Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Icons of Evolution
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 31 of 65 (481721)
09-12-2008 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by kuresu
09-11-2008 11:42 AM


Re: Urey Miller
Creationism, however, does start out with an a priori decision about the past. It must conform to some version of the bible or some reality that can be reconciled with the bible. So even if the evidence shows something else, you stick with the original program.
Actually that is what evolution does.Everything must conform to the assumption that only natural processes could be responsible-and even if the evidence shows that it's not possible, you stick with the original program.
Now for the kicker. You're trying to show that science is a conspiracy, a hidden (to you not so hidden) religion promoting its own atheistic world vision
No, I'm trying to show that evolutionary science is a philosophy allowing natural causes only as if they can know for a fact that no organizing intelligence could possibly be involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by kuresu, posted 09-11-2008 11:42 AM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by NosyNed, posted 09-12-2008 9:42 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 33 by Dr Jack, posted 09-12-2008 9:59 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 36 by gluadys, posted 09-12-2008 10:22 PM Beretta has not replied

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


Message 32 of 65 (481731)
09-12-2008 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Beretta
09-12-2008 9:16 AM


Reasonable Assumptions
Everything must conform to the assumption that only natural processes could be responsible-and even if the evidence shows that it's not possible, you stick with the original program.
Of course this assumption is used and for very good reasons.
1) It has worked over and over and over again. You want to play a god-of-the-gaps game; there is something unknown so god must have done it. However, this game has proved to be a mistake throughout history. Why should we think that, finally, this time it is actually correct?
2) If we assume instead that a miracle occurred then study is over. Such an event is not something that can have scientific study applied since it can have occurred in any way at all and leave or not leave any evidence at all.
And there is no evidence showing it is not possible. It is hard to find evidence that it is possible. It is harder to find evidence of exactly how it happened and it is really, really hard to prove that there is no way at all it could have happened.
If we go with your wishes and allow for none natural processes then just how would we learn anything at all? <----- thread: So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Beretta, posted 09-12-2008 9:16 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 33 of 65 (481736)
09-12-2008 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Beretta
09-12-2008 9:16 AM


Follow the evidence
Actually that is what evolution does.Everything must conform to the assumption that only natural processes could be responsible-and even if the evidence shows that it's not possible, you stick with the original program.
I disagree with Nosy; there is no assumption of natural process. What there is an assumption that the evidence will lead us to the truth of what happened; that, fundamentally, the universe is not lying to us. Despite your claims; there is absolutely no evidence that life cannot form through natural process.
More importantly there is absolutely no evidence for any kind of organised intelligence: none, nada, zip; no coherent proposal for identifying such evidence: none, nada, zip; no coherent mechanism or hypothesis for how it was done: none, nada, zip. Might as well put it in the Science books that maybe if on Earth was started by Lister sneezing a billion years in the future and that sneeze falling through a time warp - it makes as much sense.
This is why intelligence isn't taken seriously: it's not because of any philosophical or ideological commitment, it's because of a complete lack of a coherent hypothesis let alone evidence.
If you could present a scientific model of how intelligence was involved, and provide any evidence to support it, then it'd get a place in the textbooks. But you haven't, and you can't.
Edited by Mr Jack, : Better subtitle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Beretta, posted 09-12-2008 9:16 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 34 of 65 (481738)
09-12-2008 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Beretta
09-12-2008 8:55 AM


Re: Three cheers for the Discovery Institute!!
Beretta writes:
Anti-evolution certainly but anti-science? Most assuredly not.
The Discovery Institute is anti-science because they want to replace methodological naturalism with approaches more friendly to conservative Christian sensibilities. The Discovery Institute's Wedge Document says:
Wedge Document writes:
We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
Moving on:
Beretta writes:
I've heard Eugenie Scott saying that even if Haeckel did 'fudge' his drawings somewhat, so what, the overall impression is still correct. In other words a little bit of dishonesty has given the correct impression so it doesn't really matter. Actually Haeckel did deceive with his drawings and gave the incorrect impression -lying intentionally cannot be good for anyone. The Discovery institute is exposing deceit.
Two points.
First, about Eugenie Scott's comment about Haeckel, the point she's making is that Haeckel's fudged diagrams can't change the fact that embryological development across broad ranges of species include many common and/or very similar elements that are a reflection of their shared evolutionary heritage.
Second, about the Discovery Institute exposing deceit, what's next, the Teapot Dome Scandal? Please keep us abreast of breaking developments.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Beretta, posted 09-12-2008 8:55 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Beretta, posted 09-13-2008 4:39 AM Percy has not replied

