Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8945 total)
32 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, jar, JonF, Percy (Admin) (5 members, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,726 Year: 20,762/19,786 Month: 1,159/2,023 Week: 110/557 Day: 40/70 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution?
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3998 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 61 of 73 (8598)
04-15-2002 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Cobra_snake
04-15-2002 8:36 PM


quote:

This always tends to pop up as one of the best potential falsifications of evolution. However, it is very possible for Creation to be true, and also no human remains in lower strata.

JM: Sure, there would be, but it's not just humans. It's the fact that there are no trilobites in with humans. It's the fact that there are no Ediacaran fauna found with ammonites. It's the fact that there are no dinosaurs found with giant sloth and on and on. It leads to the very real conclusion that creationists have no explanation for why a flood would sort the dead so uniformly around the globe (that and the fact that NO CREATIONIST has bothered to identify the global type section for the flood.

quote:
Yes, but is there any evidence that would convince you? I can't think of any evidence that could be found that would falsify the uniformitaranian concept.

JM: Of course there is. You could start (an excellent start) with identifying the strata globally which marks the onset of the Noachian flood. You can then indentify the strata marking the end of the global flood and you can tell us what strata are 'intra-flood'. I would expect that these flood strata would not have any paleosols contained within them, wouldn't you?

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-15-2002 8:36 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 5895 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 62 of 73 (8600)
04-15-2002 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Cobra_snake
04-15-2002 8:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Also, even if your above examples are valid, what I was really looking for was evidence of design in nature. In other words, it is possible that the Earth is millions of years old, yet Creation is still true.

Even given our somewhat limited knowledge of DNA, genetics and mutation, we can say that the following simple (and by no means exhaustive) evidences have not been found, but were they to exist in a system, I think we could strongly attribute genuine, active design ...

[1] A coding system for self-replicating organisms that did not admit of significant errors, by means of thorough error-checking which expressly prevents speciation.
A coding system for self-replicating organisms that did not admit of significant errors, ie: self-correcting to the extent that any but the most minor variations could not occur. This would represent a genuine barrier to speciation.

Might it yet be discovered? Well, who knows what roles introns may play?

Nevertheless, the extent to which we can genetically modify organisms, the extent and impact of horizontal gene transfer, and the absence of any obvious post-zygotic barriers to gradual change suggest otherwise.

I suppose it would be possible to argue that such a self-correcting code could be the end point of an evolutionary process (which could go no further of course), but the presence of the same scheme of correction, preventing speciation, but found in many species contemporaneously, would be compelling.

To my mind, this is an area where creationists should be looking - far too many people pronounce that macroevolution is impossible without describing detailed, testable, mechanisms to prevent it. For my part, I wouldn't bother, as I see compelling evidence of speciation, but were I a transformed cladist, or a creationist who believed that species do not change, this is the field in which I would be researching for proof.

[2] The observed appearance of an irreducably complex biological structure in numerous members of a species in one generation
This is easy enough - a number of simple bacteria in lab conditions all develop flagella (au Behe) in a single generation. Just one bacterium doing it probably wouldn't convince me as I am endlessly impressed by their abilities to grab useful bits of DNA from here, there and everywhere.

Finally and most convincingly ...

[3]The appearance of the Almighty at the Court of Session in Edinburgh to sue the hide off the Roslin Institute in a civil suit for breaching His copyright in Dolly the sheep.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-15-2002 8:36 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by mark24, posted 04-15-2002 9:39 PM Mister Pamboli has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3513 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 63 of 73 (8601)
04-15-2002 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Mister Pamboli
04-15-2002 9:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:

Finally and most convincingly ...

[3]The appearance of the Almighty at the Court of Session in Edinburgh to sue the hide off the Roslin Institute in a civil suit for breaching His copyright in Dolly the sheep.


LOL!

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-15-2002 9:30 PM Mister Pamboli has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 73 (8629)
04-16-2002 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Cobra_snake
04-15-2002 8:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"3) A biosphere created as we watch."

Hmmm? Sounds interesting, but I don't really know what you mean.


