Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,596 Year: 4,853/9,624 Month: 201/427 Week: 11/103 Day: 11/0 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Science in Creationism
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1525 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 916 of 986 (784761)
05-22-2016 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 895 by Modulous
05-22-2016 12:10 AM


Re: How evolution itself brings evolution to a halt
Being a dog doesn't get you to something that isn't a dog, but according to the ToE if enough changes occur eventually you will get something that isn't a dog.
Well no, that's the very definition of the nested hierarchy. A dog will always be a dog in evolution. If a dog ever gives birth to something that is not a dog - evolution has no explanation for this phenomena.
Why is it always necessary to trot out this ridiculous canard whenever someone invokes the best known and most relevant point about evolution, which is that Species evolve into other Species? Instead of automatically shooting down any version of it someone comes up with why not just give what you think is the true version of it? What is this nonsensical game you all are playing that you have to deny the most obvious things we know about evolution in favor of some kind of silly precision?
Here is a story according to evolution, simplified for space and ease. There were some creatures, and these creatures split into varying species. One of these species was the Animal. The Animal species grew and grew, increasing in genetic diversity until it too split into varying species. One of the species had tissues and a novel cell type called the neuron. They were called the After-animals. They were still animals, just a split off from the main group animals. Again this groups grew and increased in genetic diversity before splitting into further groups. One of these groups were called Ropers. Ropers were still After-animals and they were still animals. But they had a trait many or all of the others lacked, a rope of nerves and other tissue running down its back. The process repeats and one of the new species, the Lambcauls. Again they are still ropers, after-animals and animals, but they are specific subgroup called lambcauls. They started developing special membranes to protect their offspring. Skipping this process forward a bit more groups form, one of those groups are called the Lizard-faces and Beast-Faces. As their name implies, their differences lay in their skull structure. Beast-Faces and Lizard-Faces are different but they are both lambcauls, ropers, after-animals and animals. The Beast-Faces split into groups, some went on to become Boobers (who were hairy and developed breast tissue), while the Lizard-Faces went into groups such as the River-Lizards and Terror-Lizards. The Boobers who were still part of the Animal family tree and can never leave it and were also lambcauls and ropers too for that matter, went on to lots of different groups, but we're interested in the fun ones. The Flesh-eating Boobers. Still boobers, still ropers, still lambcauls, but these ones were specialised at killing eating lizard-faces and other boobers. Many more groups form, one group were the Wolves. Wolves are flesh eating boobers, lambcauls, ropers, boobers, after-animals and animals. But they are also wolves, a close 'family' within all of the above 'families'. And a subgroup off the wolves is called the dogs.
Ah yes the silly precision simplified. But the most interesting thing about this typical Evo style fairy tale is the Refrain of the Theme Song: "increasing in genetic diversity until..." Perhaps we could set it to music.
The tale, of course, doesn't include an explanation of where this genetic diversity comes from. I guess it just poofs out of nowhere as needed. Well, but we know that poofing goes by the name of mutation don't we? Mutation, you know, that frequent mistake that occurs in the reproductive machinery of DNA that mostly produces results not healthy for the organism, followed by results that appear not to make any difference (but if not eliminated may sit there like a sort of time bomb until something triggers its unhealthy effects), plus a minuscule occasional result that seems to have a useful or at least interesting and not unhealthy effect. Ah yes, that occurs SO infrequently a genetically wobbly organism is more likely to go extinct before it might benefit from it. And it would need not just any mutation of that extremely rare sort, but very particular ones, that may never ever occur, and it has to occur in the sex cells too, as the frequent mutations in the body cells are irrelevant anyway...