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4733 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 35 of 65 (481816)
09-12-2008 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Beretta
09-10-2008 10:50 AM


Re: Urey Miller
Beretta,
I think you have a point about Miller Urey - there has been a change in theories about the composition of the early atmosphere. I don't think O2 is part of that understanding though. It's believed to have been generated by photosynthesis.
But since then amino acids have been found in meteorites - so I'd support removing Miller Urey if you'd support adding in the meteorite evidence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Beretta, posted 09-10-2008 10:50 AM Beretta has not replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4963 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 36 of 65 (481836)
09-12-2008 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Beretta
09-12-2008 9:16 AM


Re: Urey Miller
Actually that is what evolution does.Everything must conform to the assumption that only natural processes could be responsible-and even if the evidence shows that it's not possible, you stick with the original program.
But we don't have evidence that it is not possible. Only incredulity.
No, I'm trying to show that evolutionary science is a philosophy allowing natural causes only as if they can know for a fact that no organizing intelligence could possibly be involved.
Actually natural causes only does not eliminate the possibility that intelligence could be involved. It only eliminates a situation in which an intelligence chooses not to use natural causes instrumentally. Logically natural causes are not necessarily godless causes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Beretta, posted 09-12-2008 9:16 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 37 of 65 (481851)
09-13-2008 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Percy
09-12-2008 10:04 AM


Haeckel's Embryos
The Discovery Institute is anti-science because they want to replace methodological naturalism with approaches more friendly to conservative Christian sensibilities.
Well the thing is, it's not the methodological naturalism so much as the redefining of science to exclude any other possibility that upsets ID proponents.By redefining 'science' as everything is due to natural causes only, a philisophical assumption is made. The problem is if that assumption is not correct.
Although we have natural laws that work and we can use them to predict all sorts of things, there are other things, like origins that we do not believe can be attributed to natural law and natural causes. For instance, a Christian believes that all life only comes from pre-existing life and that an intelligent creator created the original kinds. Now we may not be able to prove it but we can infer it from the evidence of coded information in the genome and the fact that breeding and mutation experiments seem to have limits. Naturalists of course can't see that possibility because they have already philisophically presupposed that all life has a common ancestor which is as good as presupposing that life got started all by itself by natural causes even though they try to distance themselves from abiogenesis since it is not so very successful. Of course they can't KNOW that, but the moment they apply that philosophy to everything, it's like having a possibly faulty base on which everything else is built.
So while the evolutionist supposes and imagines how a simple light detecting spot became more and more complex until a proper eye with full vision was formed, we have another theory altogether and the story of how the spot became an eye becomes a vast amount of imagination based on the initial assumption which may be incorrect.All that ID is saying is that science cannot carry on with their assumptions being the only ones allowed to be investigated and if they are so confident that they are correct, they would not so fear competition that they become hysterical about the other possibilities and desperately try to keep all evidence against Darwinism out of the classroom. If their base is solid so let it be criticized and it should be able to stand without propping it up with guns, grenades and sarcasm.
First, about Eugenie Scott's comment about Haeckel, the point she's making is that Haeckel's fudged diagrams can't change the fact that embryological development across broad ranges of species include many common and/or very similar elements that are a reflection of their shared evolutionary heritage.
Well there's the philisophical assumption again that there was a common ancestor.That's the part that we don't all believe. Some ID people do, some don't but Haeckel's embryos don't illustrate the point unless you select your specimens carefully and show the midpoint where they are more similar and leave out the early stages where they are not.But the whole point is supposed to be about the earliest stages being most similar and then the differences coming in only later showing basically a mini-evolution of their own from a common ancestor type appearance.So it's not only fudging the appearances, it's about carefully selecting your evidence to illustrate something that isn't but would make a nice proof were it true. So they're not illustrating something that's basically true they're forcing the interpretation on the evidence - that's fraud not proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 09-12-2008 10:04 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Huntard, posted 09-13-2008 5:49 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 40 by gluadys, posted 09-13-2008 8:21 AM Beretta has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2296 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 38 of 65 (481853)
09-13-2008 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Beretta
09-13-2008 4:39 AM


