the late Precambrian or very Early Cambrian.  This find squeezes a major developmental stage of evolution (going from invertebrate to vertebrate) into a very short period of time within the the relatively huge evolutionary time paradigm.  

The nature of that kind of 'science' is shakey at best.  It is based on presupposition and assumption.  These are OFTEN changed and revised as they fall under the weight of actual observational evidence.    
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 01:08 AM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***I think I may see what you're saying, and can offer an explanation. If you look at, for example, at modern day beetles, they're a ton of species, and you can examine each one and come up with a very detailed and verifiable family tree. You can't do that for species that were around 500 million years ago, so claims about relations between these species are not supported scientifically. Is this what you're saying?***

Haldane thought that God surely seemed to have an inordinate fondness for beetles. But, that’s not the deal. Think of how evolution teaches an uneducated public homo sapien magically morphed from a protist through a billion speciations over a couple billion years when they cannot go back a billion years to know this. This is not science, there is no way it can be falsified. And, unfortunately, most posits in this field are exactly this way.

***A little higher we see one dinosaur fossil with a new bone structure. Higher than that, many, but not all, dinosuars have a similar struture. From this we can hypothosize that the fossils from the higher level with the interesting bone structure are descended from the fossil from the middle layer that first showed the structure. This isn't the rock solid proof you would get from a genetic analysis, and it may not allow you to devide things cleanly by species, but you can divide things by family or genus, it's still science. ***

Some fossils seem to imply things, don’t they? But things may or may not be the way they seem. To start with, you don’t know if these species you are looking at are totally unrelated, or an evolutionary transition of species. There is just no way to know this. And you can’t just assume things and call it science. You will never be able to go back in time to do breeding experimentation to establish this and you have no DNA specimens dating back more than 60,000 years. How does one falsify any of this to the point that the scientific method can bring it into the realm of science?
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 01:27 AM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But even these suppositions are being challenged by continuing findings.  Recently, more than 500 fossils of Haikouichthys have been found in Early Cambrian strata in China.  This is significant because they are vertebrate, and it pushes the 'supposed evolution' of fish to an extremely short period of time at the very beginning of the Cambrian. This is clear evidence that evolution never happened.

Apparently this discovery was in 1999, I thought recent would mean last year or something. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/504776.stm

The fossil fish you speak of are jawless and less than 4cm in length. It only pushed back fish evolution a few dozen million years. Seeing as trilobites evolved in the early cambrian (going by evidence of proto-trilobites in the pre-cambrian), I cannot see why you don't think there was enough time for these 4cm long jawless fish to evolve.

Also it would be interesting to know what your answer is for the existance of these little fish so deep in the geological column. Have you got an explaination for the drop in complexity of fossil life with depth?


Some fossils seem to imply things, don’t they? But things may or may not be the way they seem. To start with, you don’t know if these species you are looking at are totally unrelated, or an evolutionary transition of species. There is just no way to know this. And you can’t just assume things and call it science. You will never be able to go back in time to do breeding experimentation to establish this and you have no DNA specimens dating back more than 60,000 years. How does one falsify any of this to the point that the scientific method can bring it into the realm of science?


Dig up more fossils, see if they agree or disagree with the hypothesis. Plenty of well-founded predictions about intermediate fossil finds have bourne out true (the predicted fossil form was later found in the time period predicted). If evolution was all guess and bluster then this shouldn't be possible.

(Edited by Void 5/7/2004 at 04:56 AM).
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 04:49 AM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I need not refute it, because you do not show it to be true. You cannot extrapolate your observations to everyone’s observations. That’s not logical in argument.


Certainly I can, it is known as induction, which is the way science works.  Deductive reasoning is a dead end.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:20 AM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JDB: How does one falsify any of this to the point that the scientific method can bring it into the realm of science?

Excellent question!  Glad you're on this forum!

Now, let's see if I can come up with an excellent answer.  

You're certainly correct that if you can't disprove something, at least in theory, than it's not good science.  And of course, the best way to disprove something is through experiment.  If your theory is right, and I do X, we should see Y, but we see Z, so you're wrong.  And, of course, we can't do that with dinosaurs.

We can, however, do experiments on living things today.  We can show evolution happening in the lab, and in the wild.  So we end up with this:  we can experimentally verify that evolution changes creatures today, we can look at fossils and see that creatures changed in the past, there must have been a mechanism for the change, ...

Perhaps not as rack solid as you'ld like, but I'm just on my first cup of coffee.    Plus, I'm not a paleontologist.  It may be that they do have direct experimental proof for their claims.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 10:46 AM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

There are plenty of hypotheses in the theory of evolution that are essentially useless because there is currently no way to test and potentially falsify them. For example there are countless hypotheses on the origin of birds but until better fossil evidence arises, none of the hypotheses can be tested and falsified. So they remain hypotheses.
Another good example is punctuated equillibrium vs gradualism. There is evidence that both occur, but there is not enough fossil evidence yet to show whether punc eq happens very often or very rarely, so again punc eq playing a strong role in evolutionary history is currently a hypothesis.

However the lack of evidence in these specific areas does not bear on the overall evidence that evolution has taken place. This was decided long ago, scientists aren't looking for evidence of evolution anymore, they are looking for evidence of whos hypotheses on say bird evolution are right.

