Vox Day's demolition of Darwin's Theory of Evolution

[The Barbarian]

This is because all change through time is incorporated into Darwinian theory.

Pretty much the way new discoveries in chemistry were incorporated into atomic theory, or relativity was incorporated into gravitational theory. Atoms still exist, even if resonance of aromatic cyclic compounds is fact. Darwin's five points remain true,even if epigenetics can evolve.

 

[The Barbarian]

Except that when God's involved more than one understanding can be true, and all imperfect.

How many Gods do you think there are?

 

[The Barbarian]

Where ever people are involved subjectivity is - and science is both established by people and conducted by them.

If science was as subjective as religion, there would be thousands of theories of gravity.

 

[RC Tent]

How many Gods do you think there are?

This question is relevant how?

 

[Job 33:6]

Where ever people are involved subjectivity is - and science is both established by people and conducted by them.

There is nothing subjective about the objective reality of the atom bomb.

Yes, people have opinions about how many people might have died in Hiroshima. People might have opinions on how efficient the research was performed and implemeneted. But the reality which was researched remains objective.

Same with the fossil record. You posted a topic where people were discussing causes for radiations of life. But the fossil succession still remains a physically real entity. The scientists discussing the succession, recorgnized it for what it is. And while we may have opinions on exactly what killed the dinosaurs, it doesn't change the timing at which they lived, where they lived on earth, or how long they lived etc.

Same with the mammalian radiation of the fossil succession. We can have opinions on why the radiation is present. Did it have to do with rates of variation? Did it have to do with empty environmental niches? Did it have to do with changes in climate? We have subjective ideas revolving around the succession, but the succession itself still is what it is.

And in relation to topics such as "how old is the earth?" And "is evolution true?", We are well past the point of asking these age old questions, and are on to asking particular details of "well what were all the factors that wieghted k to he the evolution of dinosaurs in the Cretaceous, or mammals of the early cenozoic?".

 

[Job 33:6]

If science was as subjective as religion, there would be thousands of theories of gravity.

This is exactly it. If science were subjective as interpretations of scripture, we would never be able to land a robot on Mars because we would be too busy deliberating over opinions of kinematics.

 

[RC Tent]

If science was as subjective as religion, there would be thousands of theories of gravity.

The subjective and objective aspects of religion and science are different to each other, because the subjects are different to each other. The objective is different, the aspect of reality that each explores is different. You are selecting objective aspects of one, and the citing subjective aspects of the other and then saying that means one is objective and the other not.

I think that is unrealistic.

 

[RC Tent]

This is exactly it. If science were subjective as interpretations of scripture, we would never be able to land a robot on Mars because we would be too busy deliberating over opinions of kinematics.

Interpretations of scripture are varied - they are not all subjective.

The Bible does not mean whatever we feel it means, God does not exist only if we reckon He does.

 

[Job 33:6]

The subjextive nature of scripture comes with the fact that it speaks of events in the past. Science can also speak of events in the past, however the difference is that life and the earth, still exist today for research and understanding. In scripture, we don't really have a fire breathing behemoth to study, nor do we have things like, people who are super strong when their hair is long or waters of the red Sea visibly separating in supernatural ways.

But we do still have things like rocks. Which, as far as we are aware, are regular everyday rocks that remain as they are, over time.

 

[RC Tent]

There is nothing subjective about the objective reality of the atom bomb.

There is nothing subjective about the objective reality of God's existence either.

 

[Job 33:6]

Interpretations of scripture are varied - they are not all subjective.

The Bible does not mean whatever we feel it means, God does not exist only if we reckon He does.

In some cases there are places, historically corroborated with scripture. Physical places that we can go, where Jesus walked.

In those cases, we have physically real corroborating entities. Just as in science, there are physically real corroborating entities.

But in the case of things like... Judges like Samson, nobody has super strength based on the length of their hair. As an example.

A lot of the stories that involve supernatural concepts, aren't physically apparent in today's time.

 

[Job 33:6]

You are selecting objective aspects of one, and the citing subjective aspects of the other and then saying that means one is objective and the other not.

I think that is unrealistic.

See post #131.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is nothing subjective about the objective reality of God's existence either.

There is very much subjective about how various people understand His existence. And yes, many different takes on Him might be equally valid (although many of them can't be, being directly opposed to each other) but science needs something more objective than that.

 

[The Barbarian]

This question is relevant how?

You said:
Except that when God's involved more than one understanding can be true, and all imperfect.

Sorry.

 

[sfs]

Maybe if I express mathematically? New antibodies <> evolution of a new body plan.

Can you recognize there is a major different between the creation of antibodies and creating a new body type using random mutations (which are almost always deleterious) + natural selection?

There might well be -- and maybe we could find out if you didn't keep refusing to answer basic questions. Does the creation of antibodies create new information in DNA or not? Is it meaningful information or not? (And no, the bulk of mutations are not deleterious. If they were you'd be dead.)

I've been saying that the kind of new information needed to produce new novel body plans does not happen in evolution.

And I've been trying to get you to do more than make that assertion.

I don't have a specific study in mind :[

Wait, yes I do - Doug Axe did a 14-year study at Cambridge University and continues to do work with the Intelligent Design group with similar studies showing that evolution does not produce the kind of effect imagined in creating new complex life forms.

