Help support TMP


"Darwin Day" Topic


1657 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Animals Plus Board

Back to the Science Plus Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Showcase Article

GallopingJack Checks Out The Terrain Mat

Mal Wright Fezian goes to sea with the Terrain Mat.


Featured Profile Article

First Impressions of the Craft ROBO

I spend my first day with a paper-cutting machine.


Current Poll


Featured Book Review


47,752 hits since 2 Feb 2009
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 

Hexxenhammer30 Sep 2009 2:15 p.m. PST

601st post!

Last Hussar30 Sep 2009 2:43 p.m. PST

Was not the Big Bang followed by the "evolution" of matter

No. Chemistry and Physics laws apply to the formation of matter.
followed by stellar/cosmic "evolution" followed by planetary "evolution"

No. Matter doesn't evolve because it does not reproduce. Moons are not baby planets. And allow me to clarify. The phrase 'Nothing to do with evolution doesn't mean I accept there are problems with the Big Bang. It means that cosmology is nothing to do with evolution.

Abiogenesis, I will point out once again, has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution describes how organisms change to adapt to their environment. It does not care how it first got there.

Individual morals are an evolutionary advantage- it allows the group to co-operate, and reject those that are harmful. Those who take power, rather than being awarded it still have to play by group rules to maintain that power. Crime bosses offer protection to those who join them.

"Survival of the fittest" means "survival of those best fitted to the environment" not an expression of raw power.

We have seen Evolution, time and time again. TJ has failed to provide one piece of evidence for a creator. Criticisms of evolution are not proof of creation.

Take lightning. 2000 years ago man ascribed lightning to the god(s). "There is lightning, ergo god makes it, there is no other explanation". We now understand how static electricity acculmalates in clouds and earths itself. So which of these are true?

1) Gods have never made lightning.
2) God(s) still make lightning- science is wrong.
3) God used to make lightning until man came up with a scientific explanation. He then allowed that to make the lightning.

Hexxenhammer30 Sep 2009 2:57 p.m. PST

Nick: Okay, let's say that you're defending chocolate, and I'm defending vanilla. Now if I were to say to you: 'Vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream', you'd say:
Joey [Playing along]: No, chocolate is.
Nick: Exactly, but you can't win that argument… so, I'll ask you: so you think chocolate is the be all and end all of ice cream, do you?
Joey: It's the best ice cream, I wouldn't order any other.
Nick: Oh! So it's all chocolate for you, is it?
Joey: Yes, chocolate is all I need.
Nick: Well, I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice cream, and that, Joey Naylor, that is the defintion of liberty.
Joey: But that's not what we're talking about.
Nick: But that's what I'm talking about.
Joey: …but you didn't prove that vanilla was the best…
Nick: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong, I'm right.
Joey: But you still didn't convince me.
Nick [Pointing to the passers-by]: It's not you that I'm after. I'm after them.

Daffy Doug30 Sep 2009 4:41 p.m. PST

In order for US to be intelligent, the creator of the universe must be more intelligent?

This is an assumption without actual evidence.

The Necessary Cause as Intelligence is not evolving. We are. Our evolution proves that our intelligence is less than that of the Necessary Cause….

Last Hussar30 Sep 2009 5:08 p.m. PST

Evolution doesn't require intelligence to guide it. Certain traits will be more common if they help the organism to survive to procreate, and/or if it makes the organism a more attractive sexual partner.

britishlinescarlet230 Sep 2009 11:56 p.m. PST

The Necessary Cause as Intelligence is not evolving. We are. Our evolution proves that our intelligence is less than that of the Necessary Cause….

Where is the logic in this? Where is the evidence?

Pete

crhkrebs01 Oct 2009 5:49 a.m. PST

Doug has these deeply felt convictions and suppositions. He has believed them for some time now, and as a result, to him they have become "facts". Therefore, he claims them to be "facts" and announces them as such, no matter how little sense they make to us. I'm sure he has an equally difficult time wondering why we can't see the inherent truth of his "facts".

Ralph

Daffy Doug01 Oct 2009 9:07 a.m. PST

The fundamental truth is the Necessary Cause. I seem to be the only one seeing this. All of you talk about existence of the universe as if it got started all by itself without any cause but some "BB".

I admit that nothing IN the universe since the BB is necessarily required to have anything to do with the NC: once set in motion, the universe's evolution doesn't require anything from the NC (intervention or nonintervention remain unprovable: But I lean toward intervention because of my personal experiences).

The logic of a nonevolving NC is that to conceive of an evolving/learning/growing NC is incompatible with the biggest concept for a NC that is possible to conceive. The first requirement for a concept of a NC is that it must be bigger than you can imagine.

To limit the NC to coming up with intelligence (homo sapiens) that evolves BIGGER than it's own intelligence is utterly without logic….

RockyRusso01 Oct 2009 10:26 a.m. PST

Hi

Doug "All of you talk about existence of the universe as if it got started all by itself without any cause but some "BB"."

actually, no, none of us are. We are discussing evolution over the last billion years here on planet earth. Not the first spark, not if there is some guiding hand or any other.

Evolution can be demonstrated, just like math and electricity. The existence of a prime mover can only be asserted and "felt".

I can feel love for my wife, but I cannot demonstrate the actuality of that love, or even agree on the defination with you or anyone else. I can, however, demonstrate how one does procreation. THAT is the difference in the issue. To you, some things are obvious to your personal experience. Like love, like many things. But demonstrating this to others is testimony not science. Science is repeatability.

It is like a bad set of wargaming rules. Some systems are fun to play where the designers are there coaching the players and explaining the rules as they go. But published, some guy in outer slobbovia can not get a game that reflects the designer's testimony about how good his rules are.

You "know", but all that the rest of us have is your personal testimony. Most churches have some acceptance of this as a "proof", thus we have missionaries. Science doesn't rely on anecdotal evidence.