To support the fact that evolution has happened there are a few complete fossil series. Forams for example: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/foram.html
These show that life has changed over time in the past. Regardless of the shortfalls of the fossil record, the sheer millions of fossils that have been found show a pattern of change of species on earth over time in the fossil record.

Now either every few millions of years a new animal is added to earth, or they are changing. When fossil precursors of modern  species, and families are found (ie early horse fossils, non human hominid fossils) then this supports the idea that life is changing over time rather than being placed.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 12:16 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Haldane thought that God surely seemed to have an inordinate fondness for beetles. But, that’s not the deal. Think of how evolution teaches an uneducated public homo sapien magically morphed from a protist through a billion speciations over a couple billion years when they cannot go back a billion years to know this. This is not science, there is no way it can be falsified. And, unfortunately, most posits in this field are exactly this way.


I think the "magical" is a personal perception here.

Some fossils seem to imply things, don’t they? But things may or may not be the way they seem. To start with, you don’t know if these species you are looking at are totally unrelated, or an evolutionary transition of species. There is just no way to know this. And you can’t just assume things and call it science.


Fossils do a little more than imply this here or make a hint there ;)

You will never be able to go back in time to do breeding experimentation to establish this and you have no DNA specimens dating back more than 60,000 years. How does one falsify any of this to the point that the scientific method can bring it into the realm of science?


So because there is no DNA evidence older than 60,000 years we should abanson all research into life older than this? No. It simply means other sources of evidence have to be used and appropriate conclusions made. Also, it is hardly the case that DNA is the *only* piece of evidence appropriate in the study of ancient life either.

(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/7/2004 at 1:34 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 1:34 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Kronus:  We can, however, do experiments on living things today.  We can show evolution happening in the lab, and in the wild.  So we end up with this:  we can experimentally verify that evolution changes creatures today ...

Kronus I do not mean to interfere with your conversation with JDB, however, I would like to know what evidence you might present to show this claim.  I would like to see the example of evolution working in the lab - to my knowledge, it does not.  

I have heard some of the other people here and their claims to this (and I have refuted them) however, I am interested to hear what YOU, Kronus, think is the answer to this question.  

Void:  However the lack of evidence in these specific areas does not bear on the overall evidence that evolution has taken place. This was decided long ago, scientists aren't looking for evidence of evolution anymore, they are looking for evidence of whos hypotheses on say bird evolution are right.

That is very telling of Evolution science.  A lack of evidence in one area doesn't shake the foundational doctrine because it's accepted as truth.  

This is exactly the type of statement I would make in favor of creationism.  

It's clear to me, now more than ever, that Evolution and Creation science are direct mirrors of one another.  Evolution serves a humanistic view of truth, Creation serves a deistic view of truth.  That seems to be the dividing difference from which all branches grow.  Both make assumptions about the past that are unprovable by present observation.  In creationism, we base that on the Bible, in Evolution you base that on Darwin and natrualistic forces.  The evolutionist and the creationist both bring their ideas of truth to the table and it effects the nature of their findings and conclusions.  

Why is the evolution vs creation debate so intense.... so controversial?  Because the real argument - the argument behind the argument - is the clash of humanism vs christianity.  It has become a rational pontification of 'good science' vs 'bad science' or secular intellecutalism - but it all comes down to a simple religious struggle.  Those who would argue fundamental scripture vs those who wish to take a humanistic view of life.  The reason the argument never ends is because both sides argue non-relevantly to the true nature of the debate - we argue over the science rather than the theory of truth that underlies our science.  

Perhaps that is why ID is so compelling - it trancends this debate and allows for the unknown while remaining true to true logic and observation.  It accepts truth where ever it observes it - regardless of implication or origin - it isn't trying to make a statment about either - it is simply trying to make sense of what it sees.  I would say this is more true 'science' than either evolution or creation.  

Remember our discussion about the 'inerrant ideology' of evolution being that everything happened natualisticly, and that the supernatural is intentionally excluded?  Creation is of course the diametricly opposed to that.  ID seems to be the only one that will accept any evidence at it's face value - as it doesn't pre-suppose a specific truth.  At least - it avoids the humanism vs christianity struggle.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 2:06 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 2:06 PM on May 7, 2004 :
Kronus:  We can, however, do experiments on living things today.  We can show evolution happening in the lab, and in the wild.  So we end up with this:  we can experimentally verify that evolution changes creatures today ...

Kronus I do not mean to interfere with your conversation with JDB, however, I would like to know what evidence you might present to show this claim.  I would like to see the example of evolution working in the lab - to my knowledge, it does not.  



Of course you haven't seen evidence of evolution working in the lab.  That's because every time someone shows it to you, you twist what they mean by the word "evidence", "evolution", 'working", "lab" or "in".

Gup, you have consistently shown a complete lack of integrity  in every discussion you've had on this board.  Don't bother asking me any more questions, I won't be drawn into another fun house mirror discussion, where everything you say is bounced back at you all distored.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 2:44 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

****Certainly I can, it is known as induction, which is the way science works.  Deductive reasoning is a dead end.***

I'm sorry. I disagree with this. The scientific method left induction many years ago when the falsification of Popperian thought replaced it.

 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 3:18 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Kronus:  Gup, you have consistently shown a complete lack of integrity  in every discussion you've had on this board.  Don't bother asking me any more questions, I won't be drawn into another fun house mirror discussion, where everything you say is bounced back at you all distored.  

