Summations Only

No jar I don't need to provide these things anymore than you will provide anything more than indirect evidence for the conclusions of evolution
Unless you willing to provide direct evidence for your conclusions.
Can you do that?
Dawn Bertot

I will give you one thing you do speak like a biologist and not a philosopher. My simple friend observations are only part of an investigation, they don't explain how the process started.There is more to existence than life on earth or evolution. Stoping at natural causes presuppose the investigation is overSo only part of your conclusions here are valid. All of the evidence is not consistent with natural causes, namely how it all started
There's your problem

If there is intricate order in nature as you suggest, what other evidence would you need to demonstrate design, of even indirect evidence
What would need to be present more for it to be evidence?

Design is defined by clear and present order resulting in very specific purposes. Just like existence itself, it doesn't need your approval to suggest, imply or be design
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Oh, stop with the bullshit. I, unlike you, have been trained to follow evidence; and to use it to understand how the Universe works.You, on the other hand, spout gibberish and pretend that you have some profound knowledge, but the simple truth you are demonstrating is that you cannot communicate in a coherent manner.

True, but I think Dawn Bertot has proven one point. Dawn did not stop debating here because he was convinced or because evolution proponents had won. There is no argument, no matter how well supported that Bertot will acknowledge, and no position too mind boggling wrong that Dawn will not hold onto it against all reason.I note that Bertot has already admitted that what science is not big enough to contain the reasoning Bertot uses. Isn't the debate actually over despite the fact that he contains to say that it is not? Hasn't we already seen the concession despite the fact that Bertot continues?For those of you who have forget or never encountered Bertot, I highly reading a few old posts from the archives. Same old stuff as you will find here.

We know that random mutation coupled with natural selection can produce systems that have parts in a "clear order" that result in specific purposes that advantage the species under consideration. Design does not imply an intelligent designer.

Yes. This. I have attempted to extract some meaning from its strung together words, but it's really all gibberish. I think the problem is that Dawn itself does not know what it is saying. It requires a great deal of energy to try to find out what Dawn is maybe saying, which -- I suppose -- in line with your last quoted line, reflects on the poor educational environment Dawn grew up in.That, and Dawn's assumption that everyone is a "sir," makes all of this very tragicomical. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

I don't think so son. You don't know how to follow evidence. And I can demonstrate that by a simple observation on the form of a question
How did all of this get started
You assume that your observations of the natural world are the and of the story.
Secondly, you beg for a type of evidence that you dont require of yourself. In other words you cant establish the why's of your conclusions except by indirect evidence, than demand that I provide absolute proof of mine
So please explain how I'm incoherent in these argument
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

We're biological evolution the whole of reality you might have a point. These address no conclusions of how and why things are here
There is more to the investigation and its conclusions
Dawn Bertot

Geno
How did natural selection and mutation happen to be here to allow this order you say exists
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Dawn, I'm not understanding much of what you are saying either though I keep trying. I'd like to believe you are on to something with your distinction between direct and indirect evidence but I don't really know what you mean by those terms. Do you mean something like creationists are asked to prove the existence of a Designer and His designs while evolutionists don't expect to do more than point to the mug on the desk as evidence of (human) design? If there's anything to what you are saying it would need many more examples. Can you provide some?We don't need to point to the stamped information on the mug, we can tell it's the product of design just by looking at it -- or recognizing its function -- and we can tell the same from objects found in an archaeological dig: a pile of bones is easily distinguished from a clay vessel or an arrowhead and we don't need "Made in China" stamped on them to tell the difference.I believe that living things all bear the stamp of design, "irreducible complexity" being a big part of the evidence, and that evolution couldn't possibly explain what we see, but we'll never be able to prove this to them. Genomicus pointed to an example of adaptation by natural selection as supposed evidence that evolution can produce what looks like design, but that's something that occurs when the system is already in place -- it's just microevolution. What shows design is the system itself, or, as I think you are trying to say, the origin of the thing. (ABE: Yes, I see you said this in the post just above this one while I was writing this)Best I can do with your efforts here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nonukes
You haven't supported arguments as I will point out in my summation when that arrives
It's not possible that you yourselves could be mistaken, correct?
It's the same ole stuff No nukes because it's valid no need to change weapons if thier working, correct
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Very good summation Faith. You have to understand these fellas have been trained to ignore obvious truths. Thier very training assumes there can be no absolutes
They use contrived ideas like falsification and assume it must be true in all places.
Intricate design would be obvious to any thinking person, especially in biological processes. But they need to ignore it to avoid the conclusion of a designer
Listening to most of Dr A responses should demonstrate to anyone the lengths they will go to avoid truth
Pointing out the silliness of thier avoidance explains thier motives.
the old arguments are the best as you demonstrate in your points
They make distinctions like physical and metaphysical to avoid a nswering the why's of things
They assume that why is not as important or necessary at allAnd finally they say that understanding where it came from or how it got started is not really a scientific question therefore not necessary to attempt to answer. They say it's outside reality to know these things. But if it's important enough to give a detailed explanation of how it works, then it certainly would be important to ask why and how
All of this to avoid obvious truth which eliminates any responsibilty other than to themselvesBut thanks for the comments Faith they were very goodEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Dawn Bertot writes:

quote:

---

No jar I don't need to provide these things anymore than you will provide anything more than indirect evidence for the conclusions of evolution
Unless you willing to provide direct evidence for your conclusions.
Can you do that?

---

Yes. Is there something specific in the evidence that you find lacking?Remember, the bones were there and they are here now.Remember, the DNA was there and is here now.We have seen evolution happen right in front of our eyes. Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost much and you can get the materials from any reputable biological supply house.Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they should all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.But wait, I know what you're going to say: "It's still a bacterium." Well, of course. What were you expecting? An ostrich? That would be a massive contradiction to evolution as we understand it. This was just a tiny experiment that shows you proof of concept. If you are willing to put in the effort and learn more about the science of evolutionary biology, you will learn more about the direct evidence we have. You will learn about genetic evidence showing directly how two organisms are related (or do you deny the validity of paternity tests?) You will learn about the fossil evidence that shows that this organism existed before that one and how one organism was the ancestor of another. You can watch, for example, as the bones of the reptilian jaw become the bones of the mammalian ear. And if you're willing to do the work, you can even do experiments whereby you directly observe speciation happen in both the lab and the wild.Again, I have to ask you: What is the specific problem you have with the massive amount of direct evidence we have for evolution?