Yet Another Icon Bites the Dust

[bob b]

I am very happy to be able to report to you my discovery of a veritable "Gold Mine" of common sense on the subject of Evolution.

The latest article talks about the rise of first life on this planet.

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i11f.htm

[JohnV]

Great article!

[rbisback]

of course those that "believe" in evolutionism will object, after they flush the up chuck that this article caused!

[Stratnerd]

Interesting!

In the article and under "What Should Be Taught?" there is a list of items that are, almost in order, in the two biology textbooks I refer to.

[rbisback]

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html

A list of 90 scientists who do not believe in evolution.

a list of 100 scientists that do not believe in macro-evolution.

http://www.objectivityinscience.org/dissent.html

[Stratnerd]

R'back,

The way it's worded - I would sign the second one. I suggest that folks should be skeptical about EVERYTHING. How do Biblical literalists feel about skepticism?

[rbisback]

I'm skeptical that a fairy tale about life evolving from non-life could be true.

Tell you what, you can get a dead animal, everything you need to make it alive is there, use a little electrical current and jump start it Frankenstein!

When you do, (and here is the crux) and prove that it was actually dead when you started, like show the process of rigor, I'll believe that life can come from non-life, and hey, you will have disproved Pasteur. Then you will be famous not only in your own mind, but a world wide hero.

[Stratnerd]

R'back,

I'm skeptical that a fairy tale about life evolving from non-life could be true.

Great! So am I. Are you skeptical about Genesis? If not then you can't be honest with yourself. No Biblical literalists possibly could!

[bob b]

S,

If you are skeptical about abiogenesis then why aren't you skeptical about the "hypothetical protocell to man" story. What is it about this story that convinces you that it has to be true?

[Stratnerd]

If you are skeptical about abiogenesis then why aren't you skeptical about the "hypothetical protocell to man" story. What is it about this story that convinces you that it has to be true?

I'm skeptical about that too but I have yet to hear a better explanation... "poof" just doesn't cut mustard; intellectually or just flat out evidence. But if I did see something better, something that fit the evidence much better, I would swing that way - although a bit of skepticism would always remain (I'm not a creationist so I can remain honest in accepting that I don't know).

I'm still interested in hearing any creationists that are skeptical about the word of God....

[bob b]

S,

>>I'm skeptical about that (hypothetical protocell to man) too but I have yet to hear a better explanation... <<

This is called "best of the lot" thinking. "I just have to have an explanation so even if none of the current ones are any good, I still will select the best of the bad because not having an answer is unthkable".

>>"poof" just doesn't cut mustard; intellectually or just flat out evidence.<<

The reason you believe in evolution is that you do not believe in G-d. Did I hear you right?

>> But if I did see something better, something that fit the evidence much better, I would swing that way - although a bit of skepticism would always remain <<

In other words if a better "naturalistic" solution would come along then you would accept it, but anything not naturalistic (poof for instance) is not even in the running.

>>(I'm not a creationist so I can remain honest in accepting that I don't know). <<

Actually you are being totally dishonest with yourself. You have just in effect admitted you know the correct answer is not "poof".

>>I'm still interested in hearing any creationists that are skeptical about the word of God....<<

Any old Earth creationist is skeptical about the word of G-d and this type of creationist is probably far more numerous than YECers. Try Hugh Ross and his followers.

[Stratnerd]

Bob,

This is called "best of the lot" thinking. "I just have to have an explanation so even if none of the current ones are any good, I still will select the best of the bad because not having an answer is unthkable".

you guys love to take other persons' words and then spit them out distorted instead a more honest approach of asking "do you actually mean.... ?" this is a perfect example. evolution is an answer because it makes sense and is "good" answer. I just haven't seen anything better.

The reason you believe in evolution is that you do not believe in G-d. Did I hear you right?

No. I don't know anything about God and I wouldn't use any science to figure him/her/it out either. If God appeared in my car and made it rain inside (what a great movie!) it still wouldn't change my mind unless we had a conversation and said things like.... "I made things appear to have evolved and time to appear old". Then we would probably go have a beer and see a movie.

In other words if a better "naturalistic" solution would come along then you would accept it, but anything not naturalistic (poof for instance) is not even in the running.

Not now... if the fossil record were different and phylogenetic relationships were different and radiometric dating different and organisms were different I probably would consider the alternative or if God appeared in my car and, you know the rest.

Actually you are being totally dishonest with yourself. You have just in effect admitted you know the correct answer is not "poof".

Not so (again putting words in my mouth). I don't know anything for sure but I do know that there is not a large body of evidence for a 6000 year old "poof" like I would expect.

Any old Earth creationist is skeptical about the word of G-d and this type of creationist is probably far more numerous than YECers. Try Hugh Ross and his followers.

What I should have said is a Biblical literalist. With no alternatives hypotheses how could you possibly do science? But hats off to Hugh and to the Pope at least they accept what nature and their rational minds tell them - the message from creationists - don't trust the work of men - trust the bible. How could you ever have an honest investigation if you couldn't even trust your results. Reminds me of a Richard Pryor joke - "are you going to trust me or your lyin' eyes?".

[rbisback]

"With no alternatives hypotheses how could you possibly do science?"

Hmmm, do no science.

A christian brought us the law of gravity and many other important laws of science.

A person that believed in God brought you the tube in front of your face.

A person that believed in God brought you pasturization.

A person that believed in God brought you antiseptics.

What exactly has an evolutionist brought us?

[Stratnerd]

R'back,

I wasn't talking about science in general but specifically about origins (although I don't consider inventing science). But what has evolution shown us? Think about it.

[bob b]

S,

I have seen a far better answer than evolution.

[1] Lifeforms were created in multiple types from the very beginning.

[2] At the very beginning the genomes of lifeforms were in very good shape, but after a specific bad event have been slowly "decaying" ever since.

