Jump to content


Photo

Is Evolution A Proven Fact?


  • Please log in to reply
738 replies to this topic

#721 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 20 February 2017 - 02:00 PM

I wasn't actually saying scientists are atheists. I was just speaking about atheists that are not scientists, generally.

 

Most debating atheists are people that associate themselves with science because this they think, puts atheism into the, "scientific rationalist" category. They try to argue that a scientific explanation replaces a theistic one.

 

I was just referring to atheists to be honest, and their obsession with all things science, as though only science and materialism and naturalism, is germane. This is not so, for as I explained, intelligent design is factual.

 

As for rain water being pure, that doesn't matter to the drinker of water so much. I was only saying that there is a need to remove the salinity from water before we drink it. People can drink from streams, natural springs and wells, without any salt or any problems, and if there was only salt water, all terrestrial life would have perished. 



#722 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 20 February 2017 - 03:02 PM

I wasn't actually saying scientists are atheists. I was just speaking about atheists that are not scientists, generally.

i understand.
it's easy to come to the conclusion that science is atheist, but it is comprised of people, just like you and me.
and i have no qualms in saying "i have questioned the existence of god since almost day one".
and i STILL have no answers.
in discussing abiogenesis, are you really going to let evolutionists say "the science god did it"?
no, because you want proof.
where are you going to get that proof?
by people working on the problem trying to figure out how it happened, and trust me, they aren't looking for a god.
they CANNOT rescind the laws of chemistry.
would you allow otherwise?
you simply cannot hold theism and science to the same standards, and then judge them as if you are.

god didn't put that nail in the road so you could run over it, it fell off a construction truck.
OTOH, i find that science is ill equipped to explain things such as instincts or the placebo effect.

Most debating atheists . . .

. . . aren't true scientists.
there isn't a true scientist on this planet that will categorically state "there is no god".

I was just referring to atheists to be honest, and their obsession with all things science, as though only science and materialism and naturalism, is germane. This is not so, for as I explained, intelligent design is factual

careful with your choice of words, intelligent design IS NOT a demonstrated fact.
you don't allow evolutionists to get by with this sort of thing

As for rain water being pure, that doesn't matter to the drinker of water so much. I was only saying that there is a need to remove the salinity from water before we drink it. People can drink from streams, natural springs and wells, without any salt or any problems, and if there was only salt water, all terrestrial life would have perished. 

it should be pointed out that "salt" is used in the chemical sense, NOT as sodium chloride.

#723 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 February 2017 - 03:59 AM

 

 

What If: careful with your choice of words, intelligent design IS NOT a demonstrated fact.

 

It's not a demonstrated fact that the carburetor in your car is not located inside the headlight, like your eyeball is not located inside your intestine. (specified complexity)? It's not a demonstrated fact that your car tyres are not made of iron, and my teeth aren't made from candy floss? (correct materials). It's not a demonstrated fact that car tyres are created in congruence with road tarmac? It's not a fact that lungs are made in congruence with air? (interactive viability). It's not a fact that when you use your ferrari's code-switch "on" for the lights that the engine doesn't fire? It's not a fact that when DNA codes for a synthase you don't get a two stroke engine? (information code; with code, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics all correctly in place). It's not a fact that if you cut your finger you won't bleed to death? It's not a fact that if it rains you will crash your car because it doesn't have windshield wipers? (contingency planning).

 

Why do I highlight a lifeform with an example of technology? To show that the same factual features of design in a car, are in life.

 

So then to avoid the special pleading fallacy, in regards to intelligent design, if you say something about the car, you must also say it about life.

 

Understanding the special pleading fallacy will instruct you WHY. If you don't get it, here is an example;

 

Bob has a car, with the keys and the registration.

Ken has a car, with the keys and the registration.

 

Their car, keys and registration are identical, that is all the information you have been given and all the data you have.

 

Logically, can you make the following statement?

 

"Bob is the owner of that car but Ken isn't."

 

Another example;

 

A man shoots someone because he doesn't like them. The queen of England shoots someone because she doesn't like them.

 

Can we arrest and imprison the man but let the queen go, "because she is the queen"?

 

If your answers are, "no", then you begin to understand what I mean by "special pleading". For if you have the same facts for each, but treat one differently, then it is a double standard fallacy.

 

I don't talk about these fallacies because I have invented them. We are now dealing in deductive proof.

 

Logic isn't about OPINION. It's about proof. You have deductive proof as long as the premises are certainly true and the conclusion follows.

 

EXAMPLE; three men in a house. We know one is murdered. We know nobody entered the house. We know therefore that either Bob or Ken murdered Popeye. Popeye we KNOW he was murdered in the bathroom, and Bob was recorded on CCTV washing dishes in the kitchen the whole night from an all night super steak out, eat as many as you can. Therefore Ken murdered Joe.

