Why Evolution is science

quote:

---

2) Semantics - T,G,A,C have special properties that differentiate one from the other, that is each has a special meaning within this information system.

---

Here's what Gitt says about semantics

quote:

---

Chains of symbols and syntactical rules form the necessary precondition for the representation of information. The decisive aspect of a transmitted item of information, however, is not the selected code, the size, number or form of the letters, or the method of transmission (script, optical, acoustic, electrical, tactile or olfactory signals), but the message it contains, what it says and what it means (semantics).

---

So your claim clearly disagrees with Gitt's own explanation of semantics. So where is the semantics in DNA ? Remembering that Gitt states that Because according to Gitt's "theorem 9" No semantics, no information - at least as Gitt defines it.

Until we have a clear measure of "information" and an explanation of why evolution would require it to increase (and some idea of how frequently it would do so) the whole exercise seems pointless. And that is completely lacking in all creationist sources - yet they are the ones making the claims.I have concluded that the whole thing is a creationist con-trick. There is simply no valid argument to be found.

To the best of my knowledge Blythe only acknowledged stabilising selection. The idea that natural selection could drive adaptive change, then would properly belong to Darwin and Wallace. Certainly his 1836 paper on Varities in Animals holds that selection forces animals to retain their current form.Do you have any support for the idea that Blythe had any special claim to the concept of speciation ? Or even beleived that new species could form ? His paper on seasonal variations in birds seems to day otherwise. "Seasonal and Other Changes in Birds"Blyth therefore claims SEPERATE origins for species that are exrtremely similar, perhaps to the point where there is NO distinction between them, and attributes their origin to seperate creation. How then can Blyth be said to endorse speciation ?And why would a continuing process of change be self-refuting ? Is not a stable orbit a continuous change of position and velocity ?

I note that you don't answer my points other than referring to a book.Presumably if you have the book you can use it to support your claims. But given the facts - Blyth insists that natural selection acts contrary to change, that species have sperarate origins, that different species can be apparently identical, distinguished only by being created seperately - it seems hard to credit the idea that he conceived of the idea of any species being related by common descent, with natural selection guiding the changes.

You've yet to offer anything suggesting that Blyth beleived that speciation was even possible, let alone that natural selection played a role in it.And if Blyth rejected common descent then he certainly rejected the possiblity that speciation could occur in part of a population (cladogenesis), leaving a significant discovery for Darwin.

quote:

---

In other words, NS and Evolution are mutually exclusive terms

---

Only if NS cannot guide the change of speciation. Even if the entire population became a new species (anagenesis) that would still be evolution. Thus you only confirm the point that this idea belongs to Darwin, not Blyth.

quote:

---

Darwin's main purpose and drive was to establish a Philosophy known by most intelligent Philosophers as Naturalism and then call it "Science."

---

Got any evidence for that incredible assertion ? Or is it more of the usual slander we've come to expect from creationists ?

Hitching is not an evolutionist. he is an anti-evolutionist and one with a poor reputation. Relying on his assertions does you little good. We need evidence, not the assertions of unreliabe journalists with an axe to grind.

quote:

---

Problem no. 1 with this is the fact that no new gain of information has ever occurred, and we should expect a TON of this if Evolution were true. So right away, Evolution is really dismissible. Natural Selection does not guide the change within Speciation.

---

This is a deception (albeit one not originated by you). The term "information" is used vaguely without any sign of a suable concrete measure by creationists. Obviously we cannot make measuements without knowing how to do so. Thus the expected number of measurements of increased information accepted by creationists is EXPECTED to be zero.

quote:

---

Problem 2:
Here is an example of Blyth's description of natural selection, which, as opposed to Darwin's (and other evolutionist's writings), describes it as a process whereby the original created type of a species has the best chance of surviving among brute animals:

---

So the "problem" is that I have correctly represented Blyth's views - and you have not. Quoting Blyth suffices only to establish Blyth's views - and this shows that Blyth did not originate Darwin's idea that NS could guide speciation.

quote:

---

Why do Scientists today claim that only Naturalism is Science?

---

Because supernaturalism is acknowledged to be outisde of the domain of science.

quote:

---

Do you happen to realize that none of that was even considered until the Age of Enlightenment?

