Creation/Evolution Fundamental Assumptions

[Insane_Duck]

Evolution is being believed by more and more of us and it's results are deadly. You can see articles in the news almost weekly where some whales or dolphins has beached themselves trying to evolve.

Sig'd.

 

[Resha Caner]

We've already seen speciation occur several times.

OK. So now we need to get into the definition of a species.

I disagree with you, but it's possible that that's because I'm only exposed to one form of evolution. Could you speak on this a bit more?

I had to dig around and dust off my examples. I can't find all of them, but one is the fact that you have P.Z. Myers (U. Minnesota) on the one hand arguing that abiogenesis is part of evolution and L.A. Moran (U. Toronto) on the other hand arguing that it is not. Then you have the web page at Berkley defining evolution as the entire descent of species (macro, micro, and selection all rolled into one: Evolution 101: An Introduction to Evolution) whereas George Williams (State U of NY) once said that evolution does not require natural selection.

Also, I have a question for you: you say that science can detect intelligence, but wouldn't the prediction that logically follows from ID be that you can't detect intelligently made objects because every single object in the universe would be intelligently made?

I said it was an assumption of creationists. I further said that it would be very difficult to do when the proposed intelligence is higher than our own. So, you raise a very good point.

Let me reiterate that creation is something I believe. Personally I have no need to prove it scientifically. I consider how science might approach the question for 2 reasons: 1) it's fun, 2) it's a good way to communicate with those who don't share my faith.

 

[Research6]

Here is what is empirical science -

So called ''micro-evolution'', minor adaptations and so forth.

However, the evolutionists then extrapolate on this empirical science by adding macro-evolution, or large phenotpyic change which has never been observed.

The debate is that skeptics of evolution or creationists don't believe these minor small adaptations etc will accumulate over time and change an ape into a man, but that there is a natural barrier.

- There is a natural barrier of course. People who have bred dogs know this, as do people who study crops. You can't mutate something so far, there is a boundary.

 

[Resha Caner]

There is a natural barrier of course. People who have bred dogs know this, as do people who study crops. You can't mutate something so far, there is a boundary.

Hmm. Has this been published in a peer-reviewed journal? That would be pretty cool.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Here is what is empirical science -

So called ''micro-evolution'', minor adaptations and so forth.

However, the evolutionists then extrapolate on this empirical science by adding macro-evolution, or large phenotpyic change which has never been observed.

The debate is that skeptics of evolution or creationists don't believe these minor small adaptations etc will accumulate over time and change an ape into a man, but that there is a natural barrier.

- There is a natural barrier of course. People who have bred dogs know this, as do people who study crops. You can't mutate something so far, there is a boundary.

We don't need to directly observe something to find evidence of it. The fossil record easily demonstrates macro evolution, even if we haven't personally seen it in our 10,000 year old intelligent existence.

 

[sabercroft]

I intentionally left out "qualified." So, points to you for noticing, but that means you now need to define for me how one qualifies a parameter.

The simplest example would be a parameter that only has boolean values for its output. Other than that, one might attempt to qualify a parameter when it can't be accurately measured, e.g. "many", "small", "smooth", "loud", etc. Sometimes merely qualifying a parameter isn't enough, and sometimes it is.

Does the definition agree with you?

Let me reiterate that creation is something I believe. Personally I have no need to prove it scientifically.

I wouldn't be surprised if that came from a scientifically-illiterate fundie (as it does the vast majority of the time), but every now and then I hear scientifically knowledgeable people claim such an opinion, and it interests me. Given that creationism overlaps heavily with science, makes scientific claims, and tries to usurp science, what makes you choose to believe it over actual, well-researched, well-evidenced science?

 

[chris4243]

I consider how science might approach the question for 2 reasons: 1) it's fun, 2) it's a good way to communicate with those who don't share my faith.

Science would approach the question like it does with every other question: does the hypothesis make accurate predictions? Like with everything else, the prediction must be falsifiable, and the prediction must be a prediction from the theory and not from the individual.

(note: it might be easier to make predictions from the biblical flood, since that is supposed to have happened more recently and is more understandable)

 

[Resha Caner]

The simplest example would be a parameter that only has boolean values for its output. Other than that, one might attempt to qualify a parameter when it can't be accurately measured, e.g. "many", "small", "smooth", "loud", etc. Sometimes merely qualifying a parameter isn't enough, and sometimes it is.