Funny how the Evolutionist position always ends up looking like a little child in the fetal position holding a half-man, half-ape doll whispering 'tell the bad man to go away mommy... tell the bad man to go away'.  

Actually, you have yet to show a single credible example of this 'lack of integrity'.  You evolutionists simply don't like what I am saying, and have no way of refuting it.  

In fact, there are no examples in the lab, or in the wild of evolution.  This is precisely why you fear to answer this question.  In fact molecules-to-man evolution has never been observed anywhere.  Yet it is the crux of Evolutionary theory.  

Your concept of life is based on a lie... a very real impossibility.  In fact there is no observed mechanism or way for information to be gained.  It has never been observed - why?  Because it goes in the wrong direction of all the natural laws of the universe.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:58 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***You're certainly correct that if you can't disprove something, at least in theory, than it's not good science. And of course, the best way to disprove something is through experiment. If your theory is right, and I do X, we should see Y, but we see Z, so you're wrong. And, of course, we can't do that with dinosaurs.***

JDB: Well, I don’t know how many scientists are on this board and I hope I don’t appear to be talking down to people. So with this in mind, I want to point out how the scientific method operates.

In the early days of this body of science, a theory was put forth and this theory grew as more observations and hypothesis were experimentally added into it.

But philosopher Karl Popper came along and thought this inductive methodology was rather silly. I know there are no pink geese in existence, no one I know has seen any pink geese, I have been around the world looking for pink geese: Therefore: There are no pink geese.

Wrong, said Popper. You could not possibly have visited every single square foot of Earth, and furthermore, you could not possibly have surveyed every person on the planet in order to draw this conclusion. Popper’s conclusion: Therefore: There could be a pink goose somewhere and you just have not seen one.

Popper reasoned that a theory arises via observation, a hypothesis emerges to explain that observation, experimental technique is used to explore this hypothesis and if this gleaned experimental evidence supports it, a theory is born.

That theory is then peer reviewed where your peers do everything in their power to falsify it. This theory stands in science until it is falsified, or a better theory comes along to replace it. But if a theory is not even capable of this falsification then this has no place in science.

My point is, Kronus, that evolution has no way of falsifying much of anything. How does man go back in time to falsify the musing that man and ape shared a common ancestor? If one cannot do this, then further experiment in the lab does no one any good.

Now please don’t misunderstand me, because there are a few tenets of evolution that are science and I fully accept. For example, it’s only common sense that if I have a herd of cattle and shoot all the smaller ones, I will have a new population of bigger cattle.

But that man morphed from a unicelled organism?? Nah, I don’t buy that because there is no possible way that posit can be falsified.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 4:17 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***Perhaps that is why ID is so compelling - it trancends this debate and allows for the unknown while remaining true to true logic and observation.  It accepts truth where ever it observes it - regardless of implication or origin - it isn't trying to make a statment about either - it is simply trying to make sense of what it sees.  I would say this is more true 'science' than either evolution or creation. ***

JDB: well said, my friend, and let he chips fall where they may. And where those chips are falling I find quite interesting.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 4:21 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***So because there is no DNA evidence older than 60,000 years we should abanson all research into life older than this? No. It simply means other sources of evidence have to be used and appropriate conclusions made. Also, it is hardly the case that DNA is the *only* piece of evidence appropriate in the study of ancient life either.***

But until you are able to falsify a tenet, experiment all you please, but its not science, I'm afraid.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 4:24 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jerry-Don-Bauer
But until you are able to falsify a tenet, experiment all you please, but its not science, I'm afraid.


I imagine you do not "buy" the conclusions of many areas of scientific reasearch then.

From one of your responses:

My point is, Kronus, that evolution has no way of falsifying much of anything. How does man go back in time to falsify the musing that man and ape shared a common ancestor? If one cannot do this, then further experiment in the lab does no one any good.


Fossils allow us to go back in time and observe various preserved features, this is a fact.

Now please don’t misunderstand me, because there are a few tenets of evolution that are science and I fully accept. For example, it’s only common sense that if I have a herd of cattle and shoot all the smaller ones, I will have a new population of bigger cattle.


You are confusing your fields here, the example you state is concerned with genetics and possibly breeding. Additionally, your premise is flawed, as you are not considering the age and maturity of the cattle you shoot. Kill all the small ones and you wipe out the immature individuals before they have opportunity to reach their full size.

Do it with a group where the animal grows throughout its lifespan (mammals do not) and the assumption only becomes weaker...

My point is, Kronus, that evolution has no way of falsifying much of anything. How does man go back in time to falsify the musing that man and ape shared a common ancestor? If one cannot do this, then further experiment in the lab does no one any good.

But that man morphed from a unicelled organism?? Nah, I don’t buy that because there is no possible way that posit can be falsified.


I'm sure you are aware that you can explain away just about anything with your "falsify a tenet" line of reasoning if you so chose to apply it  

(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/7/2004 at 4:59 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 4:53 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jerry-Don-Bauer at 4:17 PM on May 7, 2004 :

My point is, Kronus, that evolution has no way of falsifying much of anything. How does man go back in time to falsify the musing that man and ape shared a common ancestor? If one cannot do this, then further experiment in the lab does no one any good.


