Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
gilbo12345

Evolution Of Inter-Linked Systems

Recommended Posts

To argue that a system evolved you have to presume that a part has had different functions and who's to presume that?

 

Anyone open to the possibility that a part might have had a different function - reasonable position given those who start discussion by claiming a system cannot have evolved decline to justify the presumption that a part has necessarily always had the same function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone open to the possibility that a part might have had a different function - reasonable position given those who start discussion by claiming a system cannot have evolved decline to justify the presumption that a part has necessarily always had the same function.

 

Go ahead and provide an Example of something Overcoming Irreducible Complexity.....?

 

Please, for the Love of Everything Sacred and Holy, go ahead and wheel out that disheveled Straw Man (Fallacy) Flagellum or the Blood Clotting Cascade.

 

If so, I'm callin my shot !!; The Babe ENOCH 2021:

 

callingtheshotthebabe_056fafe1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone open to the possibility that a part might have had a different function - reasonable position given those who start discussion by claiming a system cannot have evolved decline to justify the presumption that a part has necessarily always had the same function.

 

Cheeseburger this is an ad hoc hypothesis.... You do realise that ad hoc hypotheses are used in pseudo-science in lieu of evidence....

 

IF you want to assert that this occurs you're going to need evidence for such... Otherwise it is an ASSUMPTION, does the scientific method allow you to base your "science" on ASSUMPTIONS?

 

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."- Richard P. Feynman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mainly in post #159; I then discuss the impacts of additional complexity in #162.  You can read it.

 

I want you to QUOTE what you said... You claimed you already addressed the digestive system argument, I want you to support that claim.

 

 

You did absolutely no such thing; you wrote an OPED piece that is no more substantiated by physical evidence than my description of how it could have evolved in post #159 of your "evolution did it" thread.

 

Ummmm did you actually READ the OP?... Here it is again... I suggest you read it since as I said... I demonstrated how the digestive system cannot have come about via a gradual process of slight changes over time... Since in order for the system to work at all, all the parts are required, otherwise the organism DIES... IF SOMETHING DIES IT CANNOT PASS ON ITS GENES FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE REQUIRED ORGANS.... Darwin himself said that if such a thing was found then evolution was falsified... So by Darwin's own words evolution is falsified...

 

 

One of the strongest arguments I've seen against evolution can be found in physiology and biochemistry, this argument is inter-linked systems.

 

I know I've discussed this years ago, however I figured its about time to reopen the conversation.

I prefer to use two examples, the digestive system and cellular respiration.

 

 

 

The food you digest enters the stomach, there the food is broken down via pH1 hydrochloric acid, (it survives this by way of special cells that secrete mucus which protects it from the acid, which makes one wonder how did they evolve?)...

 

The broken-down food then enters the intestine not before the pancreas adds some OH- to neutralize the acidity of the stomach contents. This is important since the lining of the intestines is quite thin and thus susceptible to the acid of the stomach burning a hole in it. Now the intestines have protrusions called villi which increase the surface area within the intestine and thus increase the uptake of nutrients such as glucose from the broken down food.

 

These glucose molecules are transported to the liver where the brain orders the release of glucose into the bloodstream in accordance to homeostatic regulation. What this means is the liver is ordered by the brain to release the glucose into the blood at a regulated or ordered amount, this ensures that the blood glucose level of the body remains the same and thus doesn't cause system-shock.

 

 

The digestive system cannot operate if one organ is missing, in fact it would lead to certain death.

 

Imagine how an organism could survive without a stomach... You eat the food only for it to enter the intestine which is not able to perform its job since the food hasn't been broken down enough via stomach acid. This means the organism would be unable to harness the nutrient potential of the food it ate, thus leading to nutrient deprivation and death.

 

Now imagine an organism without a pancreas. The food is eaten and digested by the stomach but when it moves on into the intestine the low pH of the stomach contents burns a hole in the thin layer of the intestine, thus causing a painful death.

 

Now imagine an organism without an intestine. The food is eaten, digested and the acid is neutralized however the organism is unable to absorb the nutrients of the food... Thus leading to nutrient deprivation and death.

 

Now imagine an organism without a liver (or the brain and hormonal function that controls the liver). The food is eaten, digested, the acid neutralized and the nutrients absorbed... Yet there is no control over how the nutrients (particularly glucose) enters the body... This leads to system-shock with homeostatic regulation of the body, and leads to death...

 

 

So under evolution it is believed that these organs "evolved" over a long process of slight changes over time... The problem here is for the system to work at all, ALL the pieces must be in place. Hence there cannot be a long process of slight changes over time since the organisms would die long before the next organ installment "evolved"...

 

This fits with what Darwin himself stated would be evidence that would debunk his theory, (note theory, not scientific theory ;) )...