In other words the invocation of increased genetic diversity is a total fraud. It can't happen, it doesn't happen, it's just part of the Evo Fantasy. What actually happens in reality is what I'm describing: change or evolution occurs when the built-in genetic variability in any organism is selected from so that new versions of the organism are expressed and other expressions are reduced or lost, making for an overall decrease in genetic diversity from one new subspecies to the next. This MUST happen because the expression of a particular nphenotype depends on its genetic substrate which can't do its thing if there are competing genes for the same trait in the population.
For the sake of argument, however, should you actually have the mutations you are hallucinating, should there be this constant stream of new variation that is fantasized, as soon as a particular phenotype is selected for its benefit to the organism, or as soon as a random population split leads to the geographic isolation of some portion of the original population, the subsequent mixing of the new gene frequencies will eventually bring out a new subspecies, BY LOSING THE GENETIC MATERIAL that would support other phenotypes.
Sheesh, this is so obvious and so simple.
To date there are no subgroups off from dogs barring the specific breeds, but genetic transfer can make its way around so we're at dogs. Dogs are wolves, flesh-eating boobers, lambcauls, ropers and animals. All of their descendants will be dogs, wolves.... etc. It's a giant family tree and your children will always be part of your biological family, just as you will always be part of your ancestor's family.
Eumetazoa = after-animal
Chordates = Ropers
Amniotes = Lambcauls
Sauropsida = Lizard-faces
Synapsida = Beast-faces
Crocodiles = River-Lizards
Dinosaur = Terror-Lizards
Mammal = Boober
Flesh-Eating Boober = Carnivora
Which aren't genetically related because hallucinated genetic diversity really isn't much use in reality.
Yes, but you are insisting on talking about everything BUT the processes of evolution that ARE evolution, which are the subtractive processes that require reduced genetic diversity.
quote:
descent with modification
--Darwin
You ARE insisting on ignoring the modification part of Darwin's theory.
quote:
NATURAL Selection is not Evolution.
--RA Fisher
Who is this Fisher guy and why should you care?
Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher FRS[2] (17 February 1890 — 29 July 1962), who published as R. A. Fisher, was an English statistician, and biologist, who used mathematics to combine Mendelian genetics and natural selection, helping to create a new Darwinist synthesis of evolution known as modern evolutionary synthesis, as well as a prominent eugenicist in the early part of his life. - Ronald Fisher - Wikipedia
quote:
It has often been remarked, and truly,
that without mutation evolutionary progress, whatever direction it
may take, will ultimately come to a standstill for lack of further
possible improvements.
--RA Fisher
Hrm, that's what you are saying, only you aren't not saying 'without mutation' part at the beginning. For some reason.
quote:
If therefore the effect of the factor
is so small that it will contribute at most one part in 100,000 to the
total variance, a mutation rate of the order of one in a million might
well effect its gradual establishment. Such would be the situation of
factors affecting human stature by about one -fortieth of an inch.
--RA Fisher
quote:
The range of selective advantage
which may be regarded as effectively neutral is, however, extremely
minute, being inversely proportional to the population of the species.
Since it is scarcely credible that such a perfect equipoise of selective
advantage could be maintained during the course of evolutionary
change, random survival, while the dominant consideration in respect
to the survival of individual genes, is of merely academic interest in
respect to the variance maintained in the species, which must be
mainly supplied by definitely advantageous mutations.
--RA Fisher
Are you sure you are talking about evolution?
I guess not, since hallucinated genetic diversity is considered to be essential to evolution. I must be talking about only the specific part of evolution where the selection or subtractive processes bring out new traits and create new subspecies out of whatever variation is present, whether added by hallucinated mutations or simply built-in as I believe it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 895 by Modulous, posted 05-22-2016 12:10 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 917 by PaulK, posted 05-22-2016 5:08 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 918 by Modulous, posted 05-22-2016 5:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 917 of 986 (784762)
05-22-2016 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 916 by Faith
05-22-2016 4:54 PM