Re: Haeckel's Embryos
Hey Beretta, I'm back after reading up on all this stuff a bit.
Beretta writes:
Well the thing is, it's not the methodological naturalism so much as the redefining of science to exclude any other possibility that upsets ID proponents. By redefining 'science' as everything is due to natural causes only, a philisophical assumption is made.
Science only includes stuff for which there is evidence, if we were to include every possibility there is, we could fill the entire curriculum with only science lessons, since the possibilities are literally endless.
As to your other statements, I assure you I'm not a "naturalist", "evolutionist" or any kind of other stuff you seem to like to call those that don't agree with you. I only look at the evidence.
As for abiogenesis, you have to agree that the Urey-Miller experiment shows that it is possible. Not on planet earth's early atmosphere, but this does not matter. Why not? I'll try to explain.
For now, there is no conclusive evidence of how life started on Earth, however, the Urey-Miller experiment showed that the building blocks for life do form spontaneously. This could've happened on another planet, in which the composition of the atmosphere does conform to the one used in the experiment. Now, if amino acids formed on this planet, they could've gotten to Earth via panspermia.
I'll admit there is so far no evdience for this, but it is a possibilty, should this also be taught in the classroom?
Well there's the philisophical assumption again that there was a common ancestor.
This is not an assumption, there is evidence for this. Not in the least in the genetic record.
Haeckel's embryo's were bad, I admit that, but again, the truth of the matter is that early embryo's ARE very similar. Not as similar as Haeckel's, but similar nonetheless. Also, I never saw Haeckel's drawings in my textbook, I only saw the actual microscopic images.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Beretta, posted 09-13-2008 4:39 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by kuresu, posted 09-13-2008 6:55 AM Huntard has not replied
 Message 41 by Beretta, posted 09-13-2008 8:33 AM Huntard has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2514 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 39 of 65 (481859)
09-13-2008 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Huntard
09-13-2008 5:49 AM


Re: Haeckel's Embryos
I only saw the actual microscopic images.
You know, I saw the same thing. Although I think my book did have a copy of Haekel's images, it showed them and followed by saying "these are wrong!"
I wish people who try to discredit science would actually look into the college textbooks before they make an ass out of themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Huntard, posted 09-13-2008 5:49 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Beretta, posted 09-13-2008 8:40 AM kuresu has not replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4963 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 40 of 65 (481872)
09-13-2008 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Beretta
09-13-2008 4:39 AM


What Christians believe
For instance, a Christian believes that all life only comes from pre-existing life and that an intelligent creator created the original kinds.
Unless you are presuming to judge who is and is not a Christian, this statement is wrong. I am a Christian and I do not agree with this view of creation. Nor do Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, Denis L'amoureux and many other Christians.
In fact, except in the US, this is probably a minority view among Christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Beretta, posted 09-13-2008 4:39 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Beretta, posted 09-13-2008 8:49 AM gluadys has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 41 of 65 (481874)
09-13-2008 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Huntard
09-13-2008 5:49 AM


