proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Tayla]

HiEv replied to my post with many insightful comments too numerous to mention.

Yes. Thank you for taking the time to provide such a detailed point by point reply. I suppose we could probably converse for hours about each aspect of each topic, but neither time, nor energy, nor interest, permits me to launch into such an endeavor.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I see evidence everywhere for a single intelligent designer, who simultaneously created different species, without any cross contamination of species.

Not sure what you mean by "cross contamination", considering that one of the means by which a new species can arise is via hybridization. That's how that species of lizard in which all of them are female came to be.

The inherent embedded Fibonnici DNA pattern found across species highlight a single designer signiture.

So, I actually looked this one up. DNA doesn't have a Fibonnici pattern in it, it occurs in segments 21 angstroms wide by 34 angstroms long, and 21 and 34 happen to be numbers that can occur in the same Fibonnicci sequence. Given that DNA is the genetic material of all known living organisms, it'd be much more mysterious if these numbers weren't consistent between different species. In fact, the chemical properties of molecules demand the consistency.

Transmutation of species would indicate evolution and a totally alien DNA signiture.

1. species is a label we assign to organisms, not an inherent property of them. Thus, the lines that define the distinctions between species have a level of subjectivity to them. As a result, despite the fact that the genetics of a population are always changing, one cannot pinpoint the exact moment when said population transitions from its "original species" to another.
2. due to shared ancestry, entirely alien DNA that didn't seem to be related to any other would be evidence AGAINST evolution. Heck, just by virtue of all living things having genetic material made of the same 4 base pairs, the degree of similarity between random DNA segments of equal length is 25% just by random chance. The fact that everything on this planet is more genetically similar to each other than that is part of why we conclude shared ancestry.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That is exactly what would happen, because the transition is not a prety picture. When one species morphs with another, you get a confused state, where the land based wants to prematurely grow bones, before the bones are covered by flesh.

I think you've been watching too many science fiction films.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We have a brain and can create language and terms that we can use to understand one another. They don't have to be in text books or taught at school.

Yeah... no. Just no.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It is a picture from Berkley. Here it is.....

View attachment 209269

What do you think that presto and all those species came to be overnight and without transmutations?

Your kidding right?

No, that's what YOU believe.

 

[xianghua]

Even if we did only ever see an intelligent designer design and build them, we still couldn't say with 100% certainty that they couldn't come about by some other method.... like natually... as we observe..

so basically you are not sure if this motor is evidence for design:

12V 2 Pin 40mm Computer Cooler Cooling Fan PC Black Brushless Chassis IDE Fan | eBay

. What was your answer to sfs on that point btw, was our genome copied from the great apes and we diverged from there? I'm not sure of a reason why we would see a fusion event as if we had 24 pairs of chromosomes in the first place otherwise...

it's just means that human were created with 48 chromosomes.

 

[xianghua]

When has a human ever designed a bacterial flagellum?

actually yes:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...ficial-bacterial-flagellum-that-consists-of-a

and its even less complex and sophisticated then a real flagellum.

 

[xianghua]

The fan is NOT evidence of design

so this fan can evolve naturally?

12V 2 Pin 40mm Computer Cooler Cooling Fan PC Black Brushless Chassis IDE Fan

 

[HiEv]

I would suggest not using the word "theory" to mean hypothesis, or unproven.

Theory in scientific knowledge means proven via experiment.

Sort of. A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, and an established theory, such as the theory of evolution or the theory of universal gravitation, are ones that have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

Hypotheses such as Darwinian evolution grow over time to become "theories."

Not exactly. Hypotheses are potential explanations for what tend to be more specific things. A scientific theory is generally a larger framework which explains the reasons behind why the successful hypotheses work, and help predict what other hypotheses are likely to be true as well.

It's not like a baby hypothesis grows up to be a theory, it's more like lots of hypotheses can add up to a larger explanation.

That said Darwinian theory has some significant challenges facing it.

I'm gonna go with "Nope!" here.

There is the sudden arrival in only 50 million years of almost all phyla during the Cambrian era circa 550 million years ago.

I don't think that the word "sudden" means what you think it means.

The Cambrian explosion took place over a period of around 20 to 25 million years. Keep in mind that the common ancestor for chimps and humans lived around 6.5 millions years ago, and anatomically modern humans only appeared a bit over 300,000 years ago.

20-25 million years isn't "sudden" except in the geological sense, which tends to look at things in the billions of years.

Furthermore, it fits just fine in the modern evolutionary synthesis, especially if you realize that it includes things like punctuated equilibrium. That's where a species' genome may remain more-or-less stable for a long time, and then the appearance of a particular mutation or a change in the environment may create a domino effect, enabling many new changes to evolve.

The Darwinian inference is orders of magnitude more gradual.

According to who? Creationists? I haven't seen any recent scientific papers supporting this claim. I've only people who don't understand evolution or who want to attack evolution that try to claim that lots of relatively simple, rapidly reproducing, species can't evolve in a period of 25 million years.

Further we find severe limits to change organisms can support leading I oscillation around a norm rather than the unbounded directional evolution we would need to produce speciation.

Again, I'm going with "Nope!" and also "source please" this time.

There are no credible scientists saying this that I'm aware of, and I've been studying this topic for nearly... jeez... 30 years now. Also, evolution isn't really "directional", other than towards fitness and ability to reproduce based on whatever genes happen to be in the environment.

We have new body plans formed through epigenetic information not found in the DNA and not subject to the same random mutation.

We don't have the genes from the Cambrian explosion, I'd love to see how you claim to know this all occurred due to epigenetic changes, rather than chromosomal changes.

Worse yet epigenetics often have to have a gene to work upon. Some examples are proteins that merely affect existing genes, usually by repressing them. So this can't be all about "information not found in the DNA".

Or, sometimes these epigenetic factors are forms of RNA, such as mRNA, in which case they would be subject to the exact same kinds of random mutations as DNA (which you incorrectly claimed wasn't the case), and mutations actually even be more common, since RNA doesn't usually have the same kind of gene repair mechanisms that DNA has.

All in all, it looks like you're repeating phrases you were told, but don't really understand, because the science doesn't support your conclusions.

Further random mutation destroys information not the other way around.

Not all mutations "destroy information". Some can. Others can modify gene expression without changing the protein formed (as with mutations into homologous codons). Others can duplicate information. Gene duplications destroy no information, they add information.

I don't know what you mean by "not the other way around." How could information destroy further random mutations?

So we have some significant barriers to evolution due to the destructive nature of the vast majority of variations producing devolution (current figures demonstrate over 10000 to 1 random negative impacts to positive impacts).

"Devolution" isn't a real thing. Evolution doesn't keep an exact record of past states, so there is no "undo key" in evolution. Even when things like cave fish are losing their eyes, that's not "devolution", that's just unnecessary parts not helping fitness, while changes that reducing or removing unnecessary parts usually does help fitness, thus those changes are more likely to survive and spread. If the part is no longer useful, sometimes evolution even gets lucky, and finds a new use for these vestigial organs. (Just to be clear, "vestigial" doesn't mean useless, it just means that it originally served a different purpose than it does now.)

Numerous complex specified machines in the cells,

This is pure pseudoscience from intelligent design proponents. They have yet to come up with a testable hypothesis, much less scientific evidence of that to support their position.

Every time they try to come up with an example of "specified complexity" they end up with "I don't know how it happened, therefore goddidt." Then someone comes along explains to them how it likely happened through completely naturalistic step-wise evolution based on similar structures we find in other organisms. This error frequently caused by creationists incorrectly assuming that if Structure X has Function Y then it always had that function, when it turns out that the evidence usually suggests that it actually used to look similar and have this other Function Z, but over many generations that structure evolved to have a new function.

Sudden arrival of information-rich DNA?

This is a complete misunderstanding of both information theory, which is a common tactic of creationists, and the meaning of the word "suddenly", as I explained above.

Origin of life barriers at both the early Earth as well as the universe levels all are part of the discussion.

I don't know what barriers you're supposedly referring to, I'm not aware of any scientifically accepted ones, but abiogenesis isn't evolution.

Life could have originated because "a wizard did it", it doesn't matter. If that's all that wizard did, then evolution can explain everything that happened afterwards.

I'm sorry, but nothing you said above is at all supported by accepted science, thus it does not in any way make the theory of evolution even the tiniest bit implausible.

 

[Speedwell]

so this fan can evolve naturally?

12V 2 Pin 40mm Computer Cooler Cooling Fan PC Black Brushless Chassis IDE Fan

Not likely, because it shows evdence of intelligent design. The evidence is not in it's function (function is not evidence of intelligent design) or its complexity (complexity is not evidence of intelligent design) but because it shows evidence of human manufacture from which we conclude that it was intelligently designed. We conclude that it is designed not because it is a fan, but because it is a human-manufactured fan.

 

[xianghua]

The vestigial centromere and telomeres were not known when the fusion was proposed, so yes, they really were a prediction.

why it was proposed at all? the simple answer is because this is the only logical conclusion. so the creation model predict it too, as i said.

If you find one of those in a cell, we'll have something to talk about.

but you said before that motors arent evidence for design. so now you agree with me that a motor is evidence for design?

 

[Speedwell]

but you said before that motors arent evidence for design. so now you agree with me that a motor is evidence for design?

You can't conclude that a motor is designed just because it is a motor. You can only tell if you find evidence that it is a human-manufactured motor. That is how we (except for ID enthusiasts, I suppose) determine if an object is designed.

 

[xianghua]

Please show me a human-designed flagellum, as opposed to a human-designed diagram of one.

here it again:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...ficial-bacterial-flagellum-that-consists-of-a

If I 'define' parts of a star such that is 'resembles' a furnace, can I conclude that because humans make furnaces that stars are human contrivances, too?.

so a motor is evidence for design or not?

 

[Speedwell]

so a motor is evidence for design or not?

Only if it can be determined that it is a human-manufactured motor.

 

[xianghua]

The structures LOOK the same, but physically are DISTINCT.

if they look the same, they should be the same physically too.

An organism that is a mammal and an organism THAT LOOKS LIKE A MAMMAL could evolve independently.

if a mammal- like creature can evolve then why not a mammal? even mammals aren't looking the same.

 

[Ophiolite]

so a motor is evidence for design or not?

Is a tomato evidence for air transport?

Superficially, this may appear to be a silly question. However, if I find a fresh tomato in Iceland, demonstrate the tomatoes cannot be successfully grown outdoors in Iceland; that there are no commercial or private ventures growing tomatoes indoors in Iceland; that no sea shipments of tomatoes have been made to Iceland; then this evidence, though not conclusive evidence, for air transport.

The question is thus not silly, but needs a further series of questions, to properly define context, before we can say whether or not the tomato may be evidence of air transport.

In a similar way you need to ask further questions, or contribute further observations, before anyone can properly answer as to whether or not a motor is evidence for design. (You might start by defining "motor".)

 

[DogmaHunter]

so this fan can evolve naturally?

12V 2 Pin 40mm Computer Cooler Cooling Fan PC Black Brushless Chassis IDE Fan

Quote mining is dishonest.

Please also read the sentence immediatly following the one you quoted.

 

[DogmaHunter]

if they look the same, they should be the same physically too.

Ever seen a plastic orange?
It not only looks similar, it actually looks identical to a real organic one.

You don't really think about these things that you say, do you?

 

[sfs]

why it was proposed at all?

