Background info

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

​

Pseudoscience has no evidence and its theories vary with who's presenting them. The main body of evolutionary evidence is strong and broad, producing a very broad consensus of scientific opinion.

​

True pseudoscience changes with the wind. Don't like a particular view on ESP? Don't worry, there will always be another. That evolution is true science is apparent in the way the theory only changes in response to evidence or improved understanding.

---

How does a theory that constantly changes make it good science? If a theory can explain anything and everything than it explains nothing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Most scientists believe in God and accept evolution because of the evidence. They have no reason, and since they are just ordinary people like you and me probably no stomach or tolerance, for conspiracies of bigotry and censorship.

---

It doesn't matter to me whether there are scientist's that beleive in God and evolution. I could not conceive how so many structures in living things could have arisen by themselves. As I read the scientific literature I found out neither could the top evolutionary biologists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Creationists have been claiming for decades and decades that more and more scientists are coming to realize that evolution is a fraud and that Creationism is the better model, but the reality is that qualified scientists who accept Creationism remain a tiny, tiny minority within science. Think about it. This claim was made in the 50s, and it was made in the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90's. Now it's being made in the new millenium. And how many more scientists today accept Creationism than back in the 50s? I don't have any hard numbers, of course, but despite 50 years of more of more scientists abandoning evolution, it remains more strongly than ever the prevailing view within science. Somebody's lying to you, and it ain't me!.

---

When I was younger I thought only pastor's beleived in creation. I was stunned when I found out there were people with PhD's in biology from top universities who believed in creation. There may be less creationists than evolutionists but there many, many more than I could have ever imagined.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
The books you've read have told you a story not supported by the facts. If thousands of scientists were really questioning evolution then alternatives, perhaps Creationism, would already be taught in schools and universities.

---

Nope. What those books told me is that scientist's a priori reject design as an explantion. So with the best explanation not even allowed to be considered its no surprise everyone accepts evolution.Why

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
don't you raise some of the issues that seemed significant to you in Johnson's and Denton's books in threads here? I think you'll find the facts have been misrepresented.

​

--Percy

---

For one the books demonstrated how the fossil record doesn't support gradual evolution. From the impression I got from the media and from the public high school I attended was that the fossil record was overflowing with transistional forms clearly linking one kind to the next. It wasn't until I decided to check these claims out myself I discovered the truth.[This message has been edited by jhappel, 10-15-2002]

jhappel writes: How does a theory that constantly changes make it good science?

An important quality of science is tentativity. That means that no knowledge or understanding is ever considered absolutely certain. Theory must always be prepared to change in light of new data and/or improved understanding.

If a theory can explain anything and everything than it explains nothing.

The goal is to continually refine our theoretical models to make them as accurate a reflection of reality as we possibly can.

I could not conceive how so many structures in living things could have arisen by themselves.

This is the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity.

As I read the scientific literature I found out neither could the top evolutionary biologists.

The "top evolutionary biologists" definitely do not share your sentiments about not seeing how structures could have arisen naturally.

I was stunned when I found out there were people with PhD's in biology from top universities who believed in creation. There may be less creationists than evolutionists but there many, many more than I could have ever imagined.

Proportionally, there are no more today than there ever were, and they remain a tiny, tiny minority among scientists. As a Creationist recently pointed out in another thread, the percentage of scientists who accept a personal God has remained unchanged since the 1930s. Most Creationists who are scientists were trained in fields unassociated with biology or geology.

Nope. What those books told me is that scientist's a priori reject design as an explanation.

Had they been writing accurately these books would have told you that scientists a priori commit to building theoretical frameworks upon actual real-world evidence. If and when evidence for design is discovered then it will quickly become incorporated into scientific theory.

So with the best explanation not even allowed to be considered its no surprise everyone accepts evolution. Why.

I suppose because everyone *doesn't* accept evolution. Recent polls indicate that less than half the American people accept the theory of evolution.

For one the books demonstrated how the fossil record doesn't support gradual evolution.

The fossil record supports both gradual evolution and episodic evolution, also known as punctuated equilibrium (PE).

From the impression I got from the media and from the public high school I attended was that the fossil record was overflowing with transistional forms clearly linking one kind to the next. It wasn't until I decided to check these claims out myself I discovered the truth.

