Another Try At Examining Alleged Evidence For The Darwinian Process

[justlookinla]

Hopefully we can establish or dismiss the alleged evidence before another thread is shut down. I ask that everyone simply address the issues and the claims.

Now, this was offered as an example of evidence for the HOW, the process whereby both pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form (unknown at this time) of long ago.

This is the post containing the alleged evidence for the HOW, the process, based on the scientific method....

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-much-longer.7910094/page-26#post-68695191

----------------------------------------------

This was my response to the post claiming the alleged evidence....

I'm going to take it step by step to make sure we adequately cover everything. Starting with your 3 points...

"1. Make an observation- It appears that the diversity of life is related.

2. Ask a question (s)- Is all life on earth related? If so, HOW did this happen?

3. Make a hypothesis- All living things on earth are related. This is a process of evolution by random mutations and natural selection."
You've begun at the outset to once again make this about common ancestry. "Related" and "all living things on earth are related" isn't the issue, as I've pointed out probably hundreds of times now.​

Now, your next claim in #3...."This is a process of evolution by random mutations and natural selection." This is the issue. You made a claim that the process which created all life we observe today, pine trees and humans, snails and elephants are the result of "random mutations and natural selection".

Now, taking your first point and lets see if it offers the evidence, based on the scientific method, for your claim.

"A. Comparative anatomy conclusion- "Organisms that are closely related to one another share many anatomical similarities"http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IIBcomparative.shtml"
​

Point out in your statement where the evidence is offered, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process (mutation and natural selection?) which produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago.

And again...and again...and again...I'm not asking about common ancestry, about relatedness, I'm asking about the HOW, the process itself. When you identify the process, based on evidence, based on the scientific method in A, we'll examine B.


----------------------------------------------

I haven't received an answer to this last post of mine. I'd appreciate one so that we can accept, or dismiss, your alleged evidence. A simple cordial discussion would be appreciated.

 

[Goonie]

Well this will be fun

 

[justlookinla]

Well this will be fun
View attachment 164070

That'd be nice.

 

[Goonie]

That'd be nice.

Though something tells me this thread might be more like

 

[justlookinla]

Though something tells me this thread might be more like
View attachment 164071

Could be deja vu all over again.

 

[HitchSlap]

Tiktaalik roseae.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm asking about the HOW, the process itself. When you identify the process, based on evidence, based on the scientific method in A, we'll examine B.

One interesting theory is that the entire globe operated as a lifeform. Rather than life starting
in one spot, it was more of an evolution of the global patterns of chemical exchange which
spawned multiple patterns of systematic movement and replenishment, which eventually
changed to reproduction.

 

[justlookinla]

Tiktaalik roseae.

What about it?

 

[justlookinla]

One interesting theory is that the entire globe operated as a lifeform. Rather than life starting
in one spot, it was more of an evolution of the global patterns of chemical exchange which
spawned multiple patterns of systematic movement and replenishment, which eventually
changed to reproduction.

I guess that's as good a guess as any.

 

[mickiio]

I'm not understanding why the other one got shut down.....

 

[Jimmy D]

I can't see anybody putting much time and effort into responding after your previous behaviour when anybody tries addressing your questions, even your OP above demonstrates this.

Point out in your statement where the evidence is offered, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process (mutation and natural selection?) which produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago.

And again...and again...and again...I'm not asking about common ancestry, about relatedness, I'm asking about the HOW, the process itself. When you identify the process, based on evidence, based on the scientific method in A, we'll examine B.

Points C & D in Jon's post address that, as usual you ignore it, dismiss it and refuse to discuss it though.

I won't be wasting any more time here on this thread.

 

[DerelictJunction]

If you're looking at the HOW then you can't start with that observation. You would have to start with presuming that all life forms are related and then observe possible causes.

Darwin observed that organisms within a population had varying degrees of morphological differences in the same population. Different size feet, differences in maximum running speed, differences in dexterity...etc. He also observed that these differences in traits tended to be passed on to the offspring.