 

As long as the premises are 100% true, it is 100% proven that he is the murderer.

 

CONCLUSION: We know that the features of design in an eyeball are identical in their design, to that of a ferrari. Not identical in what they are, but identical in the features of design they share. For example every part of the car is arranged in a way to fit with other parts and function in congruence with them. It is the same with the eye, the location of the eyes, how it functions as a unit with the brain and ears, for balance, etc..we know the foot is not located on the elbow but in congruence with all the other parts of the body.

 

If you are going to state it is a fact that a car is designed, you must also state it is a fact that life is designed, for we have the same facts. The only difference is one vacuous difference, which is inconsequential - we know the designer of the car, we can locate them or could locate them in the past, and confirm they designed it. 

 

This is a moot point of difference for reasons I won't go into here.

 

It's not a matter of science. The science part is just the available facts of anatomy.

 

Until you start to value logic for it's importance in figuring out all of these things, you will have a vital piece of the formula missing, IMHO.

 

It is a fact life is designed, the only difference is that it is a much superior level of design as proven by the existence of biomimetics, which is a field of study which plagiarises the designs in nature because men can't match those designs. "if you can't beat them, join them."

 

That is to say - they cannot match God's designs so they have to borrow them instead. 

 

ERGO, if the designs in nature are NOT cleverer than man's designs, then it would not follow than man would steal them.

 

(That's an example of Reductio Ad Absurdum, where the modus tollens gives you 100% proof that the design in nature is cleverer than mans, for, "if it was not, man would not borrow from nature."

"man does borrow from nature, therefore it is cleverer". (modus tollens rule obeyed)

 

ERGO, it is factual that life is both designed, and more cleverly designed than man's artificial technology.

 

Do not misunderstand - I am not giving ANY opinions here, nor are any opinions of any worth, intellectually. I am simply expounding logical proof. As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, life is designed, and it doesn't matter if every opinion on the planet disagrees with me, for that does not change something which is deductively provable by the formally sound rules of a syllogistic argument.

 

So this is not something to do with "mike the wiz". No, mike the wiz is merely stating things that are 100% provable.


  • Mike Summers likes this

#724 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 21 February 2017 - 08:31 AM

It's not a demonstrated fact that the carburetor in your car is not located inside the headlight, like your eyeball is not located inside your intestine. (specified complexity)? It's not a demonstrated fact that your car tyres are not made of iron, and my teeth aren't made from candy floss? (correct materials). It's not a demonstrated fact that car tyres are created in congruence with road tarmac? It's not a fact that lungs are made in congruence with air? (interactive viability). It's not a fact that when you use your ferrari's code-switch "on" for the lights that the engine doesn't fire? It's not a fact that when DNA codes for a synthase you don't get a two stroke engine? (information code; with code, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics all correctly in place). It's not a fact that if you cut your finger you won't bleed to death? It's not a fact that if it rains you will crash your car because it doesn't have windshield wipers? (contingency planning).

oh my, have i made the gods angry?

Why do I highlight a lifeform with an example of technology? To show that the same factual features of design in a car, are in life.

and what i'm telling you is, this stuff must conform to natural laws whether it was designed or not.
do you really believe your ferrari is going to defy natural laws and fly you to the moon?
and that's the point when it comes to figuring out how this stuff (genetics) works.
i am concerned though, that some data might be ignored because it might imply design.
my hypothesis about epigenetics and the "restart" scenario for example.

Understanding the special pleading fallacy will instruct you WHY. If you don't get it, here is an example;
 
Bob has a car, with the keys and the registration.
Ken has a car, with the keys and the registration.
 
Their car, keys and registration are identical, that is all the information you have been given and all the data you have.

then i must conclude they own the same car

Logically, can you make the following statement?
 
"Bob is the owner of that car but Ken isn't."

wrong.
if the keys and registrations are identical, then they belong to the same car.
furthermore, if the registrations are indentical, then they belong to the same person.
logically, your example is illogical.

frankly, i'm not into this type of thing, simply because i question whether any of your examples even apply to evolution.

it's the same thing with those gradually fading color charts that evolutionists use to show evolution.
sure, the premise is correct, but the application of it is wrong.

#725 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,266 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 21 February 2017 - 09:07 AM

While evo scientists want to argue that life is a chemical reaction, I think it is life that animates matter.

When it comes to code it is of no use without a close rlationship with intelligence. I would argue that code and information are seperate things. Books contain code--not informattion. They must be read by intelligent beings (that know how to read (a learned process). \

Observe the letters T-A-H. Now observe the same letters placed in specified order to evoke specific information in our mind. Hat. The reader of the code must be intelligent and agree to evoke the same associated meaning to the code.