Despite the paucity of the fossil record, many transitional forms have been identified. See Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

An important quality of science is tentativity. That means that no knowledge or understanding is ever considered absolutely certain. Theory must always be prepared to change in light of new data and/or improved understanding.

​

The goal is to continually refine our theoretical models to make them as accurate a reflection of reality as we possibly can.

---

Another important critera for a good scientific theory is predictability and falsifiability. What we have with evolution is a theory that is not falsifiable(at least the mechanism isn't, you can argue the fossil record is falsifiable I guess) and makes few predictions. When predictions don't come through with new evidence the theory changes to fit the new evidence. That is a clear indication of pseudoscience. A plastic model that is reformed to fit any criteria.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
This is the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity.

​

The "top evolutionary biologists" definitely do not share your sentiments about not seeing how structures could have arisen naturally.

---

There is no fallacy in my thinking unless you are completely against even considering the possibility of design. The fact that I could not conceive of how structures could have arisen does not prove design. However, if evolution is to be taken seriously there needs to be detailed testable models of how structures like a wing, an eye, sonar, fins, photosynthesis, etc. evolved. Don't bother linking me to a bunch of sites. I am very familiar with the standard just-so-stories offered by evolutionists. Dawkins admitted living things appear to be designed. So the obvious explanation is they are designed. So to refute the obvious, evolution must produce detailed models showing how these structures evolved.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Proportionally, there are no more today than there ever were, and they remain a tiny, tiny minority among scientists. As a Creationist recently pointed out in another thread, the percentage of scientists who accept a personal God has remained unchanged since the 1930s. Most Creationists who are scientists were trained in fields unassociated with biology or geology.

---

I don't know where you got those numbers. I know the 'scientific elite' are like 95% atheists like the NAS and anyone who is Bible-believing and a creationist has no chance at a top position in many fields. I don't think creationists are a tiny, tiny majority anymore now that I have researched this more. I guess it depends on how you define a scientist. If a scientist is one who publishes in peer reviewed secular science journals than yes you are right. But I would say people with college degrees in engineering or sciences that beleive in creation are significant. Higher than 40% easily.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Had they been writing accurately these books would have told you that scientists a priori commit to building theoretical frameworks upon actual real-world evidence. If and when evidence for design is discovered then it will quickly become incorporated into scientific theory.

---

If biological structures can't possibly be evidence for design regardless of the complexity and lack of plausible natural explanation
for them, than this is exactly what I was referring to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
I suppose because everyone *doesn't* accept evolution. Recent polls indicate that less than half the American people accept the theory of evolution.

---

When I said everyone I was sarcasticaly referring to scientists. As for the American people when I was more of a layperson I was agnostic on evolution. There seemed to be strong support for it from the scientific community but I could not see how it could be that it is so difficult for us to cure and fight diseases and to keep people alive and living longer yet unguided natural process generated life in the first place. The theory just seemed ridiculous to me. I bet most lay people feel the same way I did. I just could not understand why all the universities taught it as fact. Now I know why.

For one the books demonstrated how the fossil record doesn't support gradual evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
The fossil record supports both gradual evolution and episodic evolution, also known as punctuated equilibrium (PE).

​

Despite the paucity of the fossil record, many transitional forms have been identified. See Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ.

​

--Percy

---

Again if evolution can be made to support rapid evolution and slow gradual evolution than it can explain anything and everything. As a result it explains nothing.

What's going on Brad? Is someone tinkering with your colloquialism subroutines?[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-16-2002]

I apparently had unknowingly understood one one of Brad's messages. Quite possibly without even having read it. Looking back, I'm unsure of which message I "got the drift" of.Perplexed Moose

Percy wrote: An important quality of science is tentativity.

jhappel replied: Another important critera for a good scientific theory is predictability and falsifiability.

Tentativity and falsifiability are just different words for the same principle.

What we have with evolution is a theory that is not falsifiable(at least the mechanism isn't, you can argue the fossil record is falsifiable I guess) and makes few predictions.