Does the definition agree with you?

Given the contention that will probably arise during the discussion, I'm afraid not. I can see what you're reaching for, and I've had similar thoughts. One way of looking at it is that one would create ordered sets of qualifying terms to create a transform from the qualified to the quantified, but how one places items in those buckets would still be contentious. So, from there one could imagine a least squares type approach where the statistical moments are used to created the ordered set. I guess I'd say that's still a quantification. Finally, maybe one could use fuzzy logic. That might aid the intermediate steps leading up to the conclusion, but in the end, we would still need to agree on a threshold.

So, I'm holding to saying it must be quantifiable.

I wouldn't be surprised if that came from a scientifically-illiterate fundie (as it does the vast majority of the time), but every now and then I hear scientifically knowledgeable people claim such an opinion, and it interests me. Given that creationism overlaps heavily with science, makes scientific claims, and tries to usurp science, what makes you choose to believe it over actual, well-researched, well-evidenced science?

That could be the poster child for a loaded question. In it's neutral form, the purpose of this thread is to get at the answer to that, so you'll need to be patient.

 

[sabercroft]

Given the contention that will probably arise during the discussion, I'm afraid not. I can see what you're reaching for, and I've had similar thoughts. One way of looking at it is that one would create ordered sets of qualifying terms to create a transform from the qualified to the quantified, but how one places items in those buckets would still be contentious. So, from there one could imagine a least squares type approach where the statistical moments are used to created the ordered set. I guess I'd say that's still a quantification. Finally, maybe one could use fuzzy logic. That might aid the intermediate steps leading up to the conclusion, but in the end, we would still need to agree on a threshold.

So, I'm holding to saying it must be quantifiable.

As far as I'm concerned, I have no problems with trying to work out the threshold as we go along. I don't agree that every parameter must be quantifiable, though. But I'm interested to see what you're trying to reach at, so for the sake of discussion I'll run along for now. What comes next?

 

[Research6]

We don't need to directly observe something to find evidence of it. The fossil record easily demonstrates macro evolution, even if we haven't personally seen it in our 10,000 year old intelligent existence.

How does the fossil record prove macroevolution occurred? Are you talking about transitional fossils? If so what is the intermediate fossil form between man and ape? How do you decide it is in the middle and not ape or man?

 

[Insane_Duck]

How does the fossil record prove macroevolution occurred? Are you talking about transitional fossils? If so what is the intermediate fossil form between man and ape? How do you decide it is in the middle and not ape or man?

See green for transitional fossils. The below link has a list of evidences for macro evolution. This includes the evolution of the horse and whale/marine mammals. Both of these examples show animals evolving into something very different. Although I would recommend that you define "macro" now.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

(each of these animals occupied the same ecological niche and are explicitly related genetically)

I'm not interested in having the human ancestor argument at the moment, what about all of the other animals (above) that we have shown evolved?

(keep in mind that humans are apes) Here is a recent human ancestor FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus

That's the problem with our view of species. They are constantly changing. In the time since humans started naming animals there hasn't been enough time for them to change. The facts is that every single animal ever to exist was a transitional form. Organisms are always changing, and that will cause some classification problems 100,000 years down the line. It's difficult to tell when an "old" species has evolved into a "new" one from our small, human perspective. Looking back it's easy, but only because we have a mere fraction of the animals that have ever existed in fossil form. (fossils rarely form)

 

[VehementisDominus]

How does the fossil record prove macroevolution occurred? Are you talking about transitional fossils? If so what is the intermediate fossil form between man and ape? How do you decide it is in the middle and not ape or man?

Nearer the ape end you have Australopithicus Afarensis. In the middle-ish, you have Homo Habilis or Homo Heidelbergensis. Nearer the human end you have Homo Erectus.

Of course, there are also fossils inbetween them, that show clear progression from "ape" to man.

The thing is, also, they were found in strata of ages relative to where they fit on the ape-man "branch". Like, A. Afarensis is found in earlier strata than H. Habilis. And H. Habilis is found in earlier strata than H. Erectus.

You also have our "cousins", Homo Neanderthalensis, or Neanderthal. A species of hominid that shared a common ancestor with us very recently (Relatively.). It's a good example of seeing how evolution can branch off in differenct directions.

