|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological classification vs 'Kind' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7799 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
It is not observable science. We can however draw reasonable conclusions based upon the visible evidence. Observable science is drawing reasonable conclusions based upon observing the evidence (it doesn't have to be visible. X-rays can be observed for example). Evolution is observable science. By your previous criticism you seem to be suggesting that it is not experimental science. As if all science has to be experimental in nature. Here is an astronomer, Charles Bailyn, Thomas E. Donnelley Professor of Astronomy and Physics and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Astronomy at Yale:
quote: Baramins don't give us a story that gives us a deep understanding of what's going on. Common ancestry does, it even leads to nontrivial predictions that have been tested.
Genetics and morphology are simply indicators and provide no actual proof of common ancestry. If they did we wouldn't have any need for this conversation, would we? Unless you were one of the many billions of humans that can sometimes get it wrong even when the proof is staring them in the face. Not all proofs are necessarily persuasive to all human beings. What we see is exactly what we should see if common ancestry were true. Baramins are a rudimentary observation of the same phenomenon by an intelligent group of people with insufficient resources to explore the nature of the 'kinds' any deeper than they did. Why rest on such a concept? These people couldn't build computers, or save themselves from small pox. Why rely on their interpretations of their observations when more precise observations and more powerful interpretations of those observations has been made?
Can you give me an example of the generation of life that's more reasonable than intelligent design? Abiogenesis isn't anywhere close. Processes as yet not fully discovered or understood. If someone has an idea that might help illuminate those processes, they can go and try and gather the evidence to show it. Injecting agency in a time period which predates all known agency seems wildly premature and while I feel the temptation to do so for all sorts of things, I would hardly consider it reasonable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7799 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Of course....this is what I meant. Using the word "visible" was a poor choice on my part. Excellent, I didn't think you had actually made that kind of error, but it's always good to be sure
According to your quote you are correct - it seems I mixed the terms. My apologies. Apology accepted, though I did not require one. You have my respect, for what that's worth, for your speedy admission of error.
Your first sentence is speculative opinion. Mine is the opposite. It is certainly opinion. However you opinion that it is 'speculative' is the only thing that is speculative, since you do not know upon what grounds I made the claim - since I did not specify them. So, I see that chimps and humans can't synthesize vitamin C. The observation is that the reasons for this lie in the fact that there is a gene used for synthesizing vitamin C in both species but that it is broken by a mutation. The same mutation in both species. What deep understanding can bariminology give us for this observation?
I would be interested in reviewing successful predictions made by common ancestry - as I am constantly in search of data that might invalide the YEC model (I have yet to find any - but I'm keeping an open mind). Good to hear. Well, take the above example. We discovered scurvy first. This occurred when sailors were at sea. The observation was just 'one of those things' for a while. Then we observed that eating certain fruits can stave of scurvy. So people began to think that a way to make sense of these two observations was that scurvy was caused by a nutritional deficiency that the fruit is a source of. Then we discovered that some primates, for example Chimps, could get scurvy too. So one explanation for this is common ancestry of those primates. Then we discovered that Guinea Pigs could get scurvy. But we don't propose to have a common ancestor with Guinea Pigs and not rats. Since rats don't get scurvy. So there is a problem. So here comes the prediction. If common ancestry of primates were true, and if the Guinea Pigs are more closely related to rats than they are to us and if other species don't generally get scurvy, then we should expect to find that there is a gene for vitamin C production in Guinea Pigs and humans and chimps but that it has been mutated sp as to no longer produce vitamin C. Not only that but we predict that the mutation(s) in the primate genes would share a similar pattern since it is thought that it was their common ancestor that first had the mutation(s) and they have inherited the same mutation(s) (though there may be difference due to subsequent mutations). And finally we predict that the Guinea Pig mutation would be quite different and there be no reason to suppose that Guinea Pigs inherited the mutation from the common ancestor from primates. You know the result before I say it, because why else would I bring it up? There are plenty more. For example, if we were to compare any number of genes from Placental Moles and Marsupial Moles along with Kangaroos, humans, mice and alligators -- then we'd expect to find Placental Moles have a genome closer in appearance to Humans than they do to Marsupial Moles (despite their physical similarities) to abide by the common ancestry understanding derived from fossil records and anatomical studies. Guess what? Bariminology has no such history of predictions.
here is a more detailed video overview - it's 6 minutes long and is quite watchable.