 

 

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

 

 

 

So, where does this get us regarding the origin of the digestive system?  Back to .....we simply don't know, but some time before the Cambrian ...

 

So "we don't know" therefore 'evolution did it'..... Yup very scientific of you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

does the scientific method allow you to base your "science" on ASSUMPTIONS?

 

 

Al the time.

 

for example: the absolute basis, the fact that the universe exists is only an assumption, there is no absolute proof of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al the time.

 

 

 

Who's Al ?

 

 

for example: the absolute basis, the fact that the universe exists is only an assumption, there is no absolute proof of that.

 

 

:funny:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al the time.

 

for example: the absolute basis, the fact that the universe exists is only an assumption, there is no absolute proof of that.

 

:get_a_clue:

 

..... Where does it state in the scientific method that you can assume your conclusion is correct... Here is the scientific method please point out to me which step this occurs...

 

2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want you to QUOTE what you said... You claimed you already addressed the digestive system argument, I want you to support that claim.

 

 

 

Ummmm did you actually READ the OP?... Here it is again... I suggest you read it since as I said... I demonstrated how the digestive system cannot have come about via a gradual process of slight changes over time... Since in order for the system to work at all, all the parts are required, otherwise the organism DIES... IF SOMETHING DIES IT CANNOT PASS ON ITS GENES FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE REQUIRED ORGANS.... Darwin himself said that if such a thing was found then evolution was falsified... So by Darwin's own words evolution is falsified...

 

Again, this is an OPED piece that is no more grounded in evidence, the scientific method, etc. than my hypothetical explanation of how a simple single compartment digestive could have evolved into a multi-compartment complex one in post #159 of your "Evolution did it" thread.  So .....what were your experiments that led you to such a definitive conclusion?

 

So "we don't know" therefore 'evolution did it'..... Yup very scientific of you...

 

 

Resorting to putting words in my mouth, gilbo .....not very scientific of you, gilbo ....nor very honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, this is an OPED piece that is no more grounded in evidence, the scientific method, etc. than my hypothetical explanation of how a simple single compartment digestive could have evolved into a multi-compartment complex one in post #159 of your "Evolution did it" thread.  So .....what were your experiments that led you to such a definitive conclusion?

 

You are assuming something occurred in the past without evidence where is your evidence for this?

You do realize that science is based on your evidence today not what you hope to find or what you imagine occurred...

 

 

 So .....what were your experiments that led you to such a definitive conclusion?

 

If you'd like to volunteer yourself I'd happily pay for the removal of one of your organs. We can then observe whether the detrimental results I claim occur....

 

Until you have evidence of your assumed transitions they are a non-issue... As I said

 

Darwin himself provided a method of falsifying evolution. The example I gave currently fits that criteria... Sure new evidence could overturn this HOWEVER science is done on what is known here and now, now what we hope to discover in the future, (argument to the future fallacy)...

 

 

Resorting to putting words in my mouth, gilbo .....not very scientific of you, gilbo ....nor very honest.

 

Um no, just holding you accountable... You may have noticed I used apostrophe points not quotation points...

 

You admit that you don't know the mechanism, yet believe it was evolution... and still believe that evolution is scientific..... That is akin to what I claimed, though what I said is more direct I guess that is why you are complaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are assuming something occurred in the past without evidence where is your evidence for this?

You do realize that science is based on your evidence today not what you hope to find or what you imagine occurred...

 

I assume nothing, gilbo ....and readily admit that I do not definitively know that past.

If you'd like to volunteer yourself I'd happily pay for the removal of one of your organs. We can then observe whether the detrimental results I claim occur....

And ...... how would that prove that a simple, one-compartment digestive systems could not evolve into more complex multi-compartment digestive systems? I'm already at the one end of the spectrum.

Until you have evidence of your assumed transitions they are a non-issue... As I said

 

Darwin himself provided a method of falsifying evolution. The example I gave currently fits that criteria... Sure new evidence could overturn this HOWEVER science is done on what is known here and now, now what we hope to discover in the future, (argument to the future fallacy)...

 

 

 

Um no, just holding you accountable... You may have noticed I used apostrophe points not quotation points...

 

You admit that you don't know the mechanism, yet believe it was evolution... and still believe that evolution is scientific..... That is akin to what I claimed, though what I said is more direct I guess that is why you are complaining.

 

I don't know that it's evolution ....although I believe it's currently the most viable theory. As I said to you in the other thread, I don't know if it is 'scientific' nor do I care as it makes absolutely no difference as to whether evolution is true or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume nothing, gilbo ....and readily admit that I do not definitively know that past.

 

Ummm.. You assume that evolution was the cause... SO yeah you do assume...

 

 

And ...... how would that prove that a simple, one-compartment digestive systems could not evolve into more complex multi-compartment digestive systems? I'm already at the one end of the spectrum.

