Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

Loudmouth said:

That is an assertion, not evidence.

Click to expand...

You yourself have admitted to life forms having the appearance of design for a purpose. Are you denying that now?

whois said:

do you really believe a scientist would openly admit "hey, this looks designed"?

Click to expand...

Scientists are on record as saying that things have the appearance of design. In fact, they have written books explaining why human bias makes us see design where it doesn't exist.

when you start using engineering terms and programming models to explain molecular behavior, you have passed the realm of chemical laws.

Click to expand...

How so? What chemical laws do these molecules break?

i'm going to lay this right on the line.
we will never find the truth when we deal with agendas.
koonin used the word miracle in regards to abiogenesis.
was he referring to a godlike miracle?
no, he was referring to the infinitesimal impossibilities of it.

Click to expand...

Abiogenesis is not evolution.

The only agenda I see here are the ID/creationists who are trying to run away from the evidence, and squeeze their God into the gaps in our knowledge.

science goes out of its way to prevent words like this, i'm amazed that koonin uttered it.
when questioned about this, koonin replied creationists are going to use whatever they can, so let them.
gradualists are in the same boat, they just can't let go of their views, probably because it might imply a god.

Click to expand...

Stephen Jay Gould would disagree.

Is that what you have been trying to argue all this while, that falsifying Darwinian evolution somehow implies a creator deity? Are you yet another creationist arguing for a God of the Gaps?

most of the tenets of neodarwinism are flat out wrong,

Click to expand...

No, they aren't. You get that wrong every time. Eukaryote evolution continues to be dominated by neo-Darwinian mechanisms.

the fossil record is not a record of gradual change, but of stasis interspersed with major changes.

Click to expand...

In keeping with Darwinian evolution.

Oncedeceived said:

You yourself have admitted to life forms having the appearance of design for a purpose. Are you denying that now?

Click to expand...

Do you know what the word "appearance" actually means?

You seem to think that appearance equals evidence, for seemingly personal reasons.

Oncedeceived said:

So you deny that there is no appearance of design in molecular systems, the cell, no appearance in life anywhere?

Click to expand...

Do you deny that the appearance of design is nothing more than a subjective opinion?

If it isn't just subjective opinion, then we need to see the scientific methodology, units of measure, and statistical tests that can be used to test a null hypothesis.

Oncedeceived said:

So you deny that there is no appearance of design in molecular systems, the cell, no appearance in life anywhere?



I don't care what Dawkins has to say. I'm asking for evidence of design.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

I do not think there is an appearance of design inherent in nature. You do. Hence why appearance is not a solid, objective way to determine design.

Oncedeceived said:

You yourself have admitted to life forms having the appearance of design for a purpose. Are you denying that now?

Click to expand...

I agree that there is an appearance, with an appearance of design being a subjective opinion just like clouds having the appearance of being ducks.

HitchSlap said:

Do you know what the word "appearance" actually means?

You seem to think that appearance equals evidence, for seemingly personal reasons.

Click to expand...

I do. Appearance of something is evidence it exists. IF I see the appearance of a fly on my wall, I know that it is a real fly. If I see an appearance of light in the break of the day I understand and recognize that it is the sun which really exists. If I see the appearance of different highlights and low lights in my daughter's blonde hair, I know it exists and is not an illusion. Most all things in life that have an appearance as a certain thing are in actuality that certain thing.

I find it ironic that you claim I see this appearance for personal reasons but it is evident that most scientists that do not hold the same personal beliefs as I do see it too. HMMMM.

Oncedeceived said:

I do. Appearance of something is evidence it exists. IF I see the appearance of a fly on my wall, I know that it is a real fly. If I see an appearance of light in the break of the day I understand and recognize that it is the sun which really exists. If I see the appearance of different highlights and low lights in my daughter's blonde hair, I know it exists and is not an illusion. Most all things in life that have an appearance as a certain thing are in actuality that certain thing.

