Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

I'm fine with "certain things" being assumed. False things, however, being assumed leads to false conclusions. You begin with a false assumption, so your side of the debate falls apart at the beginning. My stats proved my point (they're found in post 63). As NosyNed pointed out, if there's a problem with them, and they're being misused, show how.I rest my case. I think anyone can read my post 63, read your reply, and judge the obvious. Of course, I guess that would be true about any of your posts in this thread.

Excuse me? Your references to Milton have received a myriad of answers. (And yes, myriad comes from a Greek word meaning 10,000, so I'm exaggerating. I'll save you one of your powerful arguments ;->)

As everyone who has seen the photographs knows the dentition of the thylacine and the wolf is very different.Thus Milton's "observations" can be rejected as false - the skulls are not nearly identical - they can easily be distinguished by a layman.This was all hashed out in the thread you referred to.Score one against Milton's reliability.OK how about Milton's comments on the T.O. Transitional Fossils FAQ. He CLAIMS that the FAQ promises fine-grained transitional sequences - but he omits the text which makes the actual promise:
"Part 2 lists numerous species-to-species transitions from the mammals"
Why then does Milton not talk about the transitions given in part 2 for mammalian species ?Then he takes ordinary scientific language and calls it "undefined Darwinist code words" which he claims is "used to suggest or imply
that there is strong or direct scientific evidence of a relationship". In fact in every case they DO deal with evidence of a relationship or an evidenced relationship.So Milton's direct comments on the FAQ are based on misrepresentation.So what "strata" does Milton demand ? It isn't clear. Why for example does he reject the horse sequence ? And why does he claim that the transitional fossil are just isolated specimens when fine grained transitiosn are known to exist ?And lets repeat a question you asked :
"Richard Milton says ape to human transitional bones do not exist WHY does he say this ?"The answer is that he DOES have a very big axe to grind against evolution.

Modern evolutionary theory is not incompatible with atheism. However, it is also not incompatible with theism.There is a world of difference between A being compatible with B, and A being predicated on B. Though I'm not, by now, expecting you to understand this .TTFN, DT

Willow,You have failed to substantively reply to my discussion of the use of authority in these debates. From your post 112 on the previous thread, you quote Milton as saying: However, when Milton’s argument was called into question in subsequent posts, you did not provide the evidence Milton used to derive his quoted opinion. That is one reason why many have continually repeated the refrain that you have failed to provide any evidence for your claims. Perhaps you might wish to summarize Milton’s reasons for rejecting RM&NS? Does he propose an alternative (e.g., like Margulis’s SET theory)? Maybe if you actually brought out the argument, you’d have fewer people treating you as they do.In the same post, you go on to quote someone named Daniel Harbour as though whatever he said was somehow a gospel according to Daniel that every atheist must adhere to. Guess what? I’ve never heard of the man until you posted his quote. Obviously he doesn’t speak for me. Nor do I agree with his contention that you’ve claimed for him (taking your claim at face value) that he states atheism = neo-Darwinism = ToE. He’s as much in error as anyone else who makes the unwarranted leap that DT pointed out — A is compatible with B is not equivalent to A implies or is predicated on B.You conclude with what is a completely unwarranted (as in unsupported by previous argument or evidence) conclusion: Your opinion here does not a factual argument make. Please support your conclusion with some kind of logical sequence — either deductive or inductive — that others can follow. It’s very hard to argue with a cloud.Your final response to me in that thread (your post 280) — which was closed while I was out of town — utterly and completely failed to address a single one of my points raised in post 209. Allow me to recap, since you continue to make the same assesrtions:1. The fact that the majority of scientists — with a plethora of worldviews and belief systems — consider the fact and basic theory of evolution to be valid negates your contention that neo-Darwinism = atheism.2. The fact that argument from authority — without some compelling reason to accept the claims of that authority — is a fallacy.3. Your conflation of scientism, a discredited philosophy, with science, a methodology.4. The lack of a Gospel According to Evolutionists, and the fact that every single aspect of any scientific theory is open to being disputed on scientific grounds.5. The challenge to back up your assertion that I’m unable to accept taking the core of my theory to task by offering to discuss any aspect of the theory in detail.6. The false dichotomy that there are only two possible worldviews — your particular brand of fundamentalist Christianity and atheism.7. Your failure to address this statement:

quote:

---

Again, nowhere in anything I've ever read in any science book OR in any science journal has there been any reference or indication that science denies God. It's simply a question that never arises, because it is irrelevant to the process of science, and irrelevant to the conclusions of science. Atheism as well has absolutely nothing to do with science. It may be a philosophy held by individual scientists, but is not the basis of science itself.

---

except by repeating your assertion.8. And finally, my repeated offer to

quote:

---

you pick a specific example of some claim or idea proposed by any evolutionary scientist that you think is being deliberately obfuscated through the use of jargon and I'll undertake to provide an understandable explanation for it.

---

Your only reply was to call me stupid and a country bumpkin. Care to try again?

This isn't entirely accurate. An inference can be taken as a valid argument if it is based on evidence. IOW, you have to at least show how the inference is supported. What most people here take exception to is an inference based on opinion, rather than fact. An opinion does not a valid inference make. I'm actually a bit surprised that no one addressed this question. I would argue first that "demonstrated" in the context of particle physics and cosmology (two of the disciplines you mentioned) is too strong a term. In both cases observations are made, then hypotheses and/or theories are derived from those observations that provide an explanatory framework, then additional observations are sought to either confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis. As one simplified example, cosmologists have developed theories as to how stars form. Additional observations using the most up to date instruments have shown every postulated stage of star formation is correct, because they've seen stars that manifest every stage. IOW, they've observed "transitionals". Particle physicists have a bit of a harder time, since they can't directly observe the particles themselves. However, they've developed theories as to what they would expect to see in their instruments if the particles have the properties they hypothesize. When the results of their experiments match their hypotheses, they can be relatively sure that the particles exist as believed. But it's only indirect observation.Evolutionary biologists have an even harder time - they are looking at the distant past. It is a historical science, rather than an experimental one. This means they have to be a lot more careful to avoid "just so" stories - inferences not based on evidence. However, the basic methodology is exactly the same - observation (ex, two different species complexes on two adjacent, nearly identical islands), hypothesis (continental vs oceanic island), and additional observation (succession/colonization etc on Krakatau, for instance, or loss of biodiversity on Barro Colorado Island) that provide modern and documentable observations that show the mechanisms/hypotheses are correct. These observations show the same kind of "transitionals" that cosmologists see in their stars. In addtion, there are geologists ("how long"), paleontologists (patterns over time), ecologists (observed mechanisms), population geneticists and molecular biologists ("how") and many other scientists that provide more or less conclusive support for the theory from their own, unrelated work.There is no fundamental difference between how cosmologists and biologists do their work. But the point is you haven't posted any scientific evidence. Even if Milton was the defining authority you take him as, you haven't yet provided the data we'd need to evaluate his claims in a scientific sense. What ARE his observations and data that led him to reject RM&NS? All you've shown is that he makes the claim they can't explain the diversity of life - a claim you obviously agree with. So, WHY does he claim this? Upon what is he basing his opinion/inference? Put that info on the table, and perhaps there can be a real discussion. I honestly have no idea what you're asking for. Maybe it's my "stupidity" showing again. Please clarify specifically what you expect to see, and what you would accept (if anything) as evidence in this context. I agree with you up to the last sentence. Without an explanation for why he rejects evolution - scientific why's - then we're dealing with one man's opinion. Opinion can never provide corroboration for anything. After all, I have some 20 board feet of shelving groaning under the weight of books written by evolutionists - some of them by experienced science writers - that disagree with Milton. If we're talking pure volume, my sources beat Milton all hollow. Which is why this kind of argument is a fool's game, as I've pointed out. Present Milton's evidence - his concrete evidence - then we can talk. Who the heck is Hunt? And why should I take anything he says as valid? After all, I've argued against many conclusions by scientists in the past - smart ones, even. I can even show you places where Darwin himself was wrong. Proves nothing about the ToE. Try again.