[3] A watery catastrophe once wiped out the vast majority of life leaving trillions of dead things to become fossils buried in water laid sediments.

This hypothesis solves many problems, although some remain that are not so obvious.

The first problem is "how did lifeforms originate". Most evolutionists cop out on this one and claim that their theory doesn't have to deal with this, even though it assumes the presence of a hypothetical primitive protocell ancestor that nobody can define in detail. The complexity required for first life makes it clear that only an intelligent entity would be able to pull off such an impressive feat.

The second problem is "where did the vast amount of information in current genomes of even the simplist cell come from?". The evolutionary hypothesis is again unable to demonstrate this in a credible manner. The creation hypothesis easily explains this as well as the vast varieties of life we see around us today, created by the amazing combinatorial capability inherent from the beginning in the sexual reproduction mechanism.

The third problem is "how did the vast thicknesses of sedimentary layers end up being deposited on the land, manytimes complete with trillions of dead things within them?" Stated in these terms the answer is obvious, the seas once covered the land as the hypothesis claimed.

It is not only not necessary to assume that G-d "guided" the evolutionary process, it is actually contrary to the stated creation hypothesis to make such an assumption, for the hypothesis assumes that creation was a short time event and that the fall of man ushered in an era of decay of the once "very good" universe that is still going on today. It is becoming increasingly obvious as research continues that what is happening today is a slow decay from a once more perfect state.

What is totally amazing to me is the fact that this creation hypothesis was written down millenia ago by people who could not possibly have known how it would be such an excellent "fit" to the findings of our modern scientific age!!!!

[Stratnerd]

You keep talking about pseudoscience but the only thing you have offered is a literal interpretation of the Bible. How is this even remotely scientific? Still more important, how can a person that claims that the Bible is absolutely true, independent of any evidence, be honest about discussing alternatives?

[rbisback]

Bob, would you say that the ability to regrow lost limbs and phalanges would be beneficial? Why would an animal lose a beneficial trait?

[bob b]

Good point rbisback.

S,

Any hypothesis starts with some assumptions. Doesn't NeoDarwinism? Creationism starts with the assumption that the Genesis account is true and then examines the current day evidence to see if it generally fits. It does.

Evolution assumes that life started with a primitive replicating molecule and gradually added information over vast periods of time through a process of random mutation and natural selection to result in the vast storehouses of information in current lifeforms.

There is not the slightest shred of scientific evidence or experimentation that any information can be added in this way, much less that it can accumulate through purely "natural" means
to the vast amounts we see today in even the simplist cell.

My cytochrome c analysis demonstrates that there has been zero change in the past supposedly 100 million years from that hypothetical mammal ancestor to the mice. rats and guinea pigs of today.

A much more credible idea is that information is gradually being lost and that this has not been going on all that long else all life would now be extinct. Evolutionists fear the discussion of this more logical alternative and attempt to suppress it by claiming that it is "religion" and hence illegal to even talk about it in taxpayer supported schools.

Since the prohibition against murder is contained in the Bible one would think that similar logic would argue that it should be against the law to discuss such a "religious" idea in the public schools.

Why do you think that such a great scientist as Sir Francis Crick started "looking to the stars" for the source of genome information increase?

[Stratnerd]

Good point rbisback

the assumption is you can build a more complex limb without any consequence to being able to rebuild it if it cuts off. i would say that was unrealistic.

Creationism starts with the assumption that the Genesis account is true and then examines the current day evidence to see if it generally fits.

1. This is the opposite of how science should work we should do our best to falsify a particular hypothesis
2. Creationism does not start with the assumption that Genesis is true it only accepts as True such that
3. any contrary evidence must be false
4. alternative hypotheses are not allowed
5. hypotheses are generated from theories, which are inductive generalizations - the Biblical account of miraculous creation is hardly a theory
6. hypotheses are not even a proper term since there are no alternatives

Philosophically and pragmatically (if that is a word) creationist cannot do science.

[bob b]

S,

Based on answers I have read and heard, my own conclusion is that the two words, theory and hypothesis, may be used interchangably without causing confusion.

[Mr. Ben]

Bob, would you say that the ability to regrow lost limbs and phalanges would be beneficial? Why would an animal lose a beneficial trait?

Because it's not nearly as beneficial as another mutually exclusive trait.

[Mr. Ben]

Any hypothesis starts with some assumptions. Doesn't NeoDarwinism? Creationism starts with the assumption that the Genesis account is true and then examines the current day evidence to see if it generally fits. It does.

The only assumption that science starts with is that the world is not capricious. That it was not made specifically to decieve us.

Oddly enough, the opposite of the above is the one conclusion that creationism ineluctably leads to.

Evolution assumes that life started with a primitive replicating molecule and gradually added information over vast periods of time through a process of random mutation and natural selection to result in the vast storehouses of information in current lifeforms.

Evolution observes that animals are replicating genetic systems, and also knows that this automatically implies that they must evolve. There is no known genetic system that has failed to evolve experimentally, and no known reason why organic genetic systems should behave differently.

Evolution also observes and infers from the physical historical record of life in geology that the fossil evidence corroborates the formal description of evolutionary systems. The fossil evidence shows a pattern of change that exactly matches what we should expect, and indeed see produced experimentally, by evolutionary processes.

Evolution also observes that the historical line of evidence can be followed uninterrupted back in time until the evidence is too small to find in strata too old to be found in non-metamorphic condition. The most reasonable conclusion is that the same process continues in the same way even though we can't see it.

QUOTE: "There is not the slightest shred of scientific evidence or experimentation that any information can be added in this way, much less that it can accumulate through purely "natural" means
to the vast amounts we see today in even the simplist cell."

Says self appointed expert Bob Ball. But a quick search of pub-med for the rest of the opinions of the experts should disabuse anyone with an ounce of objectivity that this is anything more than handwaving.