Evolution is very much falsifiable. As you surmised, the fossil record as the strongest and most obvious evidence for evolution is also where evolution could most easily be falsified. Simply find a mammal in the Devonian or a trilobite in the Cretaceous. As to the mechanism, simply demonstrate inheritance of acquired characteristics or identify a genetic boundary preventing change beyond kind. Falsification is done with evidence, and to this point in time no one has been able to offer any evidence falsifying it.Evolution has also recorded stunning numbers of successful predictions. The most famous is the identification of the genetic mechanisms for the inheritance of individual characteristics, something Darwin predicted must exist if his theory was to be successful. Another is the Modern Synthesis which by way of the mathematical models of population genetics brought evolution and genetics together into a unified model. More prosaically, evolution predicts that you'll never find a rabbit in the stomach of a dinosaur, and that the nested hierarchy of descent revealed in the fossil record will find concordance with genetically derived hierarchies.

There is no fallacy in my thinking unless you are completely against even considering the possibility of design.

I was speaking about your claim that "top evolutionary biologists" were like you in that they couldn't understand how structures could have arisen naturally, which has nothing to do with my opinion about the arguement from design, since I am by no means a "top evolutionary biologist." I was simply stating the obvious, namely that you were wrong to claim that the "top evolutionary biologists" reject a primary tenet of evolution.But to respond to your inquiry about my opinion of the possibility of design, I certainly don't reject it. After all, I believe in God, and I think he's one pretty powerful guy. But only concepts backed by evidence should find their way into theory, and at this point in time there is no evidence for design.

However, if evolution is to be taken seriously there needs to be detailed testable models of how structures like a wing, an eye, sonar, fins, photosynthesis, etc. evolved.

I think that would be wonderful, but these models would be testable how? If the evidence has been eaten, buried, crushed, decayed, subducted, eroded or whatever, no amount of wishing is going to bring it back. And in large measure our fossil evidence is only of hard parts, and so there is no direct way to trace the history of soft parts, physical mechanisms or chemical processes. Evolutionary theory is built upon the evidence we have, not on the evidence we wish we had.The "just-so" stories you complain about are only scenarios intended to be consistent with evolutionary theory. They are the way things could have happened within an evolutionary context. In most cases, for example for the evolution of the mammalian eye, there is no possible way we will ever know the precise sequence of evolutionary steps.

I don't know where you got those numbers. I know the 'scientific elite' are like 95% atheists like the NAS...

Actually, the 95% figure is for NAS biologists evincing atheism or agnosticism. For NAS scientists in other fields it was closer to 90%. The 40% figure was for the number of scientists, NAS and otherwise, who accept the personal God described in the survey (see Message 72 of the Only one version? thread, it provides the questions asked in the survery).

I don't think creationists are a tiny, tiny majority anymore now that I have researched this more. I guess it depends on how you define a scientist. If a scientist is one who publishes in peer reviewed secular science journals than yes you are right.

Scientists are those who practice science by doing research, presenting at conferences and publishing in peer-reviewed journals. How else would you define it? Even if you allow that all Creationists who have ever published anything in any journal anywhere, including Creationist journals, Creationists who are actual scientists remain a tiny, tiny minority.

If biological structures can't possibly be evidence for design regardless of the complexity and lack of plausible natural explanation for them, than this is exactly what I was referring to.

I see no problem for any evaluative process using objective criteria backed by evidence. So far you don't even have evidence of a designer, let alone of design.

Again if evolution can be made to support rapid evolution and slow gradual evolution than it can explain anything and everything. As a result it explains nothing.

And if physics can be made to support both a slow burn and an explosion, then what of physics?Scientists have to live in the real world. If the evidence says that sometimes evolution is slow-to-stopped while at other times it tears along at breakneck speeds, then you can't ignore that evidence - you must incorporate it into theory.--Percy

Renee
"I am curious though, have many people converted from one belief to the other?"John
"I was raised to believe creation. The inconsistencies of the position led me to buck my upbringing."I was raised as a bapist and stopped going at age 13. The hellfire teachings did nothing for me and I didn't attend church for more then a decade. Now I attend a moderate Presby. church out of respect for my wife's beliefs; She feels the church offers a good foundation for our children. I'm active in my children's sunday school program to ensure content and teaching methods I find objectionable are not pounded into their heads. I don't want sunday school teachers telling my children about evolution (qualification issues) anymore then I want biology teachers teaching religious beliefs.Out of curiosity, how does the peer review process work?My understanding in general is this: work is reviewed by several peers, then submitted to journals and reviewed again, and then put out to the scientific community through the journals.If I'm way off base I would like know.

