"Assumptions" is a magic word

[gluadys]

Within my knowledge, continental drift hypothesis fits perfectly to your description. we knew it works, but did not know how it works. There is no basic assumption anywhere in this example. It is simply a prediction based on pattern of data.

Like virtually everything in the theory of evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

Like virtually everything in the theory of evolution.

So the basic assumption of evolution may be: the mechanism of change is not important as long as the result fits.

 

[philadiddle]

Don't run away from this:

Why is it an assumption?

Why isn't it?

 

[gluadys]

So the basic assumption of evolution may be: the mechanism of change is not important as long as the result fits.

I have no idea how this applies to evolution.

The mechanism tells how we get the result.

The mechanism of plate tectonics tells us how we get continental drift. And note that the concept of continental drift was not considered a scientific idea until the mechanism was discovered.

Evolution as the concept that species changed over time was around long before Darwin. But it wasn't a scientific idea until Darwin proposed a mechanism.

What is a bit confusing, I guess, is that in biology, both the result (species change over time) and the collection of mechanisms (mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc.) that account for that change are called "evolution".

 

[mark kennedy]

Creationists say "Assumptions" like how magicians say "Abracadabra." When a lot of research, experiments, and empirical evidence are presented, the creationists say "assumptions" to magically make it all go away. Why argue the actual data when you can convince your audience it is wrong with one simple word? I've been noticing this more and more as I discuss science and Christianity on other forums and read some creationist literature. It's always "they are basing it on assumptions" or "take away their assumptions and it all falls apart".

"Presuppositions" is another one.

So annoying.

Presuppositional apologetics, a discipline you ignorantly mock, is based on a Calvinist conviction that our minds are corrupted by sin, it's called the noetic effects of sin. Anyway, the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry is the first assumption of Darwinian evolution, it comes before everything else and transends all modern academic thought.

It’s clear, for example, that to the extent that Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. However, there are specific solutions that were arrived at during the development of life on Earth which may be peculiar to Earth. The structure of the DNA double helix.(Prof. Robert A. Weinberg)​

Notice that Darwinian evolution applies to all life in the universe before we have even discovered it. This is an a priori assumption, a substantive principle that transends all atheistic materialist thought. It is not based on positive proof or empirical testing, it need not be demonstrated or directly observed. At the heart of this atheistic philosophy is an a priori rejection of supernatural explanations for biological origins:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention... In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

It is rare that a serious discussion follows a post like this but in the interests of completeness this follow up quote mentions key concepts associated with Darwinism. I really don't expect you guys to care but just in case:

Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain groups, and by the analogy of domestic productions. With respect to the means of modification, he attributed something to the direct action of the physical conditions of life, something to the crossing of already existing forms, and much to use and disuse, that is, to the effects of habit. To this latter agency he seemed to attribute all the beautiful adaptations in nature; — such as the long neck of the giraffe for browsing on the branches of trees. But he likewise believed in a law of progressive development; and as all the forms of life thus tend to progress, in order to account for the existence at the present day of simple productions, he maintains that such forms are now spontaneously generated.*​

Now in the offshoot psuedo-theology loosely described as TE you are only required to make a mockery of creationism, nothing else required. You can believe whatever you like about miracles but you may only speak of miracles in generalities or ignore them entirely. The God of Spinoza and the God of Hegel and the God of Tillich are not God, they are philosophical abstractions.

You must never admit to the a priori assumption nor are you allowed to question it. If you raise even the most general query you are immediately expelled from the Temple of Nature as an infidel. You are branded incredulous and forced to live out your days as a characture in the Darwinian theater of the mind.

Great is Natural Selection!

The same cheer that drove Paul from Ephesus drove Christianity from modern acadmia. Only it was not Diana this time, it was natural selection.

"How long will you simple ones love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge? (Proverbs 1:22)​

The fear of the Lord, not the a priori assumption of naturalistic causes, is the beginning of knowledge.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[juvenissun]

I have no idea how this applies to evolution.

The mechanism tells how we get the result.

The mechanism of plate tectonics tells us how we get continental drift. And note that the concept of continental drift was not considered a scientific idea until the mechanism was discovered.

Evolution as the concept that species changed over time was around long before Darwin. But it wasn't a scientific idea until Darwin proposed a mechanism.

What is a bit confusing, I guess, is that in biology, both the result (species change over time) and the collection of mechanisms (mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc.) that account for that change are called "evolution".

Not until recent, the genetics was not known. So attacks made to evolution on its mechanism by creationists were fully justified. Today, the genetics is still miles short from providing a clear mechanism to evolution. So, it seems to be right to call the mechanism of evolution the major assumption of the theory.

 

[gluadys]

Anyway, the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry is the first assumption of Darwinian evolution, it comes before everything else and transends all modern academic thought.