Re: How evolution itself brings evolution to a halt
If your main argument is to scornfully dismiss facts you don't like as "hallucinations" I think we are done here. Obviously you have nothing worth discussing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 916 by Faith, posted 05-22-2016 4:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 918 of 986 (784764)
05-22-2016 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 916 by Faith
05-22-2016 4:54 PM


Re: How evolution itself brings evolution to a halt
Why is it always necessary to trot out this ridiculous canard whenever someone invokes the best known and most relevant point about evolution, which is that Species evolve into other Species? Instead of automatically shooting down any version of it someone comes up with why not just give what you think is the true version of it?
It's not a ridiculous canard, it's evolution.
Dogs may well evolve into other species. But they will remain dogs.
Ah yes the silly precision simplified. But the most interesting thing about this typical Evo style fairy tale
Oh, sorry, I thought you were complaining about making it too complicated. I refer you to Fisher's book, it is freely available online, if you want something more hard. But the point of the 'evo fairy tale' was to illustrate how dogs will always be dogs in the evolutionist perspective. If you missed this point, I am not sure how I can make it clearer.
The tale, of course, doesn't include an explanation of where this genetic diversity comes from.
It does not. The tale was about the nested hierarchy and why dogs will always be dogs - even a species descended from a species descended from a species of dogs will be dogs.
Once you are in a family, you can't leave it. You can't change your parents.
I guess it just poofs out of nowhere as needed. Well, but we know that poofing goes by the name of mutation don't we?
That's right. Errors that occur during reproduction.
Mutation, you know, that frequent mistake that occurs in the reproductive machinery of DNA that mostly produces results not healthy for the organism, followed by results that appear not to make any difference (but if not eliminated may sit there like a sort of time bomb until something triggers its unhealthy effects), plus a minuscule occasional result that seems to have a useful or at least interesting and not unhealthy effect.
Yes that's right, mutation.
Ah yes, that occurs SO infrequently a genetically wobbly organism is more likely to go extinct before it might benefit from it.
Fisher's maths disagrees with your impression. I'll believe Fisher's maths over your say so.
Unless you have some actual science that is critical of Fisher you'd like to enter into the discussion?
In other words the invocation of increased genetic diversity is a total fraud.
So you say.
But you haven't backed up your words. Fisher did.
It can't happen, it doesn't happen, it's just part of the Evo Fantasy.
Fisher disagrees. The challenge to beat Fisher is in your court.
What actually happens in reality is what I'm describing: change or evolution occurs when the built-in genetic variability in any organism is selected from so that new versions of the organism are expressed and other expressions are reduced or lost, making for an overall decrease in genetic diversity from one new subspecies to the next.
That's what ACTUALLY happens is it? How do you know?
For the sake of argument, however, should you actually have the mutations you are hallucinating, should there be this constant stream of new variation that is fantasized, as soon as a particular phenotype is selected for its benefit to the organism, or as soon as a random population split leads to the geographic isolation of some portion of the original population, the subsequent mixing of the new gene frequencies will eventually bring out a new subspecies, BY LOSING THE GENETIC MATERIAL that would support other phenotypes.
Sheesh, this is so obvious and so simple.
I'm not disagreeing.
I'm just pointing out that when you have an additive process like mutation and a subtractive one such as selection you need to do maths if you want to say that mutation rates are not sufficient. Otherwise your criticism of evolution is not science, its just words.
I guess not, since hallucinated genetic diversity is considered to be essential to evolution.
Mutation is considered essential, and basically always has, to evolution. This isn't a shell game, the text I was quoting from was written half a century before I was born.
I must be talking about only the specific part of evolution where the selection or subtractive processes bring out new traits and create new subspecies out of whatever variation is present
That's right. And since that isn't the theory of evolution in totality, pointing out that it wouldn't work doesn't falsify the theory of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 916 by Faith, posted 05-22-2016 4:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 919 of 986 (784765)
05-22-2016 6:21 PM


What is Science
I submit Feynman as an authority on science. In case anyone thinks I'm playing any shell games this is the gist of it. This was from 1964, before I was born. No shell games, the target was set up a long time ago. Ready? Aim? Wait you aren't ready? You don't know how to aim? Sorry about that, not my fault.