My question is what reads the code in the cell? Note that there is the same code in a dead cell than in a live cell (until it degrades) . If Intelligence is required to read the code in a book it would only follow that intelligence is required to read DNA code in the cell.



#726 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,266 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 21 February 2017 - 09:19 AM

what if said:

if the keys and registrations are identical, then they belong to the same car.
furthermore, if the registrations are indentical, then they belong to the same person.
logically, your example is illogical.

Keys are often finite and can repeat. An intelligent being could mfg two identical cars and key them the same.
Cars can be designed to operate with identical keys.

 



#727 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 21 February 2017 - 09:44 AM

what if said:
Keys are often finite and can repeat. An intelligent being could mfg two identical cars and key them the same.
Cars can be designed to operate with identical keys.

identical registrations belong to the same car, and to the same person.
VIN numbers and social security numbers/addresses are unique.

#728 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 February 2017 - 10:34 AM

 

 

What If: wrong.
if the keys and registrations are identical, then they belong to the same car.
furthermore, if the registrations are indentical, then they belong to the same person.
logically, your example is illogical.

 

Good grief Bilbo, you are way way out of the ball park.

 

You haven't understood my example at all, I meant one person owns his own car and another person also owns his own car, and they both have the same evidence to show us, we only know they both have a car, both have a registration and both have keys, each person has identical evidence, can you say of one person, "this person is guilty but the other is innocent".

 

You don't "get" the logic yet.

 

Here is an easier example. If one child comes up to you and asks for a sweet and another child does, is it correct to give one child a sweet but not the other if you don't know the children but assert about one of them, "this one doesn't deserve a sweet."

 

The point is it is an example where you have two claims of which the data is identical, meaning logically, you can only treat both of the claims equally. It's a deductive proof, it means that if you say no to one of the children on the basis of the same evidence, you must also say no to the other child, and if you say yes to one child, you must also say yes to the other child.

 

It's called special pleading, where you claim there is a special reason why you can treat one claim differently to the other, even though the evidence you have presented to you for both claims, is identical.

 

 

 

What If: and what i'm telling you is, this stuff must conform to natural laws whether it was designed or not.
do you really believe your ferrari is going to defy natural laws and fly you to the moon?
and that's the point when it comes to figuring out how this stuff (genetics) works.
i am concerned though, that some data might be ignored because it might imply design.
my hypothesis about epigenetics and the "restart" scenario for example.

 

But none of this changes what I said, an eyeball is still constructed to see like a car is constructed to drive. The design is simply there whether you like it or not. You repeat this over and over about natural laws but it doesn't affect whether something is designed or not, a car is still designed even if it does conform.



#729 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 February 2017 - 10:38 AM

Mike I said "information code" with you in mind, because I acknowledge your delineation about "code" and "information" being separated.

 

You see, your baba friend remembers you in his thoughts!! :)



#730 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 February 2017 - 11:09 AM

I said, "the owner of that car" when I should have said, "the owner of his car", that probably threw you guys off, sometimes I am sloppy when I am typing fast. I mean that they both had cars.



#731 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 21 February 2017 - 04:57 PM

Good grief Bilbo, you are way way out of the ball park.
 
You haven't understood my example at all,

yes i have.
i can come to the following conclusions about the registration scenario:
2 identical registrations belong to the same person, and the same car.
one of those registrations is either:
issued by the BMV to replaced a "lost" one, or, is a photocopy.

question 1, how does this apply to evolution?
question 2, who is bilbo?

I meant one person owns his own car and another person also owns his own car, and they both have the same evidence to show us, we only know they both have a car, both have a registration and both have keys, each person has identical evidence, can you say of one person, "this person is guilty but the other is innocent".

okay, again how does this apply to evolution?
 

You don't "get" the logic yet.

no, because i have no idea how it applies to evolution.
 

Here is an easier example. If one child comes up to you and asks for a sweet and another child does, is it correct to give one child a sweet but not the other if you don't know the children but assert about one of them, "this one doesn't deserve a sweet." 
The point is it is an example where you have two claims of which the data is identical, meaning logically, you can only treat both of the claims equally.

i have my doubts whether the above is true or not.
as a matter of fact, noble himself blasts this concept out of the water when he said, completely opposite interpretations can be made from the same set of data.