 

It would demonstrate that all the organs are required in order for the system to function at all... Do you honestly believe that somehow all the mutations required just so happened to occur at the same time, within the same organism.... Seriously... And you call this science?...

 

However IF you want to claim that a "spectrum" exists then you'd need to provide evidence for such BEFORE it can be accepted... Sorry THAT is how (real) science works, you don't get to assume something because you want to...

 

I don't know that it's evolution ....although I believe it's currently the most viable theory. As I said to you in the other thread, I don't know if it is 'scientific' nor do I care as it makes absolutely no difference as to whether evolution is true or not.

 

Then you DO assume... Since you are assuming it's "the most viable theory" when you have no evidence to base that on... You call this science?... Really?... Because you're opinions about whether something is viable or not has no relevance to reality.

 

As I said (again)...

 

Until you have evidence of your assumed transitions they are a non-issue... As I said

 

Darwin himself provided a method of falsifying evolution. The example I gave currently fits that criteria... Sure new evidence could overturn this HOWEVER science is done on what is known here and now, now what we hope to discover in the future, (argument to the future fallacy)...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm.. You assume that evolution was the cause... SO yeah you do assume...

 

Ummmm, no, I don't know that evolution is fact ....therefore I don't assume that it is fact.

 

 

It would demonstrate that all the organs are required in order for the system to function at all... Do you honestly believe that somehow all the mutations required just so happened to occur at the same time, within the same organism.... Seriously... And you call this science?...

 

Absolutely not.  In fact, such a scenario would disprove evolution.

 

However IF you want to claim that a "spectrum" exists then you'd need to provide evidence for such BEFORE it can be accepted... Sorry THAT is how (real) science works, you don't get to assume something because you want to...

 

The only person making definitive claims on this thread, e.g., that something is absolutely true or absolutely false, is you.  So, the onus is on you, gilbo  You've made a claim without providing any evidence for such a claim.  Sorry, THAT is not how (real) science works, you don't get to assume something because you want to.

 

Then you DO assume... Since you are assuming it's "the most viable theory" when you have no evidence to base that on... You call this science?... Really?... Because you're opinions about whether something is viable or not has no relevance to reality.

 

Nope, my statement that it is the most viable theory is based precisely on the evidence, namely, the fossil and geologic records. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmm, no, I don't know that evolution is fact ....therefore I don't assume that it is fact.

 

 

Absolutely not.  In fact, such a scenario would disprove evolution.

 

 

Ahhh, would you care to reconcile these 2 Statements......?  Cause you just unwittingly... :shock:

 

 

How could a "Scenario" DISPROVE something that's................ (as you said) not a FACT to begin with, Pray Tell?

 

 

I can't Wait to hear this one!!

 

 

The only person making definitive claims on this thread, e.g., that something is absolutely true or absolutely false

 

 

Is there Absolute TRUTH??

 

 

Nope, my statement that it is the most viable theory is based precisely on the evidence, namely, the fossil and geologic records. 

 

 

You contradict yourself with every sentence you post sir.

 

Are you saying it's a viable "SCIENTIFIC" THEORY.....?

 

Define the theory of evolution......?

 

POST ONE FORMAL HYPOTHESIS validating/CONFIRMING it as a Viable Scientific Theory......?

 

 

Moreover...

 

Fossils and Geology are NOUNS !!!!  Scientific Theories explain "The HOW"...... VERBS  !!!!   Please reconcile.....?

 

 

 

Oh and did you know...

 

Henry Gee PhD (Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology) Senior Editor Nature...

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.â€

Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 1999, pp. 116-117

 

"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps." {Emphasis Mine}

Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 1999,  p. 32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ahhh, would you care to reconcile these 2 Statements......?  Cause you just... :shock:

 

 

How could a "Scenario" DISPROVE something that's................ (as you said) not a FACT to begin with, Pray Tell?

 

 

I can't Wait to hear this one!!

 

 

 

Is there Absolute TRUTH??

 

 

 

You contradict yourself with every sentence you post sir.

 

Are you saying it's a viable "SCIENTIFIC" THEORY.....?

 

Define the theory of evolution......?

 

POST ONE FORMAL HYPOTHESIS validating/CONFIRMING it as a Viable Scientific Theory......?

 

 

Moreover...

 

Fossils and Geology are NOUNS !!!!  Scientific Theories explain "The HOW"...... VERBS  !!!!   Please reconcile.....?

 

 

 

Oh and did you know...

 

Henry Gee PhD (Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology) Senior Editor Nature...

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.â€

Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 1999, pp. 116-117

 

"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps." {Emphasis Mine}

Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 1999,  p. 32

 

 

 

I would never claim that two distinct fossils represent or do not represent an ancestral lineage, not without DNA evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never claim that two distinct fossils represent or do not represent an ancestral lineage, not without DNA evidence.

