Challenging Evolution

[razzelflabben]

Not provable? Of course it's provable and proven from at least three lines of concordant evidence: comparative morphology, DNA sequencing and paleontology.

Ask a reputable scientist how accurate these methods are of determining millions of years of evolution? They are effective means, no question about it, and they do suggest your assumptions about E, but to suggest assumptions does not provide proof. You seem to want me to argue E vs. C vs. ID with you. I have no interest not have I ever had an interest in doing so. The evidences provided to me leave many unanswered questions. These unanswered questions leave E, C and ID as theory not fact. Which is the only point I have every made on the issue.

I am getting more and more confused by your phrase "strains of theories". Just how does it apply in this instance?

try this explaination, different elements within the theory. Does that help?

What instances, please? What reproductive problems? Are you sure they apply to the proposed radiation of mammalian carnivores from a single ancestral species?

The uncertainty, the questions are what make E still a theory, and not a fact.

What are you suggesting that creationism proves in this scenario? I know it asserts there is a limit to how much a kind can vary, but I have never seen an iota of evidence to support the assertion. How does ID explain anything relevant to this issue?

As I have told you, the heart of the theory is that God created the world and all that is in it, and that all living things reproduce after their kind. If you do not see how the scientific data can fit into this theory, I fear I have no chance of making my point clear on this thread. Much can fit into this theory. People have taken this theory and adopted ideas (strains as it were) of what they believe. But the theory is as put forth above and allow much room for scientific data.

You had really better re-check your own posts. Now you are saying that a principle of what you called "the original theory of Creationism as precented in the bible" has not been proven to successfully occur, that principle being "that all living things reproduce after it's kind."

I would think that principle is shown to successfully occur many times daily.

That is my point, scientific method cannot disprove the theory for it does occur daily. The only way to disprove the theory would be to disprove what we observe daily.

Let me use a short analogy to explain, based on a family tree.

My great-grandmother had 5 children. Two died young and had no children of their own. The others had respectively 1, 3 and 9 children. Aunt Gertie's single child had no children, so by the third generation, that line had died out. Two of Aunt Lena's three children did have children of their own, but with one thing and another, that line had died out completely in the 5th generation. So when we get to the 6th generation, all the living descendants of my great-grandmother come through a single line (my grandmother) in spite of the fact that my grandmother was one of 5 siblings.

Now let's apply this to what I said about kinds. Suppose God created 5 original kinds, told them to "be fruitful and multiply". And they did, to the best of their ability. But accidents happen, disease takes its toll, by 500 years later, two of those kinds are extinct. All living organisms are part of the three remaining kinds.

Another 500 years later, one of those is extinct, and all living organisms are descendants of only 2 of the original created kinds. And a 1000 years later, one of those has completely died out. Now all living species trace their origin back to the same original kind.

That is just a thought analogy. We do not know how many kinds God originally created. Maybe it was only one. Maybe it was 5 or 50 or 5000. What we do know is that all but one of them has become extinct. All current evidence about living things shows them all to be descendants of one common ancestor. Doesn't matter how many may have been originally created. Only one has survivors, and those survivors make up the whole panoply of living species today.

In short, the theory of evolution makes no assumption about the number of originally created kinds. But, based, on the evidence, it does come to a conclusion about how many originally created kinds are represented among the various species of living organisms on earth today. And that conclusion is that all of them together are the descendants of one and only one common ancestor. Furthermore, we can also conclude that said common ancestor must have been a species of prokaryote or a precursor to prokaryote species. And that it inhabited the earth more than 3 billion years ago.

And let me stress that this is not religious belief. It is not hypothesis yet to be tested. It is not unsupported assumption. This is conclusion from available evidence.

And how does this disprove the theory as put forth above, or prove the theory of E over the C theory?

Oh? Please substantiate how I have done so. Otherwise this is just blowing smoke.

My entire point is that there is not proof that the TOE of fact. You sustantiate that, My point is that the TOE remains a theory. YOu have substantiated that. I have no other points, and never have had, so what have you not substantated?

 

[razzelflabben]

And chordates are still chordates. what is your point here?

If kind is salamander, then they are still reproducing after their kind and we have not proven or disproven any theory. Now have we?

 

[razzelflabben]

In order to keep this response somewhere within reason, I am dividing it into two posts.

When I, among others, suggested you did not have a good grasp of scientific method, your response was: "Not at all, just the assumptions that are going along with the scientific method that I have a problem with."

I basically understand scientific method and have not problem with it. Can I be more clear than that? What I have a problem with is people who turn scientific method into a belief system by claiming that it holds all the answers or that what scientific method calls theory, they call fact. Can I be any more clear than that?