Because common descent requires that humans originally had the same number of chromosomes as other primates.

the simple answer is because this is the only logical conclusion. so the creation model predict it too, as i said.

The creation model (if there were one) doesn't impose any requirements on the number of chromosomes that humans were created with. Therefore it makes no prediction about whether there was a fusion or not.

 

[xianghua]

Cars, robots, and watches are things that, in our experience, are the products of humans. If what you're talking about is the product of natural processes, then how does it count as a car, robot, or watch?

so you are claiming that if something that is identical to a robot evolved by a natural process, then it's not a robot anymore by definition?

The fact is, we conclude that things are the result of design by seeing evidence of humans designing such things, such as car factories, "Made in China" on it, or being made of things we know are also the product of humans.

but humans also produce flagellum:

Microscopic artificial swimmers : Abstract : Nature

The question should be: if we find a self-replicating organism on another planet that we're able to reproduce, can we conclude that it's the product of design?

so again; if we will find a self replicating robot\car (without seeing any human around)- we cant conclude design?

The reason why is that I want to know why your "intelligent designer" thought over 350,000 species of beetles is necessary, when there are only a bit over 5,000 species of mammals. This is a question you simply dodged answering.

i dont know why. there could be many reasons, but since it doesn't have any connection to design detection, i realy dont care.

You've been handed an example of bad design. You've utterly failed to explain it in your framework. This is just an attempt to ignore it.

Also, I'm neither an alien nor a moron. You don't need to link me to a Wikipedia article on what a spare tire is.

no. i have showed to you that no one can detect bad design. therefore your claim about bad design is meaningless. and i linked to wiki only for the image source and not for the definition of a spare tire.

LOL. The line you quoted referred to the blind spot in the eye, which verifiably exists! Dawkins wasn't wrong at all!

it's exist only because the "backward retina". so dawkins is claiming that the retina has a bad design. but again: he simply wrong because this structure improve vision. and even in this case the designer add an "'automatic photoshop software" (dawkins words). in other words: another evidence for design rather then evolution, even in this suppose example of a "bad design".

So, you quote mined, and then you either failed to notice that your quote mine was talking about something that was verifiably still true, or you deliberately implied that it was about something else.

i actually found this quote and never read the whole part(just for clarification).

I already gave you examples. To repeat, we have blind spots and we're prone to detached retinas, glaucoma, and presbyopia due to the layout of the human eye.

so your other example is basically about disease.

Yeah, and where do all of those things occur? They all occur where the nerve ends at the top of the throat.

My point was that the nerve had no other functions which would explain the circuitous route that the nerve takes, from the brain, all the way down to the heart, and then back up to the top of the throat.

but you said that this nerve doesnt has other functions. so this claim is incorrect. and again: if you were wrong about the backward retina, how you can be sure that you aren't wrong about this trait too?

What part of "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" do you not get? That's the given example of a fossil that doesn't fit that criteria. If one existed there would be no way to explain it within the evolutionary model. I don't know why you're pretending that examples can't exist when you've been given one.

if a mammal evolved once, it can evolve twice. so a 600my mammal will not disprove evolution theory. we can also claim for contamination (the fossil age isnt correct). so evolution isnt a scientific theory.

One family doesn't evolve into another one, that's not how evolution works. A species evolves into another one.

true. but you asked me to show you how to disprove creation. so i gave you such an example.

That being said, we have plenty of examples of evolution of the sort that I believe you're trying to ask for. For example, I recommend looking up the evolution of whales some time. If you think that doesn't qualify, I'd love to hear you explain why.

one reason is this: there is no stepwise from one creature into another. in the same way that there is no (functional) stepwise from say a gps into a cell-phone. even by an intelligent designer.

You're talking about the theory of evolution, while I was talking about the fact of evolution. Those are two things that people easily confuse (as you just demonstrated).

according to berkeley site this definition including common descent:

"Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother."

so are you agree or disagree with that definition?

An introduction to evolution