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1525 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 920 of 986 (784767)
05-22-2016 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 901 by Dr Adequate
05-22-2016 3:39 AM


Tracking a population split mathematically
Let's take a worked example. Let lower-case letters stand for genes and subscripts attached to those letters for alleles. Let us begin with a population P with an assortment of alleles in its gene pool which we will write as
P = {a, b, c, d, d, e, e, f, f}
Now let a subpopulation of P get swept out to sea and deposited on an island, giving us population Q. Since you like the founder effect, let's suppose that the founders of Q have no examples of f.
P = {a, b, c, d, d, e, e, f, f}
Q = {a, b, c, d, d, e, e, f}
Since I am mathematically challenged my efforts to construct a similar sequence of possibilities keep coming to nothing, but yours is far from adequate because the only change you've noted in the original split is the loss of one allele, but in any real split there is going to be a complete new mix of alleles, a new set of gene/allele frequencies.
What is needed is first the total number of individuals in population P and a notation that indicates the number of individuals that possess each particular allele or pair of alleles. Already it gets beyond me, I don't know about you. In reality we probably couldn't know all this* but for purposes of explaining what I mean and your objections to it we need to posit these numbers.
Then we have to do the same for population Q that got swept out to the island. How many members of population P were transported, and which individuals possessing which alleles were they?
If the number of individuals in Q was quite small relative to the number in the original population P then very likely many more than just one allele was left behind, and already we see the reduction in genetic diversity I'm talking about.
If the split was more equal then you are going to have to reckon with new gene frequencies in both populations, and that means it won't only be Q that develops new phenotypes but also P, and the loss of genetic diversity would have to be calculated in both as well, as the rarest alleles drop out of each population over time.
Since you want to make a point about mutations you need to have them arising in both populations, and I don't see how you can be realistic about that since getting any sort of beneficial mutation in the sex cells is a pretty rare occurrence and documenting all the deleterious and neutral mutations would be quite a pain in the neck.
But now you should have some picture of two populations each with a different set of gene frequencies, the smaller in number, Q, already showing reduced genetic diversity. Before any useful mutations could arise they are going to start reproducing, random combinations of individuals now having to be included in your calculations. Maybe they're rabbits. You now have to show the new sets of gene/allele frequencies mixing together over some number of generations, some that were more frequent in P now being less frequent in Q and vice versa with gradations and so on, a complete new mix so that traits that dominated in P gradually disappear in Q as new traits emerge to characterize Q. If population Q is quite small relative to population P you can expect the rarest alleles simply to drop out of the pool after a while. If the populations are about equal the rarest in each will drop out, different alleles in each case. After a few generations you should have some interesting new phenotypes and a reduced genetic diversity to show for it. After a decade or so you should have a completely new look to population Q if it started out with much fewer individuals, or in both if the original two populations were more nearly equal.
You can throw in your mutations from time to time as you think appropriate and you have to remember to include them in the reproductive mix, which assumes a lot of course since one allele in the sex cells probably isn't even going to get expressed but oh well, play it as you see it.
You'll have a growing number of individuals in both populations to take into account too with every reproductive cycle and you'll have to make some educated guesses about how the alleles will be distributed in each new generation, guessing at dominance-recessive for instance and so on. Eventually the high-frequency alleles should be pretty evenly distributed in the population so that we can figure they underlie a new characteristic phenotype compared to that in the other population.
Even with mutations, if population Q started with a significantly small number of individuals eventually it should show significantly reduced genetic diversity in relation to the original population.
If you have a way to note all this mathematically so that a mathematically challenged person could follow I'd love to see it.
I don't know if I've included all the variables that would need to be taken into account, but I'm sure I've made my point that the calculations can't be reduced to something as simple as you presented.
=============================
*But keeping track of these numbers would be the main work in the laboratory experiment I've often proposed to test my expectation of reduced genetic diversity, tracking each individual and its offspring over many generations through many population splits, with DNA samples tested at certain points.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 901 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 3:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 921 by jar, posted 05-22-2016 10:13 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 922 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 11:01 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34054
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 921 of 986 (784768)
05-22-2016 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 920 by Faith
05-22-2016 9:56 PM


a simplified explanation for even the mathmatically challenged
Here is a simplified explanation Faith that requires almost no mathematics.
Evolution has been going on for over three billion years here on this earth with no indication of it stopping.
Now what is the mechanism, model, process, procedure or thingamabob in Creationism that explains what is seen in reality?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 920 by Faith, posted 05-22-2016 9:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 922 of 986 (784769)
05-22-2016 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 920 by Faith
05-22-2016 9:56 PM