Re: Haeckel's Embryos
Hello again Huntard,
Science only includes stuff for which there is evidence
Experimental science includes stuff for which there is evidence. Evolutionary ”science’ is based on hypothetical possibilities that are certainly not proven.
if we were to include every possibility there is, we could fill the entire curriculum with only science lessons, since the possibilities are literally endless.
No the possibilities are not endless, there are only two that need to be discussed. Life made itself via natural processes OR life was created by an intelligence beyond natural law. Nobody is saying we must include every religion and their individual stories but many religions believe that life was created and to be fair and objective ID proponents are saying that there is enough evidence to be able to infer intelligent intervention in the creation of life. So that is all they want to be allowed to include -the evidence that life may not have been self-created by natural processes only from non-living chemicals.
Saying that amino-acids may have formed naturally does not bring us anywhere close to life. It’s like finding some rubber and imagining that given time (preferably billions of years), rubber and natural law could come together with other components to form a self-replicating car.
Even the simplest cell is incredibly complex - full of miniature functioning machines that are coded for by DNA that has to pass a message on to form proteins that are very specific and fold up to form specific shapes that interact very specifically with other proteins that have other functions -all of which are necessary for life. Who coded the DNA?
As Stephen Meyer says in an article called “Word Games” -not quoting directly but basically this:
Chemical law cannot account for it by preferential bonding. Biochemistry and molecular biology make it clear that the forces of attraction between the constituents of DNA, RNA and protein do not explain the sequence specificity of these large information- bearing biomolecules. If the individual nucleotides did interact by chemical necessity with each other, the DNA message text would be peppered by repeating sequences similar to crystals. Basically bonding affinities undercut the maximization of information. Therefore they cannot explain the origin of information -the highly improbable, aperiodic and yet specified sequences that make biological function possible.
He also says: Our experience with information-intensive systems (especially codes and languages) indicates that such systems always come from an intelligent source, not chance or material necessity. Because mind or intelligent design is a necessary cause of an informative system, one can detect the past action of an intelligent cause from the presence of an in information-intensive effect, even if the cause itself cannot be directly observed.
Scientists in many fields recognize the connection between intelligence and information and make inferences accordingly for example in archaeology and SETI by looking for information embedded in electromagnetic signals. Molecular biologists, looking closer to home, have discovered information in the cell.
I only look at the evidence.
Except that you apparently only believe the naturalists ”evidence’ which if you look at things like Urey Miller and Haeckel’s embryos is not evidence at all.
Well there's the philisophical assumption again that there was a common ancestor.
This is not an assumption, there is evidence for this. Not in the least in the genetic record.
But the genetic record could just as easily be evidence for a common designer.
Haeckel's embryo's were bad, I admit that, but again, the truth of the matter is that early embryo's ARE very similar. Not as similar as Haeckel's, but similar nonetheless.
According to Jonathan Wells, who is a vertebrate embryologist, they are not most similar in their earliest stages. As British zoologist Adam Sedgewick wrote, “The claim is not in accordance with the facts of development” and “a species is distinct and distinguishable from its allies from the very earliest stages all through development.”
As William Ballard, Dartmouth College embryologist confirms, “only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence,” “by bending the facts of nature, “ that one can argue that the earliest stages of vertebrate embryos “are more similar than their adults.
In fact as Wells notes “the earliest vertebrate embryos are often less similar to one another than they are at subsequent stages when they possess more complex features.”
Jerry Coyne who criticized Wells about his criticisms re embryos admitted that the embryos are NOT most similar in their earliest stages but then argues that it is still evidence that can be explained in light of Darwin’s theory.
So as Well’s concludes: Some of the strongest evidence for Darwin’s theory (according to Darwin at the time) is that the vertebrate embryos are most similar in their early stages -except that they’re not. But if we just interpret the embryos’ dissimilarities in the light of Darwin’s theory, they then have evidential value.” (according to Coyne) “Oh nowI get it! (says Wells) Darwin’s theory wins no matter what the evidence shows. That must just be how evolutionary biology works.”
Also, I never saw Haeckel's drawings in my textbook, I only saw the actual microscopic images.
And, in order to illustrate the point, you would have been shown the mid stage ones and only those vertebrate species that are specifically chosen because they look most similar -illustrating the lie.
Haeckel's embryo's were bad, I admit that, but again, the truth of the matter is that early embryo's ARE very similar.
No, they’re not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Huntard, posted 09-13-2008 5:49 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Huntard, posted 09-13-2008 9:27 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 47 by Coyote, posted 09-13-2008 9:58 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 48 by kuresu, posted 09-13-2008 10:02 AM Beretta has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 42 of 65 (481875)
09-13-2008 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by kuresu
09-13-2008 6:55 AM


