Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where are all the missing links?
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 256 of 302 (241787)
09-09-2005 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Nuggin
09-09-2005 11:27 AM


Re: Re:Archaeopteryx
nuggin writes:
Porcupines have quills very similiar to the quills of feathers (convergent evolution). Both sets of quills evolved from hair.
Thus a central prediction of ToE: "Hair today, gone tomorrow" which perfectly explains my thinning hair. I believe!!!
Whenever Archies relatives turn up, be they hairy, scaly or quilly let me know will ya?
Good weekend Nuggin

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Nuggin, posted 09-09-2005 11:27 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Nuggin, posted 09-09-2005 11:51 AM iano has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 257 of 302 (241791)
09-09-2005 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by iano
09-09-2005 11:49 AM


Re: Re:Archaeopteryx
You missed Post 250.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by iano, posted 09-09-2005 11:49 AM iano has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 258 of 302 (241939)
09-09-2005 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by iano
09-09-2005 11:06 AM


Re: Re:Archaeopteryx
Walk into a mental institution and say that the three are linked.
They're linked by the fact that all three of these structures are composed of the same identical protein.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by iano, posted 09-09-2005 11:06 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by iano, posted 09-12-2005 6:03 AM crashfrog has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 259 of 302 (241955)
09-09-2005 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by iano
09-09-2005 5:56 AM


The question was clear evidence. Does 'plenty of evidence' suffer from the same problem as "speciation occurs in the lab", ie: is the evidence being interpreted in the light of the presumption that evolution is occuring? Making the facts fit the theory in other words?
crashfrog did a pretty good job of answering this in Message 241.
Uniformatism is a presumption made, under which light the so-called geologic columm is constructed.
I don't agree with that. Uniformity is observed in the geologic evidence.
This seems to be a core problem with ToE, it's theories all the way down. Infinite regression but never landing on something solid on which we can strike out and know the evidence is in fact evidence. Every aspect of it appear to be built on a foundation of an unfounded presumption. That ToE is fantastically complex and interesting doesn't free it from it's position of a bootstrap arguement.
That's a misundestanding, in my opinion.
If you look at ToE (or any scientific theory) as a collection of facts, then what you mostly see is a sparse collection of isolated facts, and a lot of interpolation to reach conclusions. Once could reasonably be skeptical. But that isn't how science works. Science, primarily, is a knowledge of processes. The lab work is where we test our understanding of these processes. Knowing the processes, you can predict the kind of world that we will have. You do need some facts to anchor the predictions in reality. But most of the facts serve as confirmation of what you could predict from knowledge of the processes.
I asked somewhere is there anything about ToE which anyone knows with certainty to be true. This would require a firm, non presumed piece of foundation at some point. Is there one, anywhere?
The foundation is in the known and well tested biological processes. Even for Darwin, this was true. His experience with artificial selection (pidgeon breeding was one example) gave him the process knowledge that connected all of the observed facts together. Today our process knowledge is far greater.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by iano, posted 09-09-2005 5:56 AM iano has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 260 of 302 (242140)
09-10-2005 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by crashfrog
09-07-2005 7:06 PM


Re: Welcome
No, because there is no error. The fossil record is a "record" of dead organisms. It's not a videotape that we dig up out of the earth.
And the record shows no evidence of speciation per Darwin, Gould, Leakey, and others. This covers over a 100 years.
I suspect, you must conclude every species is intermediate in lieu of the fact that evidence is not seen in the record itself.
This is called preaching your owm message despite what the text actually says, the mark of religion.
Observations cannot be falsified. Your attempt at rebuttal is incoherent.
Then why on one hand does Dawkins admit design is obvious then assert it is an illusion ?
This is rhetorical and it is the thesis of Blind Watchmaker.
Even though you insist you cannot have it both ways. Observation proves ID, unless of course you assert what we see is an illusion. This is deciding for your starting assumptions despite the evidence.
Also, injecting an ad hom of "incoherent" indicates you are a frustrated philosopher operating under the pretense of science.
If your argument is that I'm not actually seeing something I see with my very own eyes, how is that an argument that you expect me to take seriously?
Your observations are filtered by the needs of your worldview.
Everyone else sees reality the only way it can be seen: created.
The original meaning of "cosmos" is "order". What we have is designed and your inability to see it does not affect the facts.
Herepton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2005 7:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by wj, posted 09-10-2005 10:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 262 by Nuggin, posted 09-10-2005 10:44 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 263 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2005 11:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 265 by AdminJar, posted 09-11-2005 5:58 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 266 by NosyNed, posted 09-11-2005 6:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 267 by Brad McFall, posted 09-11-2005 7:31 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 302 (242145)
09-10-2005 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object
09-10-2005 9:29 PM