Re: Tracking a population split mathematically
Since I am mathematically challenged my efforts to construct a similar sequence of possibilities keep coming to nothing, but yours is far from adequate because the only change you've noted in the original split is the loss of one allele, but in any real split there is going to be a complete new mix of alleles, a new set of gene/allele frequencies.
But the numbers are not important to the argument. Population size isn't really relevant, since there is nothing that I have described that couldn't happen in a large population, or couldn't happen in a medium-sized population, or that couldn't happen in a small population so long as it's large enough to be viable at all. And since all I'm trying to get through to you is the sort of thing that could happen, the population sizes don't matter. In the same way, the only allele frequency that even affects the likelihood of the scenario is that of f₂.
Heck, make up some numbers yourself. Pick some number so that P is initially large, so that Q was initially small enough (or the incidence of f₂ is low enough) that it's plausible that we lost the allele f₂, and so that the island is large and fertile enough that Q quickly grew to be considerably larger than it was originally.
If the split was more equal then you are going to have to reckon with new gene frequencies in both populations, and that means it won't only be Q that develops new phenotypes but also P ...
Sure, yes, increasing the total genetic diversity still further. You may be interested in this bit of math I did.
But keeping track of these numbers would be the main work in the laboratory experiment I've often proposed to test my expectation of reduced genetic diversity, tracking each individual and its offspring over many generations through many population splits, with DNA samples tested at certain points.
You mean like the Lenski experiment?
---
While doing the math with algebra and, God forbid, calculus, is forbidding in all but the simplest cases, it is easy enough to simulate the behavior of a population on a computer; and by doing that let's say a thousand times and averaging, to get nice curves showing the average behavior of the population. I have often done this before, though never to demonstrate the bleedin' obvious, and I guess I could do it again. (The one constraint is computer time: the populations and the number of genes need to be reasonably small, say 10 genes and a population in the low hundreds, so the program doesn't take a stupidly long time to run.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 920 by Faith, posted 05-22-2016 9:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 923 by Faith, posted 05-23-2016 12:12 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1525 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 923 of 986 (784770)
05-23-2016 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 922 by Dr Adequate
05-22-2016 11:01 PM


Re: Tracking a population split mathematically
But the numbers are not important to the argument. Population size isn't really relevant, since there is nothing that I have described that couldn't happen in a large population, or couldn't happen in a medium-sized population, or that couldn't happen in a small population so long as it's large enough to be viable at all.
I don't think you have the reality of a population split in mind. The likelihood of getting the same proportion of alleles in the daughter population as in the parent is just about nil. And except for your one drop-out that's what you have, identical proportions.
ABE As for the Lenski remark, I'd want to use a small animal, not bacteria. And a decade should be more than enough time to prove or disprove my argument. In fact the trend to reduced genetic diversity should be clear enough with the first population split, but since I'm predicting a measurable loss at the end of a series of population splits, a few years would be needed at least.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 922 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 11:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 924 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2016 12:26 AM Faith has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 924 of 986 (784771)
05-23-2016 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 923 by Faith
05-23-2016 12:12 AM


Re: Tracking a population split mathematically
I don't think you have the reality of a population split in mind. The likelihood of getting the same proportion of alleles in the daughter population as in the parent is just about nil. And except for your one drop-out that's what you have.
No, apart from f₂ I didn't mention the allele frequencies, and it is irrelevant what they are. They can be what you like, so long as we don't get all of one kind of allele in Q, leaving P bereft of that allele, because that would be a different example. My only supposition is that one in three of the heterozygous alleles would become homogeneous due to the founder effect, which I put in because I thought it would be nice to have the founder effect as one of the processes. The remaining details of allele frequencies are immaterial, which is why I didn't mention them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 923 by Faith, posted 05-23-2016 12:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 926 by Faith, posted 05-23-2016 12:44 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 925 of 986 (784772)
05-23-2016 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 907 by Modulous
05-22-2016 9:29 AM


