Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution......?
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 60 (8292)
04-07-2002 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by mark24
04-07-2002 12:36 PM


Quicksink, I respect your attitude towards the subject. I think it is very intellectually honest of you to admit that you have problems with evolutionary theory.
Also, what is it that causes you to be an atheist? You don't have to believe in a young earth or a global flood to believe in God.
"You're going about this the wrong way. First you have to establish whether evolution occurred or not."
How can one know that evolution occurred without a mechanism?
"This then begs the question, what are all those fossils doing there in that precise order? Can you explain this without resorting to evolution?"
One does not need a replacement theory in order to question a paradigm.
"The precise mechanism need not concern us, we are just attempting to establish whether evolution happened or not."
I don't think the geological column is enough to convince the skeptic that evolution has occurred. What about proggressive creation? What about guided evolution? A known mechanism is of extreme importance if somebody wants to convince someone else that all of the life we see around us is the result of a blind naturalistic process.
"Another excellent evidence of evolution is phylogenetic analysis. That is, deriving evolutionary/family trees from genetic/morphological information. The colossal amount of concordant results (with exceptions) overwhelmingly point to evolution, that's macro-evolution, having occurred."
The phylogenetic analysis fits in fine with either progressive creation or guided evolution.
"The rest of your points are God of the gaps arguments. None of the concerns (though pertinent) falsify evolution."
Nothing falsifies evolution once you are convinced that evolution has occurred based only on the geological column and phylogenetic analysis.
"Put it another way, there is no positive evidence of IC, no positive evidence that bats DIDN'T evolve echo location"
How is one going to find evidence that bats didn't evolve echo location? Your argument is blind-naturalistic-processes-of-the-gaps.
"but PLENTY of evidence that evolution occurred, even if evidence of every step of every trait doesn't exist."
But the only evidence you gave can be interpreted very easily under two different models (progressive creation and guided evolution).
"In short, criticisms of evolution never give positive evidence, it is always an unsubstantiated claim that xyz COULDN'T occur."
I'd say an unsubstantiated claim that xyz CAN'T occur is no worse than an unsubstantiated claim that xyz CAN occur.
"What will you go with, positive evidence, or incredulity? Knowing you from these forums, I'm willing to put money on the former."
I personally rather go with positive evidence, namely, the evidence for a Designer. It's unfortunate that your argument is based on incredulity of a Supreme Designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 04-07-2002 12:36 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 04-08-2002 11:09 AM Cobra_snake has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 60 (8342)
04-08-2002 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mark24
04-08-2002 11:09 AM


"A hundred years ago it wasn’t known what caused the suns fires, did that mean there were no fires before the mechanism was known?
No, of course not, ergo, evidence of evolution is evidence of evolution, the mechanism is irrelevant to the observations."
I understand where you are coming from, but I believe that your analogy is flawed. The reason that it is flawed is that you are taking an observation (fossils) and giving them an interpretation (evolution). In the case with the sun fires, all you are doing is observing the fact that sun fires occur, thus there must be a mechanism. However, just because we can observe change in the geological column, does not mean that species evolved from a common ancestor. The change could be due to instant creations or even successeive visits by aliens. In other words, sun fires means sun fires, but fossils do not mean evolution.
"Quicksink accepts old earth geology, therefore the fossil record is evidence of evolution. Unless you can re-explain the fossil record in the context of an old earth, remember, I was talking to quicksink."
I know, that's why I included guided evolution and progressive creation as other possibilities. Also, it is much different to say that the fossil record is evidence of evolution than it is to say that the fossil record is proof of evolution.
"A blind naturalistic process?? Present evidence of anything else."
If a blind mechanistic process fails to explain life, that is evidence that a non-blind mechanistic process is evidence for life. And what would you suggest as evidence of another process, such as Creation?
"I, nor any scientist, will accept the unobservable, that leaves no trace to even infer it, as a valid framework for scientific enquiry."