Rocky

Ghecko01 Oct 2009 4:08 p.m. PST

Sorry, Doug I don't see what is illogical about my view, and I don't see the "logic" of your statement. Your arguments certainly are not convincing.

And therein lays the basic problem throughout these hundreds of postings. To state the obvious: We all see things differently; we all look at things differently; we all understand things differently. We all have and use a different framework of beliefs with which we analyze the data/evidence before us. We all have arrived at our belief systems in different ways and for different reasons, and I feel that we are all presently content with our belief systems as they stand. For example: Will I ever convince you that you are in error? I doubt it. Will you ever convince me that I am in error? I doubt that also. And so we plod along discussing, arguing, criticizing, going in circles, etc. For example:

Complexity always arises out of simpler components without any demonstrable "need" to do so and it's all based on simple rudimentary laws. Maybe we should drop it and focus on the evolution topic at hand.

I could use this statement to re-ignite the Thermodynamic/Entropy discussions. For example: What exactly are these alleged "rudimentary laws" (scientific laws?) that you refer to here (and quite dogmatically I will add) that allow such "complexity" to arise out of "simpler" components without any demonstrable "need" to do so? Do you have any actual real examples? And we go round and round again.

…Define your terms…

Yes; very good advice indeed. The lack of concise definition of terms used has also caused problems here many times. We often use terms that each of us has a different definition and/or concept in mind. For example: You used the term "evolution" above. Can we have a hard definition of what is meant exactly by the term "evolution"? What do you see as its boundaries; what are its limits? What does it apply to and what doesn't it apply to?

Doug: As I have said, empirical cannot detect metaphysical…

And how many times have I said the very same thing …? So, are we finally all agreed on this point? Can the empirical (ie, science) detect the metaphysical (ie, the supernatural; "god")? Clearly the answer is no… as you state here and as I have said many times. Surely that means "science" can't be used to directly verify the existence of "god". Correct?

As it stands I support Evolution by Natural Selection because I have yet to see a piece of evidence brought to the table that refutes it. If you can bring a supportable theory that refutes Evolution by Natural Selection then I would love to see it, as would the scientific world as a whole.

And so to avoid needless confusion, can we have a concise definition of what you understand by the terms "evolution"; "natural selection"; "evidence"; "supportable theory"; "scientific world"? Yes, I know, we could all go and look them up in a dictionary or the like, even seek answers on "YouTube" if desperate, but I would like to know, in your own words, what do YOU understand by them?

Doug, I am looking at this purely from a scientific standpoint. My own religious leanings are immaterial. However it is not scientifically acceptable to say "if it is not "A" then it must be God!"

This statement is an expression of your biases based on your evolutionary beliefs. Paraphrasing: "I will only accept a purely scientific explanation. Any explanation involving the religious or the metaphysical will be rejected out of hand as being either immaterial or irrelevant." I have also pointed out this mindset amongst evolutionists several times before.

The question is: Is this paraphrase correct? For example: Would a "suitable theory" involving the metaphysical or supernatural be considered by you? If not, why not…?

And we go around in circles again…

Daffy Doug01 Oct 2009 4:20 p.m. PST

Ain't it fun!…

Daffy Doug01 Oct 2009 4:26 p.m. PST

Doug "All of you talk about existence of the universe as if it got started all by itself without any cause but some "BB"."

actually, no, none of us are. We are discussing evolution over the last billion years here on planet earth. Not the first spark, not if there is some guiding hand or any other.

Oh. I see. Nobody here has mentioned "how did the universe get started?" Nobody here has asked for opinions on that. And nobody has suggested that that might be a more interesting question than how life on earth got started. Life getting started anywhere in the Universe isn't nearly as interesting as wondering how Existence in the first place occurred, i.e. what did the BB. I like to see godless people skirt around that one, because they have NOTHING on offer; while someone like me at least has a hypothesis….

britishlinescarlet202 Oct 2009 3:07 a.m. PST

This statement is an expression of your biases based on your evolutionary beliefs. Paraphrasing: "I will only accept a purely scientific explanation. Any explanation involving the religious or the metaphysical will be rejected out of hand as being either immaterial or irrelevant."

No. I am more than happy for either a religious or a metaphysical explanation if you can bring any evidence to the table. Tj, you have failed to provide anything, all you have done is continually stated "if it is not "A" then it must be God!". Mine is not an expression of bias, it is an expression of exasperation.

I want to hear your opposing theory TJ, I really do, I am open to anything and everything, but I am beginning to think that you have nothing except your own opinion. What have you really got?

Pete

britishlinescarlet202 Oct 2009 3:10 a.m. PST

Oh. I see. Nobody here has mentioned "how did the universe get started?" Nobody here has asked for opinions on that. And nobody has suggested that that might be a more interesting question than how life on earth got started. Life getting started anywhere in the Universe isn't nearly as interesting as wondering how Existence in the first place occurred, i.e. what did the BB. I like to see godless people skirt around that one, because they have NOTHING on offer; while someone like me at least has a hypothesis….

I can speculate, but that is immaterial to the original point in discussion. As far as I am aware we were discussing Darwin and Evolution. I'm still waiting for TJ to produce his opposing theory. Yawn…it's been a long wait so far.

Pete

britishlinescarlet202 Oct 2009 3:34 a.m. PST

"I will only accept a purely scientific explanation. Any explanation involving the religious or the metaphysical will be rejected out of hand as being either immaterial or irrelevant."

TJ …It just clicked…you do accept for a theory (whether religious, metaphysical or scientific) to be supportable you do need at least some evidence don't you (and I don't mean individual revelation of course)? Am I right? If not are we not just talking about speculation rather than theory?

Evidence (Some at least) = Theory
No Evidence = Speculation

Is this correct?

Pete

britishlinescarlet202 Oct 2009 8:59 a.m. PST

TJ, my interpretation, others will no doubt differ and I look forward to reading what they have to say.