Re: Haeckel's Embryos
You know, I saw the same thing. Although I think my book did have a copy of Haekel's images, it showed them and followed by saying "these are wrong!"
Only recent developments and opposition and the forcing of truth out into the open would have made them even bother. After more than a century of misinformation, it's about time they admitted that the whole charade is wrong!
I wish people who try to discredit science would actually look into the college textbooks before they make an ass out of themselves.
I do look at the textbooks and 'science' has been discredited by their own actions. You need to look into the facts before you make an ass out of yourself.
Edited by Beretta, : Incomplete

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by kuresu, posted 09-13-2008 6:55 AM kuresu has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 43 of 65 (481879)
09-13-2008 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by gluadys
09-13-2008 8:21 AM


Re: What Christians believe
For instance, a Christian believes that all life only comes from pre-existing life and that an intelligent creator created the original kinds.
Unless you are presuming to judge who is and is not a Christian, this statement is wrong. I am a Christian and I do not agree with this view of creation.
Well in that case you may as well get yourself a new made up Bible with evolution notes that say "The morning and the evening were THE FIRST DAY" (Note: this is referring to the first billion or so evolutionary years.)
How do you know what to pick and choose?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by gluadys, posted 09-13-2008 8:21 AM gluadys has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Huntard, posted 09-13-2008 9:28 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 46 by gluadys, posted 09-13-2008 9:44 AM Beretta has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2296 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 44 of 65 (481880)
09-13-2008 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Beretta
09-13-2008 8:33 AM


Re: Haeckel's Embryos
Beretta writes:
No the possibilities are not endless, there are only two that need to be discussed.
So you say, I can assure you that I have several theories lined up, all of which I'd like discussed, and all of them do not include intelligence.
Nobody is saying we must include every religion and their individual stories but many religions believe that life was created and to be fair and objective ID proponents are saying that there is enough evidence to be able to infer intelligent intervention in the creation of life.
There is a thread active right now to present that evidence, so far I haven't seen any.
Even the simplest cell is incredibly complex - full of miniature functioning machines that are coded for by DNA that has to pass a message on to form proteins that are very specific and fold up to form specific shapes that interact very specifically with other proteins that have other functions -all of which are necessary for life.
Modern cells are nothing like the earliest cells. They were much simpler in makeup.
Except that you apparently only believe the naturalists ”evidence’ which if you look at things like Urey Miller and Haeckel’s embryos is not evidence at all
I don't "believe" any evidence, I look at the evidence and draw a conclusion wholly supported by that evidence. I also like to stress again that there is an active thread to deal with any and all evidence you have for ID and again I say, I haven't seen any.
But the genetic record could just as easily be evidence for a common designer.
Is he a prankster then? Putting the same RVA's in humans and chimps so that it looks like we evolved from a common ancestor? Maybe he ain't so bad afterall, fooling an entire planet's rather funny in my eyes.
And, in order to illustrate the point, you would have been shown the mid stage ones and only those vertebrate species that are specifically chosen because they look most similar -illustrating the lie.
I need to look up a bit more about early embryo's it seems. So the early stages aren't similar, later stages are. Sounds to me they're similar in their development then later on. Which is sill a strong indicator.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Beretta, posted 09-13-2008 8:33 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2296 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 45 of 65 (481881)
09-13-2008 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Beretta
09-13-2008 8:49 AM


Re: What Christians believe
Beretta writes:
Well in that case you may as well get yourself a new made up Bible with evolution notes that say "The morning and the evening were THE FIRST DAY" (Note: this is referring to the first billion or so evolutionary years.)
How do you know what to pick and choose?
How do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Beretta, posted 09-13-2008 8:49 AM Beretta 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