|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is science? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
edge:
Nonsense again. Transitionals exist within the fossil record. I suppose to you it is all all coincidence that they occur at the correct stratigrahic levels. John Paul:Please provide the evidence that shows mutations culled by NS led to alleged transitionals. Without that you have nothing but extrapolation based on a severe bias. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YEC can be falsified. All you need to do is show that natural processes can account for life, the solar system and the universe. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- edge: The evidence says just this. There is no need for miracles. John Paul:Too bad there isn't any evidence that life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes. Any more lies for us? ID is based on all we know about design. Why do you think a biological theory should explain the fossil record? We have no knowledge on how that record was formed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
JP,
Please provide the evidence that shows mutations culled by NS led to alleged transitionals. Without that you have nothing but extrapolation based on a severe bias. Rubbish, what a load of illogical, goalpost moving misdirection! The ToE predicts that transitionals should exist along the following lines: a transitional is a form that possesses character states that are part way between two separate taxa, &/or a mix of discrete characters between two taxa. Prediction borne out. Pure & simple, mate. As you are so fond of saying; "go figure." The FACT that this prediction is borne out is not nullified by the fact we lack the DNA of the fossils, or that we can't say exactly what genetically occurred. It is, in & of itself a prediction borne out. Why would there be transitional fossils? Why, if you removed the feathers from Archaeopteryx would it be placed in a Therapodan taxon? As late as the 1980's Hoyle & his bunch of physicist buddies attempted to deny evolution & Archaeopteryx's avian status by claiming that the avian apomorphy (no longer), feathers, were fake, & it was a reptile after all. Yet creationists like to tell us it's a "fully formed" bird, despite all the bird & therapodan characters it possesses. What gives? Can't anti-evo's decide whether it's a bird or a reptile? Could it be because it's a classic transitional, & they have just as much trouble as the rest of palaeontology? Your argument would be like asking ID'ers how the ID made things? The inability to answer renders all "evidence" of ID null & void. A serious logical flaw & inconsistency in your thinking. You can't have it both ways.
Why do you think a biological theory should explain the fossil record? We have no knowledge on how that record was formed. But cladistics & stratigraphy show a statistically good match, overall; against vast odds of it occurring by chance. So we DO have some (/irony) knowledge on how that record was formed. If only cladistic predictions mimicked that of the Biblical flood rather than evolution, then you'd have us up against the wall! But no, they contradict the biblical account rather than support it. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 05-21-2004 08:07 PM There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: But, but, but... you just told us! "Billions of animals died and were buried". Isn't that all we have to know? And if you think that evolution is only a biological theory, then you are proving your own ignorance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Just a coincidence, Mark. Obviously these data are completely meaningless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Please provide the evidence that shows mutations culled by NS led to alleged transitionals. Without that you have nothing but extrapolation based on a severe bias.
M24:Rubbish, what a load of illogical, goalpost moving misdirection! John Paul:That's right. Evolutionists will always think facts and logic are rubbish and goalpost moving misdirection. M24:The ToE predicts that transitionals should exist along the following lines: a transitional is a form that possesses character states that are part way between two separate taxa, &/or a mix of discrete characters between two taxa. Prediction borne out. Pure & simple, mate. As you are so fond of saying; "go figure." John Paul:The reality is the prediction is NOT borne out. That is the reason punctuated equilibrium was brought about in nthe first place. Also only a teeny, tiny % of the fossil record could be construed as bearing out the ToE. It isn't borne out by marine fossils. It isn't borne out by insect fossils. It isn't borne out in the alleged evolution of bats. Well, I could go on & on, but what is the point? Where are all the transitionals? All you can offer is a handful of possibilities. You mention Archie. Where are the fossils leading to Archie? They don't exist. What the fossil record shows is the "hopeful monster" approach which isn't borne out by biological evidence. Embryology now shows that Archie might not have been a bird or at least not an ancestor to modern birds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why do you think a biological theory should explain the fossil record? We have no knowledge on how that record was formed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- edge: But, but, but... you just told us! "Billions of animals died and were buried". Isn't that all we have to know? John Paul:It depends on what knowledge you seek. edge:And if you think that evolution is only a biological theory, then you are proving your own ignorance. John Paul:Odd I don't recall saying or thinking anything of the kind. However the theory of evolution is first and foremost a biological theory. Can the concept of evolution, ie change over time, be applied to other venues? It can and it has.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