Something like this....

quote:
001:006 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

001:007 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

001:008 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

001:009 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

001:010 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

001:011 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

001:012 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

001:013 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

001:014 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

001:015 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

001:016 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

001:017 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

001:018 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

001:019 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

001:020 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

001:021 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

001:022 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

001:023 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

001:024 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

001:025 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

001:027 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

001:028 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

001:029 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

001:030 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-15-2002 8:36 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Quetzal, posted 04-16-2002 9:46 AM joz has responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 65 of 73 (8630)
04-16-2002 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by joz
04-16-2002 9:30 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; (emphasis added)

Okay, joz. Since you saw fit to repost Gen 1, maybe you could explain the bolded portions. Is it a mis-translation? If not, who's God talking to?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by joz, posted 04-16-2002 9:30 AM joz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by joz, posted 04-16-2002 9:51 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 73 (8631)
04-16-2002 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Quetzal
04-16-2002 9:46 AM


No idea m8 found it here:
http://www.fwbnet.com/subra/biblehtm.htm

And just copied and pasted...

Its supposed to be KJV....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Quetzal, posted 04-16-2002 9:46 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by joz, posted 04-16-2002 9:53 AM joz has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 73 (8632)
04-16-2002 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by joz
04-16-2002 9:51 AM


Maybe he was talking to the kid and the spook.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by joz, posted 04-16-2002 9:51 AM joz has not yet responded

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 1535 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 69 of 73 (8634)
04-16-2002 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by mark24
04-10-2002 9:45 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
Do you really think Dawkins ACTUALLY said this? In the context that there is a designer, &/or that there is a lacking plausible mechanism? I seriously doubt it. I do suspect a very different context, however. Can you provide the source of this agreement pls. I have a few Dawkins books, so if it is in a book, could you provide the page number.

Actually I believe that one of the books was "Climbing Mount Improbable" although I do not remember the page number and do not have the book here with me. I believe that Dawkins was refering to the appearence of design, rather like the appearence of Elvis's head in a mold stain .

------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by mark24, posted 04-10-2002 9:45 AM mark24 has not yet responded

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 1535 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 70 of 73 (8635)
04-16-2002 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Cobra_snake
04-15-2002 8:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b]"1) Real evidence of men and cambrian organisms co-existing, this wuold also hold true for mankind in many of the earlier ages. This is one reason for the fraud of Baughs "Man-Tracks", if they were real then evolution would likely be wrong puting some form of a creation event more likely"

This always tends to pop up as one of the best potential falsifications of evolution. However, it is very possible for Creation to be true, and also no human remains in lower strata.
[/QUOTE]

Depends on which creation story or arguement you use. For most of the ones out there the answer to your statement is, no it is not possible. These are the creation arguements which rely on a 7 day generation of the earth, heavens and all life and on a giant flood. Now, if you use one where evolution is guided by a diety then I can agree with you (more on this later).

quote:

"2) Real evidence for the Noachian flood, of which none currently exists."

Yes, but is there any evidence that would convince you? I can't think of any evidence that could be found that would falsify the uniformitaranian concept.


That is part of the problem, all of the currently available evidence points AWAY from a flood and towards a uniformitarian basis for geology. There may be potential evidence but it would have to be so earth shattering (pun intended) that it would completely overturn geology as we know it.

quote:

"3) A biosphere created as we watch."

Hmmm? Sounds interesting, but I don't really know what you mean.


essentially the creation of a new series of life forms interacting in a stable (or not so stable) ecological grouping.

quote:

Also, even if your above examples are valid, what I was really looking for was evidence of design in nature. In other words, it is possible that the Earth is millions of years old, yet Creation is still true.

OK, first off I should say that I am familiar with the ID movement and have read material by Dr. Behe of LeHigh university and Dr. Johnson (sp??, he did work with molecular biology w.r.t. embriology or development) and I have found their arguements lacking w.r.t. their detection of design. They are the only people to date, to my knowledge, who have really tried to come up with some research ideas to bear out their ID and/or Irreducible complexity concepts. As far as I am aware they have not been able to generate any data to date. In fact some of the ideas that they have proposed are blowing up in their faces:genetic sequence of some archeabacteria for example, here is some info on a proposal made by Behe in Mere Creation that I pulled together
http://www.geocities.com/dr_tazimus_maximus/Behes_goofs_2.htm
Sorry for any problems with web page (if you can call it that), I am a far better biochemist than a web person and have had little time to work on it over the last 2 years. The point to all of this is that I have seen precious little evidence, none actually, for design.
[QUOTE]
"there are probably some others but I would need to consider a little longer and it is time to go."

I appreciate your input.[/b]


Thanks, I always enjoy a good, and non-rancorous discussion.

------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 04-16-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-15-2002 8:36 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 71 of 73 (8646)
04-16-2002 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Cobra_snake
04-07-2002 7:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I must admit that I have never read entire books by them, but I have read a bit of the Blind Watchmaker. I have also read Abusing Science, written by Philip Kitcher, which was supported by Stephen Jay Gould.

What's wrong with selected quotes found in Creationist literature?

[This message has been edited by Cobra_snake, 04-08-2002]


Selected quotes found in Creationist literature are very often out of context and their meanings are often changed to make the scientist appear to be doubting Evolution or an old Earth, etc. This is rife in Creationist circles. Have a look at this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/

[QUOTE]What is wrong with antievolutionist arguments via quotations?

"This is not to imply that we know everything that can and should be known about biology and about evolution. Any competent biologist is aware of a multitude of problems yet unresolved and of questions yet unanswered. After all, biologic research shows no sign of approaching completion; quite the opposite is true. Disagreements and clashes of opinion are rife among biologists, as they should be in a living and growing science. Antievolutionists mistake, or pretend to mistake, these disagreements as indications of dubiousness of the entire doctrine of evolution. Their favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really
antievolutionists under the skin."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975),"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"

One of the favorite tactics of evolution deniers and other pseudoscientists is to use numerous quotations to make their case. For many people the use of quote after quote makes a very persuasive argument. However, the antievolutionist use of quotes is invalid and does not in any way provide evidence for creationism or against evolution. The reasons for this fall into several major categories: the use of quotations often is a fallacy of "argument from authority," selective quotation may be occurring, the quotations are often out-of-date, the quoted authorities are often not appropriate authorities, evolution deniers are sometimes not honest in representing who the people they quote are, and many of the quotations are misquotations."

More:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/misquotes.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darrow.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-07-2002 7:58 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 72 of 73 (8647)
04-16-2002 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Cobra_snake
04-15-2002 3:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b]"So, demonstrate it. So far, this has not been done."

It shall never be done. The problem is, it is impossible to PROVE that a certain structure cannot evolve. However, when certain structures appear to be difficult to explain under a Darwinian model, one has every right to become skeptical of the notion of evolution.[/QUOTE]

Why does a lack of an understanding of some so-called "IC" systems invalidate the entire ToE?

We don't understand everything about the various Theories of Gravity, but do we invalidate the FACT of gravity until we understand everything about it? Of course not. Therefore, just because we don't understand every biological system YET, it is silly to throw out the entire ToE, because the ToE is very predictive and productive and, in short, IT WORKS.

[QUOTE]
It's actually pretty significant that evolutionists can't even create a just-so story to explain some structures! [/b]


Why do you demand that scientists know all things instantly? It took us a while to figure out that lightning wasn't caused by the Gods, and it took us a while to figure out that disease can be caused by living things too tiny to see with the naked eye, and it took us a while to figure out that E=mc2.

The appropriate thing to say when scientists don't know something with much certainty is, "We don't know".

------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-15-2002 3:09 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 73 of 73 (8648)
04-16-2002 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Cobra_snake
04-15-2002 3:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b]"Lack of evidence for a scientific theory doesn't constitute positive evidence for anything."

Unfortunately, nothing constitutes "positive evidence" in your mind. What evidence would you accept? If you won't accept any kind of evidence for Creation, then you are purposeslessly ommitting a priori a possibility.[/QUOTE]

Well, you have to decide if you want to do science or not.

Remember, science is defined as the naturalistic explanation of naturalistic phenomena. Science ignores the supernatural. However, if you have claims that the supernatural has an effect on the natural world, you need to provide positive evidence for this effect.

If you want to say that following the tennets of science is an a priori decision of what is admissable as scientific, then that's fine with me.

It's up to the claimants to provide positive evidence for their claims.

ID is religion and/or philosophy, not science. I have no inherent problem with either religion or philosophy, except when it pretends it is scientific.

quote:
Obviously, such an ommission can be very beneficial for your point of view, since disregarding the possibility of evidence for creation basically means that evolution is victorious.

No, it means that Evolution, just like any scientific theory, lives and dies on the evidence.

If you want to do science, you have to play by science's rules, and ID doesn't do that.

[QUOTE]However, such an ommission is not founded on any principle of science, but founded on bias.[/b]


Like I said above, science is the explanation of natural phenomena using naturalistic explanations. Claiming that "The ID-er Didit" without providing testable hypotheses, potential falsifications, and positive evidence, is meaningless in science.

It is a great philosophy, but really poor science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-15-2002 3:21 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019