|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discussing "29 evidences..." | |||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prediction 4: Intermediate and transitional forms: the possible morphologies of predicted common ancestorsJohn Paul: This can be summed up as I wouldn’t have seen it if I didn’t believe it, syndrome. As Dennet stated on the PDS series Evolution, There is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time. That would make this more post hoc gibberish. Also there is no way of knowing if the alleged transitional morphology was due to phenotypical plasticity or heritable genotypical change due to copying errors. You can imagine all you want but without substantiating molecular evidence all you have is a guy line with no tower to support. In other words you are assuming something did evolve without knowing if it can. In that sense alleged transitionals only exist as such in the minds of evolutionists. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Larry: Actually the molecular evidence has previously been pointed out to you and is also present later in the series of evidence. John Paul:Maybe that is evidence that the extremely gullable will accept. However I see that evidence as circular because it assume the ToE is indicative of reality. Larry:Would you care to actually address the morphological evidence with something more than it could be wrong? If it is wrong you should be able to cite an example or show some weakness in the evidence presented. What evidence violates this? John Paul:It's not that it is 'wrong'. It is just that it is not exclusive evidence for the ToE. That same evidence can be used to infer a Common Creator. ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
John Paul:
I haven’t seen the journal entry yet but it appears some alleged ‘orders’ are not as they evolutionists would have us believe. Recently we published a paper refuting the supposed reptile-to-mammal transitional series: Woodmorappe, J., Mammal-like reptiles: major trait reversals and discontinuities, TJ 15(1):44—52, 2001 [will be hyperlinked once posted Ed.]. The same sort of reasoning and logic as was used in this article would apply to the fish-to-tetrapod series. is proposed reptile-to-mammal series, features do not progress consistently. Some organisms towards the mammal end of the series are devoid of certain mammal-like features present in organisms closer to the reptile end of the series. The majority of the hundred-odd traits examined did not progress consistently. [/quote] Larry:Who claims there should be consistent progress? Where did you get this as a necessity? Indeed, one would expect there to be periods of rapid change and periods of stasis in morphology. The falsification of this point is not that the progress is uneven or even that there are reversals, but that there are no violations. So identify a violation. John Paul:Gee Larry, when organism 2 in an alleged series has features that are not present in organisms 4-7, but then show up again at orgamism 8, to me that is a problem. Maybe not to you but it is to me. Also as I mentioned you have no way of showing (empirically) that the alleged changes seen in the fossil record came about via mutaions culled by NS. ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: We’ve already been through this. In addition to the work on hemoglobin there is no theoretical reason to assume there is a barrier. Given the evidence doesn’t posit the need for a barrier, you need positive evidence to claim there is one. Again, you have gone in a circle. You either identify where this barrier is and the evidence for the barrier or you have no argument. quote: Wrong. Again, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the evidence is there is no barrier. There is strong evidence of common descent from a series of evidences. Now, there is no theoretical reason there should be a barrier. To posit one, you need to provide a theoretical reason why, make predictions about what such a barrier would produce as far as observations, also identify potential falsifications and then go out and observe relevant observations. Where is the barrier and how do we identify it? While evolutionary biology posits speed limits to change in some respects, it does not posit a barrier and there is no evidence for it. If you want to make a claim, demonstrate the claim. The claim that there is no barrier is based on our theoretical understanding of evolution and the observations to date. It isn’t based on ignorance, but on the observations. quote: Non-sequitur. And we do observe changes in the genetic code quite frequently. I’ll refer you back to Doolittle’s work on hemoglobin and the duplicating of the gene. Now, you completely avoided answering the question of how far evolution can proceed. If there is a barrier how far is the genetic distance that it can reach? Cheers,Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
Back to 3 billion years ago. You see, your objection is irrelevant to the 29 lines because it only discusses the evidence back to the original population(s). Fine, however, that is a different discussion. Regardless of whether or not there were several fist populations or one, the evidence gets us back that far. So your complaint doesn't deal with the evidence between the two positions, but over what occurred after that point. Whether or not there was one or more is irrelevant to whether common descent occurs from them.
This is a side issue that you are attempting to exploit because you unable to directly address the evidence. Cheers,Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: You have said such things many times, but you have yet to support it with a theory of creation. I know that you and other creationists assert it exists, but you can’t provide one that isn’t falsified. I’m not arguing out of ignorance, but out of knowledge that you don’t have a theory, but an assertion. Either you can provide a scientific theory of creation that accounts for the evidence with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications that hasn’t been previously falsified, or you don’t have an argument. Either provide such a theory or stop making the false claim that another theory accounts for the same observations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: I'm not missing anything except a scientific theory of creation. You assert this, but you don't support the assertion. Now, please specify the "Creation" model with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications that hasn't been falsified. If they evidence isn't exclusive you are implying the existence of a competing theory. Provide the competing theory. Cheers,Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
ROTFL--actually I'm sure I've read more creationist literature than you have. Now you either need to provide a scientific theory of creationism with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications that hasn't been falsified already or stop asserting that such a thing exists.
Cheers,Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
First, if you are going to complain that only the gullible would accept the evidence explain why.