And so to avoid needless confusion, can we have a concise definition of what you understand by the terms "evolution"; "natural selection"; "evidence"; "supportable theory"; "scientific world"? Yes, I know, we could all go and look them up in a dictionary or the like, even seek answers on "YouTube" if desperate, but I would like to know, in your own words, what do YOU understand by them?

Evolution:(I shan't expand on this)

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

Natural Selection:

Natural Selection is a consistent difference in survival and reproduction between different genotypes, or even different genes, in what we could call reproductive success.

Evidence:

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

An assertion is a speech act in which something is claimed to hold , In other words, what we assert are propositions.

A "proposition" is a statement about the world, i.e. a statement that corresponds to some state of affairs in the world, and is true if this state of affairs holds.

"Evidence" for a proposition is any thing (observation) that increases the estimate of the probability of the truthfulness of the proposition.

Hypothesis:

A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to find evidence to reach the truth. Below the level of hypothesis we have speculation and conjecture. These terms refer to concepts that may be supported logically or by some evidence, but are too far from testability even to be hypotheses. Generally a hypothesis refers to an idea that is testable, if not now, perhaps in the future. Speculations and conjectures are ideas that either have no known tests, or the tests are so far from being practical that they may as well not exist.

Theory:

A theory is a based upon a hypothesis and backed by evidence. A theory presents a concept or idea that is testable. In science, a theory is not merely a guess. A theory is an evidence based framework for describing a phenomenon.

In science, theories bring together a large body of observations, natural laws, hypotheses, and inferences into coherent, well-supported, and testable explanations that help us make sense of the world in which we live. From a scientist's perspective, facts and theories are not mere components of a hierarchy of certainty. Facts are observations (evidence), and theories are structures of ideas that explain observations. In a very real way, then, a theory holds considerably more weight than just a fact does.

Rather than being conclusive and absolute, scientific theories are tentative. With new discoveries and experimental techniques, scientific theories are refined. Because scientific theories are not absolute, they invite critical analysis and direct new research. It is through testing and re-testing that a theory's central supposition may be strengthened, or even discredited.

Supportable Theory:

Take this example from history. Before the 16th century, the traditional view of the universe was adopted from the ideas of the ancient Greek astronomer, geographer, and mathematician Ptolemy. That is, for 1400 years, people generally believed that Earth was the center of the universe and that all other celestial bodies revolved around it. However, before his death in 1543, Copernicus proposed a rival idea: that of a Sun-centered universe. Working in the early 1600s, Galileo sought to inquire if Copernicus had it right. Using a relatively new technology, a telescope, Galileo was able to gather quantitative evidence in support of the Copernican theory. He found many facts that contradicted the geocentric view, including that Jupiter had satellites orbiting it, and that Venus was orbiting the Sun. Through his guided research and careful observations, Galileo recorded evidence that would eventually overthrow long-held beliefs about the universe.

A supportable theory is one that holds true based on current available evidence.

Scientific World

The scientific world consists of the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions. It is normally divided into "sub-communities" each working on a particular field within science. Objectivity is expected to be achieved by the scientific method. Peer review, through discussion and debate within journals and conferences, assists in this objectivity by maintaining the quality of research methodology and interpretation of results.

Pete

britishlinescarlet202 Oct 2009 11:21 a.m. PST

Fossils Shed New Light on Human Past:

link

Pete

britishlinescarlet202 Oct 2009 12:02 p.m. PST

And so to avoid needless confusion, can we have a concise definition of what you understand by the terms "evolution"; "natural selection"; "evidence"; "supportable theory"; "scientific world"? Yes, I know, we could all go and look them up in a dictionary or the like, even seek answers on "YouTube" if desperate, but I would like to know, in your own words, what do YOU understand by them?

Ah…I get it…about to discuss Methodological Naturalism.

Pete

RockyRusso03 Oct 2009 9:42 a.m. PST

Hi

In the real world, TJ, pretty much anytime you have a medical experience, say a shot to immunize you against some new variant of an old bacteria or virus, you accept evolution.

As I said, I have actually examined australopithecine remains.

No one goes to court and insists that forensic antropologist, or forensic pathologist cannot both identify old shattered remains for both identity and the possible crime and criminal that may have done the dirty deed. Yet is is all a derived from the greater field of evolution.

If you had someone disappear one hundred years ago, and someone found a few bone fragments and studied the DNA and said "this is your relative" you would have no problem with that bit of science. OR if someone found fragments and reconstructed those shattered fragments into a model of what your relative looked like and how close he was to you, you would have no problem.

All proved in a court of law.

But it is only in Rashomon or "The Outrage" that a court case involves someone having a spiritual testimony.

In the first instances, science can demonstrate to non-scientists these relationships. In the second case, believers can only promise what they sense.

If you forswear modern medicne, and allow spiritual testimony, you would be consistant with your fundy "it ain't in the bible" attitude. Otherwise, you accept science works.

Your bible addresses correct behaviour, morals and the like, often by illustrating the bad behaviour. It isn't a text on science. You demand too much of the bible.

Rocky

crhkrebs03 Oct 2009 7:16 p.m. PST

For example: Will I ever convince you that you are in error? I doubt it.

Show me my error and I will reconsider. That is the scientific method by the way. Everything is up for consideration. Nothing is "gospel".

I could use this statement to re-ignite the Thermodynamic/Entropy discussions.

You have amply demonstrated your limitations here, so I would request that you don't bother.

For example: What exactly are these alleged "rudimentary laws" (scientific laws?) that you refer to here (and quite dogmatically I will add) that allow such "complexity" to arise out of "simpler" components without any demonstrable "need" to do so? Do you have any actual real examples?

I don't believe I'm being dogmatic here at all, and yes I can present examples of the above. However, previous rounds of such discussions have proven fruitless as you have continuously demonstrated that you have no interest in considering concepts that challenge your world view. You routinely refuse to answer questions directed at yourself by myself and others and generally show that you not prepared to engage in reasonable discourse.

The opening chapters of Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" deal in exactly the very topic you have asked about. I suggest you familiarize yourself with them.

