Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
85 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, nwr (3 members, 82 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,327 Year: 4,439/6,534 Month: 653/900 Week: 177/182 Day: 10/47 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

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


Message 1 of 60 (8259)
04-07-2002 8:26 AM


Over the past weeks I have come to doubt the theory of evolution, although I strongly maintain my belief in a billion year old universe.

Here is what I have been thinking about:

>How does a bat get echo location through random mutations? The problem is that you cannot go halfway- a bat with a fully-formed echo-location system is necessary to prevent natural selection from crossing out an animal with something completely useless, like high-pitched sounds.

>How does a fully formed nervous system develop from a single-celled organism? Certainly, any animal that was born with, quite literally, half a brain, would die.

>Where are those transitionals?

>The number of mutations required to create something like a human from an ape is enormous? Why do we not see such a transition in the fossil strata?

>How does the venus fly trap evolve? Any plant that developed, for example, a highly sensitive "mouth" that would close when touched, but happened to be unable to reopen, or lacked the necessary digestive fluids and the mechanism of releasing these fluids, would quickly die. Developing such a complex system would be extremely complicated and extremely lucky!

>In many cases, as in the venus fly trap or bat, we would require massive mutations and miraculous luck to produce a healthy and competitive animal/plant that would survive the "forces" of natural selection. Why is it that we do not see such massive leaps today? Why do we not see more than just albinos or retarded animals?

>In cases where large scale mutation occurrs, it is extremely likely that at least one negative mutation would spoil the animal. This makes the chances of a highly mutated animal surviving long enough to reproduce unlikely.

>The low volume of mutations and high-number of negative mutations makes it very difficult to create such diversity in the plant and animal kingdom.

>The fossil record is compatable with evolution, but it does not give any evidence of evolution. The diversification indicates gradual evolution, but what created these differences, and what embeds diversity in a population? There is no evidence of mutations in the fossil strata. Where are transitionals? Where are grossly mutated organisms?

Don't get me wrong- my stance on creationism has not changed in the slightest. Creationism uses miraculous rates of evolution as well,and is more likely to be a fable than a factual record. I am not a creationist. And, believe it or not, I still am an atheist.

But recently I have come to challenge what I took as granted- mutations.

Demonstrate that mutations are not sufficiently abundant, or that the ratio of positive mutations is small, and you completely dismantle the evolutionist argument.

Darwin had some very sharp ideas, but at the time that he formulated such ideas, he was unable to test his theories of mutations.

The problem came when others ran with the idea. They, too, lacked the devices to test his radical and appealing concepts. But nonetheless, the concept sounded so good to them, that they propagated it. They planted it into the scientific community so quickly that by the time the methods to test it [mutations] came about, people had taken the concept for granted.

And that's what evolution is- a concept. This concept is not inherently false- the concept that you can travel faster than the speed of light is inherently false. Evolution is wholly possible, as long as you solidify the notion that random mutations could create diversity. Because science had grown around evolution, it forgot about testing it.

It's my opinion that there's another explanation to life and diversity on this planet. But no one's looking for a scientific alternative, because no one sees a reason to. Evolution is taken with a blind faith.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 04-07-2002 12:36 PM quicksink has taken no action
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 04-07-2002 3:42 PM quicksink has taken no action
 Message 47 by John, posted 06-07-2002 9:39 AM quicksink has taken no action
 Message 50 by Peter, posted 07-15-2002 4:12 AM quicksink has taken no action
 Message 51 by singularity, posted 07-29-2002 6:24 AM quicksink has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4435 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 2 of 60 (8267)
04-07-2002 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
04-07-2002 8:26 AM