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]But none of this changes what I said, an eyeball is still constructed to see like a car is constructed to drive. The design is simply there whether you like it or not. You repeat this over and over about natural laws but it doesn't affect whether something is designed or not, a car is still designed even if it does conform.

and you somehow think that because it was designed, that it doesn't have to obey natural laws?
you mean, i can actually see sound waves, not the effects, but the actual waves themselves?
i can see radio waves?
i can see atoms with my naked eye?

whether it was designed or not IS IRRELEVANT

well, that's the way it's supposed to be.
like i mentioned before, i'm concerned that data might be ignored, simply because it might imply design.
like my epigenetics and the "restart" scenario, this line of reasoning will most likely never be pursued, simply because there is no known way to ascribe it to "dumb luck"

i think science already has the evidence for design, for the simple fact that it has been unable to recreate the cell.
it isn't because science lacks the tools or the resources, it's the incredible complexity of the cell itself.
maybe someday they will, but that day is far from tomorrow, maybe even very, very, far.

#732 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 22 February 2017 - 04:35 AM

 

 

What If: yes i have.
i can come to the following conclusions about the registration scenario:
2 identical registrations belong to the same person, and the same car.
one of those registrations is either:
issued by the BMV to replaced a "lost" one, or, is a photocopy.

question 1, how does this apply to evolution?
question 2, who is bilbo?

 

But this isn't the point of my analogy. Believe it or not it's very common for people to change the analogy but it doesn't mean anything as the analogy is only made to represent a point and nothing more.

 

If I were to say to you, "these two meals are like chalk and cheese", the only thing I mean, is that they are very different to one another. So can you see how changing the analogy, or inventing more things to include in the analogy, is POINTLESS?

 

For example imagine if you objected; "but you can eat cheese but you can't eat chalk".

 

That is basically your complaint when you say, "one is a photocopy" - no, the point of the analogy was only to show that we have identical evidence for each person, so if we have to make a judgement call about the veracity of them owning their cars, we can't treat one person differently from the other person, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW if one is a photo copy. The point of the analogy, is to show that in both cases, in regards to both people, we have the same information about them.

 

So what am I saying? I am saying that if a dichotomy is two limited choices of which one mutually excludes the other, that where you have two mutually inclusive examples, each one will automatically include the other.

 

In other words, if you subject one to standard P, you must automatically subject the second example to standard P, if that example is equivalent to the other one.

 

Perhaps my analogy isn't the best one. I shall give a more obvious example;

 

 Imagine you were a judge and for two cases that were identical, you had a story of whiplash with evidence that is poor and can't really be tested and even though both cases are for all purposes, identical, you say, "the first person I believe the second person I don't."

 

That is a double standard fallacy. If you believe the first person and accept their story, you must also accept the second person's story. And if you don't accept the first person's story, you must also not accept the second, but logically you can never treat them differently if the facts they present are equal.

 

This isn't something I read, it's something I've figured out myself using logic. So then if life presents all of the same features of design as man's designs does such as specified complexity, information, contingency planning, then if you say "it isn't a fact life is designed" then you also have to say, "it isn't a fact that a car is designed", because we have the same designer facts equally, for both.

 

(take some time to think about it. It's not that easy to grasp if you struggle to understand logic.)

 

 

 

What If: i have my doubts whether the above is true or not.
as a matter of fact, noble himself blasts this concept out of the water when he said, completely opposite interpretations can be made from the same set of data.

 

I think he meant something entirely different. he probably meant that where there is a body of evidence, you can reason that for example, the person was murdered by Bob or wasn't murdered by Bob but rather it was self-defence.

 

That isn't what I am saying. I am saying you must treat two equal claims with the same standard for each. If two children come up to me in the street and I have a full bag of sweets and they are standing together and one asks for a sweet and the other does, logically speaking it is a double standard to say to them; "well, I shall give you a sweet but not your friend".

 

Are you saying that Noble "himself" is saying there is no such thing as a double standard fallacy, or a special pleading fallacy and that basically I invented those terms?

 

 

 

What If: and you somehow think that because it was designed, that it doesn't have to obey natural laws?

 

No, I said even if things do conform to natural laws that doesn't mean they're not designed. That is why I said, "even if they do conform" to natural laws.

 

I don't see the relevance of design conforming to natural laws. Are you saying that because they do that somehow nature is ultimately in charge and they can't be miraculous? If that is your argument, you've fell into the trap of thinking that miracles can't be natural.

 

If God created the universe and the universe is natural, then the universe which is natural, is also a miracle.



#733 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 22 February 2017 - 08:04 AM

But this isn't the point of my analogy. Believe it or not it's very common for people to change the analogy but it doesn't mean anything as the analogy is only made to represent a point and nothing more.
 
If I were to say to you, "these two meals are like chalk and cheese", the only thing I mean, is that they are very different to one another. So can you see how changing the analogy, or inventing more things to include in the analogy, is POINTLESS?
 
For example imagine if you objected; "but you can eat cheese but you can't eat chalk".
 