Any explanation involving the religious or the metaphysical will be rejected out of hand as being either immaterial or irrelevant." I have also pointed out this mindset amongst evolutionists several times before.

Explanations that involve religious concepts and metaphysics lie outside the scope of science and therefore are extraneous to scientific inquiry. In my experience, that is the "mindset" of all scientists, religious or not, and not just evolutionists.

Would a "suitable theory" involving the metaphysical or supernatural be considered by you? If not, why not…?

I would consider it, as I can speculate with the best of them. But that is not science. I assume you are using the word "theory" in it's proper scientific context? What "suitable theory" are you talking about?

And we go around in circles again…

Speak for yourself.

Ralph

Last Hussar04 Oct 2009 3:31 a.m. PST

TJ, care to explain which bit of Thermodynamics you are mangling this time?

Ghecko05 Oct 2009 9:44 p.m. PST

Thanks for taking the time to present your definitions.

In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve.

On this point we agree: Evolutionary theory is, in the broadest sense, "all pervasive"… though some here may well disagree. I have made this point several times before.

Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest proto-organism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

Though not your own words, you obviously agree with its sentiment. I ask: Does this mean if an organism changes, even in some microscopic way, then is deemed to be "evolving"? If so, I would further ask: Do such "changes" have definite genetic boundaries? Can alleles be change indefinitely? What are the restrictions as to how much an allele can be changed without compromising the viability and survivability of the organism? What's an evolving change and what isn't?

Natural Selection is a consistent difference in survival and reproduction between different genotypes, or even different genes, in what we could call reproductive success.

As previously noted, several times now, I agree that natural selection as a process takes place. Natural selection "filters" out those organisms poorly suited to changes within their immediate environment. This, in the broadest sense, is what I term "survival of the fittest". A good example of natural selection is the development of anti-biotic resistance. Do I need to point out that such selection always takes place by acting on existing genes? Natural selection doesn't change genes. The change in an organism's genes that is said to drive the evolutionary process is the process of "mutation". Is there any evidence to suggest that mutations can lead to evolution in the broader sense, as in reptile to bird? If so, then what is it?

… "Evidence" for a proposition is anything that increases the estimate of the probability of the truthfulness of the proposition.

Correct. Question: Starting with the same evidence, can two people come to two different conclusions about the same evidence? If so, why? Now:

… Generally a hypothesis refers to an idea that is testable, if not now, perhaps in the future. Speculations and conjectures are ideas that either have no known tests, or the tests are so far from being practical that they may as well not exist.

Having said that, how would you propose to test (biological) evolution? For example, you defined evolution thus:

…The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population…

Consider: We both observe an organism's population and its changing allele distribution; I define it simply as variation within the species; you then define any "inheritable change" as evolution; you then go out and observe an organism's population and its allele distribution; the distribution is observed and found to be changing (as already observed); therefore, you say, evolution is shown. This is clearly a circular argument.

A theory is a based upon a hypothesis and backed by evidence. A theory presents a concept or idea that is testable. In science, a theory is not merely a guess. A theory is an evidence based framework for describing a phenomenon… In science, theories bring together a large body of observations (ie, evidence), natural laws (ie, evidence), hypotheses and inferences into coherent, well-supported, and testable explanations that help us make sense of the world in which we live. From a scientist's perspective, facts (ie, evidence) and theories are not mere components of a hierarchy of certainty. Facts are observations (ie, evidence) and theories are structures of ideas that explain observations. …(etc)… Because scientific theories are not absolute, they invite critical analysis and direct new research. It is through testing and re-testing that a theory's central supposition may be strengthened or even discredited.

On testing and re-testing: How could we test the idea that birds evolved from reptiles? That's what evolutionary theory proposes, does it not? How do we test it? Clearly, we can't. So, where does the theory actually stand? By your own definition:

Speculations and conjectures are ideas that either have no known tests, or the tests are so far from being practical that they may as well not exist.

The only evidence that is ever submitted by evolutionists that birds may have evolved from reptiles comes from analysis of the fossil record. Correct? The fossil record is the only long term historical evidence that science can call upon to support the conjecture (to use your definition) that birds evolved from reptiles.

How did evolutionary theory come about? They went out and studied the fossil record; they then developed evolutionary theory based upon their observations and their beliefs; they then went out and studied the fossil record again; they found the fossil evidence was in good support of the "theory" (and why wouldn't it be?); evolution is shown they said. Again, it's clearly a circular argument.

Supportable Theory: Take this example from history … Copernicus … Galileo … telescope … Through his guided research and careful observations, Galileo recorded evidence that would eventually overthrow long-held beliefs about the universe.
A supportable theory is one that holds true based on current available evidence.

Correct. Empirical science does work like this – one makes some observations; one then formulates a theory to match the observations/evidence to date; if true, then one can make some logical predictions (either for or against) and propose some tests (either for or against); one may have to wait to do the test (for example, Einstein and relativity); one finally does the test; if the test is shown to be in agreement then the theory is well on its way to being confirmed (for example, Einstein and relativity); if not, well… review it; perhaps start again. Yes, that's what the likes of Galileo and Einstein did.

So, I ask yet again, how can you scientifically "test" reptile to bird "evolution"?

Since we can't, evolutionists have no choice but to resort to special pleading (as they have done before on this forum). For example, with respect to evolutionary theory, if "X" is not testable (and often it's not, for example, the origin of life itself) then they say it doesn't really matter; though we know next to nothing about how it happened, it must have happened because "X" (in this case, life) does in fact exist! Therefore, the existence of "X" (life) "proves" evolution. It's special pleading, plain and simple.

So, I ask yet again, how can you scientifically "test" reptile to bird "evolution"?

…Peer review, through discussion and debate within journals and conferences, assists in this objectivity by maintaining the quality of research methodology and interpretation of results.

