Is the Human Brain a Null Hypothesis for Darwinian Evolution?

[mark kennedy]

To you, decisive proof is proof that convinces you, and you reject what most of us consider to be decisive proof.

A cause sufficient to explain the fabrication, heritability and permanent fixation of gross structural changes in highly conserved genes.

People have tried to explain the theoretical mechanism for evolution . . . .

Idle speculation and wild guesses, as to possible but highly unlikely, presumed giant leaps in nature.
Like Darwin was so fond of saying, 'Natura non facit saltum', nature does not make leaps. Gradulaistic natural selection is a model based on the slow, slight and gradual step wise accumulation of traits which cannot account for the divergence between Chimpanzees and apes. The leading researchers in the field in as much as said so.

Natural selection is not the major contributor to the large-scale patterns of genetic variability in humans. (Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005)
​

Normative selective coefficients cannot account for the divergence and accumulating partial changes over time would require extensive and complete overhauls of highly complex and conserved genes:

Taken together, gross structural changes affecting gene products are far more common than previously estimated (20.3% of the PTR22 proteins) (DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22, Nature 2004)​

This calls for more then wild speculation and presuppositional mutations that would be highly deleterious, having a mutation rate that far exceeds any known survivable rate.

basically mutations followed by natural selection operating over generations . . .

Mutations with beneficial effects are the rarest of mutations, those that provide adaptive traits on an evolutionary scale are even more incredible.

Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. Some are neutral, that is, they produce no effect strong enough to permit selection for or against. Rates of Spontaneous Mutations, Genetics 2008)
​

I don't defy the finding of scientific professionals, I base my whole argument on it.

it is kind of odd to see you say you haven't seen anyone even try to explain this to you.

Not one, at least not on here. What I have seen instead is an aversion to the indels and especially the gross structural differences in brain related genes. The only researcher I know of who has attempted to explain them without simply describing the divergence and assuming beneficial effects from mutations is Bruce Lahn who is very candid at the scale of the divergence.

“Selection for greater intelligence and hence larger and more complex brains is far more intense during human evolution than during the evolution of other mammals....“For a long time, people have debated about the genetic underpinning of human brain evolution. Is it a few mutations in a few genes, a lot of mutations in a few genes, or a lot of mutations in a lot of genes? The answer appears to be a lot of mutations in a lot of genes. We've done a rough calculation that the evolution of the human brain probably involves hundreds if not thousands of mutations in perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes—and even that is a conservative estimate.” (Human Brain Evolution Was a 'Special Event')​

Normative natural selection due to random mutations isn't an answer, it's a presupposition.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

So...Where were we...

I just think you might benefit from understanding where the creationist is coming from with this. Unlike many of my Calvinist brethren I do not rely exclusively on presuppositional logic. I think the evidencial approach has some merit so I find myself pouring through the voluminous tomes of Genetic research so readily available across the internet and the local Library. I think there is some common ground here, an appreciation for how a person's world view influences a philosophy of natural history can be helpful.

Well, I appreciate the courtesy, but I still don't see how it relates to Science. the Scientific Method by definition seeks to learn things about this universe, and the world around us, religion and the supernatural just aren't applicable. As far as I can see, all it would do is bring people to the problem with their own pre-packaged bias, that would only serve to hinder any investigation, not enhance anything. If it were that it has an effect on reality, then there would be the thing, it would then be part of this reality we can then investigate. Until then, I don't see how it has any place.

Just do me one favor, consider the definition from Nature and we can talk some more about these things. It may well help you understand the nature of the evidence being explored and suggests some of the limitations of scientific method. That doesn't make it wrong, it just means you can't get to the subject of origins in a lab.

Well, like I said, I don't really have a problem with that definition anyway. That said, if you were going to make a play on words and say it doesn't mean what the scientific community generally accept it to be, then I can't come on board with it, is all.

There is something called a mutation rate and the deleterious effects of mutations that is well worth considering:

In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair. Mutations
Selection explains the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. Mutations account for most of the variety but adaptive evolution cannot be explained by random copy errors, it's utterly absurd. You are left with presently unknown molecular mechanisms making profoundly dangerous changes in highly conserved genes. It might be a little more complicated then you have been led to believe.

