Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

Here is George Romanes laying out the same logic and argument I am using, and doing so in a book published in 1882.

quote:

---

For, be it observed, the exception in limine to the evidence which we are about to consider, does not question that natural selection may not be able to do all that Mr. Darwin ascribes to it: it merely objects to his interpretation of the facts, because it maintains that these facts might equally well be ascribed to intelligent design. And so undoubtedly they might, if we were all childish enough to rush into a supernatural explanation whenever a natural explanation is found sufficient to account for the facts. Once admit the glaringly illogical principle that we may assume the operation of higher causes where the operation of lower ones is sufficient to explain the observed phenomena, and all our science and all our philosophy are scattered to the winds. For the law of logic which Sir William Hamilton called the law of parsimony—or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the observed effects—this law constitutes the only logical barrier between science and superstition. For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards.

​

. . .

​

Now, since the days of Linnæus this principle has been carefully followed, and it is by its aid that the tree-like system of classification has been established. No one, even long before Darwin's days, ever dreamed of doubting that this system is in reality, what it always has been in name, a natural system. What, then, is the inference we are to draw from it? An evolutionist answers, that it is just such a system as his theory of descent would lead him to expect as a natural system. For this tree-like system is as clear an expression as anything could be of the fact that all species are bound together by the ties of genetic relationship. If all species were separately created, it is almost incredible that we should everywhere observe this progressive shading off of characters common to larger groups, into more and more specialized characters distinctive only of smaller and smaller groups. At any rate, to say the least, the law of parsimony forbids us to ascribe such effects to a supernatural cause, acting in so whimsical a manner, when the effects are precisely what we should expect to follow from the action of a highly probable natural cause.

​

--George Romanes, "Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

---

To use another example, we could say that God could decide to create swirly oil patterns on surfaces at a crime scene that just happen to look like fingerprints. Does this mean we have to throw out all fingerprint evidence?

Really? What arguments and reasoning do you object to and why?

So your argument relies on your personal assumptions of what a designer would or would not do. That may work for you, but don't call that nonsense of yours, objective science. Because it's not.

Fingerprints are a lot more accurate and predictable, verified and factual than your assumptions on all what designer could do and what not.

No, what a designer could or could not do. It is objective science.

quote:

---

For the law of logic which Sir William Hamilton called the law of parsimony—or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the observed effects—this law constitutes the only logical barrier between science and superstition. For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards.
--George Romanes, "Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882

---

I showed how the nested hierarchy argument is poor.

According to your logic, fingerprints are not accurate nor predictable because God could have created the fingerprint at the crime scene separate from any human finger.

No, you didn't. You are trying to claim that we should throw out natural explanations because a deity could produce the same observations through magic. That's the bad logic and poor reasoning.When the evidence is consistent with a natural process, like the nested hierarchy, we don't throw out that explanation because someone claims a supernatural deity could have produced the same pattern for no apparent reason.

Where?

sensei:

---

I showed how the nested hierarchy argument is poor.

Taq:

---

No, you didn't. You are trying to claim that we should throw out natural explanations because a deity could produce the same observations through magic. That's the bad logic and poor reasoning.
​
When the evidence is consistent with a natural process, like the nested hierarchy, we don't throw out that explanation because someone claims a supernatural deity could have produced the same pattern for no apparent reason.

---

---

Taq has a warped idea how natural processes work. He embraces this idea of nested hierarchies base on this warped idea. Taq doesn't understand the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. His misunderstandings are wrong and harmful.

What warped idea?Can you please explain what pattern of shared and derived features common ancestry and vertical inheritance should produce if it isn't a nested hierarchy?

Kleinman:

---

Taq has a warped idea how natural processes work. He embraces this idea of nested hierarchies base on this warped idea.

Taq:

---

What warped idea?
​
Can you please explain what pattern of shared and derived features common ancestry and vertical inheritance should produce if it isn't a nested hierarchy?

---

---

You have so many of them. Where to start? Let's start with your belief that humans and chimpanzees begin from a common ancestor. Today there are about 8 billion humans and about 300,000 chimpanzees. Humans clearly have greater reproductive fitness than chimpanzees. And you have said that their human and chimpanzee genomes are 96.5% similar. Using your numbers, that would give 35,000,000 genetic differences. Based on your understanding of biological evolution, would you tell us how humans got this reproductive advantage?

Start with the nested hierarchy. You are not going to drag this thread off topic.Here it is again . . .Can you please explain what pattern of shared and derived features common ancestry and vertical inheritance should produce if it isn't a nested hierarchy?

Kleinman:

---

You have so many of them. Where to start?

Taq:

---

Start with the nested hierarchy. You are not going to drag this thread off topic.
​
Here it is again . . .
​
Can you please explain what pattern of shared and derived features common ancestry and vertical inheritance should produce if it isn't a nested hierarchy?

---

---

Understanding Evolution
Would you quit trying to deflect and explain how humans and chimpanzees are related to one another. And based on your understanding of biological evolution, would you tell us how humans got this reproductive advantage over chimpanzees?

I'm not the one deflecting.Can you please explain what pattern of shared and derived features common ancestry and vertical inheritance should produce if it isn't a nested hierarchy?