My cytochrome c analysis demonstrates that there has been zero change in the past supposedly 100 million years from that hypothetical mammal ancestor to the mice. rats and guinea pigs of today.

And of course Bob Ball's arbitrarily chosen hypothetical ancestor "IS" the rats and guinea pigs of today. Therefore his proof is true by definition.

A much more credible idea is that information is gradually being lost and that this has not been going on all that long else all life would now be extinct.

Easy to prove. Find a group of gazelles which from one year to the next flee the lions more slowly. It would also be helpful if you could demonstrate that the lions also pursued the gazelles more slowly.

Devolution in action.

Evolutionists fear the discussion of this more logical alternative and attempt to suppress it by claiming that it is "religion" and hence illegal to even talk about it in taxpayer supported schools.

It is religion. It is a series of non-sequiturs, contradictory assertions, distortions, and the occasional dishonest quotation and hoax, all tied together by evangelical belief that evolution must somehow be responsible for everything that's wrong in the world.

Why do you think that such a great scientist as Sir Francis Crick started "looking to the stars" for the source of genome information increase?

Because the difference between brilliance and madness is sometimes very small.

[bob b]

Ben,

>>Because the difference between brilliance and madness is sometimes very small.<<

Your attack on Sir Francis Crick illustrates the extent that "true believers" will go to protect their beloved dogma. Anyone who deviates in any way from the accepted party line is apparently fair game, regardless of their knowledge and past accomplishments in the field, or even their continuing allegiance to the main paradigm.

Is it any wonder that many consider evolution to be the "religion" of modern society?

Your comment also explains why any scientists with doubts about the current paradigm would be well advised to keep their mouth's shut for sake of their careers. The modern day equivalent of the Inquisition is alive and well in the ranks of the evolutionist true believers.

[rbisback]

"1. This is the opposite of how science should work we should do our best to falsify a particular hypothesis"

Only because you disagree with creationism.

And your answer (and Ben's) to my question to Bob is so much drivel.

[Stratnerd]

Bob,

Your comment also explains why any scientists with doubts about the current paradigm would be well advised to keep their mouth's shut for sake of their careers. The modern day equivalent of the Inquisition is alive and well in the ranks of the evolutionist true believers.

Aaahh yes conspiracy - what a big pile of donkey doo. So what stops all those professors that have tenure and have absolute job security?

"1. This is the opposite of how science should work we should do our best to falsify a particular hypothesis"

Only because you disagree with creationism.

No, this is how I believe that science is done and how I do my own work. Are you that clueless about how science works?

And your answer (and Ben's) to my question to Bob is so much drivel.

I would be surprised if you actually understood it - to call something drivel hardly makes it so.

[bob b]

To call something donkey doo hardly makes it so either. :D

[Stratnerd]

To call something donkey doo hardly makes it so either.

But you have yet to provide any evidence that there are many closet creationists that don't come out of fear of reprisal from peers.

[bob b]

But to call my suggestion "donkey doo" you would have to provide counter evidence that my suggestion is not true.

It would certainly be a concern for any scientist, considering the treatment received by those evolutionists who have strayed too far from the beaten path.

Didn't Ben suggest Francis Crick might have been "daft" for suggesting that life first came from space?

[Stratnerd]

But to call my suggestion "donkey doo" you would have to provide counter evidence that my suggestion is not true.

LOGIC: Tenured professors have nothing to fear from peers since tenure insures job security. This is the reason tenure was invented in the first place. Like you said: it is diffult to provide evidence for something I presume doesn't exist. But the fact that tenured or retired professors are not coming forth and writing books (aren't nearly all creationists books written by non Ph.D.'s or nonbiologists?). Has Behe's (even though he is not a creationist) been fired? As far as I know he's raking in the $$$ and has perfect job security.

[bob b]

You are assuming that all that is at stake is not getting fired.

I have heard it said that the atheist and believer in evolution Sir Fred Hoyle no doubt would have received a Nobel prize in physics for his outstanding work on the physics of molecule formation in the early universe if he had not so rashly attacked Neo-Darwinism in his books and lectures.

Similarly Halton Arp was denied further telescope time when he continued to research his unpopular thesis regarding the "red shift" of starlight, and ended up moving to Germany where scientists are less emotional over challenges to the Big bang.

I doubt that either Behe or Denton have done anything to advance their careers by attacking NeoDarwinism, even though both continue to believe in evolution of some sort. As far as Behe "raking in" the bucks I doubt if you have any inside knowledge of his finances or book income. If you do please tell us how much money he made.

And "perfect job security" does not exist unless you are merely repeating the "not fired" argument. Being isolated in laboratory access or not promoted do enter into the picture of satisfaction in one's career, not to mention fellowship, etc.

BTW, most books with a creation science bent are written by PhDs
who in your mind are not "real" scientists because in the worldview of people like yourself anyone who does not believe in evolution can not be a "real" scientist.

You guys seem to specialize in circular arguments like that, don't you? :D

[Stratnerd]

I have heard it

not exactly hard evidence is it?

I doubt that either Behe or Denton have done anything to advance their careers by attacking NeoDarwinism, even though both continue to believe in evolution of some sort. As far as Behe "raking in" the bucks I doubt if you have any inside knowledge of his finances or book income. If you do please tell us how much money he made.

I have no idea how much Behe makes but his book is every bookstore I've been in.... they don't stock books in BOM or Barnes and Noble unless they're sellers and if they're selling... Behe's making money. As for his career... he probably has tenure and there's not much room to move up. Unless he wants dept. head (few profs do) and I'm sure he would make a stink if he was trying and the "evolutionists" were keeping him out.

Being isolated in laboratory access or not promoted do enter into the picture of satisfaction in one's career, not to mention fellowship, etc.

You still have yet to provide one lick of evidence to suggest that there are any number of closet creationists out there... do that first and we discuss why.