Agreed. Peer review assists. So, why refer to dubious reference sources like "YouTube" and the like? Peer review also helps maintain the status quo, maintaining the "politically" correct dogmas of the time … refer to your Ptolemy/Copernicus/Galileo example.

britishlinescarlet206 Oct 2009 12:02 a.m. PST

TJ…I've given you what you wanted, now how about your opposing theory?

Pete

Last Hussar06 Oct 2009 7:09 a.m. PST

I shall emphasis in chapters 9 and 10 that we don't need fossiles in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution would be entirely secure, even if not a single corpse had been fossilized

Richard Dawkins – The Greatest Show on Earth.

Evolutionary 'Theorum' does make predictions, which are accurate. We can predict the DNA of species before the DNA is sequenced. What we cannot do is predict the future path(s) of evolution.

As Scarlet says, what's your postulation? Provide evidence.

crhkrebs06 Oct 2009 11:06 a.m. PST

I ask: Does this mean if an organism changes, even in some microscopic way, then is deemed to be "evolving"?

1)The minute changes would need to be encoded into the genes. Therefore, you need a genotypic change that manifests itself into the phenotypic change.

2) This has to be able to be passed down to subsequent generations, who then all show the phenotype.

3) The new phenotype must show some advantage to other phenotypes. Because of this advantage, #2 should occur more often. This is Darwin's contribution.

Peer review assists. So, why refer to dubious reference sources like "YouTube" and the like?

If you took the time to look, you would have seen that we were NOT substituting Youtube videos for research references. These were done for your own edification, which you chose to ignore. The videos I suggested to you were made by Evolutionary Biologists who were answering questions that you had raised.

Peer review also helps maintain the status quo, maintaining the "politically" correct dogmas of the time … refer to your Ptolemy/Copernicus/Galileo example.

Your ignorance of the history of science is, once again, pitifully evident. There was NO peer review around at the time of Galileo and Copernicus, let alone Ptolemy. Had there been such, Galileo would never have been summoned to Rome. You truly do not understand the nature of peer review.

But never mind all that, for the 10th time:

Where is your theory?

Ralph

RockyRusso06 Oct 2009 12:03 p.m. PST

Hi

TJ:So, I ask yet again, how can you scientifically "test" reptile to bird "evolution"?

Since we can't,"

Is called a bald or unsupported assertion. Rather the reverse is true. Less grand than a million year process from reptiles to bird hipped reptiles to bird like reptiles..there is a simple closer example.

Some one accuses you of having raped her and fathered her child, and in court, some scientist demonstrates exactly what your relationship is to this child.

No one but the "she said" was there to observe the rape, the passage of the material by sperm up the plumbing to the egg, the changes in the egg with that first penetrating wiggler and the development of the first cell followed by increasing complexity. But there it is, not observed, but understood.

Provable in court.

By extension, you claim to be the great great great grandson of the Romanovs in 1917 and the same science demonstrates that while you are not exactly Tsar Nick, that you are or are not related.

By your criteria, none of these court cases are "provable". Science small and science large. You lose.

Rocky

britishlinescarlet207 Oct 2009 2:43 a.m. PST

On this point we agree: Evolutionary theory is, in the broadest sense, "all pervasive"… though some here may well disagree. I have made this point several times before.

But the mechanics of the Evolutionary processes are different. Cosmic Evolution is not the same thing as Biological Evolution. "Evolution" in your context is simply a term to describe change over time, it does not describe the different mechanics of the separate processes.


What are the restrictions as to how much an allele can be changed without compromising the viability and survivability of the organism?

Reproductive success.

Natural selection "filters" out those organisms poorly suited to changes within their immediate environment. This, in the broadest sense, is what I term "survival of the fittest".

You can call it this but you would be wrong. "Survival of the fittest" is a slogan that is really very misleading. First of all, it's not an adequate description of what really goes on in nature for two reasons:

"Survival of the fittest" is a misleading term.

• Sometimes there isn't a "fittest" type. There may be several different types that are equally fit for different reasons. Perhaps they're adapted to different facets of the environment. One is not going to replace the other because each has its proper place in the environment.
• Moreover, it's not just a matter of survival. Natural selection is a difference in reproductive success that involves both the ability to survive until reproductive age and then the capacity to reproduce.

The notion of the survival of the fittest is also unfortunate because it has been viewed as a kind of tautology, a kind of empty statement for those who say that the fittest are those that survive and so there's no real predictive content to the notion of natural selection. That is simply false.

The change in an organism's genes that is said to drive the evolutionary process is the process of "mutation". Is there any evidence to suggest that mutations can lead to evolution in the broader sense, as in reptile to bird? If so, then what is it?

Yes, not only is there evidence , the evidence also acts as another part in the jigsaw that supports common descent. Of particular importance are HOX genes and of these probably the most fascinating is Pax6:

link

"Scientists have now looked at Pax6 expression (turned on) in eyes across the animal kingdom. In as diverse groups as vertebrates, arthropods, annelids and molluscs Pax6 is expressed during eye development. In cnidaria Pax6 is even expressed in their photoreceptor cells – these are single cells used to detect light. This suggests that the basic eye evolved only once early in animal evolution and that Pax6 had a key role in its development. So key in fact that through hundreds of millions of years its role has been maintained despite the diversity of animal eyes expanding greatly."

Simply put the human eye is not "irreducible", the controlling mechanism of eye development is the same across the animal kingdom, the only difference is how the Pax6 gene has dealt with the development and evolution of the eye. Our eyes have a common link to those of flies and the photo receptors of jellyfish!

On testing and re-testing: How could we test the idea that birds evolved from reptiles? That's what evolutionary theory proposes, does it not? How do we test it? Clearly, we can't. So, where does the theory actually stand? By your own definition

You are correct, Evolutionary Theory does propose this and the theory is tested with every new fossil that is found. But it is not just new fossils themselves that test the Theory. It is their standing in phylogeny , Homologies and analogies, Radiometric dating, Stratigraphy and with molecular clocks. A fossil has a position in context with all of these (and with previously discovered fossils) that provides evidence for or against Evolutionary theory. If a fossil is out of place in contest to its predicted position in the Evolutionary Tree then it begins to negate the theory. This has not yet happened.