I'm just trying to get you to explain what you mean by the sentence
'There is science in creationism'
Do you mean the same as saying
'There is investigation in creationism'?
I'm saying both, that is science initially and primarily overall an investigation and secondly that the the science in creationism or creation is the intricate design detected by simple observation.
It's like observing consciousness or beauty or awareness or detecting thought by knowing im hearing my own thoughts.
Since these things Cleary exist, no complicated science to know that, it follows that it would depend on you to demonstrate I am not witnessing what I can observe.
You need to show not just assert I'm not seeing these things. But how would you do that, it's impossible
Furthermore, are you using abductive reasoning or not? First you said deductive, then you said it was obvious that you were using abductive reasoning now you are telling me that you have no testing method for your abductive reasoning or that you aren't using abductive reasoning?
I'm confused about what you are trying communicate. I think it's because you reject the thesis that words have meanings.
Never said words didn't have meanings, I said reality gives words thier meaning. Secondly I said when the definitions ascribed by man given to words, try to contradict or ignore simple observable truths, then those meanings need to be discarded
I have a simple choice I can ignore axioms or simple observable truths or I can imagine that some word or subdivision of a word has discarded that truth, misused in argument form. Which one do you think a reasonable person will accept
Design is simply and easily detectable, just like existence, consciousness, but when we start ignoring the simple with words or word divisions, then it is clear your not being reasonable
You'll need to phrase that by reality, not by words. How can I show what 'science' is in relationship to an 'investigation' if I don't know or can't rely on, the meaning of those words? It's an incoherent challenge that I have therefore no obligation to consider.
Instead, I ask what you mean when you say
You can show what science is in two ways. By making your word science conform to reality and not to some definition of science that ignores simple obvious truths
Here is what I mean. If your definition of science needs cause and affect and a chain of causality to be science, then I know your definition is not correct, because you CANNOT show the chain of causality from the brain to consciousness. If you could,you would have already done it.
So any tyro could see that the definition you have chosen for science neither conforms to reality or your not doing science, or there may be other simpler definitions of science that demonstrate truths
My science in creationism doesn't need my conclusion to be categorized as science, it just needs to conform to reality and be understood as evidence by simple observation in design
The clear and obvious evidence in design doesn't need your brand of science to be science. It's really that simple.
Science is a word with meaning. Meanings are decided by people.
Right, but if the word doesn't conform to reality or ignores reality, then it is the meaning ascribe to the word that is wrong, not reality.
Cheese is a word, but we know the moon is not made of cheese.
Well yes.
But Astrology isn't about biology. It's about social matters. They exist just as obviously as design does.
Sorry no. Social matters are a creation of the mind, with no relation to the natural world. In other words they don't start in natural processes. Even if we say they do they are a by product, not like design which is separate from human reasoning. It would be what it is, even if I weren't around to observe it
Ican't observe Intelligent Design, sorry. Your argument fails from the outset if it requires this kind of direct observation. I look, I do not see Intelligent Design. The test has failed replication. The proposition is rejected.
And neither can I Observe the conclusion of the ToE, that things are here by Solely Natural Causes. There you go again, asking me to give you direct evidence for my conclusion, assuming your direct evidence of just your process is the same type of evidence, to demonstrate mu conclusion, it's not
Now the question is, does science need to be as involved as the the SM, to observe absolute truth? Answer, as I have now demonstrated is no. Since I only need to demonstrate the science of my process, which is clear observable intricate design, then there is science in the proposition of creationism. At least my conclusion is warranted with no fear of contradiction
Absolutely.
The question is, should we humans who are speaking English to one another, call what Newton did with regards to the laws of motion (derive them through educated guesses, logic and observation), 'science'? It's up to you. I think we should. Most other people thing we should. It seems to me, that if the intent of language is to communicate to other people that unless we have very good reason not to, we should err on the side of common usage.
But that's the point Modulous, you are erring on the side of common usage, EVEN IF, the the common does not conform to reality. You saying let's stick with the meaning of the word, no matter what?
When words, phrases, ideas "arguments" or whatever conflict with reality, we have to abandon those. If design is,detectable simply by observation, then it does not matter if I'm using, decdutive, inductive abductive reasoning, or if it falls within any of those words or none
If science is the best word you can find for what you are doing make sure it's definition conform and you are not ignoring simple truths in favor of your teachers definitionsthings exist
(Message information:Message 21:Re: Falsification
(Msg ID 783142)Thread 19158:The Science in CreationismForum 15:Free For All', 500)" onmouseout=" hb.off(0)" onmousemove="mouseTracker(event)" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(119, 204, 221); font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(33, 53, 85);">Message 21)
Some things have cP (Message information:Message 24:Re: Falsification
(Msg ID 783145)Thread 19158:The Science in CreationismForum 15:Free For All', 500)" onmouseout=" hb.off(0)" onmousemove="mouseTracker(event)" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(119, 204, 221); font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(33, 53, 85);">Message 24)
cP exists because of d (Message information:Message 41:Re: Show Me The Evidence
(Msg ID 783183)Thread 19158:The Science in CreationismForum 15:Free For All', 500)" onmouseout=" hb.off(0)" onmousemove="mouseTracker(event)" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(119, 204, 221); font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(33, 53, 85);">Message 41)
d is best explained by der (Message information:Message 121:Re: Show Me The Evidence
(Msg ID 783327)Thread 19158:The Science in CreationismForum 15:Free For All', 500)" onmouseout=" hb.off(0)" onmousemove="mouseTracker(event)" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(119, 204, 221); font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(33, 53, 85);">Message 121)
some der are i
through induction, all der are i
i is not n (Message information:Message 103:Re: Show Me The Evidence
(Msg ID 783308)Thread 19158:The Science in CreationismForum 15:Free For All', 500)" onmouseout=" hb.off(0)" onmousemove="mouseTracker(event)" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(119, 204, 221); font-family: Verdana, Arial; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(33, 53, 85);">Message 103)
Sorry when I copied this this is what it came out as. No matter.
Do any of these symbols in logic, or all of them demonstrate in reality, that design is not design, or that I can not easily observe design. If they don't then they have no purpose to reality
No special pleading here, other than begging you will pay attention to reality.
"For, the invisible things of him are clearly SEEN, being UNDERSTOOD (reasoned science),
being understood by the things that are DESIGNED, (natural observable truth)even his eternal power and Godhead,
SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE"
Roman's 1:20
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 907 by Modulous, posted 05-22-2016 9:29 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 929 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2016 1:03 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 931 by Modulous, posted 05-23-2016 7:11 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1525 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 926 of 986 (784773)
05-23-2016 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 924 by Dr Adequate
05-23-2016 12:26 AM


