Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Empirical Evidence for Evolution
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 47 of 60 (1802)
01-09-2002 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Fred Williams
12-28-2001 6:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Yes, evolution is capable of explaining EVERYTHING, that is one reason why it is a bad theory (in fact it doesn’t even deserve theory status, at best it’s a low-grade hypothesis).
Wow, I only intended to lurk here but this is just too rich. Fred thinks that because a theory explains "everything" it's a bad theory. So Fred, tell us how evolution explains "everything" and then tell us why it is bad to have things explained. Then tell us how your theory does not explain "everything." I've got to hear this!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Fred Williams, posted 12-28-2001 6:21 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by John Paul, posted 01-10-2002 8:42 AM edge has not replied
 Message 49 by Fred Williams, posted 01-10-2002 12:11 PM edge has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 60 (1812)
01-10-2002 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by edge
01-09-2002 10:11 PM


edge:
Wow, I only intended to lurk here but this is just too rich. Fred thinks that because a theory explains "everything" it's a bad theory.
John Paul:
Hi edge. I get the same thing from evolutionists all the time. Professor Weird and Thomas are 2 that come to mind. They say "a theory that explains everything. explains nothing." Not that I agree with that but it is just to show you it isn't just Fred saying that.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by edge, posted 01-09-2002 10:11 PM edge has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 49 of 60 (1821)
01-10-2002 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by edge
01-09-2002 10:11 PM


quote:
Edge: Wow, I only intended to lurk here but this is just too rich. Fred thinks that because a theory explains "everything" it's a bad theory. So Fred, tell us how evolution explains "everything" and then tell us why it is bad to have things explained.
Edge, I never said it is bad to have things explained. I said it is bad if the theory explains EVERYTHING. Do you understand the difference?
Why is it bad for a theory to accommodate and explain everything? It means it is not *falsifiable*, a classic criterion for the validity of a theory. Very few, if any, tests puts the theory at risk. The most common prediction you get from an evolutionist is that you won’t find a mammal in Cambrian strata. The problem is, 1) vertebrate fossilization is very rare, 2) due to its rarity such a find, if it ever occurred, would be explained away as a local flood within the appropriate geologic time (its quite convenient for the evolutionist that stasis, a creationist expectation which has been borne out by the evidence, comes to their rescue here). Even from a creationist POV it would be extraordinarily lucky to find such a fossil buried with a bunch of cambrian animals. There are plenty of examples already of out-of-place fossils that have been explained away by evolutionists. The test is toothless.
I also hear that finding evidence of a modern day dino, or evidence of dinos with man, would falsify evolution. However, I also have heard from many evolutionists that this would not falsify the theory because it would be explained as a living fossil.
Like I said, the theory is set up to explain everything, which means it explains nothing.
Things that would put creation theory at risk:
* Clear cut lineages and clear cut ancestor-descendant relationships in the fossil record
* Large-scale transposition
* Lararckian inheritance
* Concrete examples of increases in complex information in rapid reproductive cycle organisms such as bacteria & fruitflies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by edge, posted 01-09-2002 10:11 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by derwood, posted 01-10-2002 12:39 PM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 51 by edge, posted 01-10-2002 12:47 PM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 55 by Quetzal, posted 01-12-2002 3:15 PM Fred Williams has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 50 of 60 (1822)
01-10-2002 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Fred Williams
01-10-2002 12:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Edge, I never said it is bad to have things explained. I said it is bad if the theory explains EVERYTHING. Do you understand the difference?
Why is it bad for a theory to accommodate and explain everything? It means it is not *falsifiable*, a classic criterion for the validity of a theory. Very few, if any, tests puts the theory at risk. The most common prediction you get from an evolutionist is that you won’t find a mammal in Cambrian strata. The problem is, 1) vertebrate fossilization is very rare, 2) due to its rarity such a find, if it ever occurred, would be explained away as a local flood within the appropriate geologic time (its quite convenient for the evolutionist that stasis, a creationist expectation which has been borne out by the evidence, comes to their rescue here).