So the first observation for the HOW is that parents passed the peculiarities of their morphology on to their offspring.

Second observation is that some level of traits (peculiarities of morphology) tended to give survival advantage to individual organisms over organisms in the same population that had different levels of the same trait (ex: faster runners got away from predators more often than slower runners).

Third observation is that those individual organisms with the level of traits that gave them survival advantage tended to have offspring (passing on the parents' level of particular traits) more often than individuals in the same population that didn't have the survival advantage.

 

[justlookinla]

I can't see anybody putting much time and effort into responding after your previous behaviour when anybody tries addressing your questions, even your OP above demonstrates this.



Points C & D in Jon's post address that, as usual you ignore it, dismiss it and refuse to discuss it though.

I won't be wasting any more time here on this thread.

I'm eager to discuss it, that's why I'm making yet another attempt. I posted what was claimed to be evidence, based on the scientific method, for HOW, the process, whereby pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. In an effort to adequately discuss it, I'm even talking it one step at time. Point by point.

So far, no one who embraces Darwinism has attempted to respond to my comments concerning the points of the alleged evidence offered. For example, your post simply criticized me and didn't offer discussion of the issue.

Let's just discuss the issue.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Now, taking your first point and lets see if it offers the evidence, based on the scientific method, for your claim.

"A. Comparative anatomy conclusion- "Organisms that are closely related to one another share many anatomical similarities"http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IIBcomparative.shtml"
Point out in your statement where the evidence is offered, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process (mutation and natural selection?) which produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago.

And again...and again...and again...I'm not asking about common ancestry, about relatedness, I'm asking about the HOW, the process itself.

Just to try to narrow the field a bit. If it can be demonstrated that one pair of organisms with many anatomical similarities (we won't presuppose their relatedness) have genetic similarities, but also important genetic differences that could be explained by mutations...

could we conclude that they probably are related by common descent? And that at least as a start, it is now a plausible hypothesis that other pairs of similar creatures might also be explained by the same mechanism?

Obviously, as a practical matter, it's impossible to provide this evidence for every single life form that is observed today in this forum. But would one solid demonstration at least place this hypothesis on the table in your mind? Or does it take 10 demonstrations? Or 100? Or must we provide evidence for 'all life we observe today'?

 

[justlookinla]

If you're looking at the HOW then you can't start with that observation. You would have to start with presuming that all life forms are related and then observe possible causes.

I disagree. One one need to prove HOW/the process whereby all life forms were produced before one would address the issue of their inter-relatedness. A life form 'became' a pine tree and human somehow, according to certain views of evolution. How, by what process, did that happen and is there evidence, based on the scientific method, for the claim of how/process? So far, not a single bit of evidence has been offered, based on the scientific method, for the how/process. When folks claim it has, I ask for a reference where that was done.....some quote....but I never get that.

Darwin observed that organisms within a population had varying degrees of morphological differences in the same population. Different size feet, differences in maximum running speed, differences in dexterity...etc. He also observed that these differences in traits tended to be passed on to the offspring.

Darwin only made guesses and suppositions concerning the how/process of the production of all life from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. Observabable big beaked and small beaked finches and patterns on various types of moths does not begin to offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for the how/process which created a myriid of life forms from this alleged single life form.....i.e., pine trees and humans, snails and kangaroos, ants and eagles, for example.

So the first observation for the HOW is that parents passed the peculiarities of their morphology on to their offspring.

All you'll find for the how, supported by the scientific method, will be in relation to basically same life forms. You'll not find such evidence, based on the scientific method, for the production of the vastly different life forms (as examples) listed above. The only thing one can embrace past micro-evolution are guesses and suppositions of macro-evolution with no scientific evidence for support.