Re: Tracking a population split mathematically
The allele frequencies are the most important thing because that's what makes the changes that bring about the new subspecies. Change in allele frequencies is the definition of evolution according to some. You can't prove anything with your unrealistic representation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 924 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2016 12:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 927 by PaulK, posted 05-23-2016 12:57 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 928 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2016 1:02 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 930 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2016 1:28 AM Faith has replied
 Message 941 by NoNukes, posted 05-23-2016 11:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 927 of 986 (784774)
05-23-2016 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 926 by Faith
05-23-2016 12:44 AM


Re: Tracking a population split mathematically
Perhaps you might like to explain the relevance of the frequencies to the argument ?
Just because a factor is important in a general sense doesn't mean that it is always relevant, and dismissing an argument by demanding irrelevant details is somewhat inconsistent with some of your recent posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 926 by Faith, posted 05-23-2016 12:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 928 of 986 (784775)
05-23-2016 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 926 by Faith
05-23-2016 12:44 AM


Re: Tracking a population split mathematically
The allele frequencies are the most important thing because that's what makes the changes that bring about the new subspecies. Change in allele frequencies is the definition of evolution according to some.
And I have noted the changes in allele frequency but not quantified them. If you like, I will go back and make up numbers for the allele frequencies, but perhaps first you would like to explain what I would prove by doing so.
You can't prove anything with your unrealistic representation.
What is unrealistic about it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 926 by Faith, posted 05-23-2016 12:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 929 of 986 (784776)
05-23-2016 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 925 by Dawn Bertot
05-23-2016 12:42 AM


