Jump to content


Photo

"that Which Can Be Asserted Without Evidence, Can Be Dismissed Without Evidence.”

argument from ignorance

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
21 replies to this topic

#21 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 20 March 2012 - 08:53 PM

1. What were these? Tacking on the word "evolves" doesn't mean anything... (I have seen this happen in many of my lectures... add in the word evolve or evolution and that phenomena is now evidence of evolution...). I'd ask where is the evidence. Science is not a battle of words, it is about evidence.


2. I asked my lecturer that and was given an unsatisfactory answer, (it would depend on what you ask).

I asked her how do the irreducibly complex cellular systems arise via gradual evolution... She didn't answer this but instead said that because the human body is not perfect therefore there is no God... How this answer is logical is an absolute mystery since it assumes what God would and would not do, something we cannot verify.


3. ANd have these bacteria "evolved" into anything other than dfferent strains of bacteria?..... No?... I rest my case.

(different strains = different breeds =/= different species = no evolution)

4. That argument is moot since common design (cellular systems etc) can also infer a common designer... Hence the fact that things share the same DNA because they share the same cellular designs is also evidence of a common designer.

5. Actually that would confirm evolution since that is what is being said... Over time a bacteria "gave birth" to fish and a fish "gave birth" to amphibians etc etc... Hence your incredulity about this point displays how outrageous the claims of evolution actually are, thanks for proving one of the creationist points.

6. Evolution was never built on the laws of Genetics... (They were not known in Darwins time).. Have a chat with Jason and he will tell you about how Mendel (the father od Genetics) was ignored for 40 odd years since his laws of hereditary defied the concept of evolution... (until they changed evolution ad hoc)


1. I'm sorry, I don't get it. We are shown specific examples in class how a genetic change in our DNA causes a different protein to be on the wrong place in a molecule, and that in turn causes diseases, upon which natural selection acts.

2. That would be because so far irreducible complexity has not been satisfactorily proven, especially not by Michael Behe. The flagellum and immune systems are perfectly well explainable from the standpoint of evolution, and there is no irreducible complexity there.
That would explain why your prof couldn't answer you question satisfactorily.

3. Some of those bacteria have evolved newer genes to be able to derive their energy from a different source of energy (a different sugar they were completely unable to use before) and how in a different experiment single celled organisms had grouped into clusters of 4 cells, not acting as a multicellular organism, but as a cluster of cells living together. I can explain how this is also evidence for evolution, if you wish.

4. No, what I'm saying is that a way to falsify evolution would be to find an organism with NO similarities. On the other hand, how can the 'common designer' hypothesis explain anything? Why are two animals similar (cat vs dog) and two others are so different (dog vs octopus)? Evolution can provide an explanation, I've yet to hear one from the intelligent design hypothesis.

5. The fact you expect bacteria to become fish to become amphibians to become us, or that bacteria evolve into non-bacteria, shows that you do not understand what the theory of evolution really is. If a cat gave birth to a dog, it would destroy the theory of evolution, in much the same way that if the sun were to suddenly start dancing in the sky while blinking in morse code would destroy gravitational and atomic theory. Yes, you saying that a bacteria gave birth to a fish is predicted by evolution is as ludicrous as me saying the sun blinking a message to us is what is predicted by the atomic theory.

6. True, my bad. The modern synthesis of the theory of evolution is however based upon genetics.
Also, I don't exactly understand what you mean by ad-hoc change. Could you clarify please?

#22 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 March 2012 - 10:43 PM

1. I'm sorry, I don't get it. We are shown specific examples in class how a genetic change in our DNA causes a different protein to be on the wrong place in a molecule, and that in turn causes diseases, upon which natural selection acts.

2. That would be because so far irreducible complexity has not been satisfactorily proven, especially not by Michael Behe. The flagellum and immune systems are perfectly well explainable from the standpoint of evolution, and there is no irreducible complexity there.
That would explain why your prof couldn't answer you question satisfactorily.