I'm not sure if I agree entirely with your philosophy of science.  Is there any way, in your system, to scientifically determine if I ate last year or not?  If I wanted to prove that I did I would not eat for a few weeks, and then I'd have a doctor check me and say "Yup, one more week of no food and he'll be dead."  I would then argue thusly:  As just demonstrated, if a don't eat for more than a few weeks, I'll starve to death.  I'm not dead.  Therefore, there can't have been a period of time when I didn't eat for more that a few weeks.  Last year was longer than a few weeks, so I must have eaten some time last year.

To my mind that's a scientific conclusion based on experiment.  Do you not agree?  
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 4:55 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***I imagine you do not "buy" the conclusions of many areas of scientific reasearch then.****

I’m sorry, I don’t understand this or much rest of this post. Are talking theory here? I’m afraid you’ll have to get very specific with your questions if you want me to attempt to address them.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 5:52 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


***I'm not sure if I agree entirely with your philosophy of science. Is there any way, in your system, to scientifically determine if I ate last year or not? If I wanted to prove that I did I would not eat for a few weeks, and then I'd have a doctor check me and say "Yup, one more week of no food and he'll be dead." I would then argue thusly: As just demonstrated, if a don't eat for more than a few weeks, I'll starve to death. I'm not dead. Therefore, there can't have been a period of time when I didn't eat for more that a few weeks. Last year was longer than a few weeks, so I must have eaten some time last year.

To my mind that's a scientific conclusion based on experiment. Do you not agree?***

I would never attempt to set up a scientific experiment to determine if you ate at anytime. I would never set up an experiment to determine if you love your wife. Science does not hold the answer to every question in the universe. Just the things that apply to it.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 5:57 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jerry-Don-Bauer at 5:52 PM on May 7, 2004 :
***I imagine you do not "buy" the conclusions of many areas of scientific reasearch then.****

I’m sorry, I don’t understand this or much rest of this post. Are talking theory here? I’m afraid you’ll have to get very specific with your questions if you want me to attempt to address them.


Any area of science that predicts/models/hypothesise that which we cannot directly observe, due to location in the physical world or time.

I do not believe I posed you any questions in the rest of my responses, I made observations. The meaning is clear enough.


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 7:07 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I do not believe I posed you any questions in the rest of my responses, I made observations. The meaning is clear enough.

Hence a lesson in debate vs discussion?

What's the topic here anyway?  Oh - Evolution is a religion.  Is the point then that since no one was here to write give witness (written or oral) to the origin of life, it can't possibly be known 'for sure' as truth?  Therefore, the evidence for evolution is a faith in a stated theory?
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 8:05 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hence a lesson in debate vs discussion?


Or what you will, as Shakespeare put it at the start of Twelfth Night


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 10:22 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***Any area of science that predicts/models/hypothesise that which we cannot directly observe, due to location in the physical world or time***

But this is abstract science that cannot be taken into the classroom and taught as fact as most teachers of evolution do today. There is a big difference between the abstract work of Hawking and stating that we KNOW something occurs.

Hawking will never get his work past the observation stage because there is no way to go to a black hole and do experimentation to falsify his musings. This has been pointed out to him by the Nobel Committee in the past as people nominated him for that prize. He will never win it until he proposes experimentation to falsify his musings
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 12:49 AM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jerry-Don-Bauer at 5:57 PM on May 7, 2004 :

I would never set up an experiment to determine if you love your wife.


Well, I appreciate that.


Quote from Jerry-Don-Bauer at 5:57 PM on May 7, 2004 :
Science does not hold the answer to every question in the universe. Just the things that apply to it.


True enough.  But let me ask you this.  Does your philosophy of science let you say
anything about events that occurred far enough in the past that no one alive today observed them?  Does it allow you to say that any specific event happened?  If so, then please give an example.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 11:05 AM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does your philosophy of science let you say
anything about events that occurred far enough in the past that no one alive today observed them?  Does it allow you to say that any specific event happened?  If so, then please give an example.


To that I would add the question - How about written 1st hand witness accounts?

(Edited by Gup20 5/8/2004 at 11:53 AM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 11:20 AM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quotable quote:
Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University:

‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.’

– Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 September 1999.

 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 11:54 AM on May 8, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jerry-Don-Bauer But this is abstract science that cannot be taken into the classroom and taught as fact as most teachers of evolution do today. There is a big difference between the abstract work of Hawking and stating that we KNOW something occurs.

Hawking will never get his work past the observation stage because there is no way to go to a black hole and do experimentation to falsify his musings. This has been pointed out to him by the Nobel Committee in the past as people nominated him for that prize. He will never win it until he proposes experimentation to falsify his musings


Hawking, being addled by a mortal life like the rest of us is unlikely to see a falisfication of his work on Black Holes, by your standards at least. However, the Hubble mission produced several interesting images of suspected Black Holes... its successor will undoubtedly produce more. So to dismiss Black Holes as purely theorectical is premature to say the least.

Recall Fermat's Last Theorem? that remained without proof for over 300 years until Mr. A. J. Wiles cracked it in 1993. That was regarded as being unsolvable. Just an example of how not all problems are resolved in the short term.

As to the future, well, never say never ;)

Gup20: the problem with Dr. Todd's observation is the data does not indicate an "intelligent designer" (why not be up front about it and say God?).

(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/8/2004 at 12:33 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 12:32 PM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That is very telling of Evolution science.  A lack of evidence in one area doesn't shake the foundational doctrine because it's accepted as truth

No. A lack of evidence in one **specific** area does not retract from the **general** evidence for evolution taking place.