Re: Welcome
Herepton writes:
Then why on one hand does Dawkins admit design is obvious then assert it is an illusion ?
Care to provide a direct quotation? Or at least a citation. I'm sure Dawkins provides his explanation for his assertion even if you fail to acknowledge it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-10-2005 9:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 262 of 302 (242155)
09-10-2005 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object
09-10-2005 9:29 PM


Re: Welcome
Hey Herepton, you gotta get in some more computer time. You disappear for days on end. What do you have a real life or something?
Observation proves ID
Can you please explain this to me. By my thinking, observation that proves ID would include actually observing the designer as he designed something and implimented it.
I think you can safely say "Observation implies ID" though I would disagree with this assertion.
Can you maybe give us an example of a species / feature which you believe is a strong indicator for ID?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-10-2005 9:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Chiroptera, posted 09-11-2005 5:18 PM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 283 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-12-2005 11:28 PM Nuggin has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 263 of 302 (242158)
09-10-2005 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object
09-10-2005 9:29 PM


Re: Welcome
I suspect, you must conclude every species is intermediate in lieu of the fact that evidence is not seen in the record itself.
Given that species change is the observed rule and not the exception, what reason is there for concluding that any species is not intermediate or transitional?
Then why on one hand does Dawkins admit design is obvious then assert it is an illusion ?
Non sequiter. Your remark is irrelevant to my point.
Also, injecting an ad hom of "incoherent"
The remark was an accurate characterization of your rebuttal, not a remark directed at your person. It's becoming increasingly obvious that you have no arguments, because now you're beginning to retreat behind a smokescreen of invented claims of "ad hominem."
Your observations are filtered by the needs of your worldview.
But that's nonsense. Worldviews can't invent observations that aren't there. At best you can claim that I'm failing to make certain observations, but so far you refuse to tell me what those would actually be, which makes me think that you don't know either.
In other words you're promulgating a model that you don't have any evidence for.
Everyone else sees reality the only way it can be seen: created.
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-10-2005 9:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 264 of 302 (242297)
09-11-2005 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Nuggin
09-10-2005 10:44 PM


A welcome wearing thin
quote:
You disappear for days on end.
And then he just repeats what he said before he disappeared. It would be nice if he took the time he was gone to actually devise counter-argumenents to our replies to him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Nuggin, posted 09-10-2005 10:44 PM Nuggin has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 302 (242303)
09-11-2005 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object
09-10-2005 9:29 PM


You are going to have to change your behavior.
You're starting to fall back into old bad habits. I warned you on 8-31 that I'd be watching your behavior.
Straighten up. Respond to specific requests for support as you know is needed here at EvC.
This is your last warning.

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:
Message 1
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-10-2005 9:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

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


Message 266 of 302 (242314)
09-11-2005 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object
09-10-2005 9:29 PM


Obvious Design
When why on one hand does Dawkins admit design is obvious then assert it is an illusion ?
Perhaps it is a problem with your reading? It maybe you didn't even read the book. Why don't you explain what Dawkins has to say about it.
I have read the book and the above question of yours seems rather an odd one when one has read the book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-10-2005 9:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-12-2005 11:49 PM NosyNed has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 267 of 302 (242332)
09-11-2005 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object
09-10-2005 9:29 PM