Second observation is that some level of traits (peculiarities of morphology) tended to give survival advantage to individual organisms over organisms in the same population that had different levels of the same trait (ex: faster runners got away from predators more often than slower runners).

That doesn't offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW/process of pine trees and humans being produced from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. Some wiggly, squggly thing 'became' both pine trees and humans by some process? What was the process, and where is the scientific evidence for the process.

The 'faster runner' scenario doesn't work for the ancestral life form of pine trees.

Third observation is that those individual organisms with the level of traits that gave them survival advantage tended to have offspring (passing on the parents' level of particular traits) more often than individuals in the same population that didn't have the survival advantage.

You're not offering evidence for the HOW/process of pine trees and humans (as examples of disparate life forms).

 

[justlookinla]

Just to try to narrow the field a bit. If it can be demonstrated that one pair of organisms with many anatomical similarities (we won't presuppose their relatedness) have genetic similarities, but also important genetic differences that could be explained by mutations...

Sure, no problem with that. Big beaked finches and small beaked finches, peppered moths and non-peppered moths would be examples, IMO.

could we conclude that they probably are related by common descent? And that at least as a start, it is now a plausible hypothesis that other pairs of similar creatures might also be explained by the same mechanism?

I know I've said this probably hundreds of times now, but I'll say it once more. This isn't about common descent. How were pine trees and humans 'created', 'made', 'produced'? What evidence do we have, based on the scientific method, for the HOW/process? That's the question.

Obviously, as a practical matter, it's impossible to provide this evidence for every single life form that is observed today in this forum.

I agree and I'm certainly not asking for that.

But would one solid demonstration at least place this hypothesis on the table in your mind? Or does it take 10 demonstrations? Or 100? Or must we provide evidence for 'all life we observe today'?

One. Just one.

 

[DerelictJunction]

I disagree. One one need to prove HOW/the process whereby all life forms were produced before one would address the issue of their inter-relatedness. A life form 'became' a pine tree and human somehow, according to certain views of evolution. How, by what process, did that happen and is there evidence, based on the scientific method, for the claim of how/process? So far, not a single bit of evidence has been offered, based on the scientific method, for the how/process. When folks claim it has, I ask for a reference where that was done.....some quote....but I never get that.

Ok. Let's not presume that all life is related.

Darwin only made guesses and suppositions concerning the how/process of the production of all life from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. Observabable big beaked and small beaked finches and patterns on various types of moths does not begin to offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for the how/process which created a myriid of life forms from this alleged single life form.....i.e., pine trees and humans, snails and kangaroos, ants and eagles, for example.

You're already talking about Darwin's conclusion or hypothesis. Since you don't want to go with the presumption that all life is related, talking about Darwin's hypothesis is irrelevant.

All you'll find for the how, supported by the scientific method, will be in relation to basically same life forms. You'll not find such evidence, based on the scientific method, for the production of the vastly different life forms (as examples) listed above. The only thing one can embrace past micro-evolution are guesses and suppositions of macro-evolution with no scientific evidence for support.

We're using the scientific method here and we are only on "observation". Why talk about the rest?

That doesn't offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW/process of pine trees and humans being produced from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. Some wiggly, squggly thing 'became' both pine trees and humans by some process? What was the process, and where is the scientific evidence for the process.

The 'faster runner' scenario doesn't work for the ancestral life form of pine trees.

We're not at that point yet. Observation is first. If you have a problem with the observations, then say so.

You're not offering evidence for the HOW/process of pine trees and humans (as examples of disparate life forms).

Do you want to follow the scientific method or not? It's up to you, but if you want to jump to crying about my not having given you the conclusion before stepping through the method, then don't expect me waste my time with you.

Back to observations.
Observation 1: Some individuals within a population survive and produce offspring better than other individuals in that same population.
Observation 2: Capabilities of individuals (speed, camouflage, resistance to disease, beak size and strength..etc) differ between individuals in a population.
Observation 3: The differences in capabilities in individuals in a population cause differences in survival ability and offspring production.
Observation 4: Offspring of individuals are more likely have capabilities on the level of their parents rather than capabilities on the level of other individuals within the same population.