3. Some of those bacteria have evolved newer genes to be able to derive their energy from a different source of energy (a different sugar they were completely unable to use before) and how in a different experiment single celled organisms had grouped into clusters of 4 cells, not acting as a multicellular organism, but as a cluster of cells living together. I can explain how this is also evidence for evolution, if you wish.

4. No, what I'm saying is that a way to falsify evolution would be to find an organism with NO similarities. On the other hand, how can the 'common designer' hypothesis explain anything? Why are two animals similar (cat vs dog) and two others are so different (dog vs octopus)? Evolution can provide an explanation, I've yet to hear one from the intelligent design hypothesis.

5. The fact you expect bacteria to become fish to become amphibians to become us, or that bacteria evolve into non-bacteria, shows that you do not understand what the theory of evolution really is. If a cat gave birth to a dog, it would destroy the theory of evolution, in much the same way that if the sun were to suddenly start dancing in the sky while blinking in morse code would destroy gravitational and atomic theory. Yes, you saying that a bacteria gave birth to a fish is predicted by evolution is as ludicrous as me saying the sun blinking a message to us is what is predicted by the atomic theory.

6. True, my bad. The modern synthesis of the theory of evolution is however based upon genetics.
Also, I don't exactly understand what you mean by ad-hoc change. Could you clarify please?

1. I'm sorry, I don't get it. We are shown specific examples in class how a genetic change in our DNA causes a different protein to be on the wrong place in a molecule, and that in turn causes diseases, upon which natural selection acts.

2. That would be because so far irreducible complexity has not been satisfactorily proven, especially not by Michael Behe. The flagellum and immune systems are perfectly well explainable from the standpoint of evolution, and there is no irreducible complexity there.
That would explain why your prof couldn't answer you question satisfactorily.

3. Some of those bacteria have evolved newer genes to be able to derive their energy from a different source of energy (a different sugar they were completely unable to use before) and how in a different experiment single celled organisms had grouped into clusters of 4 cells, not acting as a multicellular organism, but as a cluster of cells living together. I can explain how this is also evidence for evolution, if you wish.

4. No, what I'm saying is that a way to falsify evolution would be to find an organism with NO similarities. On the other hand, how can the 'common designer' hypothesis explain anything? Why are two animals similar (cat vs dog) and two others are so different (dog vs octopus)? Evolution can provide an explanation, I've yet to hear one from the intelligent design hypothesis.

5. The fact you expect bacteria to become fish to become amphibians to become us, or that bacteria evolve into non-bacteria, shows that you do not understand what the theory of evolution really is. If a cat gave birth to a dog, it would destroy the theory of evolution, in much the same way that if the sun were to suddenly start dancing in the sky while blinking in morse code would destroy gravitational and atomic theory. Yes, you saying that a bacteria gave birth to a fish is predicted by evolution is as ludicrous as me saying the sun blinking a message to us is what is predicted by the atomic theory.

6. True, my bad. The modern synthesis of the theory of evolution is however based upon genetics.
Also, I don't exactly understand what you mean by ad-hoc change. Could you clarify please?


1. Then that isn't evolution... Unless you believe evolution to be the accumulation of genetic diseases. Yes they are selected against, more because the diseases cause death not due to natural selection.... otherwise there would be no diseases.

Yet how does this affirm the selection of positive attributes to create a new species? ie- fish to ampibian... Your example does no such thing.


2. Ummm and on what evidence to you base this claim on? (Just because you claim it so doesn't make it so... otherwise I'd say that I have $1,000,000 and poof there it is)

Here is my evidence, (well a small taste)... Cellular respiration is indeed irreducibly complex. There is no known and no logical mechanism that can create the inter-dependent system without having all the parts in place.