In fact molecules-to-man evolution has never been observed anywhere.  Yet it is the crux of Evolutionary theory.

No it isn't. There are plenty of fossil sequences that show species change over time. The only decent explaination for such change is evolution.

In fact there is no observed mechanism or way for information to be gained.  It has never been observed - why?  Because it goes in the wrong direction of all the natural laws of the universe.

Wrong. Formation of stars is an increase in information. Wind shaping rocks is an increase in information. Water cutting curved paths is an increase in information. These are several observed examples of increases of information.



 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 3:18 PM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Void:  A lack of evidence in one **specific** area does not retract from the **general** evidence for evolution taking place.

However, in the 'general' evidence there has yet to be any observational evidence to demonstrate evolution can even happen.  There have, in fact, been no observations of molecules to man evolution taking place, even under the most favorable lab conditions.  

Void:  No it isn't. There are plenty of fossil sequences that show species change over time. The only decent explaination for such change is evolution.

Not true.  It could be that there are no transitional fossils, but that God created a continum of enviroments with a continum (yet finite) number of creatures designed for it.  Any changes you would see would be within a kind - for example - speciating a wolf, dog, fox from the original created kind.  

This still shows a steady directional change from High Information, Low Specificity to Lower Information, Higher Specificity.  This is the opposite change needed for molecules to man evolution.  

Void:  Formation of stars is an increase in information. Wind shaping rocks is an increase in information. Water cutting curved paths is an increase in information. These are several observed examples of increases of information.

Wrong.  Wind shaping rocks is not an increase in information.  A rock changing into a tree - that's an increase in information.  A rock getting smaller by errosion is not.  It is an increase in the randomness and disorder of the same information.  But nothing new is added.  The rock is still a rock.   The formation of stars may be an increase in order, but not of information.  Information involves specified complexity and order.  

To illustrate: if "superman" were the duplicated 'gene', and mutations in the letters changed it to "sxyxvawtu ", you have clearly lost information, although you have a new sequence. This is the difference between complexity and specified complexity. A pile of sand is complex , but is information-poor, because it specifies nothing.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 4:07 PM on May 8, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20:
However, in the 'general' evidence there has yet to be any observational evidence to demonstrate evolution can even happen.  There have, in fact, been no observations of molecules to man evolution taking place, even under the most favorable lab conditions.


That is a loaded example, as you are highly unlikely to observe any evolutionary changes to a slowly reproducing animal like a human without the benefit of a great deal of time. That is a fact.

As to the notion that Evolution is still a theory:

"The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....
So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit."

From the linked article, which I suggest you read if you have not aleady done so as it addresses the point that Evolution is both fact and theory:

Evolution as fact and theory

Not true.  It could be that there are no transitional fossils, but that God created a continum of enviroments with a continum (yet finite) number of creatures designed for it.  Any changes you would see would be within a kind - for example - speciating a wolf, dog, fox from the original created kind.


It cannot be reasonably argued that there are no transitional fossils- there is a multiude (as I hinted at in my response in the Kinds and Macroevolution thread as welll as in the Transitional fossil of the month thread).

Wrong.  Wind shaping rocks is not an increase in information.  A rock changing into a tree - that's an increase in information.  A rock getting smaller by errosion is not.


So can we agree that diagenesis (the formation of rocks) respresents an increase in information? Or how about orogenesis, the formation of mountain ranges?


(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/9/2004 at 4:22 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 6:56 PM on May 8, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Jerry-Don-Bauer:

I have another point for you to consider with regard to falsifaction of theory.

Having consulted my resident Geophysicst (my wife), I have to ask you about the study of the internal structure of the present day Earth. (I hope you don't mind me borrowing your phrase Kronus ).

Before such technology as is depicted in the film Core becomes a reality we have no way of directly testing the results given by indirect sampling and modelling of the Earths structure.

So does this not count as science as well?


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 7:20 PM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wrong.  Wind shaping rocks is not an increase in information.

Yes it is. It is an increase in order from randomness.

A rock getting smaller by errosion is not.

Remember gene duplication is not a gain because size is not what defines information? Same applies here - a rock getting smaller does not mean it has lost information. It is the specified information and complexity of the eroded rock which means it has more information than its previous form.

It is an increase in the randomness and disorder of the same information

Look at a pebble, I don't see randomness. I see a nice smooth rock filled with more information than a random rough rock - all caused by natural causes - ie nature can increase information.

But nothing new is added.  The rock is still a rock.

That is like me claiming that in the case of molecule to man "nothing new is added, life is still life"

The formation of stars may be an increase in order, but not of information.  Information involves specified complexity and order.

Stars have specified complexity. It is specified by the laws of chemistry and physics. Stars are an increase in information from random dispersed gas clouds in space.

To illustrate: if "superman" were the duplicated 'gene', and mutations in the letters changed it to "sxyxvawtu ", you have clearly lost information, although you have a new sequence.

Exactly and the rock is like "sxyxvawtu" before the water comes along and erodes it into a nice "superman" pebble. A gain in information.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 8:21 PM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Firstly - please try to fix your posts - they have some coding errors that is causing the page to be screwy.


OR: That is a loaded example, as you are highly unlikely to observe any evolutionary changes to a slowly reproducing animal like a human without the benefit of a great deal of time. That is a fact.