A classic example is Archaeopteryx.

Those opposed to Evolutionary Theory have used Archaeopteryx as evidence that birds have not evolved from dinosaurs because there were no transitional fossil between them. However earlier bird "like" fossils have now been found that continue to bridge the gap between birds and dinosaurs. Why is this so important? Because the newly found fossils show the characteristics that Evolutionary Theory predicted they would have as a transitional fossil.

The discovery of these fossils is a simple example of how Evolutionary Theory uses prediction and is testable.

link

How did evolutionary theory come about? They went out and studied the fossil record; they then developed evolutionary theory based upon their observations and their beliefs; they then went out and studied the fossil record again; they found the fossil evidence was in good support of the "theory" (and why wouldn't it be?); evolution is shown they said. Again, it's clearly a circular argument.

No, as pointed out there is more than just the fossil record in support of evolutionary theory. Again, the Theory is testable and predictions can be made because the fossils have to be in a logical order ( testable by its position in context with other supportable evidence) to support Evolution. If the fossils were not in a predictable and testable order then the Theory would not stand. Opponents to Evolutionary Theory have yet to provide a single substantiated fossil that is out of context with what is expected or predictable.


Since we can't, evolutionists have no choice but to resort to special pleading (as they have done before on this forum). For example, with respect to evolutionary theory, if "X" is not testable (and often it's not, for example, the origin of life itself) then they say it doesn't really matter; though we know next to nothing about how it happened, it must have happened because "X" (in this case, life) does in fact exist! Therefore, the existence of "X" (life) "proves" evolution. It's special pleading, plain and simple.

I think that you are the one going around in circles TJ.

So, I ask yet again, how can you scientifically "test" reptile to bird "evolution"?

See above

TJ, I actually am beginning to have more respect for Doug and his rather left-field conjectures than your line of argument, at least he is prepared to nail his colours to the mast.

When are we going to get your opposing theory? I look forward to see how you are going to explain the predictable fossil record and the vast mass of testable evidence supporting it.

Pete

138SquadronRAF07 Oct 2009 7:55 a.m. PST

Here is TJ "Theory" – it's the Teleological argument:

1. X is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
2. Therefore, X must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
3. God is a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
4. Therefore, God exists.

Now how do we know that it is the God TJ worships, as opposed to the 'Great Ju-ju up the Mountain' that another person worships. Well TJ as a 'special person' has been given this wonderful gift from his 'god' has a 'special book' – which tells him the 'truth' – how does he know it's the 'truth' because the book tells him that his god inspired the authors – you know in English just like Jesus spoke.

This argument has been disproved since the 18thC. TJ really should read Voltaire and David Hume.

de cet argument unique je ne peux conclure rien plus loin que c'il est probable qu'être intelligent et supérieur ait habilement préparé et a façonné la matière. Je ne peux pas conclure de celui seulement que cet être a fait la matière hors de rien et qu'il est infini à tout point de vue. Traité de métaphysique – Voltaire.

(from this sole argument I cannot conclude anything further than that it is probable that an intelligent and superior being has skillfully prepared and fashioned the matter. I cannot conclude from that alone that this being has made matter out of nothing and that he is infinite in every sense.)

Hume pointed out that the argument does not necessarily lead to the existence of one God. In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, the character Philo argued, amidst other counterarguments to the teleological argument, "why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing the world?."

This is why the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism came into existance. You see the IDiots wanting to hide the fact that they were old (home) skooled Creationists and refused to name ole YHVH as the creator – since that would be plainly unconstitutional in the US. The CFS had more courage and named the creator. TJ obviously has not been touched by his noodly appendage.

venganza.org

General point: yes we use Youtube links. It's done to get the gist of the idea over. Still atleast TJ hasn't inflicted Ray Comfort's 'Crocaduck' on us – yet.

Daffy Doug07 Oct 2009 10:44 a.m. PST

There cannot be a theory, or even hypothesis, explaining how Existence in the first place IS (instead of a Void of Darkness and Nothing): all that science can do is look at what IS. TJ's "theory", et al. anyone's "theory" is founded on belief: and so is any diddler with quantum physics using his formulas to illustrate ideas about a non space-time "place" before the BB. Nothing before the BB is observable, period.

Yet here we are, obviously existing just because.

And we are SMART: that means the universe is SMARTER: because we are evolving (I presume getting smarter as well) it is more likely that what caused our smarts is much bigger than we are in the smarts department. To assume that the universe is not smart defacto places us as not smart: I don't have a problem with that, as long as we continue to admit that we are not smart: but whatever we choose to call our brain power, it can't originate out of something that doesn't mandate evolution into our brains: our brains, uniquely sapient, cannot acquire a trait that isn't natural to Existence in the first place.

(I can't seem to go for more than a few days, without having to try and say this again another way….)

crhkrebs07 Oct 2009 10:48 a.m. PST

There is actually a growing discomfort with the blanket statement of "dinosaurs evolved into birds".

For starters, most dinosaurs did not evolve into anything, rather they died out. The one's that are implicated in bird evolution are only a very, very small proportion of all existing dinosaurs (theropdia).

Secondly it may be an error in considering all birds as the same and having the same genesis. Maybe some birds evolved from this line of dinosaurs and some birds evolved from a different line of dinosaurs.

There are some scientists who think that birds evolved from non-dinosaur reptilians like archaic crocodiles or early Archsaurs and not dinosaurs after all. A new study seems to support this, see:

link

Now we'll just have to sit back and see how the IDiots and Young Earthers try to spin that into "Evolution never happened".

Ralph (who is preparing his underground shelter for another round of circular arguments, false syllogisms and "argumentum ad ignorantium").

crhkrebs07 Oct 2009 10:56 a.m. PST

(I can't seem to go for more than a few days, without having to try and say this again another way….)

It's not that you are saying it wrong, Doug. It is just that it is not convincing. Sorry, but it's just not that good an idea.