But as has been pointed out here before, not every mutation is deleterious. Even so, & I'm not sure if you're aware, but given around 70% of human pregnancies auto-terminate, that might indicate that quite a few deleterious mutations are sorted well before they leave the gate... These aren't scientific sources though, but included for reference, Miscarriage Statistics: http://www.pregnancyloss.info/info-howcommon.htm on the rate of failed pregnancies and "What causes a Miscarriage" http://www.babycenter.com/0_miscarriage-signs-causes-and-treatment_252.bc :

Between 50 and 70 percent of first-trimester miscarriages are thought to be random events caused by chromosomal abnormalities in the fertilized egg. Most often, this means that the egg or sperm had the wrong number of chromosomes, and as a result, the fertilized egg can't develop normally.​

This might shed some light on where all those deleterious mutations went...

I'm not trying to ditch science, the Protestant Reformation and the Scientific Revolution ran concurrently. The academic tyranny of Rome was broken around that time as will as it's ecclesiastical and political control. Ever heard of the Thirty Year War and the Civil War in England, it's related to the rise of the Protestant Reformation that paved the way for the Scientific Revolution. Don't get me wrong, I don't credit religion exclusively with the many milestone breakthroughs, telescopes, microscopes and the mighty printing press were instrumental and could be considered the key.

Sure. I'm still not getting why (and for that matter, How) the supernatural gets involved to make the scientific method any better than what is already in place and working just fine?

You don't seem like a troller, I actually enjoy these exchanges. I have long thought these discussions can be very stimulating and lead invariably to a better understanding of science, religion, history and philosophy. Most of what I get out of this has little to do with the core controversy that spurs it on. I hated Biology in school, thought cutting up Crustaceans was a pointless and disgusting practice. Now I've learned that there is a deep philosophy and dynamic history involved, it's made it much more intriguing.

I see it as less of a sport and more as a legitimate defence of our collective knowledge & technological progress & prosperity...

Grace and peace,
Mark

...and Now to move on...

God can be tested, just not empirically and there are some very sweeping predictions literally fulfilled in the past, present and future. I'm not arguing for Creationism as an empirical methodology just saying, the end product of science is fair game for philosophical and religious thought. Science does not preclude a Creator, that much is true, not does it get to exclude God being creator at the point of origin.

Well Science just isn't in a position to speculate. As for sweeping predictions, the bulk of biblical prophecy can't be verified as anything but stories given the Bible is the only record. The prophecies that are fulfilled would either be trivial, and/or vague enough to be interpreted retroactively to fit any number of scenarios, and then there are the specific enough, but failed prophecies too, such as Tyre falling to King Nebuchadnezzar & being wiped bare as a rock, never to be used for anything more than a place for laying out fishing nets...

Your arguing in circles, because science investigates natural phenomenon the only cause has to be naturalistic. Therefore all causation, going back to the Big Bang and including the origin of life must be naturalistic. It's absurd. They lost because God as cause is essentially religious in nature thus the Establishment Clause prohibits it. It's as simple as that.

All the causes we've ever found are naturalistic, and the only causes we can test for are naturalistic ones. This though, has been working very well for us, so not sure why this is a problem. The moment we include the supernatural, scientific inquiry stops. Again, if the Supernatural is ever the causal event of something, then surely it becomes part of the natural world, and can therefore be tested!

Yet in reality it must be.

If that were the case, then Science could test for it - so no, it isn't.

Yea, so what? We are talking about natural history whether we actually mention that fact or not. Speciation is just the first tier.

Sure, but the wheels just keep turning while those little changes become divergent between the populations as time goes on...

If it's still up in the air then it's still up for grabs whether or not God created life. Evolution is a living theory, it starts happening after life has started. What speculation there might be for naturalistic causes are all well and good but the is an inverse logic that cannot be rationally ignored.

Right. I don't accept your inverse logic here, and I'm perfectly rational in doing so. There's still no evidence for your particular God, or any other supernatural causation so offering that false dichotomy on the beginning of life just isn't Science.

It was included in Principia, the magnum opus of his scientific career.

Yes, as his personal belief, not as part of any actual scientific experiment. It was only when giving up and throwing genuine investigation at the feet of his God that it served to stymie any further scientific inquiry, not enhance it.

You are making a pointless rationalization here, God isn't subject to Natural Selection nor is evolutionary processes an explanation for natural phenomenon needing God except at the point of origin. Don't conflate the two.

If we've learned anything from Newton, it's that accepting a supernatural cause effectively cuts away any further genuine scientific inquiry. If you think it's prudent to continue investigating anyway, then Great! We can discard having to consider your God anyway, so we're back to where we started, and Science is doing just fine without considering Supernatural causation.