Do you agree or disagree with these observations? If you have problems with any particular observation please discuss it now or I will assume you accept these observations as true and will move on to other observations.

 

[justlookinla]

Ok. Let's not presume that all life is related.

Let's not presume that only naturalistic mechanisms produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago.

You're already talking about Darwin's conclusion or hypothesis. Since you don't want to go with the presumption that all life is related, talking about Darwin's hypothesis is irrelevant.

I'm talking about Darwinian's claim of how/the process.

We're using the scientific method here and we are only on "observation". Why talk about the rest?
We're not at that point yet. Observation is first. If you have a problem with the observations, then say so.
Do you want to follow the scientific method or not? It's up to you, but if you want to jump to crying about my not having given you the conclusion before stepping through the method, then don't expect me waste my time with you.

That's the point, there's no observation to be had. We haven't observed anything but similar life forms becoming similar life forms. We've not observed any activity which would produce pine trees and humans from a single life form of long ago.

Back to observations.
Observation 1: Some individuals within a population survive and produce offspring better than other individuals in that same population.
Observation 2: Capabilities of individuals (speed, camouflage, resistance to disease, beak size and strength..etc) differ between individuals in a population.Observation
3: The differences in capabilities in individuals in a population cause differences in survival ability and offspring production.Observation
4: Offspring of individuals are more likely have capabilities on the level of their parents rather than capabilities on the level of other individuals within the same population.

Do you agree or disagree with these observations? If you have problems with any particular observation please discuss it now or I will assume you accept these observations as true and will move on to other observations.[/QUOTE]

What was the observed process, based on the scientific method, which caused the changes in the life forms? The issue is the HOW/the process, based on the scientific method.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Let's not presume that only naturalistic mechanisms produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago.

No one is presuming that. What was your reason for bringing it up?

I'm talking about Darwinian's claim of how/the process.

That would be the hypothesis. We are not done with observations yet. Why don't you want to follow the scientific method?

That's the point, there's no observation to be had. We haven't observed anything but similar life forms becoming similar life forms. We've not observed any activity which would produce pine trees and humans from a single life form of long ago.

Again you feel you must completely bypass the scientific method despite your complaint that the theory of evolution does not follow it. Do you have a problem with following the scientific method?

What was the observed process, based on the scientific method, which caused the changes in the life forms? The issue is the HOW/the process, based on the scientific method.

Since you asked this question and did not complain about the observations, can I assume you are ready to move on to further observations from more recent research?
However, your reluctance to follow the scientific method urges me to give you one more chance to critique the observations that I have presented thus far. Do you have any problems with the current observations reiterated below?

Observation 1: Some individuals within a population survive and produce offspring better than other individuals in that same population.
Observation 2: Capabilities of individuals (speed, camouflage, resistance to disease, beak size and strength..etc) differ between individuals in a population.
Observation 3: The differences in capabilities in individuals in a population cause differences in survival ability and offspring production.
Observation 4: Offspring of individuals are more likely to have capabilities on the level of their parents rather than capabilities on the level of other individuals within the same population.

 

[TheBear]

Do you have any problems with the current observations reiterated below?

Observation 1: Some individuals within a population survive and produce offspring better than other individuals in that same population.
Observation 2: Capabilities of individuals (speed, camouflage, resistance to disease, beak size and strength..etc) differ between individuals in a population.
Observation 3: The differences in capabilities in individuals in a population cause differences in survival ability and offspring production.
Observation 4: Offspring of individuals are more likely to have capabilities on the level of their parents rather than capabilities on the level of other individuals within the same population.

It's no use. Anything and everything will be used to avoid answering this direct question. Maybe I'll be proved wrong. I certainty hope the poster has some modicum of honesty. We'll see.....