John Paul writes:
I have already posted what I know science is. Read my thread opening post. Percy:One's opening post is the beginning of the discussion, not the end. John Paul:My point is I have not read anything here or anywhere (yet) that would change that view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1413 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
John Paul alleges:
quote:Well, when you say 'facts' you mean such shopworn arguments as 'gaps in the fossil record' and 'irreducible complexity.' Any attempt to explain these to you in the context of scientific endeavor is greeted with insults and sarcasm. Is this thread about science? Then you've got to understand that isolated observations are the basis of evidential empirical inquiry. We don't see the Earth revolving around the Sun, John Paul, we have a heliocentric model of the solar system that organizes and explains all the observations we have available of solar, lunar, and planetary motion. We don't see germs infecting people, but germ theory takes observations from the lab and field and organizes them into a framework that explains the origin of disease and putrefaction. We don't see the evolution of species, but we have a theory of common descent that makes sense of all available morphological and genetic data concerning extant and extinct organisms, in the context of our understanding of heredity and natural selection. So what's science and how can we use it to formulate frameworks for research? Should it allow us to conclude whatever we want to conclude and ridicule those who point out how our wishful thinking is coloring our inquiry? regards,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
JP,
Please provide the evidence that shows mutations culled by NS led to alleged transitionals. Without that you have nothing but extrapolation based on a severe bias. M24: Rubbish, what a load of illogical, goalpost moving misdirection! John Paul:That's right. Evolutionists will always think facts and logic are rubbish and goalpost moving misdirection. Again, rubbish. Logic is about consistency, & you are holding evolution to a standard that you don't hold your own beliefs to.
M24: The ToE predicts that transitionals should exist along the following lines: a transitional is a form that possesses character states that are part way between two separate taxa, &/or a mix of discrete characters between two taxa. Prediction borne out. Pure & simple, mate. As you are so fond of saying; "go figure." JP: The reality is the prediction is NOT borne out. That is the reason punctuated equilibrium was brought about in nthe first place. Also only a teeny, tiny % of the fossil record could be construed as bearing out the ToE. It isn't borne out by marine fossils. It isn't borne out by insect fossils. It isn't borne out in the alleged evolution of bats. Well, I could go on & on, but what is the point? The reality, I'm afraid, is that the fossil record bears out evolutionary expectations to a colossal degree.
quote: Where are all the transitionals? All you can offer is a handful of possibilities. See above.
You mention Archie. Where are the fossils leading to Archie? They don't exist. Irrelevant, Archie DOES exist. It meets the standards of a transitional fossil. If we did have something prior to Archie you'd just ask what was before that, in the same way creationists did before Archaeopteryx was discovered.
What the fossil record shows is the "hopeful monster" approach which isn't borne out by biological evidence. Embryology now shows that Archie might not have been a bird or at least not an ancestor to modern birds. Nope, the fossil record matches the expectations of evolutionary cladistics in such a way that far exceeds what would be expected by chance. Like I say above, the null hypothesis has been falsified. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
An aside: if you use the UBB codes for quoting, you won't have to keep typing "John Paul:" over and over, and your posts will be more readable.
John Paul writes: I have already posted what I know science is. Read my thread opening post.
Percy writes: One's opening post is the beginning of the discussion, not the end. My point is I have not read anything here or anywhere (yet) that would change that view. This response does not address the concerns I raised as Percy last week. If you're still not sure what I'm looking for, then please contact me via email to Admin. In the meantime, as promised, I am reducing your board access privileges. I've chosen to remove your posting privileges to Faith and Belief. Since you are not currently posting in that forum, this is a very small restriction. I hope I will not have to restrict your access to forums in which you're currently participating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I guess I seek a little more detail than you.
quote: Then why do you ask 'why a biological theory should explain the fossil record?'
quote: Yes, and paleontology is the science of the early biology of earth.
quote: Yes, it explains the fossil record.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Interesting point. It seems that JP's argument relies primarily on the fact that there are unknowns, whereas we are forced to explain the actual evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
back to the topic.