That is basically your complaint when you say, "one is a photocopy" - no, the point of the analogy was only to show that we have identical evidence for each person, so if we have to make a judgement call about the veracity of them owning their cars, we can't treat one person differently from the other person, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW if one is a photo copy. The point of the analogy, is to show that in both cases, in regards to both people, we have the same information about them.
 
So what am I saying? I am saying that if a dichotomy is two limited choices of which one mutually excludes the other, that where you have two mutually inclusive examples, each one will automatically include the other.
 
In other words, if you subject one to standard P, you must automatically subject the second example to standard P, if that example is equivalent to the other one.
 
Perhaps my analogy isn't the best one. I shall give a more obvious example;
 
 Imagine you were a judge and for two cases that were identical, you had a story of whiplash with evidence that is poor and can't really be tested and even though both cases are for all purposes, identical, you say, "the first person I believe the second person I don't."
 
That is a double standard fallacy. If you believe the first person and accept their story, you must also accept the second person's story. And if you don't accept the first person's story, you must also not accept the second, but logically you can never treat them differently if the facts they present are equal.
 
This isn't something I read, it's something I've figured out myself using logic. So then if life presents all of the same features of design as man's designs does such as specified complexity, information, contingency planning, then if you say "it isn't a fact life is designed" then you also have to say, "it isn't a fact that a car is designed", because we have the same designer facts equally, for both.
 
(take some time to think about it. It's not that easy to grasp if you struggle to understand logic.)

every time i read stuff like what you posted above, i'm reminded of those gradually fading color charts evolutionists use to illustrate evolution..
"see how this works" they say, except it doesn't apply to evolution.
so, my first thought is how does it apply to evolution and can it be demonstrated that it does.
 

I think he meant something entirely different. he probably meant that where there is a body of evidence, you can reason that for example, the person was murdered by Bob or wasn't murdered by Bob but rather it was self-defence.

the exact opposite of "murdered" is "not murdered".
please don't start the evolutionist stuff by saying "he didn't mean it" or by copy/pasting his quote verbatum i have somehow "misinterpreted it" or "misunderstood it".

That isn't what I am saying. I am saying you must treat two equal claims with the same standard for each.

what standards apply both to science and theism?

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]I don't see the relevance of design conforming to natural laws. Are you saying that because they do that somehow nature is ultimately in charge and they can't be miraculous? If that is your argument, you've fell into the trap of thinking that miracles can't be natural.

okay, a simple but far fetched example:
captain james t. kirk walks up to you and hands you a tricorder.
you look at it and then pitch it over your shoulder saying "it's designed, we'll never figure out how it works".

#734 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 815 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 22 February 2017 - 08:53 AM

you need to take this stuff up with koonin.
i posted what he said, and i'm positive he knows exactly what he is talking about.
he specifically states animal phyla arrived on the scene fully formed with no intermediates to the last nexus (which i assume to be eukaryotic super groups).
from koonin:
I propose that most or all major evolutionary transitions that show the "explosive" pattern of emergence of new types of biological entities correspond to a boundary between two qualitatively distinct evolutionary phases. The first, inflationary phase is characterized by extremely rapid evolution driven by various processes of genetic information exchange, such as horizontal gene transfer, recombination, fusion, fission, and spread of mobile elements. These processes give rise to a vast diversity of forms from which the main classes of entities at the new level of complexity emerge independently, through a sampling process.
- The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.htm
the above can hardly be seen as anything even approaching gradual.

 

You posted what he said (obviously talking about the Cambrian explosion and before), but then you added your own words and said that "there has hardly been any change since", and that new phyla are required for it be considered evolution. That is not what Koonin said; do you understand the difference between what you quote and your own commentary? 

 

The closest thing to a human in the Cambrian was a bony fish, our distant ancestor some 550 million years ago, and since both bony fish and humans are chordates they belong to the same phylum (animals with a spinal chord, to keep it simple). So you, not Koonin, but you, are telling me that going from a fish to a human is "hardly any change" and is not evolution because the changes are too small. I think that is an absurd statement; do you really believe that a fish to a human requires almost no change, and that such a change is too small to be considered evolution, or do you not understand what you are saying? 

 

do you think research is driven by "who has the money"?
if someone is unwilling to fund the research, then this research will most likely not take place.
pharma has a huge pile of cash at its disposal.
so, it seems that if we can control the cash flow, we can essentially control what gets published.
this is probably one of the largest problems with professional science.