I find it ironic that you claim I see this appearance for personal reasons but it is evident that most scientists that do not hold the same personal beliefs as I do see it too. HMMMM.

Click to expand...

I have cousins that have seen the appearance of Bigfoot. Have they seem Bigfoot?

Loudmouth said:

Do you deny that the appearance of design is nothing more than a subjective opinion?

If it isn't just subjective opinion, then we need to see the scientific methodology, units of measure, and statistical tests that can be used to test a null hypothesis.

Click to expand...

The biological methodology is what has confirmed that biological life forms appear to be designed for a purpose. The units of measure are the levels of complexity and specified function and form that have no specific evidence to provide for their existence. We test whether or not natural processes give evidence that proves the appearance is real or an illusion. No evidence has been given to show that this appearance is an illusion.

I do not think there is an appearance of design inherent in nature. You do. Hence why appearance is not a solid, objective way to determine design.[/QUOTE]
Those trained and educated in the field disagree with you. Do you feel you are more educated and trained than those working in the field today who claim there is evidence that shows life forms and systems appear to be designed for a purpose?

crjmurray said:

I have cousins that have seen the appearance of Bigfoot. Have they seem Bigfoot?

Click to expand...

Deflection and nonsense is not evidence.

Loudmouth said:

I agree that there is an appearance, with an appearance of design being a subjective opinion just like clouds having the appearance of being ducks.

Click to expand...

Prove it.

Oncedeceived said:

I do not think there is an appearance of design inherent in nature. You do. Hence why appearance is not a solid, objective way to determine design.

Click to expand...

Those trained and educated in the field disagree with you. Do you feel you are more educated and trained than those working in the field today who claim there is evidence that shows life forms and systems appear to be designed for a purpose?[/QUOTE]

No one says there is actual design. Since appearance of design is subjective, it doesn't matter whether I see design or not. Now are you going to provide tangible evidence or just keep asking questions?

Oncedeceived said:

Deflection and nonsense is not evidence.

Click to expand...

It's no different than your examples.

Oncedeceived said:

I do. Appearance of something is evidence it exists.

Click to expand...

If a cloud appears like a duck, is that evidence that it really is a duck?

crjmurray said:

Those trained and educated in the field disagree with you. Do you feel you are more educated and trained than those working in the field today who claim there is evidence that shows life forms and systems appear to be designed for a purpose?

Click to expand...

No one says there is actual design. Since appearance of design is subjective, it doesn't matter whether I see design or not. Now are you going to provide tangible evidence or just keep asking questions?

Click to expand...

You need to understand what is subjective in science and what is objective and what determines those.

Objective evidence: obtained through observation, physical examination, and laboratory and diagnostic testing.

Subjective: Personal opinions, assumptions, interpretations of data.

Objective evidence: Evidence through observation, physical examination and diagnostic testing has shown that life forms and systems appear to be designed with a purpose.

Subjective: Evidence gained through observation, physical examination and diagnostic testing has shown that life forms and systems appear to be designed with a purpose but we interpret this evidence as false and hold a personal opinion and assume that since no designer exists that this appearance is false and just an illusion.

Oncedeceived said:

Prove it.

Click to expand...

Your inability to produce a scientific methodology, unit of measure, and statistical tests capable of detecting false positives.

crjmurray said:

It's no different than your examples.

Click to expand...

I disagree.

Oncedeceived said:

You need to understand what is subjective in science and what is objective and what determines those.

Objective evidence: obtained through observation, physical examination, and laboratory and diagnostic testing.

Click to expand...

Then show us the scientific methodology, unit of measure, and statistical tests use to detect design.

Loudmouth said:

Your inability to produce a scientific methodology, unit of measure, and statistical tests capable of detecting false positives.

Click to expand...

You are the one that claims that only the natural world exists and that all life must be a product of natural processes. You claim that the evidence that shows all life forms and systems appear to be designed with a purpose but that it is an illusion or subjective. It is your burden. Provide the scientific methodology, unit of measure, and statistical tests that show this evidence is false and is only an illusion or concede.