Ralph

Hexxenhammer07 Oct 2009 12:09 p.m. PST

There are some scientists who think that birds evolved from non-dinosaur reptilians like archaic crocodiles or early Archsaurs and not dinosaurs after all. A new study seems to support this, see:

The stuff about the bird's thigh is fascinating. I've wondered about that difference between dinosaurs and birds myself. But the quoted scientist is smoking crack. He talks about the dinosaur to bird theory by saying that "velociraptor didn't sprout wings." Well, obviously. Velociraptor was a cretaceous dino and Archaeopteryx was already around in the Jurrasic. Obviously the common ancestor was even earlier. And since the first true theropods are from the late Triassic, I don't see how this changes anything. This rigid thigh characteristic doesn't seem to be present in archaeopteryx, suggesting it evolved later and maybe improved flight ability. Unless the dude is suggesting that archaeopteryx isn't a bird.

crhkrebs07 Oct 2009 1:07 p.m. PST

Yes, it is confusing, and you make a good point. There is plenty of time for the rigid bone to have developed a flexible walking femur (or vice versa). Another reason why ID is unlikely. Why design land based flightless birds with rigid femurs that aid in the act of flying?

You are also correct with Archeopteryx. It is like a theropod, in that it has a flexible dinosaur femur and pelvic girdle. However, the pubic bone points backward, like every bird does today.

I'd say archeopteryx is NOT a bird. It's also NOT a dinosaur. It is something of both, proto-bird and post-saurian. (How's that for fence sitting?) Haha.

Ralph

Hexxenhammer07 Oct 2009 1:22 p.m. PST

One of the more interesting theories I've heard lately is that late theropods (the feathered dinos) are actually full-blown flightless birds. They just went back to the ground really quickly after the development of flight. It would explain the fact that some of the fossilized feathers on dinos look like flight feathers but have no possible purpose since the dino has arms and not wings. Those feathers would actually be vestigle!

Hexxenhammer07 Oct 2009 1:56 p.m. PST

Just cruising for pictures of Cretaceous bird skeletons turns this guy up:

link

The legs look like they've got the modern bird thigh. They also look a lot more modern in general than even this guy from earlier in the cretaceous:

link

This one was a lot more like archaeopteryx but with a real beak instead of a snout.

Somewhere in the 30 million years between these two birds, most modern bird characteristics must have evolved. That's a long f'ing time. God, all I did was check on wikipedia! Any scientist claiming birds couldn't have evolved from dinosaurs is a moron.

imrael07 Oct 2009 2:16 p.m. PST

And we are SMART: that means the universe is SMARTER

No logic there at all Doug. The most successful phyla on the planet by biomass aren't at all smart, they just breed fast. Are you going to conclude that the universe is really good at multiplying. Or swimming. Or since the Chinese are the largest population the universe must be very chinese.

You get the idea. You've arbitrarily picked an attribute of one species out of many on one world out of millions, declared it to be a defining characteristic, and therefore decided that the Universe must have the same characteristic to a larger degree. Within two sentences of saying that it was impossible to draw any conclusions about the non-observable universe.

imrael07 Oct 2009 2:18 p.m. PST

And can I suggest, to return to the original topic, that we see if we can keep this thread going to the next Darwin day, when we can start over again.

138SquadronRAF07 Oct 2009 3:45 p.m. PST

Imrael raises a good point: but it's the IDiots who keep leading us down rabbit holes.

In an effort to get us back on track (fat chance) did any one else happen to see this on the idiot-box (no, not the IDiot-box)

pbs.org/wgbh/nova/darwin

I enjoyed this, it showed Darwin's reluctance to publish because he knew he would bring down the bigoted horde upon him. He published because he realised that Alfred Russell Wallace had come to the same conclusions. it also shows he tried to be fair to Wallace. Obviously he never studied mathematics under Lobachevsky:

YouTube link

The point is that over the last 150 years the scientists understanding of world has moved on. The creationists, however, cling to their superstition and give us the same basic teleological argument over and over again together with smoke and mirrors. How sad.

Daffy Doug07 Oct 2009 5:39 p.m. PST

You've arbitrarily picked an attribute of one species out of many on one world out of millions, declared it to be a defining characteristic, and therefore decided that the Universe must have the same characteristic to a larger degree. Within two sentences of saying that it was impossible to draw any conclusions about the non-observable universe.

As far as we know it IS the defining characteristic separating sapience from everything else. It's the only characteristic that even notices or cares; that makes intelligence completely unique.

And of course, the Necessary Cause is all of those things. Nothing can originate without the cause behind it. It's all in the "matrix" so to speak: i.e. it is fated/bound to happen because it can; and it only can happen because the NC makes it possible….

Daffy Doug07 Oct 2009 5:45 p.m. PST

Creationists appear to have not "moved" because they don't see a pressing need to come up with other explanations for why we exist in the first place. It isn't that science can explain (sooner or later) HOW it all works: creationists couldn't care less about that other than as a curiosity: or possibly a useful tool to keep us from being ignorant about how things work (which can have very bad results if ignored).

But the thing that creationists cross swords with science on is the claim of scientists to have disproven "God": simply because they claim to be "moving on" while religion stagnates: and that "moving on" almost always means toward a position of "there is no God"….

Last Hussar07 Oct 2009 6:13 p.m. PST

Doug -"Disproved God" is sloppy language, and when being careful/accurate scientists will say that evolution disproves religeous Creation stories. No god can be 'disproved', though certain claims made on their behalf may be. Scientist didn't sit down and go- "Right, how can we contradict the Bible." They followed a line of enquiry to its end. Creationist then tried to suppress this because it contradicted their beliefs.

Neither does the universe need an intelligence just because we are intelligent. You assume there is some sort of guide or plan. No evidence of such has ever been found.

138 Squadron- you made a mistake- TJ's answer (not a theory)

1. X is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful or beautiful for me to believe to have occurred randomly or accidentally.

as your original implies they are too complex.