Even a 1 million year process is still a process.  For us to not be able to view a portion of this process would mean that the process is not occuring.  There should be some observable directional influence that we can observe.  Otherwise, your threory basically says that within this million year timeframe, something suddenly happened.  If something isn't building on something else for millions of years (which would be observable to us) it would have to randomly try, fail, try, fail, try, fail, then BOOM!  Success and sudden life.  In order for your theory to be correct - it would have to happen quickly - it would have to happen rapidly - and the millions of years only makes up for the probability issue.  If it were not so, there would indeed be observable information gaining systems we could see.... slowly building upon each other.  In fact, we don't see that.  

OR: It cannot be reasonably argued that there are no transitional fossils- there is a multiude (as I hinted at in my response in the Kinds and Macroevolution thread as welll as in the Transitional fossil of the month thread).

This statement is false.  I can reasonable say that I do not see a single transitional creature.  I see many discreet creatures within a continum designed for a continum of environments.  If there truely were transitions what could/would we expect to see?  Well - evolutionists claim that the way evolution happens is you have a gene that duplicates and one gene stays intact as the other gene is free to mutate.  So, we should expect to see creatures that retain specific genes while adding functions or information.  In other words, the creature as a whole would generally remain the same and we could see a gradual change.  For example  - a dolphin would duplicate it's genes, and one set would mutate.  We could see a definate gradual change in the dolphin.  We would see legs begin to imerge.  However, since the original set of genes remain the same, the dophin doesn't change in appearance - it simple begins growing legs where it had none before.  It would look like a dolphin with legs.  Keep in mind, the evolutionist model depends on the original genes remaining the same while adding novel features to a mutated set of duplicates.  

Therefore, since we do not see any transitions of the same creature that follow this format, we can saftely conclude that there are no transitional animals.  Only a continum of discreet animals designed for a continuum of environments.  

For example, an exampe of a transitional fossil to an evolutionist would be Archaeopteryx.  But hold on - where is the Archaeopteryx without feathers... where is the Archaeopteryx with scales... where is the Archaeopteryx with fins... where is the Archaeopteryx with gills or reptile lungs?  We dont' see this - why?  Because the Archaeopteryx  is a discreet animal (in this case a bird) created as it appears.  

Also, flight and wings are a multi-part system.  You not only have to have appendages with feathers, but the correct joints, muscle mass and configuration to use the wings in flight.  We should expect to see Archaeopteryx without wings... then Archaeopteryx with wings, but unable to use them because of skeletal disproportions... then Archaeopteryx with wings and joints configured to use them... then Archaeopteryx with the right body and muscle mass for flight.  Again, we don't see any of these transitions.  We see only an Archaeopteryx and a reptile.  Discreet creations each.  No where do we see evidence of the 'building' that is necessary for mutation by duplicating genes and mutating one set.  

This is exactly what you would expect (or predict) to find with the creationist model.  Animals that range from A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H where A is reptile and H is anphibian.  Yet no transition between A and B.  

OR: So can we agree that diagenesis (the formation of rocks) respresents an increase in information? Or how about orogenesis, the formation of mountain ranges?

Actually, no.  Rocks, like sand, while complex are not specific.  Therefore it is not information (specified complexity).  A rock specifes nothing.  A rock is a rock, no matter what shape it is in.  (it is reducibly complex)  "well what about mt rushmore"  Ah, but mount rushmore was designed and crafted by an intelligent designer.  

Void:  Yes it is. It is an increase in order from randomness.

While the point is moot because rocks are low information, I will patronize your point.

Wind eroding rock IS random.  That would be to say you get order from randomness by contributing further randomness.  Also, an increase in order does not mean an increase in information.  Information is specified complexity.  

Void:  Remember gene duplication is not a gain because size is not what defines information? Same applies here - a rock getting smaller does not mean it has lost information. It is the specified information and complexity of the eroded rock which means it has more information than its previous form.

Information is specified complexity.  The rocks are reducibly complex.  Break a piece off an igneous rock, and the smaller piece is still an igneous rock.  Bring that rock down to it's smallest unit where is still remains a rock - how does wind effect the information content of that?

Void:  Look at a pebble, I don't see randomness. I see a nice smooth rock filled with more information than a random rough rock - all caused by natural causes - ie nature can increase information.

Again, order does not mean information.  Specified complexity is information.  The pebble and the rock are reducibly complex.  

Void:  That is like me claiming that in the case of molecule to man "nothing new is added, life is still life"

Except that life is not reducibly complex - you reduce it and you don't have life anymore.  It also contains specified complexity.  You are comparing rocks to life - they are very different.  

Void:  Stars have specified complexity. It is specified by the laws of chemistry and physics. Stars are an increase in information from random dispersed gas clouds in space.

It is an increase in structure and order, but a neutral change in specified complexity.  Certainly not an infromaton gaining sequece.  As with rocks, this does not particularly pertain to life and biology- these are similar and related but separate fields.  

Void:  Exactly and the rock is like "sxyxvawtu" before the water comes along and erodes it into a nice "superman" pebble. A gain in information.

Again, a boulder and a pebble represent the same information, just more or less of it.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 1:31 PM on May 9, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20
Firstly - please try to fix your posts - they have some coding errors that is causing the page to be screwy.


"holds up hand" ooops it was me.... a sneaky quote hanging around on its own. It has now been aquainted with the delete key, I assure you

Even a 1 million year process is still a process.  For us to not be able to view a portion of this process would mean that the process is not occuring.  There should be some observable directional influence that we can observe.  Otherwise, your threory basically says that within this million year timeframe, something suddenly happened.