Hi quicksink,

You're going about this the wrong way. First you have to establish whether evolution occurred or not. Now, geology seems to be an interest of yours, & I'll probably have no trouble convincing you of an old earth, the principle of superposition etc. This then begs the question, what are all those fossils doing there in that precise order? Can you explain this without resorting to evolution? The precise mechanism need not concern us, we are just attempting to establish whether evolution happened or not. 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 rest of your points are God of the gaps arguments. None of the concerns (though pertinent) falsify evolution. Given we can say with a high degree of certainty that evolution DID occur, it therefore follows that bats MUST have evolved echolocation, even if we don't yet understand how. Put it another way, there is no positive evidence of IC, no positive evidence that bats DIDN'T evolve echo location, but PLENTY of evidence that evolution occurred, even if evidence of every step of every trait doesn't exist. In short, criticisms of evolution never give positive evidence, it is always an unsubstantiated claim that xyz COULDN'T occur.

What will you go with, positive evidence, or incredulity? Knowing you from these forums, I'm willing to put money on the former.

Mark

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 04-07-2002 8:26 AM quicksink has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-07-2002 8:29 PM mark24 has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4272 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 3 of 60 (8275)
04-07-2002 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
04-07-2002 8:26 AM


Quick,

I can come at the bat from Rayn's frog. For HOw does the frog get check mated when the bat can hear the call type and so the female perfers this same sound? whether by echo-location, biaurilization etc or not@

William Provine claims to be a scholar of Sewall Wright yet at one point in Wright's reasoning he asserts that one need think of the a trial and error process for the whole organism, if one is going to apply the shifting balance theory, and I did indeed think of one fro the frog which being preyed on by "your" bat would in co-evolution speak to some of the same variables in any model of the process whether in the trail or error of mankind trying to understand the past that can not be repeated.

Since sound can travel either longitudianlly OR transversely, I reasonsed that the interaction of any sound with the environement can move both longitudinally or trasversely depending on the barrier being percentage wise composed of solids liguids and gases and that so symbolized the bat may have found the "solution" of this engineerable problem frogs in general "solved".

That is the qualititave version without the quality of the bat involved which would be required to complete as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 04-07-2002 8:26 AM quicksink has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 04-07-2002 6:22 PM Brad McFall has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4435 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 4 of 60 (8283)
04-07-2002 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brad McFall
04-07-2002 3:42 PM


Hope that cleared it up for you, quicksink

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 04-07-2002 3:42 PM Brad McFall has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by quicksink, posted 04-08-2002 5:30 AM mark24 has taken no action

  
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

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 60 (8307)
04-08-2002 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by mark24
04-07-2002 6:22 PM


I understand exactly what you said. I think you misunderstood me-I never claimed that evolution occurred. I claimed that random mutations were not responsible for macroevolution (sorry for the confusion)

You claim that even though we cannot identify what brought about echolocation, doesn't mean that animals didn't evolve. Again, I never claimed this.

It's my opinion that we have not yet identified the nature of the changes that are responsile for evolution. To believe that an entire human could be formed from random mutations is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

Look at yourself for a moment. You have extremely complex eyes, a fully developed though imperfect skeleton, veins that pump blood from a heart, lungs that extract oxygen from the air and transfer this oxygen into your blood, which then carries the oxygen through your body.

The complexity of the human body alone is to great to contemplate. But to turn all these various features into random mutations is simply ludicrous.

How is it possible to "evolve" a heart? How could a cow suddenly be born with an extra stomach (if a cow were born with an extra stomach, it would die, as it would have no need for such an organ. And all this is assuming that the stomach is functional. A disfunctional second stomach would certainly kill the animal.)

The issue of evolution is so vital to all aspects of science that it is scary. It explains are origin and the means by which we came into being. To say "mutations created the diversity around us, but don't ask me how" is a sad and insufficient answer to such an enormous question. We most certainly have the means to determine whether mutations could be responsible for the diversity we have today. The truth is, it is a stretch of faith to believe that mutations could create millions of species, all adapted for the world around us.