The "Supreme Creator" has left evidence, namely the design in nature and the complexity of living things.
"Again, evidence for the supernatural pls."
The amazing complexity of living things, design in nature, cause and effect principle, Jesus Christ rising from the dead seems to be a fairly well established historic event.
"Rubbish, finding fossils out of order, or no genetic similarities between organisms would have been falsification. It’s not my fault the falsifications have never been realised."
First of all, under a progressive creation/guided evolution scenario we would expect fossils to be in order. But what do you consider "out of order?" Obviously a fish in the Cambrian didn't do it. Would a shark? I doubt it. Also, there is no reason to think that under a Creation/Progressive/Guided model there would not be genetic similarities among all living things.
"No, it isn’t. I have turned the argument around from, show bats evolved echolocation, to show they didn’t. The original point was that being unable to explain any particular trait, did not represent a falsification, in the same way I don’t expect your inability to NOT prove bats evolved echolocation, proves evolution."
I am not proposing that the current inability of scientists to explain a rational way in which echolocation evolved represents an outright falsification of echolocation evolution (although I would be suprised if evolutionists hadn't already stretched their imaginations enough). All I am saying is that inability to develop a feasible model for echolocation evolution represents evidence AGAINST blind naturalistic process. You say that everything evolved until proven otherwise, which is not very fair and it is basically impossible to show that echolocation can't evolve by some means.
"There is evidence of evolution, it isn’t unsubstantiated, even you yourself mention guided evolution, do you agree that there is evidence of this?"
I agree that there is evidence for evolution, though I may find it quite meager.
"If so, it’s not unsubstantiated, then, is it?"
It seems to me that the claim "bat echolocation must have evolved" is pretty unsubstantiated until one provides a plausible mechanism.
"Produce positive evidence of a designer, then. If I have any incredulity for a designer (when did ID become SUPREME ID?), it’s precisely that there is a lack of evidence."
Although I'm sure that the SUPREME DESIGNER would be unhappy with your mortal questions, I will attempt to answer.
The evidence for design in nature is abound. Even Richard Dawkins agrees with me here. In absence of a plausible mechanism to explain said design, one may conclude that design is not "designoid", but rather, it is real.
Also, the cause and effect principle gives evidence for a Designer.
"If there WAS good evidence of a creator, I’d accept the scientific theory of a creator."
Nobody's asking you to accept the "scientific theory of a creator". It's the scientific theory of CreaTION. It is of course impossible to know for sure what a SUPREME
Creator is like, as well as it is impossible to know what mechanism the Designer used for Creating. However, it is very possible for us to look upon His Creation and recognize the design He put into it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 04-08-2002 11:09 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by mark24, posted 04-08-2002 8:36 PM Cobra_snake has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 60 (8606)
04-15-2002 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mark24
04-08-2002 8:36 PM


Hello Mark,
"That’s not the point, you don’t need to understand nuclear fission to observe the sun is bright. You don’t need to understand a mechanism for evolution to see it in the fossil record. There are many examples of slight changes as you go higher in the fossil record. Foraminifera, trilobites, sticklebacks, radiolarians. Understanding the biological processes (or otherwise, as you point out) behind these changes in no way detracts from the FACT of small changes accumulating in higher strata."
OK, I agree with the FACT of small changes accumulating in higher strata. Unfortunately, this does not mean evolution. Evolution is the development of organisms from a common ancestor. However, if evolution was defined as "small changes accumulating in higher strata", then the observation of small changes accumulating in higher strata would make evolution fact.
I will concede, however, that small changes accumulating in higher strata is probably the best evidence for evolution.
"As regards progressive creation, phylogenetic evidence points away from this. Unless God deliberately deceived, to make it look like there was common descent back to prokaryotes."
Well, in regards to evolution, the Cambrian explosion points away from this.
"When you know all there is to know, then you can say that natural mechanistic processes don’t (or do) explain life. This is a premature statement."