Daffy Doug07 Oct 2009 8:43 p.m. PST

I don't have a problem with random or even "accidental": I have a problem with the origin of it all being less than the sum of the parts. Isn't that violating some scientific principle or even a law?

I said more but deleted it. Even I can hear myself repeating myself too much….

britishlinescarlet208 Oct 2009 12:00 a.m. PST

Now we'll just have to sit back and see how the IDiots and Young Earthers try to spin that into "Evolution never happened".

Ralph (who is preparing his underground shelter for another round of circular arguments, false syllogisms and "argumentum ad ignorantium").

Yes. I am sure that TJ will believe that simply because the fossil record cannot as yet describe which dinosaur led to which bird in an unbroken sequence (evidence is mounting!) then it cannot have happened. Also that the fossils individually are not testable and that the Theory of Evolution does not allow for prediction.

I might just join you in your shelter!

Pete

crhkrebs08 Oct 2009 6:06 a.m. PST

…..and that the Theory of Evolution does not allow for prediction.

But it has already. Once gene sequencing and DNA hybridization began to take off, Biologists assumed that evolution would indicate that individuals closest to each other on the phylogenic tree would have more closely related DNA. The experimental results showed exactly that. If we have the DNA from a newly discovered species, without looking at it's morphology, DNA analysis will predict where it sits in the phylogenic tree.

Developmental biologists knew that we passed through more primitive stages in fetal development. Before DNA was known to be the means for heritable changes they predicted that the genes would express themselves in the order of most primitive features to least primitive features in sequential order. Then due to the discovery that genes were active stretches of the DNA they found exactly that. The genes we have in common with reptiles activate early, do their work and shut off. Reptiles stay put at that point. Then genes we share with fish become activated, then mammalian genes, and so on. Therefore, we carry our entire genetic heritage with us in our DNA, just as was predicted.

We still carry 4 sets of genes for our hemoglobin. The first set to be activated was fetal hemoglobin which is very good at extracting oxygen from mother's normal adult hemoglobin.

Evolution allows us to predict that new lifeforms will develop due to our rapidly altering planet. Newly developed materials become new food stuffs. Due to the extremely high breeding rate we would expect these new species to be bacterial. So now we have new species of:

Bacteria that live on highly refined oil. We are now exploiting them to clean up ocean borne oil spills.

Bacteria that have exploited the small eco-niche of the space between the human eye and soft petroleum based contact lenses.

Bacteria found in the waste dumps of DuPont. These bugs have evolved to utilize nylon waste material as their energy source.

I'm sorry, I'm at work and can't get the genus-species titles of these bugs but some Google-fu should bring them up. Maybe our friend TJ can explain where these species were before, why we couldn't find them earlier, and what they actually ate if they didn't evolve recently.

Before they isolated the virus responsible for AIDS, most RNA virologists predicted that it would be a newly evolved species similar to to only other blood borne virus that affects members of the monkey and apes groups. Sure enough, when HIV was isolated, it's RNA sequences were very similar to that of SLV (Simian Leukemia Virus). In fact, I was one of those predicters, back in the mid-late seventies when I took Virology at McMaster University under Dr. L. Prevec, one of Canada's foremost RNA virus researchers.

It has long been surmised that out mitochondrial DNA is actually that of invasive bacteria. This is an early example of mutual benefit between the Eukaryotic host with the prokaryotic parasite. Sure enough, as predicted, the gene sequences of our mitochondrial DNA most closely match that of a species of Rickettsiae, R prowazekii, which is the cause of endemic typhus. This bacteria is not "free living" as it cannot synthesize nucleotides and amino acids.

That's all I can think of, better get to work. Pete, when you come to the shelter can you bring some fine cigars and port? I'm running low and Gunfreak, Last Hussar, Hexxenhammer, RAF, Rocky and Imrael might come. Heck there is even room for Doug, he is a good guy at heart.

Ralph

crhkrebs08 Oct 2009 6:29 a.m. PST

I have a problem with the origin of it all being less than the sum of the parts. Isn't that violating some scientific principle or even a law?

No Doug. In fact there is a law describing the exact opposite. It's called synergy and there are many, many examples of this in nature. Alloying iron with carbon to make stainless steel is but one example. A facetious formula for this is 1+1=3. Complexity works this way too. You should read more about this, …..start with Mandlebrot.

Ralph

britishlinescarlet208 Oct 2009 7:02 a.m. PST

Pete, when you come to the shelter can you bring some fine cigars and port?

Now I like the sound of that…I've got a nice crusty bottle put away for a special occasion. Not sure you'll appreciate my pipe though!

Pete

138SquadronRAF08 Oct 2009 1:28 p.m. PST

May I join you gentlemen? I don't mind the pipe-smoke and will raid my wine cellar for a couple of bottle of Saint-Émilion; I should point out that I have nothing lesser in quality than a Premier grand cru.

I feel as an economist I should leave this discussion to the scientists.

Hexxenhammer08 Oct 2009 1:36 p.m. PST

I'm sorry, I'm at work and can't get the genus-species titles of these bugs but some Google-fu should bring them up. Maybe our friend TJ can explain where these species were before, why we couldn't find them earlier, and what they actually ate if they didn't evolve recently.

He may say that those bacteria are still bacteria and that this is limited natural selection/micro-evolution which is somehow okay with creationists because it allows the different breeds of animals to develop after the originals were all dropped off on their proper continents by Noah. But they're still bacteria and not, say, a monkey, so it doesn't count.

Hexxenhammer08 Oct 2009 1:37 p.m. PST

And I'll just have a Miller High Life, thanks. But I'll bring my pipe.

Last Hussar08 Oct 2009 2:59 p.m. PST

crhkrebs- didn't realise you were a real scientist!

Sounds like we are starting a 'lounge outside the lounge'! I have a bottle of port I can donate, and I have the best part of 2 half bottles of fine malt I can bring- the other halves have often been drunk in front of TMP.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34