|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,485 Year: 3,742/9,624 Month: 613/974 Week: 226/276 Day: 2/64 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution......? | ||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hi quicksink,
You're going about this the wrong way. First you have to establish whether evolution occurred or not. Now, geology seems to be an interest of yours, & I'll probably have no trouble convincing you of an old earth, the principle of superposition etc. This then begs the question, what are all those fossils doing there in that precise order? Can you explain this without resorting to evolution? The precise mechanism need not concern us, we are just attempting to establish whether evolution happened or not. Another excellent evidence of evolution is phylogenetic analysis. That is, deriving evolutionary/family trees from genetic/morphological information. The colossal amount of concordant results (with exceptions) overwhelmingly point to evolution, that's macro-evolution, having occurred. The rest of your points are God of the gaps arguments. None of the concerns (though pertinent) falsify evolution. Given we can say with a high degree of certainty that evolution DID occur, it therefore follows that bats MUST have evolved echolocation, even if we don't yet understand how. Put it another way, there is no positive evidence of IC, no positive evidence that bats DIDN'T evolve echo location, but PLENTY of evidence that evolution occurred, even if evidence of every step of every trait doesn't exist. In short, criticisms of evolution never give positive evidence, it is always an unsubstantiated claim that xyz COULDN'T occur. What will you go with, positive evidence, or incredulity? Knowing you from these forums, I'm willing to put money on the former. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hope that cleared it up for you, quicksink
------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Cobra,
quote: A hundred years ago it wasn’t known what caused the suns fires, did that mean there were no fires before the mechanism was known?No, of course not, ergo, evidence of evolution is evidence of evolution, the mechanism is irrelevant to the observations. quote: Quicksink accepts old earth geology, therefore the fossil record is evidence of evolution. Unless you can re-explain the fossil record in the context of an old earth, remember, I was talking to quicksink.
quote: A blind naturalistic process?? Present evidence of anything else. If you can’t, then it is not admissible as a SCIENTIFIC alternative, but only a theological one. You may as well say pink fairies did evolution. I, nor any scientist, will accept the unobservable, that leaves no trace to even infer it, as a valid framework for scientific enquiry.I repeat, you do not need a mechanism for an occurrence, to accept an occurrence. See above. quote: Again, evidence for the supernatural pls. We are trying to do science. You cannot hypothesise something in science that is a/ unobserved, & b/ leaves no indirect trace with which to infer the supernatural.Also, progressive creation wouldn’t show common descent, as there would be no relationship between organisms. And, if guided evolution were true, why are there so many neutral substitutions that can have phylogenies derived from them? But first things first, evidence of that supernatural please, or you may as well argue the sky may have had yellow, red, & green stripes from horizon to horizon, because you have as much/little evidence of that than special creation/progressive creation/ guided evolution, or would that be ridiculous? quote: Rubbish, finding fossils out of order, or no genetic similarities between organisms would have been falsification. It’s not my fault the falsifications have never been realised.
quote: No, it isn’t. I have turned the argument around from, show bats evolved echolocation, to show they didn’t. The original point was that being unable to explain any particular trait, did not represent a falsification, in the same way I don’t expect your inability to NOT prove bats evolved echolocation, proves evolution.Just show me the supernatural, & you have an argument. quote: No, it can’t. See above.
quote: There is evidence of evolution, it isn’t unsubstantiated, even you yourself mention guided evolution, do you agree that there is evidence of this? If so, it’s not unsubstantiated, then, is it? I‘m not presenting a mechanism, I’m saying you don’t need to understand mechanisms to accept an occurrence. When I was a boy, I always wondered what made cars go, I accepted that something DID make them work, without knowing anything about the internal combustion engine, exothermic reactions, & the behaviour of gases under pressure & at temperature.