Where did you get the idea of suddenly from?

If something isn't building on something else for millions of years (which would be observable to us)


Correct, and due to the preservation of ancestoral like form as fossil we have observed it.

it would have to randomly try, fail, try, fail, try, fail, then BOOM!  Success and sudden life.  In order for your theory to be correct - it would have to happen quickly - it would have to happen rapidly


No it would not. Although the Evolutionary process can be described as being both slow and fast, in relative terms.

- and the millions of years only makes up for the probability issue.


No it does not at all. If you are thinking of Evolution as being driven purely by "chance" and "randomness" you are conceptualizing it in quite the wrong way. I see a certain inevitablity in the process- organisms are driven to adapt to their changing environments, move into open ecological niches, and become more advanced, efficient and adapted to those niches they already fill.

Additionally, it can take millions of years for the very Environmental change that drives many evolutionary changes to occur.

If it were not so, there would indeed be observable information gaining systems we could see.... slowly building upon each other.  In fact, we don't see that.


Why the focus on this notion of "information gaining"? Evolution takes often takes what is already there and modifies it to a new purpose. Sometimes this produces new forms in the creature (ie the appearance of hard body parts).

This statement is false.  I can reasonable say that I do not see a single transitional creature.


Say that again after you have thoroughly read this article:

Transitional vertebrates overview

As you don't seem to appreciate what I (and other posters here) mean when we say "Transitional form/fossil etc".

I see many discreet creatures within a continum designed for a continum of environments.


Are you sure you have looked closely? read the above linked article.

If there truely were transitions what could/would we expect to see?  Well - evolutionists claim that the way evolution happens is you have a gene that duplicates and one gene stays intact as the other gene is free to mutate.  So, we should expect to see creatures that retain specific genes while adding functions or information.


Once again, think modification, not addition.

In other words, the creature as a whole would generally remain the same and we could see a gradual change.  For example  - a dolphin would duplicate it's genes, and one set would mutate. We could see a definate gradual change in the dolphin. We would see legs begin to imerge. However, since the original set of genes remain the same, the dophin doesn't change in appearance - it simple begins growing legs where it had none before. It would look like a dolphin with legs.


Firstly, assuming the dolphins in question need to adapt by gaining a set of legs, the dolphin is not going to sprout those legs from no where- the existing structure will have to be modified. Also it won't just gain the legs- it will undergo other simultaneous change to adapt to its new (semi?) terrestrial habit you are infering. So I doubt we are not going t o end up "simply" with a dolphin with legs.

That is of course assuming it can adapt quickly enough and not become extinct.

Keep in mind, the evolutionist model depends on the original genes remaining the same while adding novel features to a mutated set of duplicates.
 

No it does not. All it requires is the modifications do not inhibit the long term abiltiy of the organism to successfully reproduce.

Therefore, since we do not see any transitions of the same creature that follow this format, we can saftely conclude that there are no transitional animals.  Only a continum of discreet animals designed for a continuum of environments.


Once again, I strongly encourage you read the article on transitions in vertebrates as you have an unusual perception of what transitional fossils represent or record.

For example, an exampe of a transitional fossil to an evolutionist would be Archaeopteryx.  But hold on - where is the Archaeopteryx without feathers... where is the Archaeopteryx with scales... where is the Archaeopteryx with fins... where is the Archaeopteryx with gills or reptile lungs?  We dont' see this - why?  Because the Archaeopteryx  is a discreet animal (in this case a bird) created as it appears.


You misunderstand what Archaeopteryx shows. It is not a direct transitional form. It is a primitive bird, a form derived from transitional types. However, it does possess an intruging mix of reptilian (more precisely certain theropod) and avian characteristics (the obvious one to the layman being the superbly preserved flight feathers). What Archaeopteryx shows is an early bird which retains a number of definate reptilian characteristics. With your comments to other forms, you are misunderstanding once again. Why on earth do you think there should be a form of this animal with fins?

Also, recent finds in China of feathered theropod dinosaurs {ie Protarchaeopteryx) seem to indicate the feather was not evolved primarily to the purposes of flight, but was subsequently adapted to such use. (N.b do not confuse with Archeoraptor, a fraud assembled from other fossils).

Also, flight and wings are a multi-part system.  You not only have to have appendages with feathers, but the correct joints, muscle mass and configuration to use the wings in flight.  We should expect to see Archaeopteryx without wings...


Yes, they are called theropod dinosaurs...

then Archaeopteryx with wings, but unable to use them because of skeletal disproportions...


An assumption only.

then Archaeopteryx with wings and joints configured to use them... then Archaeopteryx with the right body and muscle mass for flight.  Again, we don't see any of these transitions.


Because there are few fossils of the transition- it is the least complete of the vertebrate groups. I know you understand preservation conditions and fossilisation mechanisms and the significance here.

If you find this lack of examples confucsing do you fancy discussing fish-amphibian, reptile-mammal, or how about modern bear evolution?

We see only an Archaeopteryx and a reptile.  Discreet creations each.  No where do we see evidence of the 'building' that is necessary for mutation by duplicating genes and mutating one set.


Once again I refer you to the article on transitions I linked as either your knowledge is lacking or you are deliberately ignoring what is known.