Scientific papers are submitted to conferences and journals which then distribute the papers to peers for review. The number of reviewers varies, but three to five is probably pretty common. Usually both author and reviewers are anonymous to each other, but in many fields it is easy to recognize an author's work if one has read him before, and to recognize a peer's comments when they're provided back to the author.Each reviewer recommends whether the paper should be published or not. Often they will point out several flaws but say they would support publication if the flaws are repaired.There are several members of the forum actively publishing, and they can probably provide more up-to-date information.--Percy

Thanks Percy.Great site you have here, I've enjoyed it for several months.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Scientific papers are submitted to conferences and journals which then distribute the papers to peers for review. The number of reviewers varies, but three to five is probably pretty common. Usually both author and reviewers are anonymous to each other, but in many fields it is easy to recognize an author's work if one has read him before, and to recognize a peer's comments when they're provided back to the author.

---

That is the basic outline. Often times you can ask that certian groups not be allowed access to the review process due to conflict of interest, or from fear of theft of ideas. The later is a sad idea but I know that it happens as one group did it to me. Fortunately I was able to get my paper into another journal first (J.Biological Chemistry vs Nature) and they went into a more second rate journal, at least for Biochemists (Blood) but theft is still theft . The same happens with respect to grant proposals for new research. Despite the "ivory tower" image that many in the public hold, science can be quite cut throat . I do not publish anywhere near as much now being in the development side of biotech, mostly patents and FDA documentation for new drugs.

quote:

---

There are several members of the forum actively publishing, and they can probably provide more up-to-date information.

---

It is funny, the peer review system is rather like democracy, I believe that the quote is from Churchill although I believe that he borrowed it, in that it is "the worst of all possible systems, except for everything else".------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 10-20-2002]

I can't believe taht obviously intelligent people are actually occupying themselves with this outdated and frankly unneccessary debate- At one time conservative religionists believed absolutely that the Earth was the center of the Universe, too. I doubt many "scientists" would give even a moment of thought to that one anymore. Likewise with Creationism- I mean, please, folks- we're about to stumble ourselves into World War III. Get on to more important stuff, won't you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Tentativity and falsifiability are just different words for the same principle.

---

Not true. A tentative theory is not necessarily falsifiable. Evolutionists debate over certain aspects of evolution like what forms evolved into what, etc. But the truth of theory is never debated. It is always assumed a fact. The only question is how not if it happened or not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Evolution is very much falsifiable. As you surmised, the fossil record as the strongest and most obvious evidence for evolution is also where evolution could most easily be falsified. Simply find a mammal in the Devonian or a trilobite in the Cretaceous. As to the mechanism, simply demonstrate inheritance of acquired characteristics or identify a genetic boundary preventing change beyond kind. Falsification is done with evidence, and to this point in time no one has been able to offer any evidence falsifying it.

---

Just goes to show how a creationist and evolutionist can look at the same evidence and get very different interpretations. I look at the fossil record and I say what better evidence for creation than having all animal phyla show up in approximately the same geological strata? How can we possibly falsify the hypothesis that natural processes could evolve all these diverse forms so quickly? Darwin was embarresed by the fossil record but he believed further research would find the missing links his theory needed. They were never found only explained away. At yet in the Cambrian we have to believe evolution can happen extremely quickly and yet we have blue-green unicellular algae unchanged for 2.5 billion years?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Evolution has also recorded stunning numbers of successful predictions. The most famous is the identification of the genetic mechanisms for the inheritance of individual characteristics, something Darwin predicted must exist if his theory was to be successful. Another is the Modern Synthesis which by way of the mathematical models of population genetics brought evolution and genetics together into a unified model. More prosaically, evolution predicts that you'll never find a rabbit in the stomach of a dinosaur, and that the nested hierarchy of descent revealed in the fossil record will find concordance with genetically derived hierarchies.

---

Genetics was not a prediction of evolution. It was ignored by Darwin. Mendel's book was on Darwin's bookshelf unread. Sure inheritance was a prediction but not genetics. Darwin beleived the environment triggered change as well as something called blending. Genetics demonstrated that variation was not effected by environmental needs of the organism but rather variation was random.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
I was speaking about your claim that "top evolutionary biologists" were like you in that they couldn't understand how structures could have arisen naturally, which has nothing to do with my opinion about the arguement from design, since I am by no means a "top evolutionary biologist." I was simply stating the obvious, namely that you were wrong to claim that the "top evolutionary biologists" reject a primary tenet of evolution.