I'm not denying evolution- I'm denying mutations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 04-07-2002 6:22 PM mark24 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by nator, posted 04-08-2002 9:34 AM quicksink has taken no action

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 60 (8309)
04-08-2002 5:51 AM


I find myself siding with cobra_snake. Although I believe that the universe came into being without the assistance of god, I cannot beleieve that random mutations, most of which are neutral, are responsible for the complexity of life.

What makes me proud is that I am an atheist, an not an evolutionist, per se. I believe that either evolution did not occur, and we lack the devices to find the reason for the strata (just like we lack the devices to understand mutational evolution). or (and most likely) we have not yet found the mechanism that created genetic change in a specie.

These two things seem to tear me apart. On the one hand, it is very possible that we are yet to discover what causes genetic change. But you could substitute the "genetic change" with genetic mutation, couldn't you. And I deny that mutations created diversity. So I find myself doubting evolution happened at all. I hate it!!

But you may be wondering what caused this sudden change of heart. Well, it happened quite simply. In Borneo, I found this tiny and extremely elaborate gold bug. It was a miracle of nature, as I would like to say. And it fascinated me.

Suddenly it occured to me- I believe that this exquisite organism came from a protein through a blind process of genetic mutation. yeah right!! I really began questioning my views, and it was scary. Suddenly, the keystone was falling out. Everything that I had believed was collapsing- a long shadow of doubt had been casted across my faith in a naturalistic universe. I even started leaning to the YEC argument.

But then I stopped myself- YEC is ridiculous- it used quantum leaps in evolution anyway. So what would I do. I would stand in the middle, and wait for an answer. If I went to my grave wondering, fine. But I would refuse to accept randomness and miraculous faith as science, and as my belief.

When I was a Darwinist, if that's the correct word, things were simple: evolution was real, no matter what. Now, things are confusing, but clear at the same time- it's a mystery.

Evolutionists and creationists refuse to accept that they are wrong in many areas, just like the Israelis and Palestinians.

Surveying the battle from the middle ground, I can tell the evolutionists that there are argument is a definite hanging chad. Muttled transitionals, miraculous mutations, and the like. the jury's out on the issue, and you have to accept that. There is not smoking gun or slam dunk- evolution has problems and strangths, all of which will or will not be ironed out in the future.

quote:

In short, criticisms of evolution never give positive evidence, it is always an unsubstantiated claim that xyz COULDN'T occur.

There is not positive evidence to disprove evolution doesn't exist, unless your a creationist. But where would you find positive evidence that mutations were responsible for evolution?


  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 60 (8310)
04-08-2002 6:02 AM


How many positive mutations can be found in one individual organism?

How many positive mutations could be indentified in 10 generations?


Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by nator, posted 04-08-2002 9:38 AM quicksink has taken no action
 Message 12 by mark24, posted 04-08-2002 11:26 AM quicksink has taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1409 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 9 of 60 (8312)
04-08-2002 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by quicksink
04-08-2002 5:30 AM


quote:

It's my opinion that we have not yet identified the nature of the changes that are responsile for evolution. To believe that an entire human could be formed from random mutations is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

I agree. However, the ToE DOESN'T claim that random mutations alone could ever do such a thing. Natural selection is the exact opposite of randomness, and this is one of the mechanisms which drive which mutations are selected for. I thought you already understood this?

quote:
Look at yourself for a moment. You have extremely complex eyes,

Not as complex as other creatures'.

quote:
a fully developed though imperfect skeleton,

What does "fully developed" mean?

quote:
veins that pump blood from a heart, lungs that extract oxygen from the air and transfer this oxygen into your blood, which then carries the oxygen through your body.

The complexity of the human body alone is to great to contemplate. But to turn all these various features into random mutations is simply ludicrous.


Selected for by the environment over millions of years.

A little less personal incredulity and a little more research might be helpful to you.

quote:
How is it possible to "evolve" a heart?

The same way it is possible to evolve anything else. Read "The Blind Watchmaker" and the eye's evolution is very well-explained.

quote:
How could a cow suddenly be born with an extra stomach (if a cow were born with an extra stomach, it would die, as it would have no need for such an organ. And all this is assuming that the stomach is functional. A disfunctional second stomach would certainly kill the animal.)