As I noted in an earlier post, one of the most common errors of those who object to evolution is to name universal common ancestry (or common descent) as an assumption. It is not. It is an inference from the theory, a prediction of the theory. It comes from the theory, it does not precede it. And it is also an inference that is widely supported by the observed evidence which matches the evidence which the hypothesis of common descent demands.

Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. However, there are specific solutions that were arrived at during the development of life on Earth which may be peculiar to Earth. The structure of the DNA double helix.(Prof. Robert A. Weinberg)​

Yep, once it was figured out how evolution works in biology it was clear that any system of imperfect replication would lead to the same result. So the logic can be applied not only to unknown biologies, but even to non-biological systems. Tracing the original text of biblical manuscripts uses the same logic.

Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain groups, and by the analogy of domestic productions.​

Pretty much the same list that led Darwin to the same conclusion.

 

[gluadys]

Not until recent, the genetics was not known. So attacks made to evolution on its mechanism by creationists were fully justified. Today, the genetics is still miles short from providing a clear mechanism to evolution. So, it seems to be right to call the mechanism of evolution the major assumption of the theory.

Some were. Since Darwin and his contemporaries had an erroneous model of inheritance, attacks on natural selection based on that model were justified.

But when Mendel gave us a better model of inheritance, he also gave us the key to understanding how natural selection and inheritance work together, not at cross-purposes.

Why do you think that genetics is miles short of providing a clear mechanism to evolution? Most of the genetic application to evolution deals with the origin of variation (something Darwin had no explanation for at all). But while the appearance of variation is an essential starting point of evolution, changes in species (as opposed to changes in single organisms) are pretty well covered by population genetics where selection is the key mechanism.

 

[juvenissun]

Some were. Since Darwin and his contemporaries had an erroneous model of inheritance, attacks on natural selection based on that model were justified.

But when Mendel gave us a better model of inheritance, he also gave us the key to understanding how natural selection and inheritance work together, not at cross-purposes.

Why do you think that genetics is miles short of providing a clear mechanism to evolution? Most of the genetic application to evolution deals with the origin of variation (something Darwin had no explanation for at all). But while the appearance of variation is an essential starting point of evolution, changes in species (as opposed to changes in single organisms) are pretty well covered by population genetics where selection is the key mechanism.

I don't know genetics. Compare to me, you or sfs knows a lot more. But I heard that we do not know what combination of genes can be changed in order to positively control any biological character without any side effect. This said to me that we have a long way to go.

 

[gluadys]

I don't know genetics. Compare to me, you or sfs knows a lot more. But I heard that we do not know what combination of genes can be changed in order to positively control any biological character without any side effect. This said to me that we have a long way to go.

Well, that is a knowledge we would need to deliberately manipulate evolution ourselves. It isn't necessary to know how evolution happens naturally.

Do you think you understand natural selection?

I often find that people who have difficulty with evolution tend to neglect natural selection and don't really understand how it works. In nature, natural selection is what takes care of the side effects of genetic change.

 

[metherion]

Anyway, the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry is the first assumption of Darwinian evolution, it comes before everything else and transends all modern academic thought.

Oh geez, this tripe again. No, it is not an a priori assumption, it is a conclusion based on evidences such as ERVs, nested hierarchies, etc etc etc.

Notice that Darwinian evolution applies to all life in the universe before we have even discovered it

Darwinian evolution applies to imperfect replicators. There are evolutionary computer algorithms out there that are not life but are subject to it. Since all life is imperfect replicators, all life will be subject to it. EXACTLY LIKE everything in the universe will be subject to atomic theory, gravity, thermodynamics, chemistry, electromagnetism, and so on. Are those religious a priori assumptions? So why single evolution out?

This is an a priori assumption, a substantive principle that transends all atheistic materialist thought.

Show how it is but all the others I listed are not. Furthermore, it is not an atheistic materialistic thought any more than electromagnetism is, gravity is, chemistry is, etc etc etc.

It is not based on positive proof or empirical testing, it need not be demonstrated or directly observed.

And before we went to the moon neither was anything else i listed above for matter outside the earth. So why isn’t that under fire?

t the heart of this atheistic philosophy is an a priori rejection of supernatural explanations for biological origins

No more than electromagnetism is an a priori rejection of supernatural explanations for the origin of lighting. You see, you’re doing it as well, and it’s just as wrong and invalid when you do it too.

Evolution isn’t a religion, science isn’t a religion, and attempting to mislabel one part as a religion necessitates relabelling the rest as such, which leads to obvious logical errors, or outright denying part of science as being science, which is special pleading. Both are wrong.


Furthermore, supernatural explanations are not science. They are not testable, repeatable, evidenced by anything, distinguishable from other supernatural explanations, and they stop the progress of science FOREVER on the topic they are introduced to. Not science.

Now in the offshoot psuedo-theology loosely described as TE you are only required to make a mockery of creationism, nothing else required.