Re: Welcome
quote:
Observations cannot be falsified. Your attempt at rebuttal is incoherent.
Then why on one hand does Dawkins admit design is obvious then assert it is an illusion ?
I'll make a stab at answering that.
I can read clearly in Weyl (throughout) "Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science" a designed intention to move or transition from a lack of evidence for
quote:
G. Mie and others have tried to modify Maxwell's equations of the electromagnetic field in such a way that they possess only one or at most a small number of static spherically symmetric solutions.
p288
---------------
to a claim such
--------------
quote:
"A profound mystery, however, is the evolution of life on earth. The idea of organic evolution (conceived long before Darwin) was raised by Darwinism to the rank of the most dominant scientific issue of our times. Does it really deserve this position? The nineteenth century...In attempting to answer it, let us first repeat a previous remark to the effect that the stability of molecules depends on temperature and other environmental conditions and that a molecule will in general be..."
p295
.
If Dawkins is always going to try to rewrite where Weyl wrote mneme(I'll look throught the whole book if you really want me to find where he wrote this. He did.) as "m"gene mnemonically&mimetically, I woudn't put that past Richard D, then ,despite the design possibility that someone WILL answer Mie with a finite number of spherical solutions RD will THEN show how That is a meme and not mere law of thermometers etc. I dont know what goes on behind the scences really though.
And I think this is rather a somewhat more delusional possibility than an illusory one because I dont see how no one is smart enough to use Gladyshev's law to follow up Weyls suggestions rather than Dawkins'. ICR creationists would be happy enough if someone gave the blueprint for the transformations and it is no way obvious that baramins do not survive Weyls suggestion . They probably do not survive Dawkins' as I have mastered it in terms of Weyls' axiomatic comparison of Hilbert and other applied areas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-10-2005 9:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 268 of 302 (242392)
09-12-2005 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by crashfrog
09-09-2005 5:34 PM


Re: Re:Archaeopteryx
iano writes:
Walk into a mental institution and say that the three are linked.
They're linked by the fact that all three of these structures are composed of the same identical protein.
So differentiate between common design and common descent then (without returning to that hackneyed phrase "evolutiondidit")

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2005 5:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2005 7:25 AM iano has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 269 of 302 (242398)
09-12-2005 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by iano
09-12-2005 6:03 AM


Re: Re:Archaeopteryx
So differentiate between common design and common descent then
There's no such thing as "common design." When designers go to new projects, they start from scratch. They don't reuse materials and structures from previous projects that were fundamentally different from the current one. If you're going to build a submarine you don't start with the chassis design from a '57 Chevy.
Dean Kamen is the designer of both a model of kidney dialysis machine and the Segway electric scooter. Neither one of these items employs the features, materials, or elements of the other, and it would be ridiculous to suggest that they do. Why would a designer designing an electric scooter start by modifying his plans for a dialysis machine?
Also it would be nice if you could address post 241 of mine.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-12-2005 07:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by iano, posted 09-12-2005 6:03 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by iano, posted 09-12-2005 7:53 AM crashfrog has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 270 of 302 (242400)
09-12-2005 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Chiroptera
09-09-2005 11:23 AM