---

I am sorry but I guess you don't understand the difference between falsifiablity and speculation. Sure there are speculations on how a eye could have evolved. These appear in textbooks as proven facts. But these scenarios can not be falsified or tested and lack details and probability calculations, etc. These are not scientific explanation so I stand by my statement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
But to respond to your inquiry about my opinion of the possibility of design, I certainly don't reject it. After all, I believe in God, and I think he's one pretty powerful guy. But only concepts backed by evidence should find their way into theory, and at this point in time there is no evidence for design.

---

Well then where is your detailed explanation for the flagella, the genetic code, blood clotting, photosynthesis, etc. Unless you can demonstrate in detailed testable fashion with mathematical models that design is not needed to explain these phenomena you can't say there is no evidence for design. There is no evidence that natural processes can create these.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
I think that would be wonderful, but these models would be testable how? If the evidence has been eaten, buried, crushed, decayed, subducted, eroded or whatever, no amount of wishing is going to bring it back. And in large measure our fossil evidence is only of hard parts, and so there is no direct way to trace the history of soft parts, physical mechanisms or chemical processes. Evolutionary theory is built upon the evidence we have, not on the evidence we wish we had.

---

Start off with the minimum structure you can conceive of that would be functional and do a mathematical model on the chance of it arriving and the chance it would be selected. Than do a mathematical model on each successive adaption and probabilities of it occurring and being selected, etc. Fossils don't prove things evolved by chance. We must demonstrate by observation in the present that natural processes can do the wonders darwinists claim. The fossil record will tell us nothing how wings evolved. We have to look at the genetic level and do the math on how these kind of adaptions are possible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
The "just-so" stories you complain about are only scenarios intended to be consistent with evolutionary theory. They are the way things could have happened within an evolutionary context. In most cases, for example for the evolution of the mammalian eye, there is no possible way we will ever know the precise sequence of evolutionary steps.

---

There are also untestable, unfalsifiable and lack details so are not scientific explanations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Scientists are those who practice science by doing research, presenting at conferences and publishing in peer-reviewed journals. How else would you define it? Even if you allow that all Creationists who have ever published anything in any journal anywhere, including Creationist journals, Creationists who are actual scientists remain a tiny, tiny minority.

---

I would like to actually see data on this rather than just going back and forth on our own opinions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
I see no problem for any evaluative process using objective criteria backed by evidence. So far you don't even have evidence of a designer, let alone of design.

---

You don't see evidence for design because you refuse to acknowledge that life might have been designed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
And if physics can be made to support both a slow burn and an explosion, then what of physics?

---

We have mathematical models to explain physical phenomena. Evolution is based on speculation and circular reasoning.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Scientists have to live in the real world. If the evidence says that sometimes evolution is slow-to-stopped while at other times it tears along at breakneck speeds, then you can't ignore that evidence - you must incorporate it into theory?

---

But you must demonstrate that it is possible by a natural mechanism first. You don't just assume it because evolution is the only possible explanation allowed!

quote:

---

Originally posted by jhappel:
Not true. A tentative theory is not necessarily falsifiable.

---

You are equivocating on the meaning of 'tentatively'. The word is used colloquially to mean something like "lets assume for the sake of argument that ....". What it actually means is "said or done in a careful but uncertain way because you are not sure you are right". --def. from the Cambridge Dictionay of English. This def. implies falsifiabilty. Why would one speak tentatively if there was no chance of an idea being falsified? It may be that no one currently knows how to falsify a particular theory, but that is a much different thing than it being unfalsifiable.{quoteEvolutionists debate over certain aspects of evolution like what forms evolved into what, etc. But the truth of theory is never debated. It is always assumed a fact. The only question is how not if it happened or not.][/quote]Just curious but you know this to be true, how?

quote:

---

I look at the fossil record and I say what better evidence for creation than having all animal phyla show up in approximately the same geological strata?

---

Why phyla? Why not choose family, genus, or species? You haven't made much of an argument here, but I hope you do. There are more problems with this statement than you can imagine.

quote:

---

How can we possibly falsify the hypothesis that natural processes could evolve all these diverse forms so quickly?

---

By falsifying the idea that natural processes lead to changes in the body plans of the individuals within a population. But this has not been falsified. And much research suggests that it is in fact true. This can be modeled in the lab. Just get yourself some flies.

quote:

---

At yet in the Cambrian we have to believe evolution can happen extremely quickly and yet we have blue-green unicellular algae unchanged for 2.5 billion years?