Quite true. Psalm 19:1 - The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Well I'm glad you accept that you might be fallible but I fail to see the point of citing poetry? Actually, of course, I do know. You think that the evidence (the heavens/firmament) is staring us in the face. But then - that's just the personal opinion of a long dead poet and that should be remembered. The question is - was he right?
Not sure where you're going with this. Are you trying to imply that baraminology is an ancient science only? Modern baraminologists would disagree with you.
I'm saying the concept of 'created kinds' is an ancient one based on very rudimentary observations, and the concept has been much improved by classification schemes based on much more precise data than looking around the Fertile Crescent. I'm sure there are all sorts of modern day people studying outdated, falsified and crazy ideas based on 'ancient wisdom' that would disagree with modern new fangled 'medicine' and 'orbital mechanics' and 'relativity' etc. The question is, does trying to apply modern observation equipment to the 'science' of 'barminology' yield any useful results or deeper understanding? Or do they just say 'bariminology predicts that kinds will produce offspring 'after their kind', so we'll try and find examples of that kind of thing'? I'd certainly like to see some good examples of bariminology but all I've seen is pointless nonsense promising breakthroughs any moment with a few erroneous criticisms of evolution thrown in for effect. So please, if you know of something substantive, I'd like to see it.
So when exactly would it cease to be premature? What would be required for you and other darwinists to accept a supernatural cause for a natural phenomena? I have no idea what a 'supernatural cause' is and how we would tell there had been one. Nor am I a 'darwinist'. I'm just a guy that heard someone say that evolution was falsified by the 2nd law of thermodynamics so I excitedly began to study the subject to find out more. I quickly learned that evolution was on much stronger evidential ground than I had originally suspected - though understanding what was being claimed by the two broad camps took a lot of time and supplementary reading. Anyway, there are plenty of scenarios in which an intelligent designer would not be a premature conclusion. As an extreme example, if NASA landed on Mars and found a Tabernacle with an ark containing all the blueprints for designing terrestrial life, with some HD-DVDs of the creation event and it was all in Ancient Hebrew, English and Chinese - I'd not consider the conclusion that life on earth was designed was premature. Basically, if someone found evidence that there was a designer, then it wouldn't be premature to conclude that there was a designer. "I can think of no other way than to invoke a mysterious agent." is not evidence of a mysterious agent. It's just giving up. Be glad the police do not use this methodology: "Well I can't figure out how a robber can break into the shop, kill the manager, steal the goods and not be seen by any witnesses...so we're clearly looking for an invisible robber." And a rabbit in the Cambrian would at least call common ancestry into serious question.
Your use of the word premature is humorous, considering the mythology of most every ancient culture on earth contains a creation story (in many cases bearing striking similarity to each other). There are more differences than similarities between creation stories. But they do tend to start with something unformed that then becomes formed - but that's how we classify them as creation stories. Almost every ancient culture has myths about diseases. All of them are wrong. So the argument from ancient culture is not one I think is valid to rest upon.
the concept of a naturalistic origin is both recent and laughable considering there isn't a shred of evidence supporting it. Clearly your view is that there isn't a shred of evidence supporting it, and clearly my view is that multiple independent lines of evidence all converge on natural explanations for the origin of species, the origins of phyla, the origin of life and the origin of matter. What surprises me is that you think recent ideas are somewhat lesser than older ones. Surely if the modern era has taught us anything its that we got a lot of things wrong in the past, and fantastic things are possible when we get them right (disease, communications, travel, sanitation etc). I have a thread that explains why I have confidence in evolution, feel free to check it out and participate - Confidence in evolutionary science Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7799 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I read several articles to check up on this - here'sone. Apparently there are 47 'shared mistakes' between humans and guinea pigs which suggest mutational hotspots as the more likely conclusion (instead of common ancestry). Or am I missing more recent data showing otherwise? Did you know that John Woodmorappe is really called Jan Peczkis? I prefer his real name myself. When you get time, could you summarize the argument with the sources? Only I've not found Mr Woodmorappe to be the most reliable source in the past, you see. If I get time, I'll try and wade through it all and figure it out. I briefly saw him point out the known phenomena that using a single gene to create phylogenies can break down when you are looking at closely related species. I also saw that the paper that mentions the 47 mutations was talking about stuff that happened after the gene was initially broken. So I fail to see how this relates to the point. Yes - there appears to be mutation hotspots - but these are more easily detectable in non-functioning genes since they are free to mutate without causing further loss of function, so no selection is taking place. Are you suggesting that the most parsimonious explanation for the Guinea pigs having a completely different mutation that broke the gene than primates is because the primate one is more predisposed to happen? If it were a hotspot we would expect to find other animals that eat vitamin C and don't synthesize it, with precisely the same mutation as the primates. Can the modern science of bariminology shed light on this mystery? That's an important question: how does barimonlogy give us a deeper understanding of the evidence? I've shown how evolutionary ideas can lead to a deeper understanding of what is going on in two examples. Now it's your turn