And when I asked what assumptions you were referring to, you mentioned assumptions about the theory of evolution which have nothing to do with scientific method.

The assumptions that others make about scientific method. Can I be any more clear than that?

As for scientific method answering all of life questions, of course it doesn't. It applies to what it was designed to apply to: the scientific study of nature. It does not answer metaphysical questions.

NO problem there

This is news to me. What parts of the theory of evolution do you consider to be untestable?

The part that requires millions of years to test.

So what? Scientists cannot be held accountable for the way people misuse their techniques and theories. The real question here, as you have pointed out several times, is whether we are dealing with fact or theory or both. Focusing on beliefs people derive from the fact and/or theory of evolution is a distraction. Leave aside the red herring and focus on the point which you earlier insisted on.

I have never held scientist accountable for the way people misuse their techniques and theories, only the people who misuse them. So what point are we holding too? I have just recaped the problem I have with scientific method, E theory, C theory, ID theory, and this discussion board. What point are we holding too?

I agree, it is an important distinction and I do understand it. If creationists and IDers were content to hold their ideas as a matter of faith, I wouldn't bother with these discussions. (Well, actually, I would, as a matter of apologetics, as I consider them wrongheaded theology, not just pseudo-science.)

My point, however, also understand that elements of C and ID can be sustantiated through scientific methods.

But they present them as "science" and want them to be given a place in the science classroom. Therefore they leave themselves open to scientific analysis and evaluation. And on that basis they both fail in their pretensions, for neither offers a coherent or testable theory that explains our observations of nature.

A bit off topic but I understand your point, I only disagree with you in that they do have a place in the classroom IF there is scientific data that can support or disprove the theory. That is part of the scientific method.

1. Your opinion is always relevant to any discussion in which you are a participant. I should think that would be self-evident.

However, my opinion is not about scientific method, but rather how people on both sides of the issue deal with the scientific method and data.

You have often mentioned "strains" of theories. I am aware of variations in creationist theory, especially on the matter of kinds. You said that your research suggests that "kinds" means "family groups" such as lions and tigers. You also said that mules, since they cannot reproduce, support the concept of kinds.

What I am asking for is clarification of these ideas you have presented. In your original two points, the second was that species reproduce after their kind---a principle evolution fully agrees with. As stated, that principle did not suggest the separate creation of kinds, only that species reproduced after their kind.

But what you are saying here suggests the separate creation of kinds. I am trying to confirm that this is your theory.

Secondly, you mentioned, as examples of "family groups" lions and tigers. Since many creationists would put these two into the same family group, I am asking for some clarity on how you see these groups as they were created. I have offered two possibilities. That originally the family group consisted of one species (e.g feline species, bean species) which then produced more species via evolution (feline--> lions and tigers, bean-->kidney bean and soy bean and romano bean, etc.). The second possibility is that the kind was created with species diversity already a part of it.

Many creationists would not consider lions and tigers, for example, to be separate family groups, but groups within the same kind. Similarly, many creationists do not consider the horse and the donkey to be separate family kinds, but groups within the same kind. But your description of why the mule is sterile suggests that you would not consider the horse and the donkey to be part of the same family group.

So we are dealing here with some of the different "strains" of creationism you were speaking of, and, since there is no point my wasting time on a "strain" of creationism you do not subscribe to, I am asking for clarification on your particular take on the creationist concept of "kind".

Is that too much to ask?

It is not asking too much if the discussion is about which theory holds closest to the scientific data, but that is not a discussion I am interested in persueing at this time and was never suffested in the posts I have made. In fact, I have said many times that I had no interest in such a discussion. Upon being informed that science has "proof" to support the TOE I asked for the new evidence to be presented. I showed how it was not irrrifutible proof and somehow this brings us to this discussion asking for my personal views. Agian, if you can provide irrifutable proof, I would be interested in seeing it, appart from that, I have no interest in discussion on the theories.

Btw, the theory of evolution does hold that the horse and donkey have a common ancestor and so are the same "kind" of critter. Have you any idea how the TOE explains the sterility of the mule?

Can guess, but have not read scientific articles to know for certain.

Again, this suggests that you have very little understanding of the basics of genetics. For one thing you are implying that a single mutation is equivalent to a new species, which is far from being the case. While there are a few scenarios in which that can happen, they are not the principal methods of evolution. In most cases, an organism with a mutated gene has no difficulty in reproducing. We would certainly be in a bad way as a species if this were the case, for studies suggest that individual humans carry, on average, 100 mutations in their DNA.