Actually, it is not a premature statement. Notice what I say: "IF a blind mechanistic process fails to explain life". Thus, my statment was not premature, because I was proposing a "what-if" scenario.
"I wouldn’t suggest anything as evidence of creation, the evidence by itself should be able to be interpreted as such, & support a testable hypothesis, with falsifications."
This right here is the problem. You need to identify what exactly would constitute as evidence. Basically, if I give you "evidence", you are probably going to classify it into two things:
1. Argument from incredulity
2. God of the Gaps
Thus, I would like to know what you would consider "positive evidence" before I present anything. However, I will give it a shot.
"1/positive evidence of creation"
1. Design in living organisms
2. Irreducibly Complex Structures
3. Symbiotic Relationships
"2/ God/Supernatural"
Well, I don't really see why evidence for God is NECCESARY, but I will attempt.
1. Cause and effect principle (more on that later)
2. Second Law of Thermodynamics vs a closed system (the universe). Unless a creative force was responsible for the creation of the cosmos, it makes no sense that the universe would go from the hypothetical "Big-bang" scenario into a universe with galaxies, stars, planets, and living life forms.
"Supposition. I could just as easily say, with just as much basis, that evidence of a Supreme Creator is a falsification of him, using you own criteria. He can’t be the supreme creator because He’s amazing, & complex, & therefore designed, is therefore evidence of a designer, so isn’t supreme. ad infinitum."
You could easily say it, but it is not a valid argument. God is beyond the limits of time and natural laws. Only things that had a beginning require a cause. God requires no beginning, thus he requires no cause.
"Secondly, present POSITIVE evidence that there is design in nature."
Once again, what constitutes "positive evidence". Unless I recieve some guidelines, I'm afraid that your not going to be convinced (If the human brain with 120 trillion connections doesn't constitute "positive evidence" of design, I need some guidelines here.)
"Thirdly, a hypothesis that is testable, with falsifications, please."
I am currently in a debate with Quetzal concerning the matter, although I'm afraid my hypothesis is becoming falsified.
"1/ Produce this well established historic event from independent, non-religious sources please."
I was under the impression that the existence of Christ and his crusifiction were generally acknowledged, as well as the empty tomb.
"2/ Written historical documents aren't admissable as evidence anyway."
Yeah, I can't believe my teacher looked at me funny when I told him that the existence of Abraham Lincoln was obviously a conspiracy set up by Republicans to portray a great president.
"Your going to have to present evidence of the supernatural, mate, if you want to have progressive creation/guided evolution."
I don't see why. SETI claims that it can identify desingned radio signals and interpret them as being sent from a designer with which they have no other evidence for.
"I’m as worried about the Supreme Designers opinion as you are of the Bogeymans"
Oh no! Is the Boogyman going to sentence me to eternity under my sheets?
"I really must see that Dawkins quote. Cite please, page numbers if possible."
I think I discussed this on a seperate forum. It was a case of bad wording on my part, sorry.
"Please elaborate."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3791.asp
"The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause."
"How? Without first assuming the supernatural to be indicative of reality without a scrap of positive evidence for it?"
The desing IS the evidence for the Creator. I don't understand why this is so unreasonable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mark24, posted 04-08-2002 8:36 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Joe Meert, posted 04-16-2002 12:08 AM Cobra_snake has replied
 Message 20 by compmage, posted 04-16-2002 2:45 AM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 21 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-16-2002 2:45 PM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 22 by mark24, posted 04-17-2002 8:08 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 60 (8615)
04-16-2002 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Joe Meert
04-16-2002 12:08 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: How? Please explain to me what YOU think the Cambrian explosion is and then explain to me what you think conventional science thinks it is and finally why your second answer is a problem for evolution.

I think the Cambrian Explosion is the appearance of every major phyla of living organisms appearing in a relatively brief geological time period. "Conventional science" thinks it is a "fascinating intellectual challenge".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Joe Meert, posted 04-16-2002 12:08 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Joe Meert, posted 04-16-2002 1:11 AM Cobra_snake 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