Again, we are not talking about the methodology, we are deciphering the end product. What a scientist does is not that different from what a plumber does, the tools and technology are more advanced in some instances but science is little more then a tool. What it produces is no longer subject to the same restrictions a lab scientist is disciplined by, the phenomenon lays down the evidence, the evidence can be used in other ways.

Great! I still fail to see how Scientific Inquiry in any capacity can benefit from considering the Supernatural. Given we can't test for it, what benefit & knowledge will we get by considering that in any aspect of our research?

Accept no causes except those that are sufficient to explain the phenomenon, that is as far as it goes. I does not exclude God as Creator, Newton would have thought such a conclusion absurd.

“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.” (Isaac Newton)
He didn't believe in a world without God. Chance mutations are equally absurd so the has to be another explanation and it's not provided by Darwinian naturalistic assumptions.

I agree on your (...well, Newton's) first statement, and again, I agree that Science and the Scientific Method don't rule out a God, but there's nothing that warrants it to be considered. That's the domain of Religious folk to postulate post-fact. Great about his personal beliefs too, but Science had a Huge and very successful track record without ever including the Supernatural, I still don't see any value, and have underlined a few detractions were we to include the Supernatural as a causal agent. Of course, both you and Newton are free to postulate about your respective deities (I suspect you don't believe Newton was Jesus Christ reincarnate?), just leave Science out of it!

It's been fun, thanks for the exchange. Looking forward to hearing more from you on this subject.

Okay, now a question for you - I'd like to hear how you suggest that Science, and the Scientific Method would benefit by the specific inclusion of the supernatural. How would you include it in a way that we make meaningful progress from Science? In fact, If you could postulate a working example (real or not) that we can dissect, that would be Great!

Grace and peace,
Mark

Same to you.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Normative natural selection due to random mutations isn't an answer, it's a presupposition.

Have a nice day
Mark

Normative natural selection due to random mutations isn't a presupposition, its an answer.

There is another factor, of course. Genetic drift.

May the Lord bless you with comprehension and understanding.

 

[mark kennedy]

Normative natural selection due to random mutations isn't a presupposition, its an answer.

No actually it's begging the question. More like desperate pleading when you consider the deleterious effects, selection works both ways you know.

There is another factor, of course. Genetic drift.

There are also dominant and recessive traits, alternate alleles, exon shuffling and mysterious regulatory genes that can shut genes on and off.

May the Lord bless you with comprehension and understanding.

I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, (Eph. 1:18)
​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No actually it's begging the question. More like desperate pleading when you consider the deleterious effects, selection works both ways you know.

Selection works both ways?

What does that even mean?

Of course, harmful mutations are selected out and helpful mutations are selected in. Is that what you mean by "both ways?"

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, I appreciate the courtesy, but I still don't see how it relates to Science. the Scientific Method by definition seeks to learn things about this universe, and the world around us, religion and the supernatural just aren't applicable. As far as I can see, all it would do is bring people to the problem with their own pre-packaged bias, that would only serve to hinder any investigation, not enhance anything. If it were that it has an effect on reality, then there would be the thing, it would then be part of this reality we can then investigate. Until then, I don't see how it has any place.

Scientific method produced the data regarding genomics, comparative anatomy, fossil analysis and a host of radiometric data sets. This is after the fact, this is after scientific methodology has completed it's work. Now the inference of God as primary first cause is in bounds and you don't get to hid behind some psuedo scientific mumbo jumbo that insists God cannot be a cause. We are not doing anything scientific here except occasionally digesting some of their work. You keep saying science like it's a magic word or something, it has intrinsic meaning, it's a philosophy not a rule of conduct forbidding theistic reasoning.

Well, like I said, I don't really have a problem with that definition anyway. That said, if you were going to make a play on words and say it doesn't mean what the scientific community generally accept it to be, then I can't come on board with it, is all.

Muslims and Buddhists don't accept the Trinity, that doesn't make it not true. As a matter of fact scientists are mixed on Christian conviction just accept Darwinian logic unconditionally in that context. What they think doesn't mean I have to accept their conclusions, that's called an argument from credulity. Rome for centuries made the pretense that if you don't hear it from them it's not Christian, they were wrong.

But as has been pointed out here before, not every mutation is deleterious. Even so, & I'm not sure if you're aware, but given around 70% of human pregnancies auto-terminate, that might indicate that quite a few deleterious mutations are sorted well before they leave the gate... These aren't scientific sources though, but included for reference...