If stasis is a creationist expectation that has been borne out by the fossil record, why are there distinct progressions in the fossil record?[b] [QUOTE] Even from a creationist POV it would be extraordinarily lucky to find such a fossil buried with a bunch of cambrian animals. There are plenty of examples already of out-of-place fossils that have been explained away by evolutionists. The test is toothless.[/b][/QUOTE]
Explained away or explained? Do you know the difference?
Do you care?
Is crying 'directed mutation' when pressed on the supra-ReMine number nucleotide disparity between obviously related creatures an explanation, or an act of 'explaining away'?
Why?[b] [QUOTE] I also hear that finding evidence of a modern day dino, or evidence of dinos with man, would falsify evolution. However, I also have heard from many evolutionists that this would not falsify the theory because it would be explained as a living fossil.[/b][/QUOTE]
I have never heard the first part of this claim. Reference?[b] [QUOTE] Like I said, the theory is set up to explain everything, which means it explains nothing.[/b][/QUOTE]
Baseless assertion.[b] [QUOTE] Things that would put creation theory at risk:
* Clear cut lineages and clear cut ancestor-descendant relationships in the fossil record
[/b][/QUOTE]
These are false potential falsifications. Why 'clear-cut' lineages? This seems to be a prime example of the creationist tendancy toward post-hoc scenarios. It is observed - indeed, Williams states as much above - that fossilization is a rarity.
For Williams to then claim that 'clear cut lineages' in the fossil record would put creation theory[sic] at risk is a straw man by his own words!
I wonder - how does 'discontinuity systematics - the creationist co-option of evolutionary systematics - handle this dilemma? It is their claim that extant diversity is the result of post-Flood hyperspeciation. If so, would they bnot WANT 'clear-cut' lineages to be found i the fossil record to shore up their hypotheses?[b] [QUOTE] * Large-scale transposition[/b][/QUOTE]
Genome Res 2001 Dec;11(12):2050-8
Genomic characterization of recent human LINE-1 insertions: evidence supporting random insertion.
Ovchinnikov I, Troxel AB, Swergold GD.
" A large percentage of the human genome consists of DNA that has been dispersed by the L1 transposition machinery..."
Let the obfuscation and handwaving begin!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Fred Williams, posted 01-10-2002 12:11 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Fred Williams, posted 01-11-2002 6:05 PM derwood has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 51 of 60 (1823)
01-10-2002 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Fred Williams
01-10-2002 12:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Edge, I never said it is bad to have things explained. I said it is bad if the theory explains EVERYTHING. Do you understand the difference?
Well, I just hope that physicist never come up with a grand unified theory. They'd obviously be wrong.
First, you have not shown me that the ToE explains "everything." Second, I don't suppose it would occur to you that the theory of evolution explains so many things (everything?) might be because it is robust.
quote:
Why is it bad for a theory to accommodate and explain everything? It means it is not *falsifiable*, a classic criterion for the validity of a theory.
You are wrong here. There a plenty of lines of evidence that would falsify evolution. In fact most real evolutionists would enjoy seeing the revolution that the downfall of evolution would bring.
quote:
Very few, if any, tests puts the theory at risk. The most common prediction you get from an evolutionist is that you won’t find a mammal in Cambrian strata. The problem is, 1) vertebrate fossilization is very rare, 2) due to its rarity such a find, if it ever occurred, would be explained away as a local flood within the appropriate geologic time (its quite convenient for the evolutionist that stasis, a creationist expectation which has been borne out by the evidence, comes to their rescue here).
Sorry, Fred, but if there were solid evidence that the fossils were contemporaneous, it would be accepted. Do you really think that we cannot recognize transported fossils or geological processes the would juxtapose them? Do you think that geology has just been made up? The point is that it hasn't happened.
quote:
Even from a creationist POV it would be extraordinarily lucky to find such a fossil buried with a bunch of cambrian animals. There are plenty of examples already of out-of-place fossils that have been explained away by evolutionists. The test is toothless.
Funny that we do find mammalian vertebrate fossils so commonly in the later Phanerozoic, isnt' it?
And of course the test is toothless because evolution explains the fossil record. If it really happened, the teeth would be very big, and sharp.
As to the out of place fossils, I'm afraid that these are hoaxes that you have fallen for. If you would like to discuss any specific examples, I, or someone else would be glad to show you the logical fallacies involved in their discoveries. Probably your frustration occurs because evolutionary explanations are so compelling.
quote:
I also hear that finding evidence of a modern day dino, or evidence of dinos with man, would falsify evolution. However, I also have heard from many evolutionists that this would not falsify the theory because it would be explained as a living fossil.
Fred, we have been over this before. It does not matter when a fossil disappears from the record, so much as when it appears. A modern dinosaur would be a shock but not a test of evolution.
quote:
Like I said, the theory is set up to explain everything, which means it explains nothing.
What do you mean by everything? It does not explain abiogenesis. It does not explain some specific features developed by living organisms. It does not explain gravity. If it truly explained "everything" you wouldn't even be here.
[QUOTE]Things that would put creation theory at risk:
* Clear cut lineages and clear cut ancestor-descendant relationships in the fossil record
* Large-scale transposition
* Lararckian inheritance
* Concrete examples of increases in complex information in rapid reproductive cycle organisms such as bacteria & fruitflies.[/b][/QUOTE]
You forgot one. The fossil record. In fact that is the main line of evidence leading to abandonment of creationism by the scientific community.
[This message has been edited by edge, 01-10-2002]
[This message has been edited by edge, 01-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Fred Williams, posted 01-10-2002 12:11 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Fred Williams, posted 01-11-2002 4:45 PM edge has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 52 of 60 (1931)
01-11-2002 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by edge
01-10-2002 12:47 PM


This is a good segue to an article I just completed. It's at:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/fossil_illusion.htm
I will start a new thread...
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by edge, posted 01-10-2002 12:47 PM edge has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 53 of 60 (1937)
01-11-2002 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by derwood
01-10-2002 12:39 PM