 

 

Before you go off on this Red Herring Fallacy, that I'll Bludgeon here in a few, Please answer....

 

 

 

Storman Norman:  

 

1.  Ummmm, no, I don't know that evolution is fact ....therefore I don't assume that it is fact.

 

2.  Absolutely not.  In fact, such a scenario would disprove evolution.

 

 

Ahhh, would you care to reconcile these 2 Statements......?  Cause you just unwittingly...  :shock:

 

 

How could a "Scenario" DISPROVE something that's................ (as you said) not a FACT to begin with, Pray Tell?

 

 

I can't Wait to hear this one!!

 

Then...

 

Is there Absolute TRUTH....?

 

 

Please.....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmm, no, I don't know that evolution is fact ....therefore I don't assume that it is fact.

 

I never used the word "fact" so you're attempting to shift the goal posts via a strawman... You assume that the digestive system "evolved" since you claimed just earlier that it is what you feel is the most viable explanation...

 

Hence you DO make assumptions, stop dodging and start admitting...

 

 

Absolutely not.  In fact, such a scenario would disprove evolution.
 

How?... Since that is the only method you can have a functioning digestive system "evolve" gradualism CANNOT created linked systems due to the time involved that would lead to the death of the organism before the system/s are fully functional; its because of these inconsistencies in gradualism that "punctuated equilibrium" was given notice....

 

Punctuated equilibrium was effectively what I cited, so you're only displaying either you're lack of understanding with evolution, or your willingness to argue for the sake of arguing, when you claim it would "disprove" evolution...

 

 

The only person making definitive claims on this thread, e.g., that something is absolutely true or absolutely false, is you.  So, the onus is on you, gilbo  You've made a claim without providing any evidence for such a claim.  Sorry, THAT is not how (real) science works, you don't get to assume something because you want to.

 

Firstly this isn't a response to the following...

 

"However IF you want to claim that a "spectrum" exists then you'd need to provide evidence for such BEFORE it can be accepted... Sorry THAT is how (real) science works, you don't get to assume something because you want to..."

 

 

 

So is this your argument?

 

1- Everything must have evolved

2- Therefore the digestive system must have evolved by some spectrum of transitions

3- Therefore we don't need evidence of this evolution of the digestive system since we have 1 & 2.

4- Gilbo claims that the stomach cannot have evolved due to gradualism taking too long for an interlinked system to come about

5- Gilbo is obviously wrong due to 1 & 2

6- We must ask Gilbo for what evidence he has against our spectrum of transitions

7- We don't need evidence for our spectrum because 1 & 2

 

 

Just because you want to believe in a transition doesn't mean you get to assume it occurred, you need evidence... BEFORE you assert it occurred... That is what this thread is for, I want you to provide the evidence of the alleged evolution of the digestive system and the mechanisms used in the process.... Failure to do this will demonstrate that your posts here are merely hot wind.

 

 

Now onto your allegations....

 

WHERE have I stated something is absolutely true?....

 

 

 

As I said, (you keep dodging this... I wonder why)....

 

Until you have evidence of your assumed transitions they are a non-issue... As I said

 

Darwin himself provided a method of falsifying evolution. The example I gave currently fits that criteria... Sure new evidence could overturn this HOWEVER science is done on what is known here and now, now what we hope to discover in the future, (argument to the future fallacy)...

 

Darwin gave criteria of falsification, my example fits said criteria as I explained in the OP... Unless you can demonstrate how my example doesn't fit Darwin's criteria then the criteria of falsification has been met and thus evolution is falsified...

 

You claimed that because I cannot completely know whether evolution didn't cause inter-linked systems then I cannot claim it is wrong... This is tantamount to claiming it is not falsifiable... Since nothing is fully known in science.... Hence anyone can claim this for any belief and claim it cannot be wrong... This means you are appealing to future evidence, (a logical fallacy).

 

StormanNorman, on 06 Sept 2015 - 02:44 AM, said:snapback.png

BTW, you absolutely do NOT know that it is impossible for a simple digestive system to evolve into a more complex, multi-organ system.  You many think you KNOW that, but you do not.

 

 

So you are in effect claiming that evolution is unfalsifiable since even when faced with your own lack of evidence, you can claim that creationists cannot know for sure that it is impossible, hence it is possible... THIS MAKES EVOLUTION UNFALSIFIABLE...

 

 

 

 

Nope, my statement that it is the most viable theory is based precisely on the evidence, namely, the fossil and geologic records. 

 

What evidence?.... Nobody has given evidence of how the digestive system evolved?... Honestly how can you make this claim when there has been 2 pages of evolutionists dodging the fact that they have no evidence for their assumptions that the digestive system evolved....