You guys seem to specialize in circular arguments like that, don't you?
more donkey doo! I didn't say anything about them not being real scientists? Did I, hmm? Then you go ahead and say I was being circular... great logic, keep it up.

[bob b]

S,

Speaking of "great" logic.

>>No. I don't know anything about God and I wouldn't use any science to figure him/her/it out either.<<

I think that it is sad that you don't know anything about G-d, because the entire reason He inspired people to write down what they did is so that we would be able to know something about Him.

>> If God appeared in my car and made it rain inside (what a great movie!)<<

Trying to know G-d by viewing such absurd caricatures of Him is not my idea of using your noodle. The very fact that you brought it up tells me you are desperately in need of reliable information about G-d.

>> it still wouldn't change my mind unless we had a conversation and said things like.... "I made things appear to have evolved and time to appear old". Then we would probably go have a beer and see a movie.<<

Your attitude toward G-d seems to be very disrespectful. You seem to think you are just like Him, nay you are better because He must convince you before you would believe. Further you blame Him for your own misinterpretations of the evidence.

What a gigantic ego you display!!!

And in the final analysis people reject G-d because they are so self-centered that they literally are worshipping themselves.

[Stratnerd]

Bob,

You couldn't possibly know what I feel in my heart about God but I appreciate your sincere attitude. Anything between God and I are between God and I; not God, myself and Bob B.

Now, care to talk about anything relevent to the thread?

[bob b]

>>care to talk about anything relevent to the thread?<<

Yes, as soon as some one posts something. The original topic, in case you have forgotten, had to do with first life.

[rbisback]

"You couldn't possibly know what I feel in my heart about God"

And YOU couldn't possibly know how life started other than from theory. And theory is not knowlege but is faith.

[Mr. Ben]

>>>> And YOU couldn't possibly know how life started other than from theory. And theory is not knowlege but is faith.

All of the evidence points to common descent, none to miraculous spontaneous creation. Rbisback.. creationism is nonsense.. regardless of whether it is printed as alegory in genesis, taught in sunday school by well meaning uneducated people, or believed by millions of the faithful.

The fossil evidence, genetic evidence, the existing nested hierarchy of similarity in extant species, the biogeographic evidence, known transitional forms, observed speciation, observed evolution, and mathematical and experimental validation of mutation plus natural selection as generating specified complexity all point to a single conclusion. Creationism is false, and evolution is true.

[Mr. Ben]

Modern medicine is filled with drugs derived from deadly poisons, from the muscle relaxant curare (taken from South American vines that are used to poison arrow tips) to the anticoagulant Aggrastat (based on the venom of the saw-scaled viper). The potency of these compounds is no accident. After all, each is part of an organism’s defense and predatory mechanisms, specifically designed by God.

The first sentence is factual. The second sentence is merely the author’s opinion; therefore it is neither factual nor mythical. All except the last four words of the third sentence are factual. The last four words express an idea believed by many to be true, but cannot be scientifically verified. By our definition above, that makes it a myth. Although some Christians might be a little uncomfortable with the term because of its usual association with Webster’s definition 2b (which we have specifically excluded from our definition), we believe most Christians would agree that the statement that poisons were designed by God is grounded in faith rather than experimental data.

You probably passed that last test, so let’s try another. See if you can separate fact from myth in the following passage.

Modern medicine is filled with drugs derived from deadly poisons, from the muscle relaxant curare (taken from South American vines that are used to poison arrow tips) to the anticoagulant Aggrastat (based on the venom of the saw-scaled viper). The potency of these compounds is no accident. After all, each is part of an organism’s defense and predatory mechanisms, whose specificity has been honed over millions of years of evolution. 1

This time it is the last 11 words of the paragraph that is a myth. Although it has not been scientifically verified that poisons evolved over millions of years, it is believed to be the case by many people. The difference is that evolutionists are not likely to admit that the evolutionary origin of poisons is a myth as we have defined it (that is, even excluding the idea that a myth is necessarily false).

The problem with this comparison is that it makes no distinction as to the actual evidence which backs up both claims.

The first claim, that poisons where created by God, is simply an assertion based on no physical evidence. We do not have any photographs of God creating, no fossil evidence showing an initial line of God created animals, no mechanism for creation aside from ineffable Godlike power, no reason why God should make snakes, or give them any sort of venom. In short, the statement stands as a simple assertion of faith, and has no explanatory or predictive power whatsoever.

Contrast this to the second statment. What do we find in the fossil record? We find a progression of animals changing over time. We find that there are no 'first snakes', but snakes emerge in the Jurassic and Cretaceous period from legged reptiles. There are no snakes before these reptiles, and there are snakes with vestigial legs afterwards.

We also find that the venom in the snakes is not simply a concoction of nasty chemicals, but actually similar to saliva. If the venom was merely created, why would it be derived from saliva. The simple answer of course it that it evolved from saliva.

In each of these claims, there is factual evidence showing linear descent, a logical theory of why this is occurs, and the prediction that traits that change in species over time do so because of environmental effects from predators, prey, and pathogens.

These claims have been tested experimentally, as well as observed in the natural setting. They make sense, are clearl and explanatory, and are also an inevitable result of the nature of genetic replicating systems.

So one is simply an ineffable and untestable claim, and the other is derived from the facts and evidence, explains the facts and makes predictions, and describes an ineluctable process by which all such similar instances must provably follow the same pattern.

[bob b]

>>makes predictions<<

I can't resist challenging the assertion that evolutionary theory makes "scientific" predictions. Why are the predictions made by astrologers any different than the ones made by evolutionists? In both cases any failures are always explained by secondary ad hoc factors not considered in the original "guess".

>>the prediction that traits that change in species over time do so because of environmental effects from predators, prey, and pathogens.<<

Or any number of other known or unknown factors in combination in a purely subjective non-quantifiable way.