Glycolysis requires citric acid cycle, (CAC) to use its product (pyruvate) otherwise it gets to toxic levels. It also produces NADH and requires the electron transport chain to replenish NAD in order for it to continue working.
The CAC requires the pyruvate from Glycolysis as a substrate. It also produces NADH and FADH2 and requires the electron transport chain to replenish FAD and NAD in order for it to continue working.
The electron transport chain requires the NADH and FADH2 from the other two processes in order to create a Hydrogen gradient so that the Hydrogens can diffuse back through ATP synthase and create ATP via the hydrogen flow... (like a water turbine but for hydrogens)


Now these processes can only work when all others are available..Therefore these cannot come about via a gradual "bit-bybit" process since in order for it to be selected for there needs to be a fitness benefit to each step... Yet there is no fitness benefit to glycolysis alone since with no CAC pyruvate builds up with then is converted to ketones affecting the blood pH leading to eventual death.... Therefore take one out and the system crumbles. Hence this truly is irreducibly complex. Would you like more examples?

3. I assume you are referring to the use of citrate by bacteria, whilst it is a useful change would such a change lead to an entirely new species? Does a change in diet lead from single cells to multicellular? Would it change fish to amphibians?

Furthermore I was just talking about the citric acid cycle, therefore all cells have the ability to use citrate, what is required is the ability to intake citrate into the cell. Yet E coli are already capable of this under anaerobic conditions hence all what happened was a simple mutation to switch the use of this anaerobic transporter to aerobic environments.

"This is close to what Michael Behe calls ‘The Edge of Evolution’—the limit of what ‘evolution’ (non-intelligent natural processes) can do. For example, an adaptive change needing one mutation might occur every so often just by chance. This is why the malaria parasite can adapt to most antimalarial drugs; but chloroquine resistance took much longer to develop because two specific mutations needed to occur together in the one gene. Even this tiny change is beyond the reach of organisms like humans with much longer generation times.<a href="http://creation.com/...coli#endRef4">4 With bacteria, there might be a chance for even three coordinated mutations, but it’s doubtful that Lenski’s E. coli have achieved any more than two mutations, so have not even reached Behe’s edge, let alone progressed on the path to elephants or crocodiles."

http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli


The paper talking about the evolution of multicellular organisms is total and utter hogwash. I have only had a (very) short read of it but here is a list of its flaws I could gather
  • a centrifuge was used to stick the cells together, (so I guess it is now a matter of what came first the centrifuge or life?)
  • apoptosis, (triggered cell suicide) is claimed to be cell specialization... (since a multicellular organism has a suite of different cells- muscle cells, nerve cells etc)... How is a dead cell considered a specialized cell?
  • Over time the "multicelluar organism" started to break off due to the inner cells reproducing and pushing pressure on the outer ones... This is claimed to be "reproduction" however a test of this would be to see if these buds grow larger (without using a centrifuge!!!). If this was a multicellular organism it wouldn't be breaking apart over time.
  • They admitted the fitness of the "multicellular organism" was less than that of single cells meaning that single cells will always be selected for anyway, (even with a centrifuge... which I assume there was none at the beginning of multicellular life)
4. Another way to falsify evolution are the ways Darwin said himself...
  • find a system or process which cannot come about via gradual changes (already done that- cellular respiration)
  • Lack of intermediate fossils... There should literally be MILLIONS of transitions for each modern species alive today, (not counting the ones that are extinct and all the dead-end ones)
The explanation is that they are designed for different environments... That has the same predictive power as evolution's "they evolved to different environments"

5. Actually no, your response here shows that you are not willing to critically analyse the tenets of evolution and see what it is it actually claims.

Common descent claims that ALL life started from a single celled organism... Where do we go from there?.... (exactly what I said before)


6. They changed the "theory" after new evidence was found that went against it... That is called an ad hoc hypothesis, (commonly used in pseudoscience)... and the use of such means that the "theory" is not falsifiable since whenever data contradicts the theory, a new change is added so that it can never be challenged. That is not science, that is conformism!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users