 

Then again, logic is like a revolving door for you isn't it.....

 

 

So, where does this get us regarding the origin of the digestive system?  Back to .....we simply don't know, but some time before the Cambrian ...

Nope, my statement that it is the most viable theory is based precisely on the evidence, namely, the fossil and geologic records. 

 

How can you claim you have evidence when you admit that you don't know?.... Or are you merely claiming you have evidence of the alleged "evolution" of the digestive system in order to try and save-face...

 

Do you accept that your lack of evidence of a transition... Makes your belief in such an assumption?

 

Do you admit that such a belief isn't science, its merely your opinion?

 

Do you admit that until there is evidence demonstrating the mechanisms of how an interlinked system "evolved" over time without leading to the death of the organism, then Darwin's criteria is satisfied?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you go off on this Red Herring Fallacy, that I'll Bludgeon here in a few, Please answer....

 

 

 

 

Ahhh, would you care to reconcile these 2 Statements......?  Cause you just unwittingly...  :shock:

 

 

How could a "Scenario" DISPROVE something that's................ (as you said) not a FACT to begin with, Pray Tell?

 

 

I can't Wait to hear this one!!

 

Then...

 

Is there Absolute TRUTH....?

 

 

Please.....?

 

I actually don't see the conflict in my statements....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually don't see the conflict in my statements....

 

 

You don't???   :get_a_clue:   And then you Left "Your" 2 STATEMENTS OUT in your response  :laugh_point:

 

Here I'll post them again, along with the Questions, maybe somebody can ASSIST YOU....

 

 

Storman Norman:  

 

1.  Ummmm, no, I don't know that evolution is fact ....therefore I don't assume that it is fact.

 

2.  Absolutely not.  In fact, such a scenario would disprove evolution.

 

 

How could a "Scenario" DISPROVE something that's................ (as you said) not a FACT to begin with, Pray Tell?

 

 

 

Can somebody Please Assist SN with his Contradictory Statements.  Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't???   :get_a_clue:   And then you Left "Your" 2 STATEMENTS OUT in your response  :laugh_point:

 

Funny how they do that.... Norman did the same for a few of my points... I wonder why evolutionists delete pertinent points out... Hmmm...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never used the word "fact" so you're attempting to shift the goal posts via a strawman... You assume that the digestive system "evolved" since you claimed just earlier that it is what you feel is the most viable explanation...

 

Hence you DO make assumptions, stop dodging and start admitting...

 

 

 

I don't know for a fact that the digestive system evolved.  Being a soft tissue system, there has been very little physical evidence left behind.  The first fossils with a digestive track occur in the early Cambrian.  Fossils before that do not have one.  What happened in between .... I don't know.  Working within the evolutionary model, we would say that it evolved in order to more efficiently garner nutrients from food intake; outside of the evolutionary model, I don't know.

 

 

How?... Since that is the only method you can have a functioning digestive system "evolve" gradualism CANNOT created linked systems due to the time involved that would lead to the death of the organism before the system/s are fully functional; its because of these inconsistencies in gradualism that "punctuated equilibrium" was given notice....

 

 

 

 Says who?  This is a statement of absolute truth that has no evidence, experimentation, etc. to support it.  It is mere opinion or assumption ....take your pick.

 

 

Punctuated equilibrium was effectively what I cited, so you're only displaying either you're lack of understanding with evolution, or your willingness to argue for the sake of arguing, when you claim it would "disprove" evolution...

 

What you described was not punctuated equilibrium ......it was way, way, way beyond that more akin to species X giving birth to species Y or a cat giving birth to a dog ...

 

 

 

 

Firstly this isn't a response to the following...

 

"However IF you want to claim that a "spectrum" exists then you'd need to provide evidence for such BEFORE it can be accepted... Sorry THAT is how (real) science works, you don't get to assume something because you want to..."

 

Yes it was.  I've made no claims; the only one making a claim is you.

 

 

 

 

So is this your argument?

 

1- Everything must have evolved

2- Therefore the digestive system must have evolved by some spectrum of transitions

3- Therefore we don't need evidence of this evolution of the digestive system since we have 1 & 2.

4- Gilbo claims that the stomach cannot have evolved due to gradualism taking too long for an interlinked system to come about

5- Gilbo is obviously wrong due to 1 & 2

6- We must ask Gilbo for what evidence he has against our spectrum of transitions

7- We don't need evidence for our spectrum because 1 & 2

 

Not even close.  Gilbo, made an unsubstantiated claim stating that a complicated digestive system CANNOT evolve from a simpler one without any evidence.  The fact that it is unsubstantiated is entirely independent of whether or not evolution is true.