Even if science is limited to the observation of objects in the natural world, it does NOT stand to reason that those objects originated via purely natural processes. Natural processes would be those processes unaided by intervening intelligence- a beaver dam would not be natural as it took a beaver/ beavers to buid it- form, function and purpose. Archaeology is the study of objects that are not of natural origins. Anthropology studies artifacts, but first anthropologists must determine an object is an artifact. The fact that we have the word artifact tells us we already know how to determine a natural object from an un-natural object. Forensic scientists also try to determine natural from un-natural. Arson investigators do the same as do SETI researchers. The point being that we already have in place processes that aid us in detecting intelligent design. Why would biology be exempt from these processes? If nature can create the specified complexity we see in living cells it would stand to reason that nature could create an arrow head or an axe-looking object or any number of alleged tools. IOW by questioning the validity of ID in biology you also question every venue that uses design detection processes. Is ID a valid scientific venue? Yes. How so? Life exists. Either life arose from non-life via purely natural processes or it arose from un-natural, ie ID type, processes. It makes no sense whatsoever to exclude one possibility for only philosophical reasons, which is what naturalists are doing. I asked this question before and haven't received an answer: Karl von Linne (a Creationist)was searching for the created kinds when he cam up with binomial nomenclature. He was a scientist The question is- Was his work science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1413 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
John Paul asks:
quote:Because biology deals with 'artifacts' that reproduce themselves. It's that simple: if an archaeologist finds an artifact like ones that humans make today, and if we have no knowledge that Nature makes these kinds of artifacts, then we can safely conclude that it was man-made. However, we need that independent knowledge before we can conclude intelligent design. Such an inference is not warranted in the absence of this independent knowledge. An outboard motor is man-made, a bacterial flagellum is natural. A computer is man-made, the DNA molecule is natural. In all of biology, we have never seen anything originate through intelligent design, only natural design. The investigations conducted by scientists to establish common ancestry make use of just such devices as those used by the forensic scientists you mentioned, and the methodology is exactly the same. The DNA in blood at a crime scene can establish the identity of the person present, because of our understanding of the hereditary molecule. The similarity in certain locations of non-coding DNA between two samples is such a strong indicator of common ancestry that paternity cases can hinge on such evidence. The degree of divergence in certain biomolecules among several species can establish patterns of ancestry among them. All of the empirical evidential inquiry conducted using the genome of organisms has led inevitably to conclusions that the vast majority of scientists and lay people believe enriches not only our knowledge about biology, but also about the history of the world. regards,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
John Paul asks:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The point being that we already have in place processes that aid us in detecting intelligent design. Why would biology be exempt from these processes? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MrH: Because biology deals with 'artifacts' that reproduce themselves. John Paul:But even that reproduction process is IC, or didn't you read the link I provided pertaining to that? And where did these organisms come from? MrH:It's that simple: if an archaeologist finds an artifact like ones that humans make today, and if we have no knowledge that Nature makes these kinds of artifacts, then we can safely conclude that it was man-made. John Paul:No humans are making Stonehenges today. MrH:However, we need that independent knowledge before we can conclude intelligent design. John Paul:We have that. We know that in every case of specified complexity and/ or information-rich systems an intelligent agent is ALWAYS the cause. MrH:An outboard motor is man-made, a bacterial flagellum is natural. John Paul:That is your assertion, void of evidence. IOW just saying a bacflag is natural does not make it so. MrH:In all of biology, we have never seen anything originate through intelligent design, only natural design. John Paul:Funny we have NEVER seen DNA originate via purely natural processes. MrH:All of the empirical evidential inquiry conducted using the genome of organisms has led inevitably to conclusions that the vast majority of scientists and lay people believe enriches not only our knowledge about biology, but also about the history of the world. John Paul:Mere assertion. Creationists outnumber evolutionists. Naturalists are a very small minority.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024