 

I agree to a large extent. Each field faces its own challenges in bias, many of which are either directly or indirectly related to money. In the case drug of research (or product research; e.g. let's test this shampoo product to see if it is a mutagen) there are ways to set up the experiment or trial to favor your drug or product. One common way is to select out test subjects that are more likely to have a the response you want, so for shampoo testing of mutagens for example the researchers may select a bacterium to test it on that is known to be particularly resistant to certain kinds of mutagens. In other products, like those for pet dogs, researchers will chose specific dog breeds that are known to be resistant to adverse effects of a given product (it is actually quite amazing how different dog breeds will have wildly different experiences with the same product). And of course when a company does a study it doesn't like it doesn't have to public reveal that study or even inform relevant regulatory agencies of the government (at least in America, I can't speak for other countries). And medical research for humans has their own problems like doctors and researchers not publishing negative results because such studies don't further your career and you'd rather spend your time on more career supporting research despite that those negative result studies can be extremely important and valuable from a medical standpoint. But I've rambled on, so I digress. 

 

why am i obsessed?
because professional science has not rescinded it, that's why.
there are only 2 conclusions we can draw from this:
1. the quote is accurate.
or
2. someone is lying.

i seriously doubt that science (the journal) gained its respect by lying.
futhermore, it seems very unlikely that science would risk its reputation over the dignity of one scientist.

also, why would ayala consider the modern synthesis as dead if his research supposedly supported it?
Suzan Mazur: In recent years the modern synthesis has been declared extended by major evolutionary thinkers (e.g., “the Altenberg 16“ and others), as well as dead by major evolutionary thinkers, the late Lynn Margulis and Francisco Ayala among them. Ditto for the public discourse on the Internet. My understanding is that you are now calling for the modern synthesis to be replaced.
- www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/replace-the-modern-sythes_b_5284211.html

the above was from an interview between mazur and noble.

as of right now, no one has produced anything from the journal science that says, hey guys, we got this wrong.

i've seen webpages of the article with the alleged retraction illegally inserted along with a "copyright" notice that says it came from science.
i saved that page, and here are a few excerpts:
"Science" 21 November 1980, vol. 210, s. 883-887; http://www.theistic-....com/lewin.htmlThis article reports the 1980 Conference on Macroevolution held in Chicago.
. . .
In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said: "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate." [Note: Dr. Ayala denies that he said this. Please see the letter reproduced below from Richard Arrowsmith and Dr. Ayala.]

the above disclaimer about ayala appears NOWHERE in the pages of science.

yes goku, something is very wrong here.

 

As I told you before, even if we assume that the quote is genuine it doesn't mean what you think it means when you consider the context that it was made in - a discussion about PE versus gradualism. In addition Ayala's own subsequent paper contradicts your interpretation of the quote. 

 

I didn't say Ayala supported the modern synthesis as it was codified in the time period in which he wrote those statements. You have to understand the context in which those statements were made. I have probably explained this to you half a dozen times already; the modern synthesis has been revised several times before, and currently there is a debate on whether or not the new revisions warrant a new theory or if they can be included in the current conception of the theory. 

 

How do you know Science didn't accept the retraction? If you have a pdf version of the original 1980 paper it would obviously not have a retraction if there was one. 

 

At best you have a 40 year old quote that is contradicted by the same person's own subsequent paper, and a quote which virtually every biologist would disagree with, and some guy on the internet who made up a fake retraction. There is honestly nothing to this story of any scientific consequence. If this is one of your better pieces of evidence for some nefarious plot of scientists to keep information from the public, I can safely dismiss your concerns as unfounded. 

 

 

you need to take this stuff up with koonin.
i posted what he said, and i'm positive he knows exactly what he is talking about.
he specifically states animal phyla arrived on the scene fully formed with no intermediates to the last nexus (which i assume to be eukaryotic super groups).
from koonin:
I propose that most or all major evolutionary transitions that show the "explosive" pattern of emergence of new types of biological entities correspond to a boundary between two qualitatively distinct evolutionary phases. The first, inflationary phase is characterized by extremely rapid evolution driven by various processes of genetic information exchange, such as horizontal gene transfer, recombination, fusion, fission, and spread of mobile elements. These processes give rise to a vast diversity of forms from which the main classes of entities at the new level of complexity emerge independently, through a sampling process.
- The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.htm
the above can hardly be seen as anything even approaching gradual.
do you think research is driven by "who has the money"?
if someone is unwilling to fund the research, then this research will most likely not take place.
pharma has a huge pile of cash at its disposal.
so, it seems that if we can control the cash flow, we can essentially control what gets published.
this is probably one of the largest problems with professional science.
why am i obsessed?
because professional science has not rescinded it, that's why.
there are only 2 conclusions we can draw from this:
1. the quote is accurate.
or
2. someone is lying.

i seriously doubt that science (the journal) gained its respect by lying.
futhermore, it seems very unlikely that science would risk its reputation over the dignity of one scientist.

also, why would ayala consider the modern synthesis as dead if his research supposedly supported it?
Suzan Mazur: In recent years the modern synthesis has been declared extended by major evolutionary thinkers (e.g., “the Altenberg 16“ and others), as well as dead by major evolutionary thinkers, the late Lynn Margulis and Francisco Ayala among them. Ditto for the public discourse on the Internet. My understanding is that you are now calling for the modern synthesis to be replaced.
- www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/replace-the-modern-sythes_b_5284211.html

the above was from an interview between mazur and noble.

as of right now, no one has produced anything from the journal science that says, hey guys, we got this wrong.

i've seen webpages of the article with the alleged retraction illegally inserted along with a "copyright" notice that says it came from science.
i saved that page, and here are a few excerpts:
"Science" 21 November 1980, vol. 210, s. 883-887; http://www.theistic-....com/lewin.htmlThis article reports the 1980 Conference on Macroevolution held in Chicago.
. . .
In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said: "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate." [Note: Dr. Ayala denies that he said this. Please see the letter reproduced below from Richard Arrowsmith and Dr. Ayala.]

the above disclaimer about ayala appears NOWHERE in the pages of science.

yes goku, something is very wrong here.

 



#735 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 22 February 2017 - 10:08 AM

You posted what he said (obviously talking about the Cambrian explosion and before), but then you added your own words and said that "there has hardly been any change since", . . .

yes, because koonin SPECIFICALLY states animal phyla arrived on the scene FULLY FORMED.
do you know what fully formed means?

. . . and that new phyla are required for it be considered evolution. That is not what Koonin said; do you understand the difference between what you quote and your own commentary?

how do you know what he means?
i noticed you never offered any insights.
science already knows species aren't the durable units of evolution, therefor speciation cannot be used as a demonstration of evolution.
next up is families, but koonin said animal phyla was fully formed, which includes families.
next up is phyla.
get the picture? 

The closest thing to a human in the Cambrian was a bony fish, our distant ancestor some 550 million years ago, and since both bony fish and humans are chordates they belong to the same phylum (animals with a spinal chord, to keep it simple). So you, not Koonin, but you, are telling me that going from a fish to a human is "hardly any change" and is not evolution because the changes are too small. I think that is an absurd statement; do you really believe that a fish to a human requires almost no change, and that such a change is too small to be considered evolution, or do you not understand what you are saying?

what part of "fully formed" do you not understand?
koonin specifically states animal phyla arrived here fully formed.
he did not mention ANYTHING about man or fish.
i realize this is really hard for you to accept.
if they were fully formed then what kind of evolution has happened since then goku?

As I told you before, even if we assume that the quote is genuine it doesn't mean what you think it means when you consider the context that it was made in - a discussion about PE versus gradualism. In addition Ayala's own subsequent paper contradicts your interpretation of the quote.

hilarious.
i guess koonin really didn't mean it when he said animal phyla arrived here fully formed either.

How do you know Science didn't accept the retraction? If you have a pdf version of the original 1980 paper it would obviously not have a retraction if there was one.

well, by all means, present the issue of science with this alleged retraction.
as of now, no one has been able to.
you also didn't address the letters issue.
if this quote was something that "no biologist would agree with", then why wasn't there one single letter that mentioned that fact?

i have proven beyond doubt how the modern sythesists has ignored demonstrated evidence solely because it did not fit into their preconceived ideas of "gradual accumulations"
there's a good chance that transposons were ignored for the very same reason, they weren't small gradual changes. 

At best you have a 40 year old quote that is contradicted by the same person's own subsequent paper, and a quote which virtually every biologist would disagree with, and some guy on the internet who made up a fake retraction. There is honestly nothing to this story of any scientific consequence. If this is one of your better pieces of evidence for some nefarious plot of scientists to keep information from the public, I can safely dismiss your concerns as unfounded.

at best i have a quote published by the journal science, and science has not rescinded it.
also, this very same quote was used by a natural history historian verbatum 25 years later in one of their publications.

it's all too clear to me goku, the concept of "accumulating small gradual changes" is probably one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated on humanity.

noble drives this point home with his dialog about waddington.

here is some more stuff koonin "didn't say" in regards to the tree of life concept:
"At the distinct risk of earning the ire of many for associating with a much-maligned cultural thread, . . . we must relegate the Victorian worldview (including its refurbished versions that flourished in the twentieth century) to the venerable museum halls where it belongs, and explore the consequences of the paradigm shift."
- forbes

i think it's especially telling that koonin chooses the words "At the distinct risk of earning the ire of many . . ."

sounds to me as if koonin knows exactly what he is up against.

another thing, how can i mysteriously "misinterpret" almost everything about evolution, but yet have no problems with a SAT test, or any other test for that matter.