Between 50 and 70 percent of first-trimester miscarriages are thought to be random events caused by chromosomal abnormalities in the fertilized egg. Most often, this means that the egg or sperm had the wrong number of chromosomes, and as a result, the fertilized egg can't develop normally.​

This might shed some light on where all those deleterious mutations went...
Sure. I'm still not getting why (and for that matter, How) the supernatural gets involved to make the scientific method any better than what is already in place and working just fine?

I wasn't aware of that statistic but it sounds about right, definitely selection in action. Johnathan Wells makes an interesting point along these lines:

The diversity of the earliest stages of development, here illustrated strictly within the vertebrates, provides one of the strongest challenges to the neo-Darwinian conception of homology and macroevolution. Given the hierarchical, step-wise logic or "architecture" of animal development, early stages such as cleavage and gastrulation lay the groundwork for all that follows. Body plan structures in the adult, for example, trace their cellular lineage to these early stages. Thus, if macroevolution is going to occur, it must begin in early development. Yet it is precisely here, in early development, that organisms are least tolerant of mutations. Furthermore, the adult homologies shared by these vertebrates commence at remarkably different points (e.g., cleavage patterns). How then did these different starting points evolve from a common ancestor? (Homology: A concept in Crisis)​

I see it as less of a sport and more as a legitimate defence of our collective knowledge & technological progress & prosperity...

Actually I see it as philosophical, nothing is really being threatened here except a handful of egg heads in their Ivy League ivory towers.

Well Science just isn't in a position to speculate. As for sweeping predictions, the bulk of biblical prophecy can't be verified as anything but stories given the Bible is the only record. The prophecies that are fulfilled would either be trivial, and/or vague enough to be interpreted retroactively to fit any number of scenarios, and then there are the specific enough, but failed prophecies too, such as Tyre falling to King Nebuchadnezzar & being wiped bare as a rock, never to be used for anything more than a place for laying out fishing nets...

How well you don't know the Scriptures, the best persevered written records from antiquity, there is no close second. The prophecies of Scripture are very specific down to the time and place the Messiah would be born. The word that went out during the time of Moses and Joshua, Elisha and Elijah, Christ and the Apostles were confirmed by signs, wonders and mighty deeds. Now I can't convince you but lets give up the pretense that the Bible is somehow discredited primary source material, that's just not true. I've spent a lot of time looking into internal, external and bibliographical testing and the Scriptures are incomparable. Perhaps the single strongest evidence of their authenticity is the nation of Israel, but we can get into that another time.

All the causes we've ever found are naturalistic, and the only causes we can test for are naturalistic ones. This though, has been working very well for us, so not sure why this is a problem. The moment we include the supernatural, scientific inquiry stops. Again, if the Supernatural is ever the causal event of something, then surely it becomes part of the natural world, and can therefore be tested!

Nor do you get to recreate an historical event in a test tube. Just because God can't be shaken up in a beaker and turned blue doesn't mean God doesn't exist or act in time and space. You equivocating methodological investigations into natural phenomenon with reality, it's absurd. So what if God can't be postulated in lab work, that doesn't mean you can't take the information science produces and still conclude God acted in time and space. So that's not scientific, it's not artistic either but I don't see artists have a fit about it.

If that were the case, then Science could test for it - so no, it isn't.

Can you hear yourself? Science only investigates natural phenomenon so it can't investigate the supernatural so if there was such a thing as a miracle Science could test for it but since it can't investigate the supernatural it must not have happened. That's circular logic, if science can investigate and conclude a miracle then it's relevant to creation, if it can't then it will only get you so far and rationality and philosophy have to take you the rest of the way. You don't get to eat your cake and then have it, either science can confirm or deny a miracle or it can't.

Sure, but the wheels just keep turning while those little changes become divergent between the populations as time goes on...

Most of them are cyclical not cumulative.

Right. I don't accept your inverse logic here, and I'm perfectly rational in doing so. There's still no evidence for your particular God, or any other supernatural causation so offering that false dichotomy on the beginning of life just isn't Science.

Which is not something you decided based on science, science has to have a pass or fail, up or down, on or off. You just decided God doesn't exist or that supernatural causation was illusory. That's not called science, that's called atheistic materialism and equivocating the two is fallacious rhetoric, not rationalistic reason.