---

And you know this, how?

quote:

---

Genetics was not a prediction of evolution.

---

Percy didn't say that genetics was a prediction Darwin made. He said that Darwin knew some such mechanism had to exist or the theory would fail.

quote:

---

It was ignored by Darwin.

---

It was all but non-existant when Darwin was alive. How can you fault him for ignoring a science that had yet to be invented?

quote:

---

Mendel's book was on Darwin's bookshelf unread.

---

And? Sort of ironic but what does it matter?

quote:

---

Sure inheritance was a prediction but not genetics.

---

Now you are getting it.

quote:

---

Darwin beleived the environment triggered change as well as something called blending. Genetics demonstrated that variation was not effected by environmental needs of the organism but rather variation was random.

---

And? [quote][b]Sure there are speculations on how a eye could have evolved. These appear in textbooks as proven facts. But these scenarios can not be falsified or tested and lack details and probability calculations, etc. These are not scientific explanation so I stand by my statement.[/quote][/b]You greatly underestimate the science involved.

quote:

---

Start off with the minimum structure you can conceive of that would be functional and do a mathematical model on the chance of it arriving and the chance it would be selected.

---

This is a misapplication of probability. Think of the roll of a die. The chance of getting a 1 on one roll of the die is 1 in six. The chance of getting a number is 1 in 1. Likewise, the chance of getting a particular preselected functional structure may be vanishingly small but that is not the same as the chances of getting a functional structure.

quote:

---

Than do a mathematical model on each successive adaption and probabilities of it occurring and being selected, etc.

---

The same misapplication of probablity all over again.

quote:

---

The fossil record will tell us nothing how wings evolved.

---

Really?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

You are equivocating on the meaning of 'tentatively'. The word is used colloquially to mean something like "lets assume for the sake of argument that ....". What it actually means is "said or done in a careful but uncertain way because you are not sure you are right". --def. from the Cambridge Dictionay of English. This def. implies falsifiabilty. Why would one speak tentatively if there was no chance of an idea being falsified? It may be that no one currently knows how to falsify a particular theory, but that is a much different thing than it being unfalsifiable.

---

The point was certain aspects of evolution may be debated but not whether evolution occured or not. The tentative part is the mechanism, what evolved from what, etc. The unfalsifiable part is whether evolution occured or not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Just curious but you know this to be true, how?

---

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." -*Richard Lewontin, "Billions and billions of demons", The New York Review, January 9, 1997, page 31.Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423.Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more-it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypothesis, all systems must henceforth bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow-this is what evolution is. Teilhard de Chardin"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it, it is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas with or without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training."-*L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.

quote:

---

​

Why phyla? Why not choose family, genus, or species? You haven't made much of an argument here, but I hope you do. There are more problems with this statement than you can imagine.

---

Don't need the genus or species or family, etc. The phyla is sufficent to falsifiy evolution. Not sure what you mean by more problems with my statement.

quote:

---

By falsifying the idea that natural processes lead to changes in the body plans of the individuals within a population. But this has not been falsified. And much research suggests that it is in fact true. This can be modeled in the lab. Just get yourself some flies.

---

Please provide me with data the demostrates the kind of change needed to explain the Cambrian has been demonstrated in the lab.

quote:

---

And you know this, how?

---

Look it up in the geological literature.

quote:

---

Percy didn't say that genetics was a prediction Darwin made. He said that Darwin knew some such mechanism had to exist or the theory would fail.

---

Obviously there had to be a mechanism to explain variation that you and I can see today. His explanation for what caused the variation was wrong.

quote:

---

It was all but non-existant when Darwin was alive. How can you fault him for ignoring a science that had yet to be invented?.

---

The science was invented. Mendel conducted his work at about the same time Darwin was working on his theory. Mendel's work was ignored until after his death.

quote:

---

And? Sort of ironic but what does it matter?

---

If he would have took the time to read it he likely would have rejected his false ideas on what causes variation.

quote:

---

This is a misapplication of probability. Think of the roll of a die. The chance of getting a 1 on one roll of the die is 1 in six. The chance of getting a number is 1 in 1. Likewise, the chance of getting a particular preselected functional structure may be vanishingly small but that is not the same as the chances of getting a functional structure.