---

I know that the Age of Enlightment PRECEDED Darwin !

quote:

---

The Greeks used to combine God and Science!

---

The Greeks didn't do modern science ! And Darwin was a long time after ancient Greece.Given the fact that none of your "evidence" even mentions Darwin - and much of it refers to events prior to Darwin - it is clear that you have no real basis for your assertion.

Yawn. If there's a sham reasoner it's the person who insists that Darwin copied his ideas from Blyth - and then goes on to say that important parts of Darwin's ideas are wrong because Blyth contradicted them.I'd have more to say if you hadn't been deservedly suspended, but that little fact is quite sufficient.

No, Hitching is not on "my side". If Bradbury says otherwise then this simply calls your assertions about Bradbury's standing into question. Checking Bradbury's website (Honest Abe's NLP Emporium) for all I can tell his main occupation is "Neuro-linguistic Programming" - a pseudo-science.From talkorigins.org on Hitching

quote:

---

We define information as being: means information about genes, gene products and inherited characteristics that may derive from an individual or a family member. This includes information regarding carrier status and information derived from laboratory tests that identify mutations in specific genes or chromosomes, physical medical examinations, family histories and direct analysis of genes or chromosomes.

---

i.,e. you have a vague definition which does not include any means of measuring information. Exactly as I said. If there is no way to measure a quantity it follows that there should be no measurements of that quantity.

quote:

---

You're missing the big picture here again. Darwin's plagiarism! This is a worldview issue, not a Science issue at this point.

---

Your "Problem 2", which this refers to, was that Blyth disagreed markedly with Darwin. Thus it is evidence AGAINST your claims of plagiarism. Indeed since it was presented as a claim that Darwin was wrong - and that is the only way it could have posed a problem - it is clear that you DID intend it as a science issue.

quote:

---

Thanks to David Hume's rejection of Miracles! Debunked by nearly a million Philosophers since.

---

Even if Hume had been debunked, this would still count against you as Hume and his influence preceded Darwin. You cannot hold Darwin responsible for Hume.

quote:

---

Hume and Kant..roughly around the same time as all of this was going on I'd say. If it preceded Darwin...certainly not by much. That was again, when all of this started to take shape as well.

---

David Hume 1711-1776 An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding containing his work on miracles published 1748.Immanuel Kant 1724-1804Charles Darwin 1809-1882So Darwin was not even born until Hume and Kant were dead.

quote:

---

My point is that Darwin plagiarized the texts. Read a bit closer! Obfuscations don't dismiss my assertions.

---

In other words since you can't support your assertion you are going to pretend that you never made it. That is the sort of behaviour that gets you permanently suspended.

quote:

---

BTW, as a more general point, the accusation of "YECS coming through" seems both pointlessly prejudicial, and inaccurate, in this context.

---

It is the point that "Casey Powell" - who proudced that title - wished to make. It may be inaccurate but it is certainly not an accusation.

quote:

---

Whilst accepting the quote you selected, I'm afraid that isn't the whole story. Blyth did, in fact, in one of the articles presented in full on my website, acknowledge the possibility that differences which occurred in isolated populations might occasionally lead to the emergence of new species.

---

On the other hand you use the paper I quoted as describing "the spread of species by 'indefinite radiation'". It seems quite clear to me that the radiation refers to the pattern of similarities, without ascribing it to common descent as your use of the word "spread" appears to do. If that was not your intent then I suggest that your rephrase that to indicate that the radiation is a description and not a mechanism.

SO lets get this straight. You do not claim to be a scientist but nobody is allowed to say that you aren't because it constitutes a "personal attack".Or is it that you just didn't bother to read my comments in context and note that they were a direct response to Casey Powell's claim that you were a scientist.OOOOPS indeed.

quote:

---

No. The point is that it is irrelevant.
You had no idea whether I was a scientist or not when you wrote your reply - you just made the totally unfounded assumption that my main "occupation" was NLP.

---

If it is irrelevant then why are you complaining ? And why do you ignore the fact that I did not make an unfounded assumption, but instead repeated the impression I got FROM YOUR OWN WEBSITE ? I clearly stated as much so you have no excuse for ignoring it.

quote:

---

You write me off as a non-scientist, yet you quote talkorigins as though they were a reliable resource.