Next time, as a suggestion, why don't you research these things yourself? I mean, it's not hard, it takes maybe 5 mintues to find a decent explanation, and another 10-15 to read it. By asking us to provide these fossil examples, you've just shown us that you've done absolutely no research into the subject whatsoever.

 

[AV1611VET]

They all rely on the Bible being true, which it just isn't.

And your reply relies on you being omniscient, which you're not.

 

[sfs]

That such an idea has not been introduced to biology is telling (sorry if that sounds a bit pompous).

No, it just sounds like you don't understand the differences between biology and physics.

So, I'm saying time is the unmanageable variable in evolution (and maybe population size as well) that needs to be cut down for a reasonable experiment. The fact that the paper you cited moved 10 organisms from one island to another and concluded they had witnessed evolution was, to be honest, a bit disturbing to me. But I don't know biology well, so maybe there are reasons to think that is acceptable.

I don't know what paper you're talking about, but if ten organisms were moved and their descendents were genetically different, then it was evolution. What do you find disturbing about it?

I can just tell you that such an approach in other fields would be laughed at. There is the issue of statistical significance that needs to be dealt with here.

Why? Were all of the papers on SN1987a laughed at because they only observed one supernova? I really don't understand your point here -- statistical significance of what, exactly? (You might note, by the way, that biologists have a much better history when it comes to properly handling statistics than physicists do.)

Most people learn method as a verification process rather than a falsification process. In an Internet forum we can all nod our heads and say we agree with falsification, but in my experience that is not what is taught and practiced in the real world.

Most, or at least many, scientists notionally agree with falsification. Most philosophers of science just roll their eyes in response. Falsification has no privileged logical position when it comes to scientific methods.

Are you not familiar with Laetoli? I'd assume you're familiar with the Paluxy hoax that was a black mark on creationists. Laetoli was the evolutionist debacle. I don't have the details at hand, but off the top of my head what I recall is that some footprints were found in a geological layer that indicated they were older than the oldest known human. Creationists jumped on it as evidence that humans co-existed with dinosaurs. A prominent evolutionist lashed back that they were obviously australopithecus (I think) and not human. Then someone pointed out that australopithecus supposedly didn't coexist with dinosaurs either. There was then some red-face hemming and hawing about how it must be an undiscovered species.

I'm reasonably familiar with Laetoli. What are you talking about? The footprints appear to have been made by hominins; exactly which ones is speculation. Dinosaurs have nothing to do with it, and never did, except perhaps in the confused brains of some creationists.

So, the reasoning revealed in that incident is: There is no evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Therefore, if footprints are found, it cannot be evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

Why on earth would finding human-like footprints be evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed? If I find human footprints in my kitchen, is that evidence that humans and dinosaurs are now co-existing? I really don't see the logic here. Don't you need evidence of both humans and dinosaurs from the same time to support the idea that they lived at the same time?

 

[Resha Caner]

As far as I'm concerned, I have no problems with trying to work out the threshold as we go along. I don't agree that every parameter must be quantifiable, though. But I'm interested to see what you're trying to reach at, so for the sake of discussion I'll run along for now. What comes next?

Well, we seem to agree there is a difference between quantified and qualified evidence, even if we don't agree whether it should be called scientific. I can't help but note the humorous twist that it is the religious one asking for rigor and the agnostic asking to allow some subjectivity in the evidence.

I think we both see the elephant in the room regarding qualified evidence. If we were to restrict ourselves to quantified evidence, we would thereby restrict what science can speak to - even though we think things exist that can't be quantified.

There are many examples to choose from. Maybe we could take love as an example. Yes, we could measure the electro-chemical reactions of two people who say they are in love, but that doesn't really explain it. In fact, I think my wife would be quite put off if on Valentine's Day I offered to take her to a lab and prove my love by measuring the impulses in my brain. Somehow that just isn't a proof of love. Neither could we explain why I chose my wife over someone else - we couldn't dole out my love onto a scale and compare it to the love expressed by Shakespeare in Sonnet 18.

So, if these things can't be measured, what convinces us of them?

But before we delve too deeply into that question, answer this one first. If you put together your idea of quantified and qualified evidence, then what would you say doesn't constitute evidence?

 

[sabercroft]

Well, we seem to agree there is a difference between quantified and qualified evidence, even if we don't agree whether it should be called scientific. I can't help but note the humorous twist that it is the religious one asking for rigor and the agnostic asking to allow some subjectivity in the evidence.