Sorry to burst your bubble - I meant large-scale transposition of genetic material between species via lateral gene transfer. If this pattern were rampant, evolutionists would enthusiastically endorse it as evidence for their theory since it would greatly simplify evolutionary processes.
Remine does a good job of explaining this in his book. You can order it here:
http://www.creationresearch.org/cgi-bin/checkitout/checkitout.cgi?creationSTORE:CKIE src="http://www.evcforum.net/Images/Smilies/tongue.gif">rodBK-BIO1+

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by derwood, posted 01-10-2002 12:39 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by lbhandli, posted 01-11-2002 7:49 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 56 by derwood, posted 01-13-2002 12:31 PM Fred Williams has not replied

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 60 (1942)
01-11-2002 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Fred Williams
01-11-2002 6:05 PM


If large amounts of genetic material were transferred by lgt, the theory would be falsified--indeed, it would take an entirely new theory, one that may be called evolution, but one that would bear little resemblance to the current theory. Remine, as usual, doesn't seem to understand this, nor do you. It is much like saying that evolution is the same as what Darwin proposed. There is little resemblance between what Darwin proposed and evolution now. The combining of selection mechanisms with genetics radically altered how evolution was viewed.
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Fred Williams, posted 01-11-2002 6:05 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 55 of 60 (1978)
01-12-2002 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Fred Williams
01-10-2002 12:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams
Things that would put creation theory at risk:
* Clear cut lineages and clear cut ancestor-descendant relationships in the fossil record
* Large-scale transposition
* Lararckian inheritance
* Concrete examples of increases in complex information in rapid reproductive cycle organisms such as bacteria & fruitflies.
1. Clear cut lineages. I'm pretty sure these already exist. Could you give an example of evidence that would indicate this? I mean define what would constitute "clear cut".
2. Large-scale transposition (defined by Fred Williams in message 51 as "large-scale transposition of genetic material between species via lateral gene transfer"): The only large scale lateral gene transfer is during bacterial sex, which I assume you reject as an example. However, this is an impervious claim: the only possible falsification would be large-scale saltation (between higher taxa). Large scale saltation has been discredited for 100+ years - by ToE.
3. Lamarckian inheritance. Another impervious claim: as in saltation, Lamarckian inheritance has also been refuted for 100+ years - again by ToE.
4. Increases in information. Others are addressing this issue (notably SLP). Any new genetic material added to bacterial genomes comes from bacterial gene swapping - all receptor bacteria are considered to have increased their genetic code after sex. You need to read up on some microbiology. There's about 20 years worth of research that you've apparently missed.
BTW: Where did you get those four "falsifications"? Two are spurious because they can't exist, one is undefined, and one is flat out already falsified. You need to get some new sources.
[As sacrifice to the goddess Typo:]
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Fred Williams, posted 01-10-2002 12:11 PM Fred Williams has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 56 of 60 (2013)
01-13-2002 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Fred Williams
01-11-2002 6:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Sorry to burst your bubble - I meant large-scale transposition of genetic material between species via lateral gene transfer.

Ahhh - another terminology problem.
You could make things easier to debate here if you would use appropriate and/or non-redefined terminology.
Lateral gene transfer is quite a different thing altogether from transposition.
This cannot be construed as a problem of the medium, nor is this one of those issues that can be dodged by claiming 'informed evos know this'.
This is improper terminology, plain and simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Fred Williams, posted 01-11-2002 6:05 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Siguiendo la verdad
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 60 (214551)
06-05-2005 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by joz
12-06-2001 11:32 AM


Probablity of evolution by chance:
0
Stanley L. Miller, "From the Primitive Atmosphere to the Prebiotic Soup to the Pre-RNA World"(Washington, D.C. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1996)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by joz, posted 12-06-2001 11:32 AM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by NosyNed, posted 06-05-2005 7:00 PM Siguiendo la verdad has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 58 of 60 (214557)
06-05-2005 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Siguiendo la verdad
06-05-2005 6:29 PM


Re: Probablity of evolution by chance:
I think the discussion you are refering back to was about evolutionary changes adding up.
It would be useful if you gave the appropriate quote out of your reference but it appears to be discussing the origin of life and not evolution. I suggest you research the difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Siguiendo la verdad, posted 06-05-2005 6:29 PM Siguiendo la verdad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Siguiendo la verdad, posted 06-06-2005 12:34 PM NosyNed has not replied

Siguiendo la verdad
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 60 (214661)
06-06-2005 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by NosyNed
06-05-2005 7:00 PM


Re: Probablity of evolution by chance:
"Probability of evolution by chance"
That was the title of my post, that's what the reference says: zero

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by NosyNed, posted 06-05-2005 7:00 PM NosyNed has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 60 of 60 (216431)
06-12-2005 1:03 PM


Old "Great Debate" topic - Closing
This is one of many "Great Debate" topics whose origin predates the designation of the "GD" as being a "one-on-one" format.
At this point, I see no reason to move this topic to another forum. Closing it down.
I guess we can decide "move or close" for the other old "GD" topics on a topic by topic basis, if and when they may happen to become active again.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024