BTW, you might have missed this, but what gives you the idea that gould doesn't like being quoted? (or "qoutemined", whatever that means).
is this something you heard somewhere and decided to repeat it, or can you provide a reputable source for it.

heh, here's gould:
Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty.
- gould.

compare the above quote to what happened to waddington.

hey, here's another:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.
- gould.

compare the above with your "misinterpretation" allegations.

and lastly (i like this one)
The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best - and therefore never scrutinize or question.
- gould.

#736 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 22 February 2017 - 12:07 PM

 

 

What If: the exact opposite of "murdered" is "not murdered".
please don't start the evolutionist stuff by saying "he didn't mean it" or by copy/pasting his quote verbatum i have somehow "misinterpreted it" or "misunderstood it".

 

Well, i would say the opposite of murdered where your life is taken on purpose, is that you are given life on purpose, such as an intended conception. The contrary to P is, "not P", thus I think you mean that the contrary to murdered is, "not murdered".

 

All I mean to say is if I read what you said, I don't think Noble was talking about two separate identical cases, but one case where you can reach two different conclusions whereas I am talking about two cases where you have to have the same conclusion for each.

 

I was only responding to your claim that it isn't a fact that life is designed remember, in which case we also have to say that it is not a fact that a car is designed. :)

 

 

 

What If: every time i read stuff like what you posted above, i'm reminded of those gradually fading color charts evolutionists use to illustrate evolution..
"see how this works" they say, except it doesn't apply to evolution.
so, my first thought is how does it apply to evolution and can it be demonstrated that it does.

 

It doesn't apply to evolution, it is only a response to your claim that intelligent design in life is not factual.

 

I'm not sure why you even disagree to be honest. The stuff I am explaining can be found on any site that expounds logical fallacies, it's not as though I am invented a double standard fallacy.

 

There just isn't any way around deductive proof, and I don't think you get it yet. Which is fine, we all are good at grasping some concepts and not others, for example I am not that good at grasping the chemistry concepts you talk about. 



#737 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 22 February 2017 - 01:21 PM

Well, i would say the opposite of murdered where your life is taken on purpose, is that you are given life on purpose, such as an intended conception. The contrary to P is, "not P", thus I think you mean that the contrary to murdered is, "not murdered".

okay, fair enough.
 

All I mean to say is if I read what you said, I don't think Noble was talking about two separate identical cases, but one case where you can reach two different conclusions whereas I am talking about two cases where you have to have the same conclusion for each.

yes, noble was referring to a concept, and that concept could be interpreted in exactly opposite ways
 

I was only responding to your claim that it isn't a fact that life is designed remember, in which case we also have to say that it is not a fact that a car is designed. :)

wha ? ? ?
i never once said life wasn't designed.
i said it is irrelevant whether it is or not

It doesn't apply to evolution, it is only a response to your claim that intelligent design in life is not factual.

where have i said, intelligent design is, or isn't, factual?
 i said IT IS IRRELEVANT.

I'm not sure why you even disagree to be honest. The stuff I am explaining can be found on any site that expounds logical fallacies, it's not as though I am invented a double standard fallacy.

have you considered that life may be completely illogical?
that all attempts to rationalize it by scientific means will ultimately fail?
that it will defy logical reasoning unless intelligence is taken into account?
my "restart" scenario makes all the sense in the world, but unless it can be ascribed to dumb luck this line of reasoning will never be pursued.
i can only imagine how waddington felt.

#738 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 22 February 2017 - 02:36 PM

 

 

What If: careful with your choice of words, intelligent design IS NOT a demonstrated fact.

 

But it's time to let it go I suppose.

 

 

 

What if: have you considered that life may be completely illogical?
that all attempts to rationalize it by scientific means will ultimately fail?
that it will defy logical reasoning unless intelligence is taken into account?

 

The miraculous is right there on a plate, but if you don't pick it up to eat how can you taste it? :D



#739 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 22 February 2017 - 04:20 PM

But it's time to let it go I suppose.

science hasn't demonstrated ID.
science hasn't even identified an intelligence, much less located it.
the only intelligence i'm aware of is that which resides in animals.
OTOH, there seems to be an intelligence operating within the cell.
i cannot say there is, or isn't, an unknown "force", because i simply do not know.

The miraculous is right there on a plate, but if you don't pick it up to eat how can you taste it? :D

i have no desire to eat evolution.
i want to know its deepest, darkest, secrets.
it won't be long until there is a textbook on DNA and how it works written for beginning college students
ENCODE along with CRISPR is going to tell us everything we need to know.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users