---

I didn't write you off as a non-scientist. I guess that you still can't manage to understand that I was objecting to Casey Powell's claim that you were. And yes, talkorigins is generally a reliable source.

quote:

---

I may not be a "scientist", but I guess I certainly do better research than the some of the people you seem to put your faith in.

---

So I guess you've got no excuse for not spotting the fact that my comments were in direct reply to Casey Powell's false claim, Nor for ignoring the qualifications on my statement.

quote:

---

Now, can we please get back to the discussion and stop wasting time.

---

This "waste of time" is entirely your doing. If you did not make your ill-founded and erroneous attacks on my posts I would not respond to point out your errors.

quote:

---

Evolution is not a science for one very simple reason - the only universally agreed definition of "evolution" is:

​

Evolution = Change

​

And that's it! Once you go beyond that simple definition things start to get fuzzy.

​

So is "change" a "science" - or is it a huge subject, parts of which can be investigated using scientific "instruments"?

---

According to dictionary.com "relativity" is "the state or fact of being relative". So it seems that all your points apply to Relativity as much as to Evolution. Does this mean that Relativity is not science ? I think that there are a good many physicists who would disagree with you.

quote:

---

Sorry, I'm sticking by the rules - this thread is on the subject "Is evolution science?" and that's all I'm prepared to discuss.

---

The fact that your argument applies equally well to Relativity is relevant to that subject.

quote:

---

He then goes on to say that BIOLOGICAL evolution - which is maybe what you had in mind, but you didn't actually say so:

---

It's also what the originator of the thread had in mind. Read the first post.

quote:

---

Another version, from Lawrence Moran, professor of biochemistry at the University of Toronto, is:

​

"When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population."

---

You take this from What is Evolution however if you read it in context you can see that it is not intended as a definition. Rather it is intended to support the claim that this definition: Moran's own definition is

quote:

---

But "successive changes", or "accumulated changes"? Where's the science there? It's pure pie in the sky. What experiments we have (such as growing extra bristles on a fruit fly) only show that the accumulation of adaptive changes are limited in their extent.
Of course various explanations have been offered, but no evidence has been produced to demonstrate that these boundaries can be overcome.

---

What about the evidence that it has happened ? Why do you rule that out ? Darwin collected adequate evidence to convince the scientists of his day. Todays scientists have far more evidence. You could look at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution for a sampling of the evidence that you deny.

quote:

---

I think that Evolution is 'crack' science because it does not satisfy the requirements for scientific study in the first place. Science demands that that which is studied be testable, demonstrable and observable of which Evolution doesn't qualify.

---

I think you will find that your list of requirements aren't the same as those used by science. Science certainly doesn't demand direct observation, for instance. Evolution certainly is testable and has passed many tests.

quote:

---

.We certainly can observe speciation and adaptation which falls under micro-evolution...

---

Speciation falls under macro-evolution. Therefore macro-evolution is observable.

quote:

---

...but we cannot observe or test physiological changes which occur that result in a totally different creature. That is assumed and based on inference.

---

It was never simply assumed - it is an inference based on very strong evidence.

quote:

---

If it is claimed that Evolution occured over millions of years, then how can we observe it?

---

Why should we have to ? Why can't we extrapolate from observed processes and infer from the evidence we do have ? It seems that the issue is simply that you are using unreasonable criteria - which are not those of science. Don't forget that the vast majority of working scientists disagree with you. Why do you think that you understand the boundary between science and non-science better than they do ? If so, why ?

quote:

---

Yes, we observe speciation but I don't agree that it falls under macro-evo.

---

In biology macro-evolution is defined at evolution at or above the species level. If you're using some other definition then you should be very clear what it is and where it comes from.

quote:

---

There are many different species of birds but they're still birds, they're just different variations and have adapted. That sounds like micro-evolution to me.

---

That is quite definitely macro-evolution by any normal definition. I think that even creationists would call it macro-evolution by THEIR definitions.

quote:

---

Now, if you can, give me an ovserved case of macro-Evoltion, that is a creature completely changing into something esle?

---

Did you actually read my post ? You know the one that points out that science is quite happy to accept conclusions based on extrapolation and inference (where the evidence is good enough) and DOESN'T demand direct observation ?