To assist you with Archaeopteryx, this article examines it in detail and gives some pointers for further reading:

Archaeopteryx examined

This is exactly what you would expect (or predict) to find with the creationist model.  Animals that range from A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H where A is reptile and H is anphibian.  Yet no transition between A and B.


Even if we take your incorrect assumption to be true, how do you fit other vertebrate transitions into your postulations? They are far better represented in the fossil record, some very well so.

Actually, no.  Rocks, like sand, while complex are not specific.


Sand is not a rock, it is a particulate mineral derived from a rock by erosionary processes. There are rocks made up of sand (amongst other things) but that is different. Oh, and they are specific. Or do you suggest sandstone is the same as shale, granite the same as basalt, slate the same as gneisse?

Firstly, you make yourself sound a little ignorant saying a rock is a rock no matter what shape it is in. I assure you, rocks are very complex and varied. Secondly, it was you who suggested that erosion was a reduction in "information", so I proposed the opposite of erosion- diagenesis (in sedimentary rocks at least) as an increse in information. Try be consistent with your reasoning.

Therefore it is not information (specified complexity).  A rock specifes nothing.  A rock is a rock, no matter what shape it is in.  (it is reducibly complex)


A rock is as reducably complex as the remains of any organic creature.

"well what about mt rushmore"  Ah, but mount rushmore was designed and crafted by an intelligent designer.


Was it designed? I think you need to expand on your reading of North American Orogenic episodes.


To finish I really hope you read the links on transitional fossils as your misunderstanding in undermining your reasoning.


(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/9/2004 at 6:22 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 5:08 PM on May 9, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Void:  Exactly and the rock is like "sxyxvawtu" before the water comes along and erodes it into a nice "superman" pebble. A gain in information.

Again, a boulder and a pebble represent the same information, just more or less of it.

How can two objects have different amounts of information and the same amount of information at the same time?

If a pebble has more information than a random rock, then going from a random rock to a pebble is a gain in information by definition.
Unless you claim all rocks and pebbles have the same amount of information, information gain must be possible.

The problem with the Creationism notion of information in DNA is that the claim "information cannot be gained" implies that information is measured quantitively. But when other examples (such as rocks) are raised, Creationism immediately shifts information to be measured qualatively.

Here is a simple example where I play the same trick:
"Molecule to man is not an increase of information, it is the same information, just in a different form. Therefore molecule to man is possible."
You can argue with that sure, but if I stick to my guns you can never get anywhere because I simply have not defined the way I measure information. I have merely made an assertion. This is exactly what Creationism does, it starts with the assertion that information cannot gain in DNA and then sets out to stick to its guns in defending it.

Irreducible complexity is a different sub-topic that isn't relevant to the way information is measured. I have seen no Creationist articles use reducibility as a variable of how much information an object possesses.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 04:40 AM on May 10, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jerry-Don-Bauer at 4:17 PM on May 7, 2004 :
JDB: Well, I don’t know how many scientists are on this board and I hope I don’t appear to be talking down to people. So with this in mind, I want to point out how the scientific method operates.


JM: This might be good.


Wrong, said Popper. You could not possibly have visited every single square foot of Earth, and furthermore, you could not possibly have surveyed every person on the planet in order to draw this conclusion. Popper’s conclusion: Therefore: There could be a pink goose somewhere and you just have not seen one.


JM: Do you buy into Popper's argument?

Popper reasoned that a theory arises via observation, a hypothesis emerges to explain that observation, experimental technique is used to explore this hypothesis and if this gleaned experimental evidence supports it, a theory is born.


JM: So far not much to quibble with EXCEPT Popper is not the bible of scientific philosophy.

That theory is then peer reviewed where your peers do everything in their power to falsify it. This theory stands in science until it is falsified, or a better theory comes along to replace it. But if a theory is not even capable of this falsification then this has no place in science.

My point is, Kronus, that evolution has no way of falsifying much of anything. How does man go back in time to falsify the musing that man and ape shared a common ancestor? If one cannot do this, then further experiment in the lab does no one any good.


JM: The notion that man/chimp share a common ancestor is potentially falsifiable (even if I disagree with Popper's complete philosophy on falsification I'll humor you with agreement).  The notion requires certain genetic similarities between chimps/humans (which DNA---your favorite indicates is true).  It also requires that the further back we go in the fossil record, the more the morphological differences between humans and chimps becomes blurred (this is also observed).  

Now please don’t misunderstand me, because there are a few tenets of evolution that are science and I fully accept. For example, it’s only common sense that if I have a herd of cattle and shoot all the smaller ones, I will have a new population of bigger cattle.


JM: Ahh the cartoon version of evolution is something you'll accept.

But that man morphed from a unicelled organism?? Nah, I don’t buy that because there is no possible way that posit can be falsified.


JM: "Morphed"?? You're using Adobe Photoshop too much.  You start off the post ok, and then denigrate into a strawman caricature of evolution.   Why should anyone take you seriously?

Cheers

Joe Meert



 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 06:37 AM on May 10, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jerry-Don-Bauer at 6:54 PM on May 6, 2004 :
Did you know that unless one accepts Darwinism then one cannot get a biology PhD at the majority of public institutions?



JM: Baloney!  Bald assertion.  'Darwinism' is not a requirement for a Ph.D. in biology.

Cheers

Joe Meert
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 06:41 AM on May 10, 2004 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.