Creation/Evolution Fundamental Assumptions

[Resha Caner]

Unless you're claiming that your stance about the existence of God is merely a personal opinion, I don't see how you're not claiming exclusivity. Either God exists, or He doesn't.

As I said to sandwiches in post #120, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that God spoke to Mohamed ... or anyone else for that matter. In fact I think he does, but that is a theological position. So, using love again as an analogy, you won't replicate the exact experiences that I would call love, but you can have similar experiences that convince you love exists. And, again, without the common ground of those experiences, we have an impassable chasm between us ... or, to use the scientific term, the discussion is incommensurable.

 

[Resha Caner]

It seems you misunderstood me. I'll clarify but I also want to emphasize (since I think this is your first post in this thread) that I'm more interested in the assumptions that create our different views rather than arguing specifics of the evidence.

So because people haven't been able to create dogs from cats in a few hundred years, species are fixed over the 3.5 billion year history of life? Seems a bit of a stretch.

That's not what I said. I said it was a scientific study that looked at the breeder's dilemma. An answer was given but it seemed to me to have an obvious hole ... so obvious, in fact, that I expected someone would have addressed it. It's not really an issue, though, because after giving it some more thought, I can see how an evolutionist would answer my question.

Anyway, what's a quantifiable measure for this "only go so far" prediction? Please be specific.

I was specific. It is either fixation or loss of the allele. And the study shows that this can occur even in the presence of mutation. So, the evolutionary claim, then, is that there are other factors involved to prevent that from happening.

I was trying to present both sides as fairly as I could because I wasn't trying to prove or disprove either side. I was trying to give an example where I could emphasize the use of assumptions within that example.

If you can't share it, it's not evidence. Otherwise you're admitting that there's equally reliable evidence that god exists, god doesn't exist, Jesus is god, Jesus was created, and Jesus was just a man. When your definition of evidence tells you that mutually exclusive facts all have solid evidence in their favor, you may need to take a look at that definition.

It's not that I couldn't, but that I'm reluctant to because of the personal nature of it. I have offered in other threads, but no one has ever agreed to my conditions.

But you seem to have missed an important point. Even if I did share it, I believe there would be incommensurability issues. If you don't think that is a real problem in science, you need to start reading up on Kuhn. IOW, IMO what so many people fail to distinguish is the validity of evidence to the one observing it versus the ability to communicate the conclusions drawn from that evidence.

 

[sfs]

I was specific. It is either fixation or loss of the allele. And the study shows that this can occur even in the presence of mutation. So, the evolutionary claim, then, is that there are other factors involved to prevent that from happening.

That what can occur? Limits to change within a species? Sure, there can be all kinds of limits to the changes that a species can experience, given its current state.

I was trying to present both sides as fairly as I could because I wasn't trying to prove or disprove either side. I was trying to give an example where I could emphasize the use of assumptions within that example.

I seem to have missed what this showed about assumptions.

But you seem to have missed an important point. Even if I did share it, I believe there would be incommensurability issues. If you don't think that is a real problem in science, you need to start reading up on Kuhn. IOW, IMO what so many people fail to distinguish is the validity of evidence to the one observing it versus the ability to communicate the conclusions drawn from that evidence.

I've read Kuhn, and read others responding to him, and I still don't think there are significant incommensurability issues. In practice, science as a community rarely has difficulty settling on the "better" theoretical explanation for a body of data.

 

[chris4243]

That's not what I said. I said it was a scientific study that looked at the breeder's dilemma. An answer was given but it seemed to me to have an obvious hole ... so obvious, in fact, that I expected someone would have addressed it. It's not really an issue, though, because after giving it some more thought, I can see how an evolutionist would answer my question.

Here's the thing about selective breeding: by its nature, it consists almost entirely of rearrangement and elimination of existing information. Hence, the changes happen in the blink of an eye. Meanwhile, mutation rates remain about 1 in 100,000,000 per base pair per generation. But you cannot conclude that the limits you have in rearranging existing information (being limited to information that already exists in your population) somehow is a limit to mutation -- mutations happen everywhere. To do so, from someone who knows what their talking about, would be simply dishonest.

I was specific. It is either fixation or loss of the allele. And the study shows that this can occur even in the presence of mutation. So, the evolutionary claim, then, is that there are other factors involved to prevent that from happening.

Fixation of an allele, and elimination of an allele, both indicate an evolving rather than static population.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's not that I couldn't, but that I'm reluctant to because of the personal nature of it. I have offered in other threads, but no one has ever agreed to my conditions.

I don't mean share in the sense of you telling us about it. I mean share as in we can both do the same test, measurement, observation, whatever, and come up with the same results.

 

[Resha Caner]

Fixation of an allele, and elimination of an allele, both indicate an evolving rather than static population.

I'll take this as another opportunity to try to explain that it seems to me we just aren't talking about the same thing. srs doesn't want me to call this incommensurability, but whatever word we use, we don't appear to be talking about the same thing.

I don't recall that you've explicitly defined what you mean by "evolution," but you give the impression that you would call any change evolution. At the same time, I'll assume you do not include a baby growing up to adulthood as evolution - but that is a change. So, I assuming you count some types of change as evolution but not all types of change. What types of change do you include then? If you mean any mutation of the gene pool ... if that's what you're going to call evolution ... then, yes, that version of evolution has been documented.