quote: Produce positive evidence of a designer, then. If I have any incredulity for a designer (when did ID become SUPREME ID?), it’s precisely that there is a lack of evidence. If there WAS good evidence of a creator, I’d accept the scientific theory of a creator. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: http://hrst.mit.edu/hrs/evolution/public/papers/kimura1968/kimura1968.pdf This is talking about Drosophila, but you get the idea. "We return to the problem of total mutation rateFrom a consideration of the average energy of hydrogen bonds and also from the information on mutation of rIIA gene in phage T,, Watson22 obtained IO-*- lo-9 as the average probability of error in the insertion of a new nucleotide during DNA replication. Because in man the number of cell divisions along the germ line from the fertilized egg to a gamete is roughly 80, the rate of muta- tion resulting from base replacement according to these figures may be BO x 10-8- SOX 10-0 per nucleotide pair per generation. Thus, with 4 x IO9 nucleotide pairs, the total number of mutations resulting from base replace- ment may amount t o 200- 2,000. This is 100-1,000 times larger than the estimate of 2 per generation and suggests that the mutation rate per nucleotide pair is reduced during evolution by natural selectionl8~19." In actual fact, from fertilised egg to human germ line cell requires many more mitosis' to get to the point where sperm & egg are being produced. Nevertheless, 200-2000 mutations in every sperm & egg gives plenty of material to work with. You may be confused, as I was, when Geneticists often talk of mutation/substitution rate as the rate of FIXED mutations in genomes, rather than mutations per replication in germ line cells. I know it only partially answers your question, but I'm running out of time to post Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 04-08-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: That’s not the point, you don’t need to understand nuclear fission to observe the sun is bright. You don’t need to understand a mechanism for evolution to see it in the fossil record. There are many examples of slight changes as you go higher in the fossil record. Foraminifera, trilobites, sticklebacks, radiolarians. Understanding the biological processes (or otherwise, as you point out) behind these changes in no way detracts from the FACT of small changes accumulating in higher strata. As regards progressive creation, phylogenetic evidence points away from this. Unless God deliberately deceived, to make it look like there was common descent back to prokaryotes.
quote: When you know all there is to know, then you can say that natural mechanistic processes don’t (or do) explain life. This is a premature statement. Nor does it have anything to do with positive evidence of God/Supernatural. The absence of evidence, isn’t positive evidence of anything. I wouldn’t suggest anything as evidence of creation, the evidence by itself should be able to be interpreted as such, & support a testable hypothesis, with falsifications. So please present 1/positive evidence of creation, & 2/ God/Supernatural, that supports such a hypothesis.
quote: Supposition. I could just as easily say, with just as much basis, that evidence of a Supreme Creator is a falsification of him, using you own criteria. He can’t be the supreme creator because He’s amazing, & complex, & therefore designed, is therefore evidence of a designer, so isn’t supreme. ad infinitum. Secondly, present POSITIVE evidence that there is design in nature. Cue Dembski, hee hee. Thirdly, a hypothesis that is testable, with falsifications, please.
quote: 1/ Produce this well established historic event from independent, non-religious sources please. 2/ Written historical documents aren't admissable as evidence anyway.
quote: Your going to have to present evidence of the supernatural, mate, if you want to have progressive creation/guided evolution.
quote: I’m as worried about the Supreme Designers opinion as you are of the Bogeymans I really must see that Dawkins quote. Cite please, page numbers if possible.
quote: Please elaborate.
quote: How? Without first assuming the supernatural to be indicative of reality without a scrap of positive evidence for it? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 04-09-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Cobra,
I’ll pick up on stuff that never got covered.
quote: I should have worded it better. Written historical documents are not admissible as evidence in the physical & natural sciences.
quote: The program is looking for signals that have no known natural (in the astronomical sense) cause. That is to say, they must not conform to patterns of rotational systems etc. In essence, SETI has a frame of reference. To compare that with ID, ID would look at the entire universe & try to infer design without that referential frame. That is, it looks at ALL life & makes the inference without a frame of reference. Even if SETI DO get that elusive signal, we cannot rule out that it was from an as yet unknown natural source. As such, SETI & ID is a false analogy. Also, I asked for evidence of the supernatural, not a reason why you don’t have to produce the evidence quote: Fair question. There's two ways I can think of showing design in nature. However I throw it around, it comes back to these two. 1/ Prove IC. 2/ Show the existence of God/Supernatural entity, & His/their previous work in complex supernatural design. At least you have a referential frame, a la SETI. In the same way that I could potentially identify an Egyptian artifact, by looking at the similarities/differences of that artifact, & comparing to other artefacts that came from Egypt, & elsewhere. To be fair, this is a tough act to follow as it assumes an aspect of nature has already been identified as being designed, but how can there be a supernatural reference frame without this? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 04-17-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
There are plenty of phenomena that doesn't have a mechanism to explain it yet.
Now, you've dodged this over on the Dinosaurs/Man thhread, so whilst Ive got youu here, I'll ask again. What would you accept as a transitional? The question would be better asked as, what criteria would you apply to all fossils to determine whether they are transitional or not? FYI, the ceolocanths aren't thought to have given rise to amphibians anyway. It is the rhipidistans. Another straw man bites the dust. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 04-21-2002] [This message has been edited by mark24, 04-21-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024