I see your example - but I stand by my assessment that this leads to flawed science. The naturalistic detectives in this case would rule out invisibility before ever evaluating the evidence - thus they would never be able to catch an actually invisible robber, were such a thing to exist. A silly example, yes...but it does make my point. Indeed they would fail to catch the hypothetical invisible robber. But on the other hand, they won't waste time on every crime they get stuck on looking for supernatural creatures and superpowered criminals. If you think they should - blimey. Anyway - nobody is ruling out a designer. If you want to go looking for a being that has powers to avoid you finding it, be my guest. If you can convince someone to cough up money to pay for your quest, that's awesome. You can't force scientists to perform experiments to falsify or confirm your hypothesis - they've got bills to pay. And don't assume that just because scientists don't tend to look for a Hot Jupiter Orbit Designer to explain why there are so many Hot Jupiters or whatever other unsolved mystery crops up, it's because they aren't being thorough. They are finite beings that don't have time to waste and so they make judgement calls on what funding to apply for to do what experiment. The modern science of bariminology can look for a designer if it wants, though.
Just because an idea is new doesn't mean it should be accepted without question. It's not like Darwin's ideas were universally accepted without question though is it?
I appreciate the invitation, and if/when I have the time I would be glad to join the discussion. I also appreciate your response to my post - yours has been one of the more reasoned and thought-out replies I have received and I appreciate the consideration and discussion. No worries. You seem like a perfectly nice person, and its nice to find someone who is both pleasant and who disagrees with me
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7799 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If I understand correctly Woodmorappe's conclusion is this - Since neither creationists nor darwinists would place guinea pigs and humans as closely related then one or both of the following must be true: 1) The similarities indicate common engineering/design. 2) Mutational hotspots - not common ancestry - account for many of the similarities in pseudogenes. It could be, of course, mutational hotspots and common ancestry.... Other options you haven't considered are 3) Some other as yet unknown commonality.4) common ancestry, and it is the rat's gene that has evolved. 5) something else. You have to pick the explanation that best fits with all the other data and support your conclusion. The question I'd want to ask for your preferred hypothesis is why would a common designer commonly design things this way? Is there some reason proteins that don't impact external morphology should vary in a fashion that matches up with the patterns of external morphology?
That's probably not the best example - so I'll try and think of some better ones - I'll try and get back to you on this. Indeed - we still haven't got a reasonable deep understanding of the big picture patterns we see. We agree on the smaller patterns indicate common ancestry (whether the ancestor is either the FIRST EVER (created kind) or not) - but you are just telling us what we knew: Common ancestry gives us explanations.
I agree that darwinists (specifically atheistic darwinists) have no reason to waste time looking for the 'invisible robber'. However, Christian creationists certainly do - and this is where religious beliefs come into play. As a Christian who has experienced circumstantial spiritual evidence of a Creator I have every reason to search for Him in science. We have been discussing this hunt for the causes behind such circumstantial spiritual experiences over at Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)?. I've detailed my experiences - I'd be interested in hearing yours. But be warned, we're being flagrantly atheist in that thread
Modulous - I really appreciate the civil tone of your responses and your willingness to discuss issues without resulting to personal attacks or broad generalizations about your opposition. The feeling is mutual. I've kept this one a bit shorter, since that being in the minority opinion results in a lot of demand for your time around here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7799 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Since you may not have caught my previous explanations I'll respond to these again - but going forward I'm just going to have to skip responses to these type of posts - nothing against you personally, I just don't have time to repeatedly clarify my positions.
Translation: Everything I say is getting challenged and I don't have any evidence to support what I'm saying, so I'm just going to start ignoring posts that pose inconvenient questions. Percy, that's not only a little unfair - given what you said earlier I think an apology is merited:
quote: You were right, the evidence demonstrated it, Bob conceded he couldn't respond to all posts that are saying similar things and you use that concession to claim a victory? Naughty Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024