Strawman argument. The ToE NEVER claims that a cow would ever be suddenly born with an extra stomach.

Every structure in every animal which survives is fully-formed and functional.

I think that you would do well to do a LOT more reading and study of this subject before rejecting it at the age of 12. Questioning and doubting is fine, but this personal incredulity begs for more information.

quote:
The issue of evolution is so vital to all aspects of science that it is scary. It explains are origin and the means by which we came into being.

No, it doesn't explain the origin of life.

quote:
To say "mutations created the diversity around us, but don't ask me how" is a sad and insufficient answer to such an enormous question.

That is not what the ToE says, as explained above.

quote:
We most certainly have the means to determine whether mutations could be responsible for the diversity we have today. The truth is, it is a stretch of faith to believe that mutations could create millions of species, all adapted for the world around us.

Read this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be
inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)

Also read:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

Do a search on "mutation" in this next link":

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/science.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#pred22

[QUOTE]I'm not denying evolution- I'm denying mutations.[/B][/QUOTE]

Well, you state a lot of wrong information. Perhaps more study?

------------------
"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 6 by quicksink, posted 04-08-2002 5:30 AM quicksink has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Brad McFall, posted 04-10-2002 11:50 AM nator has taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1409 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 10 of 60 (8313)
04-08-2002 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by quicksink
04-08-2002 6:02 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
How many positive mutations can be found in one individual organism?

How many positive mutations could be indentified in 10 generations?


Define "positive mutation", please.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by quicksink, posted 04-08-2002 6:02 AM quicksink has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4435 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 11 of 60 (8319)
04-08-2002 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Cobra_snake
04-07-2002 8:29 PM


Cobra,

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"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?

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.

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"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.

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.

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"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.

A “blind naturalistic process”?? Present evidence of anything else. If you can’t, then it is not admissible as a SCIENTIFIC alternative, but only a theological one. You may as well say “pink fairies “did” evolution”. I, nor any scientist, will accept the unobservable, that leaves no trace to even infer it, as a valid framework for scientific enquiry.
I repeat, you do not need a mechanism for an occurrence, to accept an occurrence. See above.

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"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.

Again, evidence for the supernatural pls. We are trying to do science. You cannot hypothesise something in science that is a/ unobserved, & b/ leaves no indirect trace with which to infer the supernatural.
Also, progressive creation wouldn’t show common descent, as there would be no relationship between organisms. And, if “guided evolution were true, why are there so many neutral substitutions that can have phylogenies derived from them?
But first things first, evidence of that supernatural please, or you may as well argue the sky may have had yellow, red, & green stripes from horizon to horizon, because you have as much/little evidence of that than special creation/progressive creation/ guided evolution, or would that be ridiculous?

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"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.

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.

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"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.

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.
Just show me the supernatural, & you have an argument.

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"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).

No, it can’t. See above.

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"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."

There is evidence of evolution, it isn’t unsubstantiated, even you yourself mention guided evolution, do you agree that there is evidence of this? If so, it’s not unsubstantiated, then, is it? I‘m not presenting a mechanism, I’m saying you don’t need to understand mechanisms to accept an occurrence. When I was a boy, I always wondered what made cars go, I accepted that something DID make them work, without knowing anything about the internal combustion engine, exothermic reactions, & the behaviour of gases under pressure & at temperature.

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

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.

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. If there WAS good evidence of a creator, I’d accept the “scientific theory of a creator”.

Mark

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-07-2002 8:29 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-08-2002 7:15 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4435 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 12 of 60 (8322)
04-08-2002 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by quicksink
04-08-2002 6:02 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
How many positive mutations can be found in one individual organism?

How many positive mutations could be indentified in 10 generations?


http://hrst.mit.edu/hrs/evolution/public/papers/kimura1968/kimura1968.pdf

This is talking about Drosophila, but you get the idea.