Ignore points we make and cry out that the opposition requires persecution of you. That card has been played too much and we all know it’s false.

You must never admit to the a priori assumption nor are you allowed to question it.

It’s not an a priori assumption, it’s a conclusion. OTOH, your a priori assumptions are not allowed to be questioned or you are called an unbeliever and blasphemer.

f you raise even the most general query you are immediately expelled from the Temple of Nature as an infidel.

Ummmm... no. If you raise questions you can look to find the answers. If you try to bring something directly against all the scientific progress calls for and halt the progress of science on a point by bringing in the supernatural, then it isn’t considered science.

Metherion

 

[juvenissun]

Well, that is a knowledge we would need to deliberately manipulate evolution ourselves. It isn't necessary to know how evolution happens naturally.

Do you think you understand natural selection?

I often find that people who have difficulty with evolution tend to neglect natural selection and don't really understand how it works. In nature, natural selection is what takes care of the side effects of genetic change.

I think I have gone through this argument several times. In a nutshell: Natural selection is controlled by environment, and environment does not promote "forward" evolution. But the facts show that if evolution did happen, it was definitely not random and have definitely moved "forward".

Does the natural selection say more than the first sentence of the above? Why should it be hard for people to understand it? I think it is a pretty simple idea. And it should simply NOT be the key process in the theory of evolution.

 

[gluadys]

I think I have gone through this argument several times. In a nutshell: Natural selection is controlled by environment, and environment does not promote "forward" evolution. But the facts show that if evolution did happen, it was definitely not random and have definitely moved "forward".

Does the natural selection say more than the first sentence of the above? Why should it be hard for people to understand it? I think it is a pretty simple idea. And it should simply NOT be the key process in the theory of evolution.

Well, it is the key process in evolution.

I guess what I am getting at is whether you understand how natural selection contributes to changing a species. Do you understand why natural selection is related to species change rather than changes in cells or organisms?

Oh, and you are right about evolution not being random. Evolution is not random because natural selection is the key process in evolution and natural selection is not random.

 

[Assyrian]

In a nutshell: Natural selection is controlled by environment, and environment does not promote "forward" evolution. But the facts show that if evolution did happen, it was definitely not random and have definitely moved "forward".

What do you mean by "forward?"

 

[juvenissun]

What do you mean by "forward?"

It means it has a distinct direction of movement (change).

example: bacteria changed to animals. But animals do not change back to bacteria. Chimp changed to human, but human will not change back to chimp no matter what the natural selection can do.

 

[gluadys]

It means it has a distinct direction of movement (change).

example: bacteria changed to animals. But animals do not change back to bacteria. Chimp changed to human, but human will not change back to chimp no matter what the natural selection can do.

No, bacteria did not change into animals.
And chimp did not change into human.

That is where you are getting the idea of common descent incorrect.

Chimp and human both trace their ancestry back to the same ancestor--but the ancestor was not a chimp and not a human either.

Bacteria had a role in the formation of eukaryotic cells and eventually one small group of eukaryotic species (out of more than 60 groups) became ancestors of animals, but the ancestors of the bacteria we know today were never ancestors of animals.

When it comes to evolution, you have to stop thinking trains and start thinking trees.

 

[juvenissun]

No, bacteria did not change into animals.
And chimp did not change into human.

That is where you are getting the idea of common descent incorrect.

Chimp and human both trace their ancestry back to the same ancestor--but the ancestor was not a chimp and not a human either.

Bacteria had a role in the formation of eukaryotic cells and eventually one small group of eukaryotic species (out of more than 60 groups) became ancestors of animals, but the ancestors of the bacteria we know today were never ancestors of animals.

When it comes to evolution, you have to stop thinking trains and start thinking trees.

You do not have to correct these minor points. I know they are not precise. They were used to address the main point which you neglected.

 

[juvenissun]

No, bacteria did not change into animals.
And chimp did not change into human.

That is where you are getting the idea of common descent incorrect.

Chimp and human both trace their ancestry back to the same ancestor--but the ancestor was not a chimp and not a human either.

Bacteria had a role in the formation of eukaryotic cells and eventually one small group of eukaryotic species (out of more than 60 groups) became ancestors of animals, but the ancestors of the bacteria we know today were never ancestors of animals.

When it comes to evolution, you have to stop thinking trains and start thinking trees.

In fact, the concept of common ancestor strongly suggests that evolution has a direction.

 

[sfs]

You do not have to correct these minor points. I know they are not precise. They were used to address the main point which you neglected.

What is the main point?

There is no overall direction to evolution. There has been on average an increase in complexity in life, but that's just a result of the fact that life started out simple; evolving in random directions from an initial condition of low complexity has to result in higher complexity. Other than that, I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[sfs]

In fact, the concept of common ancestor strongly suggests that evolution has a direction.

What direction does it suggest that humans, E. coli, fruit flies and bananas all share a common ancestor?