 

 

 

Just because you want to believe in a transition doesn't mean you get to assume it occurred, you need evidence... BEFORE you assert it occurred... That is what this thread is for, I want you to provide the evidence of the alleged evolution of the digestive system and the mechanisms used in the process.... Failure to do this will demonstrate that your posts here are merely hot wind.

 

Now onto your allegations....

 

WHERE have I stated something is absolutely true?....

 

See above.

 

 

 

 

As I said, (you keep dodging this... I wonder why)....

Until you have evidence of your assumed transitions they are a non-issue... As I said

 

Darwin himself provided a method of falsifying evolution. The example I gave currently fits that criteria... Sure new evidence could overturn this HOWEVER science is done on what is known here and now, now what we hope to discover in the future, (argument to the future fallacy)...

 

 

Says who???  Like I said, you simply claimed it as fact without any evidence or "science" to back it up.

 

 

 

Darwin gave criteria of falsification, my example fits said criteria as I explained in the OP... Unless you can demonstrate how my example doesn't fit Darwin's criteria then the criteria of falsification has been met and thus evolution is falsified...

 

You claimed that because I cannot completely know whether evolution didn't cause inter-linked systems then I cannot claim it is wrong... This is tantamount to claiming it is not falsifiable... Since nothing is fully known in science.... Hence anyone can claim this for any belief and claim it cannot be wrong... This means you are appealing to future evidence, (a logical fallacy).

 

No, just that your attempt in this case doesn't cut the mustard ...nor should it.  Stating something as fact without providing any evidence isn't going to cut it.  Evolution may very well be falsifiable.  But, not with your current argument.

 

 

StormanNorman, on 06 Sept 2015 - 02:44 AM, said:snapback.png

 

 

So you are in effect claiming that evolution is unfalsifiable since even when faced with your own lack of evidence, you can claim that creationists cannot know for sure that it is impossible, hence it is possible... THIS MAKES EVOLUTION UNFALSIFIABLE...

 

 

What evidence?.... Nobody has given evidence of how the digestive system evolved?... Honestly how can you make this claim when there has been 2 pages of evolutionists dodging the fact that they have no evidence for their assumptions that the digestive system evolved....

 

Then again, logic is like a revolving door for you isn't it.....

 

How can you claim you have evidence when you admit that you don't know?.... Or are you merely claiming you have evidence of the alleged "evolution" of the digestive system in order to try and save-face...

 

Do you accept that your lack of evidence of a transition... Makes your belief in such an assumption?

 

Do you admit that such a belief isn't science, its merely your opinion?

 

Do you admit that until there is evidence demonstrating the mechanisms of how an interlinked system "evolved" over time without leading to the death of the organism, then Darwin's criteria is satisfied?

 

 

 

There is evidence IMHO that supports the theory of evolution from a big picture or macro view point; however, many of the particulars like evolution of the digestive system are not very well known.  If the theory of evolution is true, then it follows that the digestive system is part of that evolution; when, how and why are mysteries.  If evolution is false, then throw everything out the window and we have even less of an idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't???   :get_a_clue:   And then you Left "Your" 2 STATEMENTS OUT in your response  :laugh_point:

 

Here I'll post them again, along with the Questions, maybe somebody can ASSIST YOU....

 

 

Storman Norman:  

 

1.  Ummmm, no, I don't know that evolution is fact ....therefore I don't assume that it is fact.

 

2.  Absolutely not.  In fact, such a scenario would disprove evolution.

 

 

How could a "Scenario" DISPROVE something that's................ (as you said) not a FACT to begin with, Pray Tell?

 

 

 

Can somebody Please Assist SN with his Contradictory Statements.  Thanks in advance.

 

 

Let's say there is a murder with no eye-witnesses.  Detectives have identified three potential suspects, A, B, and C.  There are four possibilities: 1) Suspect A did it; 2) Suspect B did it; 3) Suspect C did it; or 4) someone else did it.  Anyway, detectives have three working hypothesis including one that says Suspect A did it.  Let's say new evidence comes in that exonerates Suspect A "disproving" the hypothesis that he/she is guilty of the murder.  Disproving something does not necessarily imply that it was considered FACT before the new evidence; it wasn't....as there were two other suspects.

 

I see absolutely NO contradiction between my two statements.  I'm sure you two goofy guys will continue to argue vernacular semantics....it's what you do; however, I personally have no time nor any patience for such nonsense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know for a fact that the digestive system evolved.  Being a soft tissue system, there has been very little physical evidence left behind.  The first fossils with a digestive track occur in the early Cambrian.  Fossils before that do not have one.  What happened in between .... I don't know.  Working within the evolutionary model, we would say that it evolved in order to more efficiently garner nutrients from food intake; outside of the evolutionary model, I don't know.

 

So you agree that this isn't science... You are merely assuming 'evolution did it'....

