|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The phrase "Evolution is a fact" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5598 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
I call it "hypothetico-deductive logic." You've heard of a guy called "Karl Popper," haven't you? "Proof by disproof," and all that? You know, I don't care about popper in this situation. If I can experimentally show that a caterpillar changes into a butterfly but I found a finch in my back yard buried at a higher level than the butterfly that I also found fossilized there; I am not going to deduce that with time butterflies change into finches by random mutation until I have some evidence to prop up that assertion.In the meantime and in the absence of confirmatory evidence, I'll just have to stick with what is provable, that caterpillars change into butterflies. It matters not what popper had to say about this logical reasoning method or that -we all know how proof and conjecture differ.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5521 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Poodles are mutant genetic weaklings with big problems. They have nothing new added to them in the breeding process -information they already possessed got selected by humans who wanted this or that and with it they got all sorts of inbreeding problems, a build up of mutations, nothing new and original, nothing improved.
Are you saying you believe all the genetic information of all the dog breeds in the whole world was already present originally? That no mutations were required for that process? that nothing new was created? Man, you must be crazy!
Well my faith that there is a God is far superior to man's inventiveness and better supported by the real experimental science.
Definately off topic. I have to say, though, that I think this is a bunch of bull.
You see the God I trust has said that He made the world perfect but that the world rejected His authority and decided to go it alone. Since man is so capable of so much evil (you must surely have noticed) this God took away his sustaining power and the world is cursed to decay in time. Now that may sound flaky to you but that's what we see in our mutational loads, everything is running down, not up as evolutionists would have us believe. They are living in a world of fantasy completely at odds with reality and since the Bible said that man would do that and that very few would believe in Him and follow Him and that everything would get more and more rotten and evil until the day came that we'd be forced to get a mark on our right hand or forehead or else have no money.So much history, so many amazing predictions coming true in our time -all in one book that coincides so much better with reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
On the grounds of experimentation that only ever demonstrates negative mutational change and no increase in information content. How is it that we can demonstrate lots of negative informational changes but no increase in information ever? Until I see that limit breached, I choose to stick with the evidence and curb my imagination. See the thread I referred you to in my earlier post. It has the details on new genes (information) that you are denying. Until you can address and overturn that evidence your "no new information" talking point is refuted, and you should have the common courtesy to retire it until you can come up with some actual counter evidence. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5521 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
You know, I don't care about popper in this situation. If I can experimentally show that a caterpillar changes into a butterfly but I found a finch in my back yard buried at a higher level than the butterfly that I also found fossilized there; I am not going to deduce that with time butterflies change into finches by random mutation until I have some evidence to prop up that assertion.
So you chose to refuse to accept the layers of fossils as evidence for evolution, but you do not give us any alternate explanation for those layers. All you are giving us is your own incredulity. that's not enough. where's the REAL evidence aginst evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5598 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Yes, it does. Again, the fossil record is literally overflowing with transitional fossils. Gould described the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record "the trade secret of paleontology"Paleontologists seem to think it is their duty to protect the rest of us from the erroneous conclusions we may draw should we see for ourselves the actual state of the evidence. As for Eldridge -he wrote"Each new generation produces a few young paleontologists eager to document examples of evolutionary change in their fossils. The changes they have looked for have of course been of the gradual progressive sort.More often than not, their efforts have gone unrewarded -their fossils, rather than exhibiting the expected pattern, just seem to persist relatively unchanged....Studies documenting conservative persistence rather than gradual evolutionary change were considered failures, and more often than not weren't even published....gaps in the record continue to be invoked as the prime reason so few cases of gradual change are found." 'Punctuated equilibrium' accomplishes a great deal for evolutionists by making the process of change inherently invisible. I could give you so many more quotes from true believers (including Eldredge and Gould who remained evolutionists despite the lack of evidence)but this is enough to show that this story of vast numbers of transtitionals is an enormous exaggeration or why would they have said these things? Apart from that no fossil could possibly be used to prove ancestor descendant relationships in principle -they are dead and buried -things that existed in the past and no longer do. Facts are based on direct observations not on hypotheses in theories.While some explanations may appear plausible especially to a philisophical materialist, it may nonetheless be false.
By this logic, we should open up the prisons and let everyone out. Most crimes take place without witnesses and yet somehow we manage to determine who did it and how and when. Well I'd venture to say we have a lot more in the way of eyewitness reports and evidence on crime scenes than we do for bacteria changing into bacteriologists. Written history can be very useful for reconstructing the past too but without any witnesses nor any historical reports, we really remain whistling in the dark.