We seem to be disagreeing on the interpretations of data, rather than the data itself.

There are many examples to choose from. Maybe we could take love as an example. Yes, we could measure the electro-chemical reactions of two people who say they are in love, but that doesn't really explain it. In fact, I think my wife would be quite put off if on Valentine's Day I offered to take her to a lab and prove my love by measuring the impulses in my brain. Somehow that just isn't a proof of love. Neither could we explain why I chose my wife over someone else - we couldn't dole out my love onto a scale and compare it to the love expressed by Shakespeare in Sonnet 18.

So, if these things can't be measured, what convinces us of them?

To be honest, philosophy is not my field of expertise. I would venture an answer that we're convinced of love and other emotions because they're universal and everyone feels them. We all feel love in one form or other, even though the fact remains that it's difficult to put physical evidence for love on the table. If we were to communicate with, say, an A.I. construct, computer program, or alien intelligence with no concept of love, then we might need to start looking for physical evidence if we intend to convince them and/or teach them how to identify it, but we as humans agree among ourselves that evidence for love is largely unnecessary.

But before we delve too deeply into that question, answer this one first. If you put together your idea of quantified and qualified evidence, then what would you say doesn't constitute evidence?

As far as scientific evidence goes? Something that cannot be verified, both directly or indirectly. Something that cannot be consistently reproduced with reliable results. Something that requires another baseless concept to be accepted first before it's valid. I'm not really a good philosopher, so I think my ability to come up with rock-solid definitions is poor at best, but if you want to throw any examples my way I think I'd be able to do a pretty good job of telling you whether they're evidence or not.

I guess we're at odds as to what constitutes of evidence, but with that said, I was and am still keen to listen to your evidence for creationism, even if I can't guarantee I'll agree with it.

 

[VehementisDominus]

And your reply relies on you being omniscient, which you're not.

My reply relies on me not being a gillible eejit, with a complete lack of critical thinking skills and and inability to think for myself, instead having a tendancy to blindly believe a book of bronze age fairy tales for absolutely no sane reason, and being completely steadfast in my irrational, illogical and quite honestly insane, belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and absolutely zilch in the way of evidence that even begins to verify it.


You don't need to be omniscient to realise that the Bible is hooey. You just need to not be everything listed above.

bearing this in mind, your "reasons" are no more valid than a Legoland driving license.

 

[Research6]

Nearer the ape end you have Australopithicus Afarensis. In the middle-ish, you have Homo Habilis or Homo Heidelbergensis. Nearer the human end you have Homo Erectus.

Of course, there are also fossils inbetween them, that show clear progression from "ape" to man.

The thing is, also, they were found in strata of ages relative to where they fit on the ape-man "branch". Like, A. Afarensis is found in earlier strata than H. Habilis. And H. Habilis is found in earlier strata than H. Erectus.

You also have our "cousins", Homo Neanderthalensis, or Neanderthal. A species of hominid that shared a common ancestor with us very recently (Relatively.). It's a good example of seeing how evolution can branch off in differenct directions.

Next time, as a suggestion, why don't you research these things yourself? I mean, it's not hard, it takes maybe 5 mintues to find a decent explanation, and another 10-15 to read it. By asking us to provide these fossil examples, you've just shown us that you've done absolutely no research into the subject whatsoever.

* How do you know they didn't evolve, were created or sprung from different, seperate linages? (e.g. polygenism).

 

[VehementisDominus]

* How do you know they didn't evolve, were created or sprung from different, seperate linages? (e.g. polygenism).

Because fossils aren't the only evidence available.

Every other line of evidence we've followed leads to the same conclusion, independently from eachother.

For example, the phylogenetic tree matches up with what we know from the fossil record.

As does species distribution.

And a whole load of other stuff.

 

[AV1611VET]

They all rely on the Bible being true, which it just isn't.

And your reply relies on you being omniscient, which you're not.

My reply relies on me not being a gillible eejit...

Okay -- are we going to play games, here?

Can you not vent for just one post, please?

1. You said the Bible isn't being true.

2. I said your reply relies on you being omniscient.

3. You reply further that your reply relies on you not being a "gullible idiot".

Do you want to address my point, please, without the venting, or shall I just take your point with a grain of salt?