 

 

 

 

Says who?  This is a statement of absolute truth that has no evidence, experimentation, etc. to support it.  It is mere opinion or assumption ....take your pick.

 

Says the fact that you have no evidence to show that it occured... You need to demonstrate the mechanisms of HOW it evolved in order to claim that it could... Otherwise you are left with an unsupported hypothesis that is rejected on due to having no evidence...

 

Or is science about assuming things occurred and hoping for future evidence?...

 

Now on my claim, I did state that such a system cannot have occurred because as I keep telling you that is what the evidence suggests RIGHT NOW, (so no absolute claim... which you keep trying to strawman in).... Science is based on the evidence you have RIGHT NOW, not what you hope to find tomorrow...

 

 

As I said, (you keep dodging this... I wonder why)....

Until you have evidence of your assumed transitions they are a non-issue... As I said

 

Darwin himself provided a method of falsifying evolution. The example I gave currently fits that criteria... Sure new evidence could overturn this HOWEVER science is done on what is known here and now, now what we hope to discover in the future, (argument to the future fallacy)...

 

 

 

 

Yes it was.  I've made no claims; the only one making a claim is you.

 

Um no you never addressed your claim of a spectrum and my subsequent rebuttal... Now you are attempting to dodge the fact that you made a claim regarding a "spectrum" after my offer to pay for you to have one of your organs removed...

 

 

 

 

 

StormanNorman, on 06 Sept 2015 - 10:20 AM, said:snapback.png

And ...... how would that prove that a simple, one-compartment digestive systems could not evolve into more complex multi-compartment digestive systems? I'm already at the one end of the spectrum.

It would demonstrate that all the organs are required in order for the system to function at all... Do you honestly believe that somehow all the mutations required just so happened to occur at the same time, within the same organism.... Seriously... And you call this science?...

 

However IF you want to claim that a "spectrum" exists then you'd need to provide evidence for such BEFORE it can be accepted... Sorry THAT is how (real) science works, you don't get to assume something because you want to...

 

 

"I'm already at the one end of the spectrum."

 

This is a claim... You are claiming you are at one end of a spectrum... A spectrum of the transitions you assume occurred...

 

So as I said if you want to claim that a "spectrum" exists then you need to provide evidence for such BEFORE it can be accepted, sorry that is how REAL science works, you don't get to assume something because you want to...

 

 

Not even close.  Gilbo, made an unsubstantiated claim stating that a complicated digestive system CANNOT evolve from a simpler one without any evidence.  The fact that it is unsubstantiated is entirely independent of whether or not evolution is true.
 
Pretty rich from someone who assumes transitions with no evidence whatsoever and deems it scientific...
 
So you think my entire OP is not evidence?

 

As I said if you like I can pay for the removal of one of the organs I mention in the OP then we can see if an organism is capable of surviving without one, whilst it is waiting for it to "evolve"...

 

 

 

See above.

 

Again you've failed to make a coherent response.... Respond to what I said rather than passing it off..

 

Just because you want to believe in a transition doesn't mean you get to assume it occurred, you need evidence... BEFORE you assert it occurred... That is what this thread is for, I want you to provide the evidence of the alleged evolution of the digestive system and the mechanisms used in the process.... Failure to do this will demonstrate that your posts here are merely hot wind.

 

Now onto your allegations....

 

WHERE have I stated something is absolutely true?....

 

PROVIDE A QUOTE

 

 

 

 

Says who???  Like I said, you simply claimed it as fact without any evidence or "science" to back it up.

 

Where did I claim it was a fact?....

 

The evidence is the fact that organisms die due to not having all the parts working together, do you doubt that organisms die from not having a functional liver or stomach etc?

 

I'm still offering to pay for you to have your liver removed :)

 

 

Premise 1: Interlinked systems require all their parts to be fully functional in order to function at all.

Premise 2: If any part is missing of an interlinked system the organism dies.

Premise 2: Gradualism states that the system comes about with slight changes over time.

Premise 3: Such slight changes over time implies that some parts will develop at different rates.

Conclusion: Hence a gradual system will not allow for a functional interlinked system since the parts required will develop at different rates hence leading to an unfinished system which results in death...

 

UNLESS (as I said) you assume that somehow all the mutations required for a stable "intermediary" system somehow occur within the same individual... Assuming such an "intermediary" system exists....

 

 

No, just that your attempt in this case doesn't cut the mustard ...nor should it.  Stating something as fact without providing any evidence isn't going to cut it.  Evolution may very well be falsifiable.  But, not with your current argument.

 

Again you've just dodged what I said and proposed a strawman response...

 

"Darwin gave criteria of falsification, my example fits said criteria as I explained in the OP... Unless you can demonstrate how my example doesn't fit Darwin's criteria then the criteria of falsification has been met and thus evolution is falsified...