Second, if you are going to assert that the evidence isn't specific to evolution, you need to provide a scientific theory with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence, and potential falsifications that hasn't already been falsified. Simply asserting that the evidence is compatible with creationism doesn't explain how it specifically fits into a consistent theory. Please provide said theory. Cheers,Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: Please be specific with a linneage and demonstrate a violation. Cheers,Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Paul: If you are claiming there is no barrier please demonstrate there isn't. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Larry: We’ve already been through this. John Paul:And your answer is unsatisfactory. It is more of the 'just-so' garden variety story. Larry:In addition to the work on hemoglobin there is no theoretical reason to assume there is a barrier. Given the evidence doesn’t posit the need for a barrier, you need positive evidence to claim there is one. Again, you have gone in a circle. You either identify where this barrier is and the evidence for the barrier or you have no argument. John Paul:Why is you don't have to substantiate your claim that there is no barrier? Either you demonstrate the alleged barrier doesn't exist or you have no argument. Larry:While evolutionary biology posits speed limits to change in some respects, it does not posit a barrier and there is no evidence for it. If you want to make a claim, demonstrate the claim. The claim that there is no barrier is based on our theoretical understanding of evolution and the observations to date. It isn’t based on ignorance, but on the observations. John Paul:Same goes for you. All direct observations (ie experiments) to date give evidence for a barrier. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Paul:First there is protein structure and animo acid sequences. Or do you think that you can alter these at will and still maintain minimal functionality? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Larry: Non-sequitur. And we do observe changes in the genetic code quite frequently. I’ll refer you back to Doolittle’s work on hemoglobin and the duplicating of the gene. Now, you completely avoided answering the question of how far evolution can proceed. If there is a barrier how far is the genetic distance that it can reach? John Paul:And the changes we observe never give rise to novel features and never give rise to anything but a variation of the original. In order for the ToE to be indicative of reality both have to be fulfilled. Too bad they can only be fulfilled in your imagination. ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Larry:
ROTFL--actually I'm sure I've read more creationist literature than you have. John Paul:I doubt that. Larry:Now you either need to provide a scientific theory of creationism with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications that hasn't been falsified already or stop asserting that such a thing exists. John Paul:Wait. First you say you have read more Creation lit. than I have and then you say you have never read about the Creation model of biological evolution? LOL! AiG has such, ICR also, true origins, David Plaisted and on & on... LOL! ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Larry:I don't know. Why don't you provide a scientific theory that accounts for this evidence if you think you can identify one that is consistent with each line as well? It could well be consistent with another theory, but first you need to provide a theory that is consistent with such such unity as well as the other lines of evidence. Please do provide such a theory. John Paul: Arguing from ignorance is not a good position Larry. You are supposed to know what you are debating against before the debate begins. As I have stated several times, the basic differences in the two models (Creation & today's ToE) are : The starting point of evolution, the extent that evolution can occur and the apparent direction. The Creation model basically follows Darwin's book but doesn't reach the same conclusions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Larry: You have said such things many times, but you have yet to support it with a theory of creation. I know that you and other creationists assert it exists, but you can’t provide one that isn’t falsified. I’m not arguing out of ignorance, but out of knowledge that you don’t have a theory, but an assertion. Either you can provide a scientific theory of creation that accounts for the evidence with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications that hasn’t been previously falsified, or you don’t have an argument. Either provide such a theory or stop making the false claim that another theory accounts for the same observations. John Paul:Theory of Creation Tenets of Creationism NATURAL SELECTIONA CREATIONIST'S IDEA Theory of Creationism And those are just from a cursory search... ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: I have. See the evidence of either Port Jackson shark:http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/NVS2.html Or Doolittle:http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/clot/Clotting.html Both of these show strong evidence of common descent that without a barrier at least back to the difference between vertebrates and invertebrates. Now, if you are going to claim the barrier is before then you are revising your position after making previous claims. Neither empirically nor theoretically is there any barrier. If you going to claim one you need to come up with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications of such a barrier. I would suggest the above reference work is going to be hard to not count as a falsification of any hypotheses you devise, however. What predictions are there of such a barrier? How do we test for it? Given the current evidence it is an astounding claim that you need to support. quote: Address the observations. They have repeatedly been provided. quote: And here you are arguing a strawman. What you claim is that evolution must produce macromutations in a single generation. No one claims this so you are being nothing short of dishonest. Either deal with the theory as it is formulated or don’t bother. As a reminder you didn’t address the example given. Cheers,Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
I've read a lot more than the cited folks-and you know what there isn't a scientific theory of creation--just assertions that it exists. Instead of asserting that it exists provide it.
Cheers,Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
None of your cites list even one testable hypotheses, any confirming evidence and no potential falsifications. Please provide. Or admit you can't do it. You can cite all the websites you want, but without a theory, you don't have an argument. The sites you linked to are doing nothing more than what you have done--made assertions.
You have specifically said that a the evidence Theobald gives is consistent with a creation "model". Fine, operationalize that model to fit those specific lines of evidence. Cheers,Larry
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024