The "prediction" can be restated as "If something changes something in the environment must have caused it", where "environment" would also have to include meiosis too I would judge. This is no more profound than saying that every effect must have a cause. Wow. Some "prediction". ;)

[Mr. Ben]

Or any number of other known or unknown factors in combination in a purely subjective non-quantifiable way.

Okay Bob.. let's test the predictablity of selection.

Will slower or faster gazelles tend to be selected in the presence of lions?

You can do it Bob. Predict what will happen. I know you're thinking that the faster gazelles will be selected, and I know that this is because you infer quite correctly that they will have a better chance of escaping the lion.

Given the constraints of physiology, the faster gazelle is, the better chance it has of surviving the lion's predation.

Not only is it easy to predict, but it is also easy to quantify. Simply measure the speed of the gazelles over time. If it turns out that they are getting slower and becoming easier for the lions to catch and eat, you will have falsified natural selection.

[bob b]

Ben,

You seem to be quite naive in your beliefs.

There is no particular reason to believe that gazelles are not already at the optimum combination of levels for all their traits.

I predict that nobody will be able to detect any significant long term change in the current speed of gazelles. Your prediction seems to be that they should be getting faster and faster as time goes on.

On what basis do you believe that they should be getting faster and faster? A gut "feeling"?

>>If it turns out that they are getting slower and becoming easier for the lions to catch and eat, you will have falsified natural selection.<<

I do not believe that anyone can "falsify" natural selection because natural selection is a metaphysical concept. As stated that way it is obviously true but since one can never quantify anything about it then it isn't "scientific".

Natural Selection - "Anything that causes a population to change."

How do we measure it? If the population changes it must have by definition been due to the previously mentioned "Anything",

Perhaps you could seen this more clearly by substituting a "neutral" word for the obviously "loaded" one.




When you measure the speed of gazelles you are not measuring natural selection you are measuring the speed of gazelles.

[Stratnerd]

BB,

Natural Selection - "Anything that causes a population to change." Not so - drift, phenotypic responses to the environment may also create a phenotypic change in the populations

How do we measure it? If the population changes it must have by definition been due to the previously mentioned "Anything", Only by your definition

[bob b]

I am amused by evolutionists who toss around "jargon" without understanding what they are talking about.

Obviously the environment plays a role in "phenotypic responses to the environment" and if natural selection does not include the environment then what does it include?

If one thinks about this for a second it is obvious that whoever coined the term is coming very close to thinking in Lamarkian terms, because the environment does not typically induce heritable changes, or does it?

Drift is simply a word which was coined to define hypothetical changes that might occur independent of natural selection, but the problem there is that the concept is also metaphysical and cannot be measured in the wild anymore than the various components of natural selection can.

[Stratnerd]

I am amused by evolutionists who toss around "jargon" without understanding what they are talking about.

sticks and stones....

Obviously the environment plays a role in "phenotypic responses to the environment" and if natural selection does not include the environment then what does it include? I'm not sure what your point is... but I'm referrring to a direct affect of the environment that is not part of natural selection.

If one thinks about this for a second it is obvious that whoever coined the term is coming very close to thinking in Lamarkian terms, because the environment does not typically induce heritable changes, or does it?

it may but that's besides the point

Drift is simply a word which was coined to define hypothetical changes that might occur independent of natural selection, but the problem there is that the concept is also metaphysical and cannot be measured in the wild anymore than the various components of natural selection can.

are you saying there's are no traits that you couldn't monitor, generation after generation, and attribute change to either drift or natural selection?

[bob b]

>>are you saying there's are no traits that you couldn't monitor, generation after generation, and attribute change to either drift or natural selection?<<

Yes, there are no traits you can monitor in the wild and be able to demonstrate scientifically that what you might "attribute" any changes to them are in fact what they actually were due to.

There is nothing in evolutionary theory that permits one to scientifically state the relationships between traits, drift and end results. In essence the theory is metaphysical, not scientific.

I should add that as a metaphysical theory I tend to agree with it. But taking this metaphysical theory and trying to determine how lifeforms got to where they are today or where they are going in the future is a gross misuse of the theory. Only scientific theories make scientific predictions based on the stated specific relationships between interrelated parameters.

[Stratnerd]

Yes, there are no traits you can monitor in the wild and be able to demonstrate scientifically that what you might "attribute" any changes to them are in fact what they actually were due to.

Really, so the correlation with beak size and seed size in the Galapogos finches is spurious? How would you describe this change?

There is nothing in evolutionary theory that permits one to scientifically state the relationships between traits, drift and end results. In essence the theory is metaphysical, not scientific.

Random change = drift; Nonrandom = selection (after plasticity is factored in)

But taking this metaphysical theory and trying to determine how lifeforms got to where they are today or where they are going in the future is a gross misuse of the theory.

As for explaining the past... certain hypotheses about selection can be tested and many eliminated. As where things go in the future that depends. Certainly you can make predictions about which existing variants are going to be more successful. But if you are talking about long-term predictions... you might as well grab a crystal ball but natural selection does not presume to make predictions about what mutations will arise and other events that are "external: to the population in question (such as introduced diseases).

Only scientific theories make scientific predictions based on the stated specific relationships between interrelated parameters. this is commonly done; why do you think not?

[bob b]

S,

>>the correlation with beak size and seed size in the Galapogos finches is spurious? How would you describe this change?<<

I would describe it as a correlation and not a scientific relationship. People have correlated sunspot cycles with the length of women's skirts. A scientific relationship states mathematically and quantitatively what the relationship between parameters is.

>>Random change = drift; Nonrandom = selection (after plasticity is factored in)<<

You call these scientific relationships? They sound like definitions to me.

>>As for explaining the past... certain hypotheses about selection can be tested and many eliminated.<<

How does one test a past event that can not be repeated? By mental experiment?