First, sorry for being away, I want to answer my posts before I review the rest of the thread and if their is anything I think I need to bring up, I will bring it up, if I dont find anything I wont respond at all and I will allow the thread to move on. Nay. Shrug. Correct.My problem is I am a disbeliver in acquired characteristics and I can see the apperence of the "fetus" and the "full grown product" of a Thylacine are not that much different. So the question that I would ask when I see that the FETUS and the FULL GROWN PRODUCT of the Thylacine are so alike is: What where the changes that where to have happend with convergent evolution? The only changes I can see, are stripes.So,The main problem is that, understanding that acquired characteristics are obsolete, how would the acquired characteristical changes be passed down to the Thylacine Fetus? Which is what would have to have happend in order for the "Thylacine FETUS" to be so similiar to the "Full Grown Thylacine Body", which is suppost to be a product of convergent evolution/adaptation which are acquired characteristics.------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-26-2003]

Mark24, So you are saying that WRT evolution that convergent evolution can be a product of genetics which where activated because of the enviorment? I am saying that the FETUS of a Thylacine does not look any different then the full grown Thylacine (except the stripes),SO, what exactly developed because of adaptation or convergent evolution? Correct WRT evolutionism. Correct WRT evolutionuism.Of course that does not mean that the Thylacine is a product of convergent evolution or evolution at all but just another species. But of course, I assume that there is fossil record, and dna, too support the development of a Thylacine according to evolution?------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-26-2003]

Are you a expert zoologist? If you are not why are you so sure that you are correct in the differences? No I assume that you believe much in evolution rather then giving anybody who would be considered a creationist a chance just because they are a creationist, you also asked me what my standpoint is, probably because you wanted to attack my personal beliefs, luckaly I dont care about death so I have no bias opinion and I can see the differences without trying to defend my belief. Where? Where? 1.)Mutation is not proven to lead to more information
2.)The fossil record is incomplete, no assumption or observation should have ever been started.
3.)Phylogenies are based on similarities and are unproven to lead to relatedness.
4.)The theory of evolution is a theory, meaning, it is theoretical.------------------
The Elder

It may be a long weekend...........

Ok, Good, please represent your self with factual proof, none of this theoretical crap.------------------
The Elder

Elder, that is the whole point. Milton said they are 'virtually identical' so that it would take an expert to tell them apart. I can see that they are not that identical. That's all it takes. The fact that I am not an expert tuned the subtle differences just strenghtens the point. What differences are you talking about? What attack on your personal beliefs? This is Milton's statements we are talking about not the Bible. The paragraph above is from post 54. You seem to be accepting that the genome does not have to match in any particular way. That destroys Milton talk about the unliklyness of mutations occuring twice. Do you understand what he was saying? If so you might try saying it in your own words. Then re explain what you are saying in post 54 about "geneologies".As for your 4 further evidences, is that your best shot? If you really want to go with those we can start on them after we've finished with this bit about Milton.------------------
Common sense isn't

Elder, if you come onto a forum titled "Evolution" in a state of ignorance so profound as to think that embryonic development is the same thing as evolution, I feel pretty well justified in thinking that disabusing you of such notions might take even longer than this weekend. Maybe much longer.Go read a high-school biology text.

You are missing the point. a metaphore: the identicalness is microscopic to people who are not expert zoologists Differences/similarites and such. The attack: When you stand back and watch a evo vs a creatio you can see the different attacks each take on the other, usally this results in a thread with a list of opinions and no facts. milton's statments: Duh. I just wanted to know what you where refering too. I agree that the Thylacine phenotypic makeup is because of genetics. Best shot? my best shot kills the theoretical evolution. The theory of evolution needs more mechinisms to be successful.------------------
The Elder

Ok, You missunderstand me still, Pointless to speak with you, you need to practice comprehension, maybe that is why you are such a strong evolutionist and are ignorant as to how it is a belief.(added by edit) Leaving thread for a while be back later------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-26-2003]