Yes. How does the genome know that it isn't allowed to mutate any more? We've seen pretty much every mutation imaginable down to complete duplication of the entire chromosomal record. We have seen point mutations, insertions, deletions, duplications, transpositions, frame shifts, you name it. What would stop it? Well what if the original information is coded into the organism along with the ability to adapt by various means to alterations in environment. Just because we can document changes in that original genetic code does not mean to say that a worm genome can code for any other organism now or ever. We have no proof that the barrier between worm and the next hypothesised link can be bridged by way of random variations in an original programme that codes for a worm. Since we don't have that sort of proof, we should not consider it self evident that it can happen until such time as it is proven to be possible. What if living things really are designed? Someone who discovers a watch on the ground and decides to investigate its origins, would be foolish to rule out design from the outset. He may then waste the rest of his life trying to figure out how the watch made itself. Why are evolutionists so intent on ruling out design? If they must rule out design a priori, then something like evolution just has to be true before any of the evidence even comes in. That's called a philisophical choice not science since for science one needs experimental evidence. At least science is supposed to work that way.Maybe science has been hijacked by storytellers? You say I must prove that there's a barrier to variation but that's not how it works. If you say that butter turns to ginger beer when you add caustic soda -do you declare it to be fact until such time as I prove that it is not true? The same with fossils - declare truth on evidence, not on extrapolation and supposition.There are still 2 choices -we were designed OR we evolved from non-living chemicals by random mutation and pure chance over a very long time.Why should I prove that you're wrong. You prove to me that you're right before you declare what is truth and what is not.At least let's show that the train's moving in the right direction to produce all this prodigious change that you believe was possible. We have presented the evidence to you over and over again here. The fact that you deny it doesn't change the fact that it exists. Rhain Rhain go away, you have presented not evidence but supposition and theory. But you're right that denial doesn't change the facts of what actually happened.If you had presented anything convincing enough I would have gone away by now. So I'm not in denial just waiting for the magic bullet that clears the supposed mists from my eyes.
You mean the fossils don't exist? The jaws that I have handled with my own hands were just frauds? They may exist but you filled in the missing parts with your imagination and your philisophical beliefs.
Thus, all you wind up with over the generations are neutral and beneficial mutations. So where is the human race's genetic load coming from if that were true?
You mean the fossils don't really exist? They're really scattered across the strata rather than being in chronological order? How can we know that chronology has anything to do with it? What looks like millions of years of sedimentation happened in one afternoon at Mt St Helens. Very old dates are acquired from rocks known to be under 30 years old. How do we know that these very old dates have anything to do with the truth considering all these things?
Duplication followed by mutation. Is that or is that no "information building"? No, it is very possibly only variation in original coded information.Go back to the beginning - where did the original information come from?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5598 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Are you saying you believe all the genetic information of all the dog breeds in the whole world was already present originally? The original perfect information with all its variability, yes.
That no mutations were required for that process? that nothing new was created? Man, you must be crazy! No, mutations have played their part -more often to the detriment of the original kind of animal. The only beneficial mutations that have ever been shown to exist may be beneficial in certain circumstances -for example wingless beetles on a windy island - but even the beneficial mutations involve a loss of original information. As for crazy - No, i'm a normal person in a normal family, no medication, no strait jacket, fully functional but unconvinced by evolutionary storytelling. I did once believe the sorts of things that you believe but it was before I really considered the other options in any depth, it was in the days when I did not know that there was an option, the days when I swallowed my indoctrination whole.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5598 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
So you chose to refuse to accept the layers of fossils as evidence for evolution, but you do not give us any alternate explanation for those layers. Well considering that most of the basic body plans that exist appeared in about 3 minutes in the 11th hour geologically speaking (in the Cambrian)I remain unconvinced. Since radiometric dating is the only dating technique that lends any credence to the vast ages required for hypothetical macroevolution to have happened and is far from reliable and since remains of C14 that should be gone from all the 'old' rock layers still persists in measurable quantities (otherwise named "contamination" by those who 'know' that it should not be there) - I find it a somewhat tall tale at best.Besides I still struggle to imagine how my brain could have evolved randomly. As for alternatives, I opt for the Word of God over the words of fallible men. It's more in line with the demonstrable evidence.The problem is not with incredulity, it's 'the credulous' that I find interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2296 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Beretta writes:
Really? would you mind pointing out to me where in cambrian we can find the "body plan" for a: Well considering that most of the basic body plans that exist appeared in about 3 minutes in the 11th hour geologically speaking (in the Cambrian)I remain unconvinced. HorseCat Dog Bird Shark Giraffe Elephant etc.... So, where are all these "basic body plans" then? No way? evolution you say?
Since radiometric dating is the only dating technique that lends any credence to the vast ages required for hypothetical macroevolution to have happened and is far from reliable and since remains of C14 that should be gone from all the 'old' rock layers still persists in measurable quantities (otherwise named "contamination" by those who 'know' that it should not be there) - I find it a somewhat tall tale at best.