>> As where things go in the future that depends. Certainly you can make predictions about which existing variants are going to be more successful.<<

A "prediction" is not scientific unless it is derived from mathematical and quantitative relationships that compose the theory. Evolutionary theory is not scientific because it has no relationships that are described mathematically and quantitatively.

>> But if you are talking about long-term predictions... you might as well grab a crystal ball but natural selection does not presume to make predictions about what mutations will arise and other events that are "external: to the population in question (such as introduced diseases). <<

Correct, except you did not go far enough. Natural selection is not capable of predicting anything scientifically because it is not involved in any mathematical and quantitative relationships. It is a metaphysical rather than a scientific concept.

Bob quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only scientific theories make scientific predictions based on the stated specific relationships between interrelated parameters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>this is commonly done; why do you think not?<<

Because it is never done except in things like population genetics which are purely mathematical constructs that are not linked scientifically to the real world (sort of like computer genetic algorithms).

[Stratnerd]

about Galapagos finches and seed size...

I would describe it as a correlation and not a scientific relationship. A scientific relationship states mathematically and quantitatively what the relationship between parameters is.

Sounds like your definition of scientific relationship is correlation. I think what you need to show is a logical biological relationship that results in causation. Finches rely on seeds to live- change the attributes of seeds and you're bound to affect finches.

How does one test a past event that can not be repeated? By mental experiment?

No. But take the gazelle example; if you have a hypothesis that predators were becoming faster and the fossil record doesn't support this (biophysical studies based on osteological measurements or lack or predators altogether). Or by using phylogenies you can show that some traits are not even unique to a particular lineage and thus no story of adaptation be invoked.

A "prediction" is not scientific unless it is derived from mathematical and quantitative relationships that compose the theory. Evolutionary theory is not scientific because it has no relationships that are described mathematically and quantitatively.

I think qualatitative predictions are satisfactory but by all means tell me why I'm wrong.

[bob b]

S,

>>Sounds like your definition of scientific relationship is correlation.<<

You are not listening very closely. I emphasized quantitative. This is necessary but not sufficient.

>> I think what you need to show is a logical biological relationship that results in causation. Finches rely on seeds to live- change the attributes of seeds and you're bound to affect finches. <<

Yes, that is true, but it would be far more scientific to be able to describe quantitatively how and why the relationship behaves as it does. Adaptation such as the finch example is closer to being scientific than many other evolutionary examples such as dino to bird, but adaptation is not necessarily evolution, as I think you are well aware.

The argument is not about minor changes like finch beaks, in fact the creationists require such rapid change and adaptation in order to make their story of a Flood of a few thousand years ago with only a few survivors seem plausible.

The height of women's skirts is related in a general way to the sunspot cycle. Superbowl winners are correlated to odd things as well.

>>But take the gazelle example; if you have a hypothesis that predators were becoming faster and the fossil record doesn't support this (biophysical studies based on osteological measurements or lack or predators altogether).<<

Unfortunately people have correlated lots of things with the fossil record that are not necessarily true. Like sunspot cycles, explanations may sound plausible, but are not true.

>>Or by using phylogenies you can show that some traits are not even unique to a particular lineage and thus no story of adaptation be invoked. <<

The word "story" is quite applicable here.

>>I think qualatitative predictions are satisfactory but by all means tell me why I'm wrong.<<

Being highly subjective they are not scientific.

BTW, the use of "prediction" is a misuse of the term when discussing things already known. I obtained a book by Niles Eldridge yesterday at the library surplus book sale and reading it last night noticed that he shares your odd use of the term. What you both apparently mean is that a result was "expected". Since the general expectations were originally formulated to be consistent with the generally known evidence it should hardly be surprising to find that they are consistent with the generally known evidence.

However, when exceptions are discovered, they are not considered to necessarily be contrary to the "prediction" but only rare exceptions that can easily be explained by any number of "ad hoc" secondary explanations. If enough such exceptions are eventually found this is then evidence of the validity of the secondary ad hoc mechanisms and permits these additional mechanisms to be incorporated into the theory, giving it increasingly powerful "predictive" value. "Convergence" is a good example of this disingenuous technique.

If this sounds cynical, then it accurately reflects my deep contempt for the pseudo-scientific nature of much of evolutionary "theory", particularly the "just so" stories.

[Stratnerd]

You are not listening very closely. I emphasized quantitative. This is necessary but not sufficient.

The difference between correlation and causation has nothing to do if the parameters being measured are quantitative or qualitative.

Yes, that is true, but it would be far more scientific to be able to describe quantitatively how and why the relationship behaves as it does.

They can show a quantitative relationship with beak size and seed availability - that's easy. Grants predictions are more qualitative in that they can predict the direction of change in beak size with change in seed size, which reliably changes with climate. This doesn't make it less scientific (something is either scientific or not).

Adaptation such as the finch example is closer to being scientific than many other evolutionary examples such as dino to bird,Totally different ballfield but your definition of scientific is very idiosynchratic. As long as paleontology uses the scientific method - it's scientific. Creationism on the other hand has nothing to do with science or the scientific method - it can't.

but adaptation is not necessarily evolution, as I think you are well aware. why not?

in fact the creationists require such rapid change and adaptation in order to make their story of a Flood of a few thousand years ago with only a few survivors seem plausible. what is causing the change in beak size?

The height of women's skirts is related in a general way to the sunspot cycle. Superbowl winners are correlated to odd things as well. is there a logical connection between skirt length and sunspots?

Unfortunately people have correlated lots of things with the fossil record that are not necessarily true. Like sunspot cycles, explanations may sound plausible, but are not true.

You totally missed the point. I said that you can falsify some historical hypotheses. If someone offers a hypothesis that ancient predators increased the speed of ancient "gazelles" and you fail to show either predators or a change in speed then you falsified this guys hypothesis.