---

If evolution cannot evolve a flagella it can't work. A flagella requires a large amount of complexity for minimum functionality. So we must model what are the probability that new genes will arise to code for new proteins that provide new functions, etc. Take any other structure that needs this much complexity. In order for something to be selected a minimum level of specified complexity must arise by chance and be benefical to the organism. It cannot gradually evolve or it won't be selected. There must be a fairly significant amount of complexity at once in order for evolution to work. We can calculate the probability of just a minimum level specified complexity arising. Noone has demonstrated this with any of the more complex biological systems is possible.Mutations are rare phenomena, and a simultaneous change of even two amino acid residues in one protein is totally unlikely. One could think, for instance, that by constantly changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually be possible to change the entire sequence substantially These minor changes, however, are bound to eventually result in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but has not yet begun its ‘new duties’. It is at this point it will be destroyed — along with the organism carrying it. Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetski, Unraveling DNA, 1997, p. 72. (Professor at Brown U. Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering)

quote:

---

Originally posted by jhappel:
The point was certain aspects of evolution may be debated but not whether evolution occured or not.

---

Sorry, you seem to be thinking there is a evo-police force in place to monitor the debate.

quote:

---

The tentative part is the mechanism, what evolved from what, etc. The unfalsifiable part is whether evolution occured or not.

---

Just plain wrong. The whole theory is falsifiable. I can make up evidence that would do so. Should anyone ever find such evidence the theory is dead. What about this is confusing you?

quote:

---

Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." -*Richard Lewontin, "Billions and billions of demons", The New York Review, January 9, 1997, page 31.

---

My but this is a popular quote among creationist. Sadly, it isn't on topic. It doesn't concern the falsifiabilty of the ToE. It is one man's opinion about materialism and science.

quote:

---

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423.

---

This simply isn't rational. He'd change his mind if all the evidence did in fact point to a designer.

quote:

---

Teilhard de Chardin

---

There curiously no citation for this quote. De Chardin was a Jesuit priest, religious reformer iconoclast kinda guy.

quote:

---

Don't need the genus or species or family, etc. The phyla is sufficent to falsifiy evolution.

---

How?

quote:

---

Not sure what you mean by more problems with my statement.

---

For one, phylum are very broad classes of organisms. Not all organisms alive today were alive in the Cambrian when the phyla were created-- at least, this seem to be what you are saying. Therefore, how did those organisms get here?

quote:

---

Please provide me with data the demostrates the kind of change needed to explain the Cambrian has been demonstrated in the lab.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-02g.html

quote:

---

Look it up in the geological literature.

---

The geological literature doesn't tell me, or you, a damn thing about whether or not blue-green algae existed for 2.5 billion years unchanged.

quote:

---

Obviously there had to be a mechanism to explain variation that you and I can see today. His explanation for what caused the variation was wrong.

---

Your point is that since Darwin got something wrong the whole theory is bunk? You are not arguing against Darwin. A few years have passed since he first proposed the theory. See, people learn new stuff, and theorises change to fit the new evidence.

quote:

---

The science was invented. Mendel conducted his work at about the same time Darwin was working on his theory. Mendel's work was ignored until after his death.

---

Don't be dense. You are splitting hairs. Most of the world had not heard of Mendel's theories. That hardly constitutes a new science.

quote:

---

If he would have took the time to read it he likely would have rejected his false ideas on what causes variation.

---

Ok. How does this help you?

quote:

---

If evolution cannot evolve a flagella it can't work.

---

Evolution did produce flagella this time around, but why can it not work without them?

quote:

---

A flagella requires a large amount of complexity for minimum functionality.

---

What is minimal functionality? And what is a large amount of complexity? And when does a flagella become a flagella and not a whatever-it-was-before?

quote:

---

So we must model what are the probability that new genes will arise to code for new proteins that provide new functions, etc.

---

I'll let some of the gene people on the forum comment on this. I hope someone will take an interest. [quote][b]In order for something to be selected a minimum level of specified complexity must arise by chance and be benefical to the organism. It cannot gradually evolve or it won't be selected.[quote][b]Sure it can. You don't need an enormous change for that change to provide an advantage. Think about formula one racing. The differences between the cars are tiny and the speed and handling differences are tiny but it only takes a fraction of a second to win the race.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com