Yes, as his personal belief, not as part of any actual scientific experiment. It was only when giving up and throwing genuine investigation at the feet of his God that it served to stymie any further scientific inquiry, not enhance it.

God cannot be considered a cause, so that means science can't eliminate God as a cause, but you say it's science that tells us God is not the cause. Surely you see how illogical that is.

If we've learned anything from Newton, it's that accepting a supernatural cause effectively cuts away any further genuine scientific inquiry. If you think it's prudent to continue investigating anyway, then Great! We can discard having to consider your God anyway, so we're back to where we started, and Science is doing just fine without considering Supernatural causation.

What we learned from Newton was the principles of motion and calculus. I'm not going to science for answers to the questions regarding our origins, remember how you keep saying science can't investigate such things. Science is a tool, it produces a product, what we are talking about is a product not a process.

Great! I still fail to see how Scientific Inquiry in any capacity can benefit from considering the Supernatural. Given we can't test for it, what benefit & knowledge will we get by considering that in any aspect of our research?

Two things here, nothing scientific is being discussed. There was that one quote about spontaneous abortions but the rest has been circular logic. Don't you get a little dizzy doing this because I get tired of chasing it around the mulberry bush.

I agree on your (...well, Newton's) first statement, and again, I agree that Science and the Scientific Method don't rule out a God, but there's nothing that warrants it to be considered.

You just contradicted yourself, it's either one way or the other. You can't rule God out and you can't consider God and that leads to a conclusion how?

That's the domain of Religious folk to postulate post-fact. Great about his personal beliefs too, but Science had a Huge and very successful track record without ever including the Supernatural, I still don't see any value, and have underlined a few detractions were we to include the Supernatural as a causal agent. Of course, both you and Newton are free to postulate about your respective deities (I suspect you don't believe Newton was Jesus Christ reincarnate?), just leave Science out of it!

First of all Christian conviction works this way, God calls you to repentance, you hear and believe the Gospel, you receive the Holy Spirit of promise. There is nothing empirical required. I don't need science for Christian conviction and I'm not trying to convert the epistemology of science to natural theology, neither is anyone else.

Okay, now a question for you - I'd like to hear how you suggest that Science, and the Scientific Method would benefit by the specific inclusion of the supernatural. How would you include it in a way that we make meaningful progress from Science? In fact, If you could postulate a working example (real or not) that we can dissect, that would be Great!

Same to you.

You keep saying science like we are standing around a lab in lab coats trying to come up with a null hypothesis. We are not, we are leaving a bakery with fresh baked bread and cup cakes, we don't have to be bakers to eat them. What we are running in circles over is nothing more then an equivocation of natural science with naturalistic assumptions and they are not the same thing.

I'm all in favor of introducing scientific evidence into the conversation, actually do it all the time. The fallacious rhetoric takes all the fun out of it though, they are arguments that never happened.

Selection works both ways?

positive and negative.

What does that even mean?

Which leads me to ask if you know what natural selection is.

Of course, harmful mutations are selected out and helpful mutations are selected in. Is that what you mean by "both ways?"

Now your catching on, see, that wasn't so hard was it?

Have a nice day ,
Mark

 

[VirOptimus]

Scientific method produced the data regarding genomics, comparative anatomy, fossil analysis and a host of radiometric data sets. This is after the fact, this is after scientific methodology has completed it's work. Now the inference of God as primary first cause is in bounds and you don't get to hid behind some psuedo scientific mumbo jumbo that insists God cannot be a cause. We are not doing anything scientific here except occasionally digesting some of their work. You keep saying science like it's a magic word or something, it has intrinsic meaning, it's a philosophy not a rule of conduct forbidding theistic reasoning.



-snip-

No, science deals only with physical reality. Magic (i.e. god(s) and other supernatural effects) cannot be a part of science.

If you study philosohy or science or even theology it is selfevident why this must be so.

You are arguing for leaving rationality. If we allow magic in our scientific discussion all bets are off and nothing can ever be asserted. Magic can explain anything and as such explain nothing.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, science deals only with physical reality. Magic (i.e. god(s) and other supernatural effects) cannot be a part of science.

We don't need to be scientists anymore then we need to be bakers to eat bread. What science deals with is irrelevant to your fallacious arguments since you make no reference to anything remotely scientific, ever. You just make a lot of biting personal remarks which is called an ad hominem fallacy, flawed logic rendering the argument effectively null and void.