The word "story" is quite applicable here. indeed!

Being highly subjective they are not scientific. quantitative is not the same as subjective

he shares your odd use of the term. maybe because we're both working and published scientists and work within the scientific method everyday.

Since the general expectations were originally formulated to be consistent with the generally known evidence it should hardly be surprising to find that they are consistent with the generally known evidence.

the main goal of science is to understand how universal theories are. theories are built to explain existing evidence if they are truly universal, in the sense that they are able to explain the scope and scale that they explain, then you need to test that theory by looking at hypotheses that fall under the theory. if you have a superior method of testing theories let us know.

when exceptions are discovered, they are not considered to necessarily be contrary to the "prediction" explained by any number of "ad hoc" secondary explanations.

ad hoc explanations are fine; you do it all the time. it is whether they are recognized as such and if anyone tests these explanations, which are hypotheses.

"Convergence" is a good example of this disingenuous technique. good lord, i thought we were done with that. if you need it explained again please start another thread and say what your beef is as explicitly as possible.[/quote]

If this sounds cynical, then it accurately reflects my deep contempt for the pseudo-scientific nature of much of evolutionary "theory", particularly the "just so" stories. why do you lack contempt for creationism which is the least scientific of any story you could possibly imagine?

[bob b]

S,

You seem to be inconsistent about the following point.


>>(something is either scientific or not).<<

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adaptation such as the finch example is closer to being scientific than many other evolutionary examples such as dino to bird,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Totally different ballfield<<

Yes, but that doesn't agree with your "(something is either scientific or not)"<<

>> but your definition of scientific is very idiosynchratic. As long as paleontology uses the scientific method - it's scientific.<<

It depends how one defines "the scientific method". Saying that a broad field "uses the scientific method" misses the point. Some things in the field may be scientific, others may not be. The same is true of the entire field of origins.

>> Creationism on the other hand has nothing to do with science or the scientific method - it can't.<<

I disagree. Like other origins fields parts may be scientific, others may not be. Neither evolutionism nor creationism can ever be as scientific as chemistry because of their difficulty in using the experimental method.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but adaptation is not necessarily evolution, as I think you are well aware.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>why not?<<

And you hope to get a PhD? Perhaps the equivocation in the definition of evolution has you confused. Changes in gene frequency do not create new types of creatures. Moth populations may become mostly black or revert back to being mostly white, but moths are still moths. Dogs are still dogs. Fruit flies are still fruit flies.

>>what is causing the change in beak size?<<

Natural selection (by definition).

>>is there a logical connection between skirt length and sunspots?<<

I don't think so, but the remarkable correlation has caused some to try to rationalize that there must be. In different cases where a connection is more plausible, it is easier to be more gullible.

>>You totally missed the point. I said that you can falsify some historical hypotheses. If someone offers a hypothesis that ancient predators increased the speed of ancient "gazelles" and you fail to show either predators or a change in speed then you falsified this guys hypothesis.<<

You missed my point. These types of subjective arguments are not scientific. The word "story" is quite applicable here.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being highly subjective they are not scientific.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>quantitative is not the same as subjective<<

Correct. Quantitative is more objective.

>>maybe because we're both working and published scientists and work within the scientific method everyday.<<

It is sad that so much subjective evolutionary material can get published in journals that claim to be scientific.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the general expectations were originally formulated to be consistent with the generally known evidence it should hardly be surprising to find that they are consistent with the generally known evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>the main goal of science is to understand how universal theories are. theories are built to explain existing evidence if they are truly universal, in the sense that they are able to explain the scope and scale that they explain, then you need to test that theory by looking at hypotheses that fall under the theory. if you have a superior method of testing theories let us know.<<

I think your emotional reaction to what I said is interfering with your ability to write a coherent response. The major premise of evolutionary theory is that all major types originated with a single hypothetical protocell ancestor. There is no unequivocal evidence that this ever happened. There is evidence that minor changes can occur. That is all. The rest is "just so" stories and highly subjective interpretation.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
when exceptions are discovered, they are not considered to necessarily be contrary to the "prediction" explained by any number of "ad hoc" secondary explanations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>ad hoc explanations are fine; you do it all the time. it is whether they are recognized as such and if anyone tests these explanations, which are hypotheses.<<

The "test" for convergence is that it happened if some similarily is not due to descent. Some "test". Heads I win, tails you lose. I find it remarkable that an intelligent person can not see how ridiculous a "test" this is.

>>good lord, i thought we were done with that. if you need it explained again please start another thread and say what your beef is as explicitly as possible.<<

Fascinating.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this sounds cynical, then it accurately reflects my deep contempt for the pseudo-scientific nature of much of evolutionary "theory", particularly the "just so" stories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>why do you lack contempt for creationism which is the least scientific of any story you could possibly imagine?<<

I use an "equal opportunity" approach to my skepticism and contempt in which I evaluate ideas and hypotheses according to their individual merit. Thus, there is good and bad in creationist ideas and hypotheses just as there is good and bad in evolutionary ideas and hypotheses.

My primary objection to evolution is that it means more than one thing (equivocation) and hence any objection to the "protocell to man" hypothesis is typically countered by appeal to the small change hypothesis which philosophically I don't disagree with.

In other words evolution is deceptive and is able to convince by implication that science has determined that the protocell to man scenario is highly likely to be true when the actual situation is that it is highly likely to not to be true.

[Stratnerd]

B,

Yes, but that doesn't agree with your "(something is either scientific or not)"

I don't get your point. The finch study and paleontology are completely different field and both can be scientific although they have different methods.

It depends how one defines "the scientific method". Saying that a broad field "uses the scientific method" misses the point.

I think I'm using the most popular definition of scientific... you seem to have the qualitative/quantitative difference built in - I've never seen this.

I disagree.
I've already pointed out why creationism is not scientific and I would go further and say that it was antiscience!

chemistry because of their difficulty in using the experimental method.

experimentation is the hallmark of making something scientific.

Perhaps the equivocation in the definition of evolution has you confused. Changes in gene frequency do not create new types of creatures. Moth populations may become mostly black or revert back to being mostly white, but moths are still moths. Dogs are still dogs. Fruit flies are still fruit flies. Oh, so why didn't you tell me your definition of evolution? I didn't know that evolution was strictly defined as creating new "creatures".

Natural selection (by definition). impossible since NS is only metaphysical

The major premise of evolutionary theory is that all major types originated with a single hypothetical protocell ancestor. There is no unequivocal evidence that this ever happened. There is evidence that minor changes can occur. That is all. The rest is "just so" stories and highly subjective interpretation. whatever Bob, luckily the world of science rolls on without you....

I use an "equal opportunity" approach to my skepticism and contempt

That is truly hard to believe. Creationist is unscientific at so many levels - you should be screaming that it is but you defend it. Funny ain't it?

My primary objection to evolution is that it means more than one thing (equivocation) and hence any objection to the "protocell to man" hypothesis is typically countered by appeal to the small change hypothesis which philosophically I don't disagree with.

fascinating
In other words evolution is deceptive evolution is only an explanation - it is up to the individual to decide.
and is able to convince by implication that science has determined that the protocell to man scenario is highly likely to be true when the actual situation is that it is highly likely to not to be true.so is that your objective and scientific opinion or is that your subjective opinion? If the former, what are the probabilities of each?

[bob b]

S,

>>I don't get your point. <<

Do I have to spell it out? You said that "something is either scientific or not" which seemed to conflict with your phrase "closer to being scientific". I simply agreed with your 2nd statement and pointed out it was not consistent with your first one.

>>I think I'm using the most popular definition of scientific... you seem to have the qualitative/quantitative difference built in - I've never seen this.<<

You may have never seen it because you are in a field that is mostly subjective and rarely quantitative. Biology of the "here and now" is mostly quantitative and objective whereas biology of the "way back then" pretends to be scientific in areas where it is mostly "just so" stories. Even such a committed evolutionist as Gould deplored the widespread use of "just so" stories (and then went right ahead and wove some of his own).

>>Oh, so why didn't you tell me your definition of evolution? I didn't know that evolution was strictly defined as creating new "creatures".<<

That is the definition that is under dispute. You didn't know that?

>>evolution is only an explanation - it is up to the individual to decide.<<

Sounds like selling used cars to me. Perhaps we should apply "truth in advertising" more broadly.

>>so is that your objective and scientific opinion or is that your subjective opinion? If the former, what are the probabilities of each?<<

Since you seem to be talking about "mathematical probabilties" the answer has to be zero and one, because the evolution versus creation hypotheses are not true or false only some of the time (like coin flips).

If you are talking about human judgment and opinion then we can not assign a quantitative scientific "probability" because we are talking about mutually exclusive hypotheses. You prefer to go with your evolutionary "just so" stories, whereas I prefer to go with scripture, not only because it has been shown to be a highly reliable historical source but also because it fits the facts better. :D

[Stratnerd]

Yes, that is true, but it would be far more scientific to be able to describe quantitatively how and why the relationship behaves as it does. Adaptation such as the finch example is closer to being scientific than many other evolutionary examples such as dino to bird, but adaptation is not necessarily evolution, as I think you are well aware.

Do I have to spell it out? You said that "something is either scientific or not" which seemed to conflict with your phrase "closer to being scientific". Bob, check out who said what.. it was you that said: Yes, that is true, but it would be far more scientific to be able to describe quantitatively how and why the relationship behaves as it does. Adaptation such as the finch example is closer to being scientific than many other evolutionary examples such as dino to bird, but adaptation is not necessarily evolution, as I think you are well aware. understand now why I'm confused?

You may have never seen it because you are in a field that is mostly subjective and rarely quantitative. Really? What is my field?

That is the definition that is under dispute. You didn't know that?

you said "but adaptation is not necessarily evolution, as I think you are well aware." I simply pointed out that is evolution. I don't know what you're getting at. Do you still suggest that adaptation is not evolution?

[bob b]

S,

>>understand now why I'm confused?<<

Yes, I got a bit confused myself and forgot to add your reply to what I said as well as carelessly attributed what I said to what you said:

>>Totally different ballfield >>

The bottom line was that I disagreed with the thought that something is black or white "scientific" and used the difference between the finch study and the dino-bird controversy to illustrate my point. You blew off my observation with "different ballfield" which is true but which I believed refutes your scientific "black-white" stance.

BTW, I assumed your field was origins. If it isn't I am glad for you.

>>Do you still suggest that adaptation is not evolution?<<

Again we see the equivocation problem. The evolution which I dispute is protocell to man. Transformation of dino to bird is not evolution in this case.

I do not dispute that lifeforms change, in fact it is absolutely necessary to account for the many varieties of things present in the world today, especially considering that they all were derived in a relatively short time from the lifeforms preserved on the Ark. Adaptation plays a key role in this process.

The confusion arises because the same word, "evolution" is used for two completely different phenomena, one real and one merely a fantasy. It might be better if we dropped the use of the word "evolution" for the process of minor change and used "adaptation" instead. Then we could concentrate on convincing people that "evolution" (protocell to man) is a fairytale.

[Stratnerd]

You blew off my observation with "different ballfield" which is true but which I believed refutes your scientific "black-white" stance.

I wasn't blowing it off - I was trying to make the point that historical questions have different methods of validation than process questions. However, your definition of scientific is different from mine thus we'll continue to talk past each other.

BTW, I assumed your field was origins. If it isn't I am glad for you. it isn't.

Then we could concentrate on convincing people that "evolution" (protocell to man) is a fairytale. only to replace it with a more outrageous fairytale?