It would appear as well, that you conceive of the new species as emerging in a single individual. But in most cases, the new species occurs as a species, i.e. as a group of inter-fertile individuals. So there is no difficulty in finding a mate among the other organisms which are part of the new species.

In short, again you have been making an incorrect prediction based on an imperfect understanding of TOE. The "flaw" you speak of does not exist, because evolution does not work as you have imagined it to work.



In that case it is wrong.

I am pretty sure the other answers given in this post cover my answer here.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

The part that requires millions of years to test

How about geologic layers that are tested at 500 million years old will not contain bipedal terrestial organisms? Testable?

 

[The Bellman]

My point, however, also understand that elements of C and ID can be sustantiated through scientific methods.

Completely false. Neither Creationism nor ID can be supported in any way via science. Neither of them is science.

 

[USincognito]

If 20 pages in we're still banging our heads against the wall of "but its just a theory" still - I'm out.

 

[gluadys]

How can this be if all the theories have elements of each other in them. ... So how then can the theory of C be totally falsified, or ID found to be unscientific? That would be a contridiction unless, we are talking about specific areas of teaching within the theories which is what I mean when I talk about strains of the theory.


And what evidence do we have to prove or disprove any of the theories? We can prove or disprove parts of the theories but that is as far as it goes and to claim otherwise, would mean that all the theories are valid or invalid because each has woven into it elements of the other two. In other words, if say that the theory of C is totally disproven would mean that the elements of E that are woven into the theory are also disproven. It may be about semantics, but it is also about argueing rather than communicating.


But to disprove a theory that has elements of E worked into it, would mean that you also disprove E.

As discussed already, this cannot be fact, for it would invalidate E as theory as well. If each theory contains elements of the other two as you yourself have assurted, then to claim C to be false is to also claim E and ID false. To claim ID as unscientific, is to also claim E and C unscientific. If you would rather claim that science has disproven elements of C and elements of ID unscentific, that is not to claim the entire theory as such, then your evaluation is sound.

Well, the light bulb just switched on!

It's taken some time I know, but I believe I have finally grasp the main point of what you are saying.

And no wonder I've been having a problem with it. I must congratulate you on coming up with a totally unique way to defend creationism, and one of the most bizarre I have ever seen.

Now I get the point of the "strains" and "elements" of theories.

Ok, I have highlighted sections of your statements above. Tell me if I am reading you correctly.

First, you are saying that a theory can only be called disproved or falsified if every element of the theory is disproved. It is not enough to disprove its unique features. For then parts of the theory still stand.

Hence, when creationism says that living things reproduce after their kind, that is one of the statements of creationism that must be disproved in order to totally falsify that theory. And if it is not totally falsified, if only certain elements of the theory are falsified, (e.g. young earth, for those who lean in that direction) then creationism is still a potentially valid theory.

Then we get some really fancy footwork around the concept that each theory (evolution, creationism ID) includes elements of the two other theories.

Note, I have already objected that this is not true of evolution, but that does not affect your case.

We know that historically, creationists changed their tune from their firm stand on "fixity of species" in the 19th century, to "fixity of kinds" in the early 20th century. Where "fixity of species" demanded that every species and sub-species be a separate and distinct special creation, "fixity of kinds" permits the operation of evolutionary mechanisms within the kind, but does not permit such mechanisms to cross the kind barrier.

"Fixity of species" demanded that the Siamese, Persian and Manx cats each be a special creation designed for its particular geographical niche, and in no way related to each other. "Fixity of kinds" permitted each of these to be an adaptation of an originally created kind.

Now, this means that an element of evolution is now part of the theory of creationism. And since it is not sufficient to disprove a theory by disproving only some of its elements (e.g. that there is no "kind" barrier), one can only totally falsify creationism by disproving all its elements--including the "element of evolution" which has now been incorporated into creationist theory.

But if one disproves this element of evolution in the theory of creationism, that means that one has also disproved the theory of evolution!!.

Hence any validation of the theory of evolution is ipso facto a validation of the theories of creationism and ID since both of them incorporate elements of evolution in their theories.

All three theories therefore stand or fall together. You cannot totally falsify any one of them without falsifying all three of them.

Have I got that right?

As I said, very very unique (that's bad English I know, you can't have comparisons of uniqueness, but...words fail me!)

I have never seen this argument before. And I can only say one thing about it.

IT IS COMPLETELY BONKERS!

 

[Jet Black]

If kind is salamander, then they are still reproducing after their kind and we have not proven or disproven any theory. Now have we?

define kind please, in a testable way. how would we for example check that a salamander and a pig are of different kinds?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I have never seen this argument before. And I can only say one thing about it.