"We return to the problem of total mutation rate
From a consideration of the average energy of hydrogen
bonds and also from the information on mutation of
rIIA gene in phage T,, Watson22 obtained IO-*- lo-9 as
the average probability of error in the insertion of a new
nucleotide during DNA replication. Because in man the
number of cell divisions along the germ line from the
fertilized egg to a gamete is roughly 80, the rate of muta-
tion resulting from base replacement according to these
figures may be BO x 10-8- SOX 10-0 per nucleotide pair
per generation. Thus, with 4 x IO9 nucleotide pairs, the
total number of mutations resulting from base replace-
ment may amount t o 200- 2,000. This is 100-1,000 times
larger than the estimate of 2 per generation and suggests
that the mutation rate per nucleotide pair is reduced
during evolution by natural selectionl8~19."

In actual fact, from fertilised egg to human germ line cell requires many more mitosis' to get to the point where sperm & egg are being produced. Nevertheless, 200-2000 mutations in every sperm & egg gives plenty of material to work with.

You may be confused, as I was, when Geneticists often talk of mutation/substitution rate as the rate of FIXED mutations in genomes, rather than mutations per replication in germ line cells.

I know it only partially answers your question, but I'm running out of time to post

Mark

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

[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-08-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by quicksink, posted 04-08-2002 6:02 AM quicksink has taken no action

  
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

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4435 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 14 of 60 (8348)
04-08-2002 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Cobra_snake
04-08-2002 7:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"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.


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.

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.

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"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?


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. Nor does it have anything to do with positive evidence of God/Supernatural. The absence of evidence, isn’t positive evidence of anything.

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. So please present 1/positive evidence of creation, & 2/ God/Supernatural, that supports such a hypothesis.

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"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.


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.

Secondly, present POSITIVE evidence that there is design in nature. Cue Dembski, hee hee.

Thirdly, a hypothesis that is testable, with falsifications, please.

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"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.


1/ Produce this well established historic event from independent, non-religious sources please.

2/ Written historical documents aren't admissable as evidence anyway.

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"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.


Your going to have to present evidence of the supernatural, mate, if you want to have progressive creation/guided evolution.

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"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.


I’m as worried about the Supreme Designers opinion as you are of the Bogeymans

I really must see that Dawkins quote. Cite please, page numbers if possible.

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

Also, the cause and effect principle gives evidence for a Designer.

Please elaborate.

quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"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.


How? Without first assuming the supernatural to be indicative of reality without a scrap of positive evidence for it?

Mark

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

[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-09-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-08-2002 7:15 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-15-2002 11:55 PM mark24 has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4272 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 15 of 60 (8412)
04-10-2002 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by nator
04-08-2002 9:34 AM


I have actually moved on from the whole mutation vs selection thing so my memory will not do the work needed to address the issues from any position in effect to what small amount mutations are needed to progress any discussion of Wright's contribution to evoltuion theory.

The posibility that some more work on mutations themselves may indeed change the way natural selection is percieved is not ruled out however even in my mind and the space that acridnes chemically took up between any two "point" mutations still do not handle whatever it is Gould is doing with snails on the basis of French work trying to arise some more Goldschmidt. There is scholarship in this area but there is so much authority I tend to avoid it.

Still it is available in Wright's form that Fisher and Ford etc are wont to contradict the very approach to thinking the topic which Wright triple divides in his HISTORICAL reading of change vs creation but again I am tired of hitting the Provine pony when it is still sensory physiology that is rather confusing the ion and electron regardless the actual achoring of mutations to specific kinematic processes in the cell is an exciting idea and should be pursued even if it is hard to think about dynamically.

Again, incomprehensible but not to me. God Bless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by nator, posted 04-08-2002 9:34 AM nator has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Brad McFall, posted 04-22-2002 2:06 PM Brad McFall has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022