Show Us The Evidence
I'm saying both, that is science initially and primarily overall an investigation and secondly that the the science in creationism or creation is the intricate design detected by simple observation.
Do you have any evidence for this design of which you speak?
If so, please show us the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 925 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-23-2016 12:42 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 930 of 986 (784777)
05-23-2016 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 926 by Faith
05-23-2016 12:44 AM


Some Made-Up Numbers For Faith
Here, my hypothetical example now has hypothetical allele frequencies. This adds nothing to the example except illegibility, but you asked for them, so here they are:
Let's start with:
P = {100% a₁, 100% b₁, 100% c₁, 50% d₁, 50% d₂, 60% e₁, 40% e₂, 90% f₁, 10% f₂}
Now let a subpopulation of P get swept out to sea and deposited on an island, giving us population Q. Since you like the founder effect, let's suppose that the founders of Q have no examples of f₂.
P = {100% a₁, 100% b₁, 100% c₁, 49% d₁, 51% d₂, 64% e₁, 36% e₂, 89% f₁, 11% f₂}
Q = {100% a₁, 100% b₁, 100% c₁, 60% d₁, 40% d₂, 20% e₁, 80% e₂, 100% f₁}
Note that this does not make Q a new variety, since there is no animal in Q that couldn't be found in P.
Now let a mutation produce a new allele b₂ in Q. It is neutral and does not achieve fixation but fluctuates in the gene pool.
P = {100% a₁, 100% b₁, 100% c₁, 48% d₁, 52% d₂, 62% e₁, 38% e₂, 88% f₁, 12% f₂}
Q = {100% a₁, 77% b₁, 23% b₂, 100% c₁, 61% d₁, 39% d₂, 19% e₁, 81% e₂, 100% f₁}
Now there are some members of Q that look different from anything in P, but by no means all.
Now let a mutation a₂ arise in Q ...
P = {100% a₁, 100% b₁, 100% c₁, 48% d₁, 52% d₂, 61% e₁, 39% e₂, 88% f₁, 12% f₂}
Q = {99% a₁, 1% a₂, 77% b₁, 23% b₂, 100% c₁, 62% d₁, 38% d₂, 20% e₁, 80% e₂, 100% f₁}
... which is favored by natural selection and is fixed in the population ...
P = {100% a₁, 100% b₁, 100% c₁, 47% d₁, 53% d₂, 61% e₁, 39% e₂, 88% f₁, 12% f₂}
Q = {100% a₂, 76% b₁, 24% b₂, 100% c₁, 62% d₁, 38% d₂, 22% e₁, 78% e₂, 100% f₁}
Now we have one trait which allows us to distinguish P from Q. There is no reason why the same thing shouldn't happen to gene c: an allele c₂ arises in Q ...
P = {100% a₁, 100% b₁, 100% c₁, 47% d₁, 53% d₂, 61% e₁, 39% e₂, 88% f₁, 12% f₂}
Q = {100% a₂, 76% b₁, 24% b₂, 99% c₁, 1% c₂, 60% d₁, 40% d₂, 21% e₁, 79% e₂, 100% f₁}
... and being better suited to the island, displaces c₁ ...
P = {100% a₁, 100% b₁, 100% c₁, 46% d₁, 54% d₂, 58% e₁, 42% e₂, 88% f₁, 12% f₂}
Q = {100% a₂, 75% b₁, 25% b₂, 100% c₂, 60% d₁, 40% d₂, 22% e₁, 78% e₂, 100% f₁}
Then let a new allele e₃ be produced ...
P = {100% a₁, 100% b₁, 100% c₁, 45% d₁, 55% d₂, 58% e₁, 42% e₂, 87% f₁, 13% f₂}
Q = {100% a₂, 75% b₁, 25% b₂, 100% c₂, 60% d₁, 40% d₂, 22% e₁, 77% e₂, 1% e₃, 100% f₁}
The conclusion is of course exactly the same as in the original example, since the conclusion does not in any way refer to the frequencies of alleles but only to their presence or absence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 926 by Faith, posted 05-23-2016 12:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 934 by Faith, posted 05-23-2016 9:45 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024