Axe did one study, the only study the IDists ever point to about how hard it is for a random protein to achieve some kind of function. How often have you seen them cite the studies that show that the same function Axe studied can be detected in random proteins quite easily -- 68 orders of magnitude more frequently than Axe's study supposedly showed. In short, you're basing your conclusions about evolution on a wildly skewed understanding of the actual scientific situation. That's a problem if you're relying on the ID people as your source of information.

As to when new genes appearing in a species that look like mutated versions of noncoding sequence in a closely related species, I think you've partially answered the question: "that look like mutated versions" - just because it "looks" like something, was this observed or just proving my point that this is an unobserved assumption?

No, that doesn't answer the question at all. The question was, "what is your explanation for this fact?"
Why do new proteins always look like they derive from something old by mutation?

DNA has the ability to create an antibody, but I wouldn't call this a "random mutation" or creating "new information", but rather a predetermined or 'pre-programmed' response to an external/foreign agent.

The DNA you were born with had the ability to produce some antibodies. You now have DNA that has the ability to produce many other antibodies, tuned to the pathogens you've actually faced. Are you claiming that the DNA coding for those antibodies doesn't contain information?

Prove that a universal common ancestor IS a fact (not just 'accepted as fact').

What thread are you reading? I have never claimed that a universal common ancestor either is a fact, or is accepted as a fact.

It depends on the extent to which common descent is stretched. If we're talking about all hares having a common ancestor, I have no issue. If it is all canines possibly having a common ancestor, I have no issue. If it is saying fish grew legs, became a tetrapod, became a reptile, became a bird, I have an issue.

So why not focus on the issue where it matters and where we have better information -- on the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees, rather than on the origin of body plans in the distant past? Humans and chimpanzees have the same body plan.

 

[RC Tent]

In some cases there are places, historically corroborated with scripture. Physical places that we can go, where Jesus walked.

In those cases, we have physically real corroborating entities. Just as in science, there are physically real corroborating entities.

But in the case of things like... Judges like Samson, nobody has super strength based on the length of their hair. As an example.

A lot of the stories that involve supernatural concepts, aren't physically apparent in today's time.

You assume it requires "historical corroboration" or it must be subjective. What it says is not a matter of opinion, that was the point that NobleMouse made. This is true regardless of it's references to the supernatural, it is also true regardless of personal, denominational or expert interpretation.

Science is not the only subject where there is objectivity and religion is not all subjective all the time. That is the point that I am making.

The existence of God is not a matter of opinion.

The existence of the atom bomb is not either.

 

[RC Tent]

You said:
Except that when God's involved more than one understanding can be true, and all imperfect.

Sorry.

Except when God is involved, when more than one interpretation can be true. God is light, God is life, God is love, God is good....do we need to decide which of the claims is the correct one?

I used an apostrophe instead of "is".

Not "Gods" plural as in more than one God.

 

[RC Tent]

The subjextive nature of scripture comes with the fact that it speaks of events in the past. Science can also speak of events in the past, however the difference is that life and the earth, still exist today for research and understanding. .

The Bible still exists today and so does the God that gave it to us.

 

[M Walter]

So, you think that an effect is greater than its potential? Hmmm, I truly find this interesting.

I state that the effect's potential can absolutely be no greater than the cause. I agree that the effect's potential is realized and transferred into kinetics via all factors within the 'open' environment surrounding it, but there is absolutely no way, in this reality, that the potential of the effect can possibly be greater than its cause. None. Simply because an effect has access to more food, shelter, clothing, etc. than its cause and thus 'appears' to have greater potential than its cause does not override scientific reality. All effects are less than the cause.

Therefore, I assume that your 'more fit' is some type of relative standard which can change depending upon the viewer. Can you 'prove' that an effect is 'more fit?' Sure, with a relative standard; however, is it true that the effect is greater than its cause....cannot be. (If it was true in this reality, a dropped ball would return higher.)

 

[Job 33:6]

You assume it requires "historical corroboration" or it must be subjective. What it says is not a matter of opinion, that was the point that NobleMouse made. This is true regardless of it's references to the supernatural, it is also true regardless of personal, denominational or expert interpretation.

Science is not the only subject where there is objectivity and religion is not all subjective all the time. That is the point that I am making.

The existence of God is not a matter of opinion.

The existence of the atom bomb is not either.

Well, it requires some sort of corroboration with the physical world, else, yes, it would become a matter of subjection, as there would be nothing to cross examine it.

It's not a matter of historical corroboration, it's a matter of corroborating written word with physical reality.

For example, we can go to cities of Israel described in scripture, and we can touch the soil and smell odors and physically can see that the land is real.

But we cannot physically touch say...the fire breathing beast of the book of job. And so the beast becomes an interpreted and subjective idea.

Also, I could tell you a true statement that I have a cake in my oven, currently baking. But without physical reality available for corroboration, you have no idea what the statement actually means. It could be a microscopic cake, it could be the size of a car. It could be any of countless flavors or types etc. It could be of many colors. It might not even be a cake at all by your definition. Having a cake in the oven is also slang for having a baby in the womb. Really, such a statement could have an innumerable number of varying meanings.

And so it becomes subjective, what the meaning is, if you have no means of physical corroboration.