You're wrong, there are numerous threads here that deal with this, and every time it has been pointed out that radiometric dating is very reliable.
Besides I still struggle to imagine how my brain could have evolved randomly.
Fortunately, your understanding of something is not a criteria for it being true.
As for alternatives, I opt for the Word of God over the words of fallible men.
Which, according to you, was written down by fallible men, edited by fallible men, translated by fallible men, and interpretted by fallible men. Hmm....you think they might've made a few mistakes here and there?
It's more in line with the demonstrable evidence.
To other readers, this means that it is completely NOT in line with ANY evidence.
The problem is not with incredulity, it's 'the credulous' that I find interesting.
Actually it is, even in the last sentence of the first paragraph you use incredulity as a basis for your argument. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi all,
Beretta has lost his posting privileges in this, the [forum=-11], forum. The topics he would like to discuss are perfectly legitimate, but they are not the topic of this thread. If Beretta or anyone else would like to submit topic proposals to discuss transitional fossils or barriers to change or whether evolutionary processes can produce increases in information or any of the other off-topic issues raised in this thread, then please do so and I will promote them as quickly as I can. Alternatively, please provide links to active threads where discussion on these topics can resume. Anyone who was actually discussing evolution as fact and theory should continue just as they were.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Beretta writes:
And yet if God says, "It's headed to Perth, my child," you'd have no problem believing it?
Yes that's exactly what I want! They don't actually have to make it happen -but they do have to at least demonstrate to me that the train is going in the right direction. If I see a train heading to Perth from Sydney, it is at least conceivable that it may get there given that it is heading in the right direction BUT if it is not heading that way or if it is in fact heading for the ocean, then I must hold up on my theories on where it's headed until I get some evidence to back my contention that it may be heading for Perth. Well my faith that there is a God is far superior to man's inventiveness and better supported by the real experimental science.
And your evidence is exactly what? After all, you're the one calling for evidence. ”FTF Edited by Fosdick, : No reason given. I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Fine. So you agree that evolution is change in allele frequency over time. You just assert that there are limits to this change. What is this limit? On what grounds do you conclude that this limit exists? Beretta writes: On the grounds of experimentation that only ever demonstrates negative mutational change and no increase in information content. How is it that we can demonstrate lots of negative informational changes but no increase in information ever? Until I see that limit breached, I choose to stick with the evidence and curb my imagination. You are claiming that there is a limit. Yet there is no experimental evidence of a limit. Whilst there is a mountain of paleontological evidence, prediction and discovery that strongly indicates that the limit you assert does not exist. So on what basis does this limit exist? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
killinghurts Member (Idle past 4994 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
quote: Not according to this: Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab | New Scientist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Killinghurts,
The article you referenced is a relatively recent one about the E. coli long-term evolution experiment conducted by Richard Lenski at Michigan State University, and it is worthwhile providing a couple brief excerpts. The URL for the New Scientist article again: Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab First, there's this about producing a new species. E. coli are distinguished from other similar bacterial species by their inability to metabolize citrate, yet one of Lenski's lines of descent evolved that very ability:
"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski. And here's a bit more detail about the current state of research as of June of this year:
The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve. Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later. While some facts, like that the Earth revolves around the sun and not vice-versa, can only be ferreted out with great effort, other facts come to us simply because they happen before our very eyes. These E. coli evolved before the very eyes of Lenski's team of researchers at Michigan State University. There can be no rational denial that species change over time, that evolution happens. And though it is off-topic, I'll add that in this particular case, there can also be no rational denial that the mechanism of evolution was that postulated by the theory of evolution. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey Percy,
And here's a bit more detail about the current state of research as of June of this year:
The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve. This also goes to reinforce the argument about neutral mutations surviving and spreading in a population, and then later becoming beneficial mutations. Mutations that would not be available to later generations if they were not passed from generation to generation. This again shows that "evolution" - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - "is a fact" just as the thread title says. Every time evolution is observed to occur it is a fact. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clarity by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
This message is to Beretta.
Hi Beretta, You're probably not reading this thread anymore, but in case you are then please read the message this is a reply to for context. On your previous visit here back in September you were repeatedly requested to stay on topic. I said that if you would propose new topics for what you wanted to discuss that I would promote them as quickly as I could, but you persisted in posting off-topic. When you finally received a 6 hour suspension (Message 84) you ceased participating and disappeared for a couple months. Now you return a couple months later and again go repeatedly off-topic, despite many requests not to, and despite my constant assurances that I would promote your topic proposals as quickly as I could. When you finally lost your posting privileges in this forum you again disappeared. This message is to inform you that you've used up almost all your off-topic warnings. If when you return you again go off-topic you'll receive one warning, and after that you'll be permanently suspended.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024