If you study philosohy or science or even theology it is selfevident why this must be so.

Science is a philosophy troller, an epistemology common referred to as the First Philosophy. Both Descartes and Newton wrote books on the 'first philosophy' we now know as science. There is a far larger philosophy known as metaphysics or ontology, beyond the bounds of investigations of natural phenomenon including all phenomenon what so ever. I don't think you know much about science and figure you could care less.

You are arguing for leaving rationality. If we allow magic in our scientific discussion all bets are off and nothing can ever be asserted. Magic can explain anything and as such explain nothing.

Miracles and magic are two different things, magic has almost nothing to do with God. All paganism goes back to pagan elementals earth air fire and water. Pagan mysticism and mythology have always been naturalistic which is why virtually all pagan gods are personifications of natural elements.

It's Darwinian logic that explains nothing while pretending to explain everything. Begging the question of proof and resorting to ad hominem fallacies doesn't prove anything and it's certainly not scientific. It's what happens when you don't know anything about the subject matter and so resort to melodrama and circular reasoning.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Me, earlier:

Of course, harmful mutations are selected out and helpful mutations are selected in. Is that what you mean by "both ways?"

Now your catching on, see, that wasn't so hard was it?

Have a nice day ,
Mark

Oh. I thought you meant to somehow oppose evolution. Apparently you decided to favor evolution theory here at the last minute. May I ask what caused you to change your mind about evolution?

 

[VirOptimus]

We don't need to be scientists anymore then we need to be bakers to eat bread. What science deals with is irrelevant to your fallacious arguments since you make no reference to anything remotely scientific, ever. You just make a lot of biting personal remarks which is called an ad hominem fallacy, flawed logic rendering the argument effectively null and void.



Science is a philosophy troller, an epistemology common referred to as the First Philosophy. Both Descartes and Newton wrote books on the 'first philosophy' we now know as science. There is a far larger philosophy known as metaphysics or ontology, beyond the bounds of investigations of natural phenomenon including all phenomenon what so ever. I don't think you know much about science and figure you could care less.



Miracles and magic are two different things, magic has almost nothing to do with God. All paganism goes back to pagan elementals earth air fire and water. Pagan mysticism and mythology have always been naturalistic which is why virtually all pagan gods are personifications of natural elements.

It's Darwinian logic that explains nothing while pretending to explain everything. Begging the question of proof and resorting to ad hominem fallacies doesn't prove anything and it's certainly not scientific. It's what happens when you don't know anything about the subject matter and so resort to melodrama and circular reasoning.

Have a nice day
Mark

No Mark, I do know science, philosophy and theology. My remarks are not ad hominem, they point out the fundamental flaws in yours though.

There is no meaningful difference between magic and miracles and Ill use the terms as I like.

You should really learn the basics in phiolosophy, theology and science.

 

[Loudmouth]

Creation isn't taught in the public schools because the Creator or the Designer is God.

Creationism isn't taught because it is religion, not science.

Your refusal to accept scientific findings is your problem, not ours.

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh. I thought you meant to somehow oppose evolution. Apparently you decided to favor evolution theory here at the last minute. May I ask what caused you to change your mind about evolution?

I've never opposed evolution just the equivocation of evolution with Darwinian naturalistic assumptions. Never changed my mind, still think fallacious reasoning makes for bogus arguments.

 

[mark kennedy]

No Mark, I do know science, philosophy and theology. My remarks are not ad hominem, they point out the fundamental flaws in yours though.

There is no meaningful difference between magic and miracles and Ill use the terms as I like.

You should really learn the basics in phiolosophy, theology and science.

I did, in philosophy you define your terms, in theology you are starting with the substantive element that transcends all reality and miracles for God is not supernatural, for God it's perfectly natural to do what only God can do.

You just breezed past the profound difference between miracles and magic, God and pagan elementals, substantive argumentation and fallacious rhetoric. Shows your boast is pedantic bluster.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[VirOptimus]

I did, in philosophy you define your terms, in theology you are starting with the substantive element that transcends all reality and miracles for God is not supernatural, for God it's perfectly natural to do what only God can do.

You just breezed past the profound difference between miracles and magic, God and pagan elementals, substantive argumentation and fallacious rhetoric. Shows your boast is pedantic bluster.

Have a nice day
Mark

What? No, philosophy isnt "define your term" its an academic discipline. Same with theology.

You are quite simply wrong in your argumentations.