Yo CP.
Chiroptera writes:
However, I think my uniformist presumptions correctly predict what I will observe -- phone messages actually correspond to people who want to speak with me, garbage left will begin to smell, lights left on will run up an electric bill
I was wondering what to make of the first half of your post. It seemed to be an uncharacteristic departure from you usual calm, cool, unemotional approach (which I admire and wish I could employ myself more often.) Uniformatism presumes things are happening today in much the same way as they have done forever. Uranium half life is the same now as 4500,000,000 years ago, over-production of offspring in relation to survival-of-species-requirements are the same, etc,etc. What this has to do with your garbage rotting I'm not sure. You can presume uniformatism this morning and this afternoon because you can observe that that is the case and draw a, for-all-intents-and-purposes, straight line through the data.
Reliable science which shows these two examples to be 'uniform' is maybe 100 years old? (although how you do that with uranium half-life is beyond me - given that our most accurate clocks are atomic!) On the basis that the earth is 4,500,000,000 years old, you have data that covers 1/45,000,000 of the total time over which you try to extrapolate that data. You have but a dot on the graph and are assuming dy/dx = 0. There is no basis for that assumption however - other than perhaps, a philosophical "we've got to start somewhere".
What else can we do? That is not for me to answer. If man insists that he wants answers by all means start there. But do so in the knowledge that every piece of data that derives from is as it is because of the assumption. I've said before that uniformatism is not the basis on which science is built. Science is built on the premise that the world is ordered and predictable. That the laws of nature are immutable. That is not the same thing at all as uniformatism - which says that the processes we see today occurred always occured that way.
Evolution is a theory whose obervations are made in the light of an assumption of uniformatism. Things like phylogenetic trees arise as a result of this. Uranium dating is determined to operate according to uniformitism. The fossils that are found are dated according to uniformitism and arranged in phylogenetic trees dependent on uniformist age (and a prior presumption of evolution). If folk are convinced of these two presumptions the all the evidence will be seen in this light. You know this is the case. If a rabbit/bird fossil is ever found, it won't impinge in the slightest on evolution. It will be accomodated somewhere in the tree. You can bet your life on it. I understand the Cambrian fossils turned some hitherto orthodoxy on its head. Did evolution get dumped. Nope. Modified to accomodate? Yup. Science "self-correcting" and moving on.
Uniformatism enables a gradualistic geologic column and this as well as the phylogenetic trees that result, are inserted back and used as evidence that uniformatism is 'true'. That is circular is it not?
But assuming that Darwinian common descent through natural selection of random characteristics leads us to explain an amazing amount of the world around us. The fact is that the species can be placed in a hierarchical classification scheme. The is a necessary result of common descent; common descent could have produced no other pattern.
If todays phylogenetic trees has been accurately predicted back then, then I would be more impressed. Arriving at a result and saying it is the result of a prediction that was never made is not evidence for the theory. Thats a bootstrap argument. That I arrived in New Delhi after leaving New York and claiming that it was a dead cert to have happened could be applied to any destination I arrived at - after the fact. When it comes to WHY the tress takes the form it has all you'll get is "could have been that/we think that/perhaps/the evidence indicates that" to explain the diversifications that cause the 'tree' to branch were it does. After the fact it all makes sense. Not because it's the only way it could have been but because it is the way it is - after the fact. 20/20 hindsight is a fine thing.
You are entitled to believe that some "common designer" created the species in such a way as to fit a hierarchical pattern (but why? whim?), but I don't understand what it does for you. Common descent explains why we see terrestrial mammal/whale transitionals but not fish/whale transitionals, why we see ape/human transitionals but not carnivore/human transitionals, why we see dinosaur/bird transitionals but not rabbit/bird transitionals. A "common designer" could have designed species intermediate between birds and bats; my guess is such species will never, ever be found.
Your position is no stronger than mine - you don't know why a designer did what he did (you guess 'whim') any more that you could know why the transitionals can be called transitionals in themselves. None appear to be in transitions from/to anything in and of themselves, ie: apart from the presumption of evolution. They don't link to anything at both ends.
Your position does less for you than mine does. Me, I can wander in awe through a universe-sized natural art museum. I can admire the creativeness, sheer fun and resourcefullness that was employed to get the whole mechanism working so beautifully together. You can only wander through the scene of a staggeringly beautifully operating - accident.
What staggers me is that someone can stand back, take a broad view and arrive at the intellectually satisfying conclusion: Chance.
If species looking like primitive pre-bats are found my guess is that they will look more like the tree dwelling mammals that will be found in the same strata. I make this prediction despite that there are no fossils yet known of primitive pre-bats. If I am correct, that such fossils that are intermediate between tree-dwelling mammals and bats are found, why is this not a good indication that these uniformist presumption is a good presumption?
Question for you. If a pre-bat fossils were found in the wrong place in the strata and had the wrong habitat would that falsify evolution in your mind? Or do you reckon it would accomodated some way?

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Chiroptera, posted 09-09-2005 11:23 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2005 8:15 PM iano has not replied
 Message 298 by Chiroptera, posted 09-13-2005 2:07 PM iano has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024