IT IS COMPLETELY BONKERS!

Yes. It is very, very bonkers.

 

[razzelflabben]

I am staying up late to try and catch up, hopefully I didn't miss something and that I am making some sense, I am extreeeeemely tired right now.

How about geologic layers that are tested at 500 million years old will not contain bipedal terrestial organisms? Testable?

There are other possible answers, that is what makes the TOE theory.

 

[razzelflabben]

Completely false. Neither Creationism nor ID can be supported in any way via science. Neither of them is science.

So you mean to tell me, that the same scientific evidence that matches the theory of C and ID, and "proves" E is invalid because it supports C and ID? Hmmm, how exactly does that work. It is valid evidence if it supports E but not valid if it supports C or ID???

 

[Arikay]

I think why some don't see creationism or Intelligent design as science is because both use an untestable unfalsifiable supernatural entity to fill holes and fix problems in their theories. Thus its not very scientific

So you mean to tell me, that the same scientific evidence that matches the theory of C and ID, and "proves" E is invalid because it supports C and ID? Hmmm, how exactly does that work. It is valid evidence if it supports E but not valid if it supports C or ID???

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, the light bulb just switched on!

It's taken some time I know, but I believe I have finally grasp the main point of what you are saying.

And no wonder I've been having a problem with it. I must congratulate you on coming up with a totally unique way to defend creationism, and one of the most bizarre I have ever seen.

Now I get the point of the "strains" and "elements" of theories.

Ok, I have highlighted sections of your statements above. Tell me if I am reading you correctly.

First, you are saying that a theory can only be called disproved or falsified if every element of the theory is disproved. It is not enough to disprove its unique features. For then parts of the theory still stand.

Hence, when creationism says that living things reproduce after their kind, that is one of the statements of creationism that must be disproved in order to totally falsify that theory. And if it is not totally falsified, if only certain elements of the theory are falsified, (e.g. young earth, for those who lean in that direction) then creationism is still a potentially valid theory.

Then we get some really fancy footwork around the concept that each theory (evolution, creationism ID) includes elements of the two other theories.

Note, I have already objected that this is not true of evolution, but that does not affect your case.

We know that historically, creationists changed their tune from their firm stand on "fixity of species" in the 19th century, to "fixity of kinds" in the early 20th century. Where "fixity of species" demanded that every species and sub-species be a separate and distinct special creation, "fixity of kinds" permits the operation of evolutionary mechanisms within the kind, but does not permit such mechanisms to cross the kind barrier.

"Fixity of species" demanded that the Siamese, Persian and Manx cats each be a special creation designed for its particular geographical niche, and in no way related to each other. "Fixity of kinds" permitted each of these to be an adaptation of an originally created kind.

Now, this means that an element of evolution is now part of the theory of creationism. And since it is not sufficient to disprove a theory by disproving only some of its elements (e.g. that there is no "kind" barrier), one can only totally falsify creationism by disproving all its elements--including the "element of evolution" which has now been incorporated into creationist theory.

But if one disproves this element of evolution in the theory of creationism, that means that one has also disproved the theory of evolution!!.

Hence any validation of the theory of evolution is ipso facto a validation of the theories of creationism and ID since both of them incorporate elements of evolution in their theories.

All three theories therefore stand or fall together. You cannot totally falsify any one of them without falsifying all three of them.

Have I got that right?

As I said, very very unique (that's bad English I know, you can't have comparisons of uniqueness, but...words fail me!)

I have never seen this argument before. And I can only say one thing about it.

IT IS COMPLETELY BONKERS!

Now please tell me what ever has given you the idea that I am argueing for C or ID or even that I am argueing against E? How does one go from saying that all three are theory and should be addressed as such, to argueing for or against one of the theories? This is the very type of things I am argueing against, the assumptions that are made that turn what should be a communication into an arguement of belief systems. I thought E wasn't your belief system and yet you are turning this into a discussion about which theory is truth. Though that is not proof of a belief system, few people are this passionate about something that is fact, rather than a belief.

How many times have I told you, that my only issue is with those who claim that the TOE is fact, or that science holds all the answers to life. And when you bring up arguements to support the TOE I point to ways that draw questions to the data and so now, I am argueing for C? I am really, really confused as to how this line of reasoning occurs. Can you please explain it to me?

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

saying that all three are theory and should be addressed as such

A theory needs evidence

 

[razzelflabben]

define kind please, in a testable way. how would we for example check that a salamander and a pig are of different kinds?

Wouldn't this turn the discussion into a discussion of theory against theory rather than a discussion about what is and is not theory?

 

[razzelflabben]

I think why some don't see creationism or Intelligent design as science is because both use an untestable unfalsifiable supernatural entity to fill holes and fix problems in their theories. Thus its not very scientific

I cannot say that I agree or disagree with this idea, but I do recall a post earlier that discussed science as being self healing. I forget the term in the half asleep state I am currently in, so how does this differ. Science corrects it assumptions based on the data, but C and ID are not alowed to do the same? Sounds like a double standard to me.

 

[Arikay]

Its not that they aren't allowed, its that they refuse too.

I would Love if a creationist group said "your right, these pieces of evidence were false, we retract them." or answer a question "we don't know" instead of "God did it, so we are still right."

But the fact is, creationist groups purposely ignore any evidence that contradicts their preconcieved ideas.
AiG is my common example, although many other groups have a similar statement, AiG says,

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
"6. By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information." ​

So AiG members are stuck, no matter what thr evidence says, if it contradicts their interpretation of scripture, it must be ignored.


ID is slightly better as far as "healing" itself, although it seems to be stuck in the same faulty pattern, which is, pick something that hasn't been heavily studied and claim that it couldn't have been created through evolution and thus must be intelligently designed. So far it has been wrong everytime.
Their fault lies in the fact that it stick god into gaps of knowledge. Instead of saying "we don't know" it says "god did it."

I cannot say that I agree or disagree with this idea, but I do recall a post earlier that discussed science as being self healing. I forget the term in the half asleep state I am currently in, so how does this differ. Science corrects it assumptions based on the data, but C and ID are not alowed to do the same? Sounds like a double standard to me.

 

[The Bellman]

So you mean to tell me, that the same scientific evidence that matches the theory of C and ID, and "proves" E is invalid because it supports C and ID? Hmmm, how exactly does that work. It is valid evidence if it supports E but not valid if it supports C or ID???

There is no evidence that supports creationism or ID (as has been discussed above, I'm not talking of spurious "evidence" for creationism or ID such as the observed evolution which creationism maintains can happen).

 

[doubtingmerle]

Razzleflabben, would you please answer two basic questions about your strain of ID theory?

1.How did the first zebra come into existance? Science tells us that the zebra evolved over millions of years from a small dog-like creature known as Hyracotherium. (See Horse Evolution) Do you agree? If not, then how did the first zebra come into existance? Was there a stirring of a mud-puddle, and out popped the first zebra? Is that how it happened?

2. When were zebras created in relation to other animals? Science says there were other animals here for hundreds of millions of years before there were any zebras. Do you agree? If not, how long do you think it was from the first animal until the first zebra?

Unless you can answer such basic questions, you haven't begun to present an alternative to evolution. And unless you present us an alternative, than evolution wins by default. For it is the only alternative on the table.

 

[razzelflabben]

Its not that they aren't allowed, its that they refuse too.

I would Love if a creationist group said "your right, these pieces of evidence were false, we retract them." or answer a question "we don't know" instead of "God did it, so we are still right."

But the fact is, creationist groups purposely ignore any evidence that contradicts their preconcieved ideas.


AiG is my common example, although many other groups have a similar statement, AiG says,

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

"6. By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
​

So AiG members are stuck, no matter what thr evidence says, if it contradicts their interpretation of scripture, it must be ignored.



ID is slightly better as far as "healing" itself, although it seems to be stuck in the same faulty pattern, which is, pick something that hasn't been heavily studied and claim that it couldn't have been created through evolution and thus must be intelligently designed. So far it has been wrong everytime.
Their fault lies in the fact that it stick god into gaps of knowledge. Instead of saying "we don't know" it says "god did it."

I apprecieate your answer, it seems honest and sincere, however, I have two questions for you.

1. Do all E boast that the TOE is proven fact?

2. How do you feel when you are thrown into this category?

The bottom line to my objections is that we argue about theories rather than communicate about them. To generalize and steryotype does nothing to enhance communication on either side of the issue. For example, I have a similar experience only opposite than you. The E camp makes claims that they cannot support and are difiant about how right they are. While the C and ID that I know are hummmmm, how does this affect what we believe. What I perpose to you is that if both sides throw away all this steryotyping and start listening to each other, we wouldn't have to have a war over the issue. The conversation has been predominately about E because I was brought here by an E and it is the E who have been responding, I have a similar message for the C and ID. In fact, I have learned much about the TOE from this discussion and though my personal beliefs are stronger because of it, I appreciate the knowledge I have gained. I could have learned so much more if the accusations and preconcieved ideas had not existed in the first place and that is something I regret, because I do love knowledge, but such is life and forums.