Also, this is a svientific forum so its science that should be debated on scientific terms and in sciene miracle and magic are synonyms. You are only allowed to use scientific arguments in a scientific debate. It is your mixing that makes your whole arguments flawed.

 

[mark kennedy]

What? No, philosophy isnt "define your term" its an academic discipline. Same with theology.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. One thing is for sure, correcting me no matter what I say isn't the same as knowing what your talking about.

You are quite simply wrong in your argumentations.

At least I have an argument instead of some fallacious saw dust.

Also, this is a svientific forum so its science that should be debated on scientific terms and in sciene miracle and magic are synonyms. You are only allowed to use scientific arguments in a scientific debate. It is your mixing that makes your whole arguments flawed.

What you are doing is called trolling, not science. The kind of argument you are using is called an ad hominem fallacy.

"Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Fallacy Ad Hominem​

You keep saying science this and science that and you haven't a clue what the word means. Newton defined it has having four steps, none of which exclude God as cause at the point of origin.

1. admit no more causes of natural things than are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances,
2. to the same natural effect, assign the same causes,
3. qualities of bodies, which are found to belong to all bodies within experiments, are to be esteemed universal, and
4. propositions collected from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate or very nearly true until contradicted by other phenomena. (Isaac Newton Principia)

The thread is meant to focus on Comparative studies involving fossils, anatomy and genomics. What it's been instead has been ill mannered diversions from the scientific details using fallacious rhetoric. I always know when they resort to the ad hominem attack that they have nothing left. I don't think you ever had anything else.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[VirOptimus]

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. One thing is for sure, correcting me no matter what I say isn't the same as knowing what your talking about.



At least I have an argument instead of some fallacious saw dust.



What you are doing is called trolling, not science. The kind of argument you are using is called an ad hominem fallacy.

"Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Fallacy Ad Hominem​

You keep saying science this and science that and you haven't a clue what the word means. Newton defined it has having four steps, none of which exclude God as cause at the point of origin.

1. admit no more causes of natural things than are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances,
2. to the same natural effect, assign the same causes,
3. qualities of bodies, which are found to belong to all bodies within experiments, are to be esteemed universal, and
4. propositions collected from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate or very nearly true until contradicted by other phenomena. (Isaac Newton Principia)

The thread is meant to focus on Comparative studies involving fossils, anatomy and genomics. What it's been instead has been ill mannered diversions from the scientific details using fallacious rhetoric. I always know when they resort to the ad hominem attack that they have nothing left. I don't think you ever had anything else.

Have a nice day
Mark

No, its not ad hominen.

The reason you feel it is is because you refuse to learn the basics. Look, your arguments have been shredded for years by people who do know the science and you still come back with the same old stuff. You really should learn.

Science is not at odds with religion for most people, I cant understand why you choose to make it so for yourself, its a battle you cant win.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've never opposed evolution just the equivocation of evolution with Darwinian naturalistic assumptions.

What assumptions?

 

[mark kennedy]

No, its not ad hominen.

Yes, actually that's all it is and when the evolutionists resorts to ad hominem fallacy exclusively they never recover. This will continue to be nothing but fabrication corrections and biting personal remarks. It's actually called trolling.

The reason you feel it is is because you refuse to learn the basics. Look, your arguments have been shredded for years by people who do know the science and you still come back with the same old stuff. You really should learn.

That's because you think the Darwinian naturalistic assumptions are essentially scientific and that is all you know. Your wrong. science starts with cause and effect, not exclusively naturalistic assumptions based on a preferred world view. I already showed you that and you ignored it.

Science is not at odds with religion for most people, I cant understand why you choose to make it so for yourself, its a battle you cant win.

There is nothing scientific about your argument, it's not even Darwinian, that is at least philosophical. You trapped in a bog of fallacious personal drama that says nothing and proves nothing. Come to think of it, that's what you started with, and all you've had all along. Calling it science just makes it that much more pedantic.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

What assumptions?

The doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species... All change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin)

 

[BryanMaloney]

We have been told for decades that we are nearly identical to Chimpanzees in our DNA

Whoever has been telling you that is decades behind in knowledge of the human and chimpanzee genomes. The near identity claim was based on an old partial sequencing only of gene coding sequences. I'm a biologist, and the more CRAP I hear spewed by anti-science clods as the "science" they oppose, the more I wonder just what garbage can they're getting this alleged "science" out of and why they refuse to learn real science before shooting their mouths off.