 

You claimed that because I cannot completely know whether evolution didn't cause inter-linked systems then I cannot claim it is wrong... This is tantamount to claiming it is not falsifiable... Since nothing is fully known in science.... Hence anyone can claim this for any belief and claim it cannot be wrong... This means you are appealing to future evidence, (a logical fallacy)."

 

 

There is evidence IMHO that supports the theory of evolution from a big picture or macro view point; however, many of the particulars like evolution of the digestive system are not very well known.  If the theory of evolution is true, then it follows that the digestive system is part of that evolution; when, how and why are mysteries.  If evolution is false, then throw everything out the window and we have even less of an idea.

 

If you don't know the details of how things "evolved" then how can you claim that such a process was taken in their formation?...

 

If evolution is false, then not much would need to be thrown out the window so your attempt at an argument to fear fails here... The only things that would need to be "thrown out" would be...

 

1- Phylogeny trees- considering that the method used in their creation assumed evolution had occurred (hence is circular) and these served almost no practical purpose except to try and support evolution it seems this won't be missed

 

2- The belief that we "evolved" from bacteria...

 

That is about it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:get_a_clue:

 

 

 

Storman Norman:  Ummmm, no, I don't know that evolution is fact ....therefore I don't assume that it is fact.  Absolutely not.  In fact, such a scenario would disprove evolution.

 

 

 

ENOCH 2021:  Ahhh, would you care to reconcile these 2 Statements......?  Cause you just unwittingly...  :shock:

How could a "Scenario" DISPROVE something that's................ (as you said) not a FACT to begin with, Pray Tell?

 

 

 

Storman Norman:  Let's say there is a murder with no eye-witnesses.  Detectives have identified three potential suspects, A, B, and C.  There are four possibilities: 1) Suspect A did it; 2) Suspect B did it; 3) Suspect C did it; or 4) someone else did it.  Anyway, detectives have three working hypothesis including one that says Suspect A did it.  Let's say new evidence comes in that exonerates Suspect A "disproving" the hypothesis that he/she is guilty of the murder.  Disproving something does not necessarily imply that it was considered FACT before the new evidence; it wasn't....as there were two other suspects.

 

I see absolutely NO contradiction between my two statements.  I'm sure you two goofy guys will continue to argue vernacular semantics....it's what you do; however, I personally have no time nor any patience for such nonsense. 

 

 

You don't see any Problem with your Trainwreck Analogy??   :laugh_point:

 

Allow me to lift the FOG for Ya.

 

My Query was in the CONTEXT of your Initial Statement......"evolution"; A SCIENTIFIC THEORY (Caveat: it isn't, but you think it is). A Scientific Theory is already Validated....that's what makes it a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

 

Your Trainwreck Analogy is responding with:  HYPOTHESES  <-----  Pseudo Hypotheses @ that.  Hypotheses, in and of Themselves, aren't Validated just yet.

 

 

Apples and Orangutans; ERGO....False Analogy (Fallacy).

 

 

Would you like to try again?

 

 

I'm sure you two goofy guys will continue to argue vernacular semantics....it's what you do; however, I personally have no time nor any patience for such nonsense.

 

 

:rotfl3:   Yea sure you don't.  

 

Translation: I just been caught (AGAIN) in a Self-Contradiction.....so let me start the 3rd Grade Playground Name Calling motif and frivolously conjure "SEMANTICS" to try and divert attention away from my trainwreck, in a feebly contrived attempt to Exit Stage Left to save face.

 

Think anyone will buy it?  Me Neither

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Think anyone will buy it?  Me Neither

 

Yes, I do ...especially those with a functioning frontal lobe and a small dose of sanity will agree that even things that are not necessarily considered facts can also be disproven.  There is no contradiction in my statements. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I do ...especially those with a functioning frontal lobe and a small dose of sanity will agree that even things that are not necessarily considered facts can also be disproven.  There is no contradiction in my statements. Sorry.

 

 

Yep, more insults and name calling... A "TELL" for No Argument and No Position.

 

How can you "dis"-prove something that hasn't been @ least: "Purportedly"/"Allegedly"/ ....PROVEN?

 

How can a Speculation/Guess/Baseless Assertion be disproven when it hasn't been "PROVED" yet?

 

 

"dis"-

 

The prefix dis also means not and opposite of. For example, disconnect.  http://www.ecenglish.com/learnenglish/lessons/prefixes-un-dis-im-mis

 

 

So...... "DIS" - proven is the Opposite of what??........."PROVEN".  You can't have the OPPOSITE of Something without first having the existence of the Something (the Antecedent)...."PROVEN".  

 

 

For "DIS - connect" to Exist.....it's a Contingent Necessary FACT to have "CONNECT" be in existence FIRST.  :gotcha:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms