Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 4:35 AM
25 online now:
caffeine, Tangle (2 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,984 Year: 9,020/19,786 Month: 1,442/2,119 Week: 202/576 Day: 5/98 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
10Next
Author Topic:   questions evolutionists can't or won't answer
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 141 (10329)
05-24-2002 2:00 PM


Here is a challenge to evolutionists: Please answer all the questions below to the best of your ability.

Could provide us with the evidence that life could originate from non-life via purely natural processes?

(HINT: there isn’t any:

http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm )

How could that be objectively tested and falsified?

What are the alternatives if life could not have originated via purely natural processes?

Why are those alternatives un-scientific?

If abiogenesis and evolution are separate why does one theory begin where the other ends? (abiogenesis ends with the formation of progenotes and that is where the theory of evolution begins)

How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that progenotes evolved into procaryotes?*

How could we objectively test the hypothesis that eucaryotes evolved via procaryotic endosymbiosis?*

How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that true multi-cellularity evolved from colonies of single-celled organisms (i.e. the Volvox)?*

Or for that matter how could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that the eye could evolve?

*I asked these three questions of Ken Miller on a USA Today “chat” pertaining to the PBS series Evolution. This was his response:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I think that the best tests in EACH of the cases you suggest have already been done. They involve careful tests of DNA sequence homology to test the assertions that each group shares common ancestry.

And such tests have always come out in the affirmative.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Problem is I didn’t ask for the best tests. I asked for objective tests. Homology in biology is easily evidence for a Common Creator. IOW the only way that the “tests” came out in the affirmative was because that is what the testee wanted (because any alternative was excluded a priori) and has nothing to do with objectivity.

Bottom line is the Theory of Evolution is a philosophy and should be discussed in that venue. That is until it can be objectively tested.

------------------
John Paul


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Joe Meert, posted 05-24-2002 3:53 PM John Paul has responded
 Message 29 by Peter, posted 05-27-2002 10:12 AM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 65 by ebabinski, posted 07-26-2002 1:39 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3844 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 2 of 141 (10333)
05-24-2002 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Paul
05-24-2002 2:00 PM


Snipped all the nonsense about abiogenesis.

Ken Miller's response was more than adequate. The evidence for evolution can be found in numerous journals, books and other scientific sources (including answers to many of your 'evolutionary' questions). Evolution can be observed in the lab and in the field. That is part of the reason that it is not under scientific debate. For other questions in evolution, there are not any answers (yet). For abiogenesis, there are no clear cut answers, but people are thinking and testing ideas of how life got started. Basically, you are faulting science for not answering everything and rejecting out-of-hand the evidence that has been presented for evolution. No one can stop you from closing your eyes, ears and mind to the evidence. No one can stop you from posting this same 'challenge' on every discussion board you can find. Mostly, no one can stop you from pretending your 'challenge' disproves evolution as a science. What we can do, is ask you to study the literature and come back with a scientifically publishable refutation of that evidence. Chat board challenges such as these are limited in their utility (for either side). I'm surprised Ken Miller gave you that long of an answer since I am sure he knew you would reject anything he said anyway!

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John Paul, posted 05-24-2002 2:00 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 05-24-2002 4:36 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

    
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 141 (10334)
05-24-2002 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Joe Meert
05-24-2002 3:53 PM


Joe Meert:
Snipped all the nonsense about abiogenesis.

John Paul:
I agree. Abiogenesis is nonsense.

Joe Meert:
Ken Miller's response was more than adequate.

John Paul:
Not even close to adequate unless you are an evolutionist already.

Joe Meert:
The evidence for evolution can be found in numerous journals, books and other scientific sources (including answers to many of your 'evolutionary' questions).

John Paul:
I have looked and guess what? The questions aren't answered.

Joe Meert:
Evolution can be observed in the lab and in the field.

John Paul:
How many times do I have to say this- evolution isn't the debate. What is debated is the starting point, the extent and the apparent direction of evolution.

Joe Meert:
That is part of the reason that it is not under scientific debate. For other questions in evolution, there are not any answers (yet).

John Paul:
If there aren't any answers it shouldn't be taught as if there were.

Joe Meert:
For abiogenesis, there are no clear cut answers, but people are thinking and testing ideas of how life got started.

John Paul:
That's great. Theoretical musing on alleged past events gets us what?

Joe Meert:
Basically, you are faulting science for not answering everything and rejecting out-of-hand the evidence that has been presented for evolution.

John Paul:
That is incorrect. I am faulting evolutionists for pushing something that can't be objectively tested. That's it.

Joe Meert:
No one can stop you from closing your eyes, ears and mind to the evidence.

John Paul:
In reality my eyes, ears and mind are wide open. It is evolutionists that have theirs closed.

Joe Meert:
No one can stop you from posting this same 'challenge' on every discussion board you can find. Mostly, no one can stop you from pretending your 'challenge' disproves evolution as a science.

John Paul:
All I am doing is trying to find out how to objectively test the theory of evolution. It doesn't appear that you can help me.

Joe Meert:
What we can do, is ask you to study the literature and come back with a scientifically publishable refutation of that evidence.

John Paul:
I have studied the literature. Guess what? No one has a way to objectively test the ToE.

Joe Meert:
Chat board challenges such as these are limited in their utility (for either side). I'm surprised Ken Miller gave you that long of an answer since I am sure he knew you would reject anything he said anyway!

John Paul:
Glad to see you wasted your time with this non-response. Something I have come to expect from you. Ken Miller couldn't answer me if his life depended on it.

Does anyone care to at least try to answer the questions I posted?

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Joe Meert, posted 05-24-2002 3:53 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 05-24-2002 5:51 PM John Paul has responded
 Message 70 by axial soliton, posted 07-28-2002 1:53 AM John Paul has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4605
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 4 of 141 (10335)
05-24-2002 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by John Paul
05-24-2002 4:36 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[b]Joe Meert:
Snipped all the nonsense about abiogenesis.

John Paul:
I agree. Abiogenesis is nonsense.[/QUOTE]

We have to remember that subtleties are lost on JP.

quote:
Joe Meert:
Ken Miller's response was more than adequate.

John Paul:
Not even close to adequate unless you are an evolutionist already.


Take that, Joe! JP makes another substantial comment.

quote:
Joe Meert:
Evolution can be observed in the lab and in the field.

John Paul:
How many times do I have to say this- evolution isn't the debate. What is debated is the starting point, the extent and the apparent direction of evolution.


Okay! Back to the semantic debates of JP (Yawn). Remember, everyone, we have to spell everything out for JP. Simply saying "evolution" is not enough. Make sure you have all of the appropriate modifiers...

quote:
Joe Meert:
That is part of the reason that it is not under scientific debate. For other questions in evolution, there are not any answers (yet).

John Paul:
If there aren't any answers it shouldn't be taught as if there were.


Except that it does answer plenty of other questions regarding the fossil record and that astounding fossil sorting.

quote:
Joe Meert:
For abiogenesis, there are no clear cut answers, but people are thinking and testing ideas of how life got started.

John Paul:
That's great. Theoretical musing on alleged past events gets us what?


Hmm, and what exactly do you have, JP?

quote:
Joe Meert:
Basically, you are faulting science for not answering everything and rejecting out-of-hand the evidence that has been presented for evolution.

John Paul:
That is incorrect. I am faulting evolutionists for pushing something that can't be objectively tested. That's it.


JP, we quit testing evolution a long time ago. It is now accepted as a scientific fact. I hate to rain on your parade, but nobody is trying to "prove evolution" any more.

quote:
Joe Meert:
No one can stop you from closing your eyes, ears and mind to the evidence.

John Paul:
In reality my eyes, ears and mind are wide open. It is evolutionists that have theirs closed.


Ouch, a staggering rebuke!

quote:
Joe Meert:
No one can stop you from posting this same 'challenge' on every discussion board you can find. Mostly, no one can stop you from pretending your 'challenge' disproves evolution as a science.

John Paul:
All I am doing is trying to find out how to objectively test the theory of evolution. It doesn't appear that you can help me.


Hmm, let me guess. How about the same way you test ID?

quote:
Joe Meert:
What we can do, is ask you to study the literature and come back with a scientifically publishable refutation of that evidence.

John Paul:
I have studied the literature. Guess what? No one has a way to objectively test the ToE.


No, no, no, JP; not the creationist websites! Real, peer-reviewed scientific literature!

quote:
Joe Meert:
Chat board challenges such as these are limited in their utility (for either side). I'm surprised Ken Miller gave you that long of an answer since I am sure he knew you would reject anything he said anyway!

John Paul:
Glad to see you wasted your time with this non-response. Something I have come to expect from you. Ken Miller couldn't answer me if his life depended on it.


JP start with a bang. Glad to have you back wasting all of our time with this post, JP.

quote:
Does anyone care to at least try to answer the questions I posted?

(Yawn) You mean, again? We've been through all of this before JP.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 05-24-2002 4:36 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by John Paul, posted 05-27-2002 11:23 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18482
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 5 of 141 (10336)
05-24-2002 6:22 PM


We've had this conversation before, on this very topic. Perhaps rather than traveling the same unproductive path as before we can exert ourselves toward an improved mutual understanding.

I think narrowing the topic would help. I suggest focusing on just JPs first point for now, the one about there being no evidence that life could originate from non-life through natural processes, the upshot being that without such evidence evolutionary theory is suspect.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Jeff, posted 05-24-2002 7:29 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 46 by Brad McFall, posted 05-30-2002 12:09 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 141 (10338)
05-24-2002 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
05-24-2002 6:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:

I think narrowing the topic would help. I suggest focusing on just JPs first point for now, the one about there being no evidence that life could originate from non-life through natural processes, the upshot being that without such evidence evolutionary theory is suspect.
--Percy

Technically, the ToE doesn't need to explain abiogenesis because the ToE isn't concerned with the start of life - just the changes thereafter. If it would help JP to focus on offering a legitimate challenge, I would stipulate that gawd, or IPUs or Leprechauns in Labcoats created terrestrial life in the form of single-celled organisms.

Now...turn the page....

Now we can discuss JP's loathing of science ( which he always denies...but always seems to be trying to change it ).

JP have you ever decided to share with us the means & methods to qualify and quantify the supernatural, by using nasty old naturalistic materialistic science ?

That's like handing someone a transistor radio and demanding he watch primetime television on it !

YECie:
" what do you mean, there are no TV shows !?! - there are hundreds of them"

Evo:
" No, I didn't say there were no TV shows, I said I can't see them on this..."

YECie (interrupting):
" You can't see them ?? ...you mean you REFUSE to see them because you don't believe they exist !

I'm telling you they DO EXIST !!!"

Evo:
" Excuse me, I never said they don't exist....I don't have the means to say one way or the other with just a transistor radio whether they...."

YECie (interrupting again):
" See what I mean ?
These radios stink !
Radios Suck !!
….they shouldn't even be allowed to teach them in basic Transistor-Radio classes because it doesn't account for the data found in the full spectrum of radio-signals"

Evo:
" Well if you don’t want to teach basic Transistor-Radios in a basic Transistor-Radios classroom…what would you teach ?”

YECie:
" We should teach Television !! “

Evo:
"…but then it wouldn’t be a Transistor-Radio class anymore. Why can’t you teach television in a Television class and just keep it separate from Transistor-Radio theory ?”

YECie:
" because your forcing your own narrow mindedness on the public at large…they might think television doesn’t exist because they were told to study a radio”

Evo:
"…But there is no conflict between studying radios and studying TV, why just…. “

YECie ( back to interrupting again ):
" Yes there IS !! …because…er…. I hate radios ! they suck !!
you can’t even watch Captain Kangaroo on a radio !! “

Evo:
"…but you’re not expected to watch TV signals on a radio, they aren’t….”

YECie ( now always interrupting ):
"See ??? You’ve been brainwashed !! Your mind has been corrupted by Audio-centric, imaginative, theater-of-the-mind radio-mongers!
We NEED to put TVs back into the Radio classes before its too late !”

( Fades into dramatic muscial theme....)

So JP, please tell us how YOU watch CNN ( qualify and quantify the supernatural ) on an old RCA tube radio ( by using nasty old naturalistic materialistic science ).

If we observe a miracle…HOW do we USE SCIENCE to determine it was miraculous ?

Have a great holiday everyone !!

regards,

jeff

PS – welcome back John Paul !


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 05-24-2002 6:22 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Philip, posted 05-25-2002 1:42 AM Jeff has responded
 Message 33 by John Paul, posted 05-28-2002 7:06 PM Jeff has responded

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 2887 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 7 of 141 (10345)
05-25-2002 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jeff
05-24-2002 7:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jeff:
Technically, the ToE doesn't need to explain abiogenesis because the ToE isn't concerned with the start of life - JUST THE CHANGES THEREAFTER. If it would help JP to focus on offering a legitimate challenge, I would stipulate that gawd, or IPUs or Leprechauns in Labcoats created terrestrial life in the form of single-celled organisms.

--Correct me please, but, I think you may be into one aspect of ‘evolution’, the one we honestly should construe as the misnomer for ‘beneficial life-form-mutations’, essentially (if there be such a thing).
Does not the ToE exist with stellar events (stellar evolution) and other events PRIOR to ‘life’?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jeff, posted 05-24-2002 7:29 PM Jeff has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Jeff, posted 05-25-2002 2:04 AM Philip has not yet responded

  
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 141 (10347)
05-25-2002 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Philip
05-25-2002 1:42 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
--Correct me please, but, I think you may be into one aspect of ‘evolution’, the one we honestly should construe as the misnomer for ‘beneficial life-form-mutations’, essentially (if there be such a thing).
Does not the ToE exist with stellar events (stellar evolution) and other events PRIOR to ‘life’?

jeff:
While evolution does co-exist with & within the cosmos, it's explanations do not address cosmic phenomena. I hope we are not insinuating that before we can discuss biological adaptations, we must first explain the big bang, the hydrogen collapse, then stellar formation....etc.

I certainly don't have to research Background Radiation Theory in order to complete my daily crossword puzzle.

The LA authorities were not compelled to solve the 'Jack the Ripper' murders before charging OJ with slaying his wife.

No, we observe a phenomena;
we attempt to explain said phenomena.

Do Christians have to re-read every blurb of Genesis before sitting down with a hot mug for several hours worth of interpretting Revelations ??

Why continue to re-invent the wheel every time you need to make a beer run ? Make use of prior knoledge and, as did Newton, stand on the shoulders of giants.

regards,

jeff


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Philip, posted 05-25-2002 1:42 AM Philip has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by degreed, posted 05-25-2002 12:04 PM Jeff has not yet responded

  
degreed
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 141 (10351)
05-25-2002 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Jeff
05-25-2002 2:04 AM


Actually, Jeff, his point has some validity. Most evolutionists that get backed into a corner by someone with a really good scientific background end up going in the direction of naturalism; that is, that true science shouldn't even consider theories that aren't purely naturalistic in nature. If an evolutionist is at least open to the possibility of creation, and is willing to let the testable, objective data show us the way, then we don't need to talk about background radiation. If we have to go back further to remind ourselves that current naturalistic explanations provide very poor alternatives to the initial creation event, then phillip's point is timely...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Jeff, posted 05-25-2002 2:04 AM Jeff has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Joe Meert, posted 05-25-2002 1:04 PM degreed has responded
 Message 15 by nator, posted 05-25-2002 9:13 PM degreed has not yet responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3844 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 10 of 141 (10352)
05-25-2002 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by degreed
05-25-2002 12:04 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by degreed:
[B]Actually, Jeff, his point has some validity. Most evolutionists that get backed into a corner by someone with a really good scientific background end up going in the direction of naturalism; that is, that true science shouldn't even consider theories that aren't purely naturalistic in nature.[/QUOTE]

JM: Can you give an example of this happening? Actually, the point is moot anyway since science cannot, by definition, call on purely supernatural explanations. If science falls back on this 'supernatural methodology' then it will cease to function since all tough problems can be solved by goddidit and nothing more is needed. However, in a broader philosophical sense, some scientists can an do attribute the original creation to God and, with their philosopher's hats on, their work tells them that if godidit, then he didit using evolution on an old earth.

quote:

If an evolutionist is at least open to the possibility of creation, and is willing to let the testable, objective data show us the way, then we don't need to talk about background radiation.

JM: As noted above, many evolutionists do indeed think God didit through evolution. However, notions of God cannot be tested in the lab. How would one falsify God?

quote:

If we have to go back further to remind ourselves that current naturalistic explanations provide very poor alternatives to the initial creation event, then phillip's point is timely...

JM: Except the naturalistic explanations have done very well.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by degreed, posted 05-25-2002 12:04 PM degreed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by degreed, posted 05-25-2002 2:54 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

    
degreed
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 141 (10354)
05-25-2002 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Joe Meert
05-25-2002 1:04 PM


Isn't it a little tough to say that science will cease to exist if we allow ourselves to believe that a supernatural being had a hand in all of this? We should continue to pursue the how and to test what we think we know. Attributing creation does not preclude science. Even if we were to all agree on creation, the Creator obviously used extremely precise and constant laws of physics and nature to define the universe. The science lies in continuing to further our understanding of these laws.

Rather than outright denial or acceptance of a supernatural creator, we should continue to advance scientific progress. However, in the vein of proving or falsifying God, as you put it, years and years of science should eventually point us in one direction or the other.

For instance - here's a basic evolutionary flaw that evolutionists don't really like to talk about.

Let's assume that the evidence for an old earth is overwhelming, that the combination of the measurements of the expansion rate of the universe, color-luminosity fitting, and nucleochronology techniques combine to date the universe from 11 to 20 billion years old, right?

One of my Favorite Flaws
--Even crude mathematical models can demonstrate (and can be field-tested) that any species wishing to evolve significantly (into another species) would require a time period of at least one quadrillion years, a body length of one or fewer centimeters, and a generation cycle of no more than three months. Biology is more fun than math (to me), but it leaves excess room for debate (which is also fun).
Just because we see a cute collection of fossils doesn't mean that we can make the huge leap over clear chaos and probability theory chasms to say that they must have evolved into each other.
Shouldn't we discuss why, in the recorded span of human history, we have never witnessed even one single example of speciation through evolution? Only extinctions...

See? The objective data should lead us somewhere. In the case of the fossil record we've accumulated in the last century, i think it does.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Joe Meert, posted 05-25-2002 1:04 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by edge, posted 05-25-2002 3:24 PM degreed has responded
 Message 17 by nator, posted 05-25-2002 9:30 PM degreed has not yet responded
 Message 55 by derwood, posted 06-27-2002 2:00 PM degreed has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4605
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 12 of 141 (10360)
05-25-2002 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by degreed
05-25-2002 2:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by degreed:
Isn't it a little tough to say that science will cease to exist if we allow ourselves to believe that a supernatural being had a hand in all of this?

I'm not sure who says this. In fact, many evolutionist would say the opposite.

quote:
We should continue to pursue the how and to test what we think we know.

Indeed, this is done every day. Nevertheless, we still have to proceed ahead with science, also.

quote:
Attributing creation does not preclude science.

But attributing creationism sure seems to.

quote:
Even if we were to all agree on creation, the Creator obviously used extremely precise and constant laws of physics and nature to define the universe. The science lies in continuing to further our understanding of these laws.

Many creationists agree with this.

quote:
Rather than outright denial or acceptance of a supernatural creator, we should continue to advance scientific progress.

I'm not sure who you are debating here.

quote:
For instance - here's a basic evolutionary flaw that evolutionists don't really like to talk about.

Let's assume that the evidence for an old earth is overwhelming, that the combination of the measurements of the expansion rate of the universe, color-luminosity fitting, and nucleochronology techniques combine to date the universe from 11 to 20 billion years old, right?

One of my Favorite Flaws
--Even crude mathematical models can demonstrate (and can be field-tested) that any species wishing to evolve significantly (into another species) would require a time period of at least one quadrillion years, a body length of one or fewer centimeters, and a generation cycle of no more than three months. Biology is more fun than math (to me), but it leaves excess room for debate (which is also fun).


I have never heard of a species wishing to evolve. And why do you rely on 'crude' mathematical models? I guess you are not aware of what I think of models. Where do you get your input for these models? It wouldn't be speculative would it?

quote:
Just because we see a cute collection of fossils doesn't mean that we can make the huge leap over clear chaos and probability theory chasms to say that they must have evolved into each other.
Shouldn't we discuss why, in the recorded span of human history, we have never witnessed even one single example of speciation through evolution? Only extinctions...

Actually, we have witnessed speciation. I'm not sure that paleontologists would particularly like your description of their life's work as "cute," either. Where is the 'clear chaos?' Does this just mean that you don't understand it, so it is chaotic?

quote:
See? The objective data should lead us somewhere.

And they do.

quote:
In the case of the fossil record we've accumulated in the last century, i think it does.

Agreed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by degreed, posted 05-25-2002 2:54 PM degreed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by degreed, posted 05-25-2002 3:59 PM edge has not yet responded

  
degreed
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 141 (10363)
05-25-2002 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by edge
05-25-2002 3:24 PM


Ah, now we're moving along nicely.

-Meert said it.

-Perhaps i should refine my definition of crude. Take a multicellular organism. Take it's dna. Take the number of mutations that prove SUCCESSFUL. Take the probability that any single successful mutation survives into further generations. Sprinkle in chaos theory to speak to environmental factors, and spread out over the generational period. That's the crude model.

The nice model will do all of the above but with much greater precision.

Where did you observe speciation through purely natural selection, and can i see it too?

No offense to paleontologists, tho- you're right on that one, and it's my bad. The point that should have come through, and must not have because of the unintentional dig, is that our fossil record is a story of explosions, not consistent, plodding evolution. So we take what is already an [extremely] mathematically improbable mechanism in pure evolution, and then we tell it: "hey, by the way, you have to do this 100 times as fast as our worst models will allow." I'll say it again. The fossil record does point us in the right direction.

Think carefully about it. The speciation rate during the cambrian explosion meant that a new species appeared EVERY COUPLE OF THOUSAND OF YEARS. Are you ready to argue that evolution can work at that kind of a pace?

thanks for your thoughts...looking forward to more


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by edge, posted 05-25-2002 3:24 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 05-25-2002 7:07 PM degreed has not yet responded
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 05-25-2002 9:13 PM degreed has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18482
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 14 of 141 (10365)
05-25-2002 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by degreed
05-25-2002 3:59 PM


degreed writes:

Where did you observe speciation through purely natural selection, and can I see it, too?

No, you can't see it, you have to believe in Tinkerbell first.

Scientific references to a few speciation events can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html.

This comment caught my eye:


Most evolutionists that get backed into a corner by someone with a really good scientific background end up going in the direction of naturalism.

Those with a "good scientific background" understand that science limits itself to the natural, ie, to that which is in some way apparent to the five senses. The evolutionist and the person with a "good scientific background" would have very similar views on the nature of science.


Even crude mathematical models can demonstrate (and can be field-tested) that any species wishing to evolve significantly (into another species) would require a time period of at least one quadrillion years, a body length of one or fewer centimeters, and a generation cycle of no more than three months.

I'd love to see the math for this.


The speciation rate during the cambrian explosion meant that a new species appeared EVERY COUPLE OF THOUSAND OF YEARS. Are you ready to argue that evolution can work at that kind of a pace?

Scientists are still arguing about the duration of the Cambrian explosion, so there's unlikely to be agreement about the rate of speciation. You're concerned that the successful mutation rate is incompatible with rapid speciation, so let's do a little math.

Let's say that each offspring possesses one new mutation, and that the breakdown is that 90% of mutations are harmful and the offspring dies (ie, produces no offspring of its own), 9.999999999999% are neutral, and .000000000001% are successful. In this model only one out of every trillion mutations is beneficial. How long will it take during the Cambrian to produce a successful mutation?

We have to make a few assumptions. Creatures of the Cambrian period we're relatively small, short-lived creatures, so we'll say they reproduce 5 times/year. Also, organisms of this type typically produce many offspring at a time, so let's call it 1000 each time they reproduce. And let's say that the population of this small organism is very large since it's fairly small, so the global population is a trillion. That's right, a trillion. The world's a big place, especially for tiny creatures.

So if five times a year these creatures produce a quadrillion offspring, then with a successful mutation rate of 1 out of a trillion we'd have 5000 successful mutations/year.

And that's just one species. There weren't as many species during the Cambrian as today, but there were still plenty, each one just mutating along.

Given this, a speciation rate as slow as one every couple thousand years seems kind of pedestrian. In fact, given that we've observed a number of speciation events just in this century alone, and given that the rate was probably higher in the Cambrian, the rate you've suggested may be too low by as much as several orders of magnitude.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by degreed, posted 05-25-2002 3:59 PM degreed has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 334 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 15 of 141 (10369)
05-25-2002 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by degreed
05-25-2002 12:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by degreed:
[b]Actually, Jeff, his point has some validity. Most evolutionists that get backed into a corner by someone with a really good scientific background end up going in the direction of naturalism; that is, that true science shouldn't even consider theories that aren't purely naturalistic in nature.[/QUOTE]

That is correct. Science, by definition, does not address the supernatural.

quote:
If an evolutionist is at least open to the possibility of creation,

...then they have left science. Once they have left science, science cannot contribute any evidence in support of someone's metaphysics or religious notions.

[QUOTE]and is willing to let the testable, objective data show us the way, then we don't need to talk about background radiation. If we have to go back further to remind ourselves that current naturalistic explanations provide very poor alternatives to the initial creation event, then phillip's point is timely...[/b]


So, are you saying that because science or naturalism cannot explain everything all at once, then Creationism must be correct?

Sorry, that is a logical fallacy. All of science could be utterly incorrect, but that doesn't make Creationism correct in the least. IT isn't an either-or situation.

------------------
"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 9 by degreed, posted 05-25-2002 12:04 PM degreed has not yet responded

    
1
23456
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019