But to then conclude that mutation is responsible for all the changes that paleontologists claim to see in the fossil record is unsubstantiated. If that is what you mean by evolution, then, no, that version of evolution has not been substantiated. In fact, there is some evidence that says that won't happen. I am not saying the evidence is conclusive and disproves evolution. I am saying there is some evidence giving that indication. I'm sure evolutionary biologists will work dilligently and try to overcome the difficulties.

But what does all this mean in light of the previous example I cited? What does it say about the conclusion of Forester that evolution should occur given the proper population size, and what does it say of "scientific" studies done on populations that don't meet his criteria? Again, it's all about the assumptions.

If you're going to ask, "What evidence?" I can cite M.K. Burke's article in Nature.
Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

 

[Resha Caner]

I seem to have missed what this showed about assumptions.

See my reply to chris. Maybe that will help. But in general, I've encountered 2 misunderstandings. The first is that there is some "scientific" way to show that one assumption is better than another. The second is that there is only one assumption about a particular issue, or, that if there is more than one assumption "good" logic will take both assumptions to the same conclusion.

I've read Kuhn, and read others responding to him, and I still don't think there are significant incommensurability issues. In practice, science as a community rarely has difficulty settling on the "better" theoretical explanation for a body of data.

Then we've had different experiences. Whatever word you might want to use, I've encountered this at work where people argue competing theories until they're blue in the face. In my experience, politics often steps in to settle the argument rather than some definitive test. If you want published examples of that, check out The Fire in the Equations by Kitty Ferguson.

Then, there is the interesting historical example of Newton working on his Principia. Since he was the first to try using calculus to justify a scientific position, he was worried about it being rejected. So, he tried proving everything using older methods (a lot of verbage coupled with geometry). And, it was those older methods that (very gradually) won people over. It was only after they were convinced by the methods they knew that they began to switch over and use Newton's newer methods - which have magnitudes more explanatory power. It seems it may have been more the explanatory power that caused the switch to calculus rather than people accepting it out of the box as a proper method.

If so, why?

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't mean share in the sense of you telling us about it. I mean share as in we can both do the same test, measurement, observation, whatever, and come up with the same results.

Sorry, but this is kind of funny. It only shows all the more why my example is a good one. I once challenged a biologist with this question: If we had the ability to duplicate the initial conditions that produced the earth, would we reproduce the same evolutionary result?

His answer: probably not because mutations are random.

So, just as in my example, evolution cannot guarantee a test that will produce the "same" result every time. I think I know what your reply to that will be, but it's safer for me to just let you say it.

 

[chris4243]

I'll take this as another opportunity to try to explain that it seems to me we just aren't talking about the same thing. srs doesn't want me to call this incommensurability, but whatever word we use, we don't appear to be talking about the same thing.

I don't recall that you've explicitly defined what you mean by "evolution," but you give the impression that you would call any change evolution. At the same time, I'll assume you do not include a baby growing up to adulthood as evolution - but that is a change. So, I assuming you count some types of change as evolution but not all types of change. What types of change do you include then? If you mean any mutation of the gene pool ... if that's what you're going to call evolution ... then, yes, that version of evolution has been documented.

But to then conclude that mutation is responsible for all the changes that paleontologists claim to see in the fossil record is unsubstantiated. If that is what you mean by evolution, then, no, that version of evolution has not been substantiated. In fact, there is some evidence that says that won't happen. I am not saying the evidence is conclusive and disproves evolution. I am saying there is some evidence giving that indication. I'm sure evolutionary biologists will work dilligently and try to overcome the difficulties.

But what does all this mean in light of the previous example I cited? What does it say about the conclusion of Forester that evolution should occur given the proper population size, and what does it say of "scientific" studies done on populations that don't meet his criteria? Again, it's all about the assumptions.

If you're going to ask, "What evidence?" I can cite M.K. Burke's article in Nature.
Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

The more useful definition of evolution is a change in allele frequencies of a population. This is particularly useful because it is quantifiable and you can talk about and measure the rate of evolution of a population.

Furthermore, you can also talk about what is driving the evolution of a population. Natural selection you've no doubt heard of. If the creature's environment has changed recently, or the creature wasn't that well adapted to its environment, odds are natural selection would be the driving force of evolution in that population, towards one better adapted to that environment. It would manifest as increased reproductive success of those with a certain trait that is adaptive to the environment. Another possible driving force is sexual selection, which will manifest as selection for a trait that helps with mating success though it may be detrimental to the creature (like a peacock's feathers). And if nothing else, there will be genetic drift. Genetic drift is a random change in allele frequencies, caused by the randomness inherent in Mendelian genetics.


Now you may point out that the above is different than the theory of common descent. Evolution is the mechanism of common descent. We can easily see that evolution does happen. By looking at the data we can see that evolution has happened and that common descent via evolution is necessarily true. Even if in reality God just poofed everything into existence, evolution must have been the mechanism by which He designed.

As for evidence... there is lots, too much to mention all of them. I suggest studying the DNA sequences of retroviral fragments in our DNA as compared to those in other creature's DNA. Why would an intelligent designer specially create broken fragments of a retrovirus and scatter the same fragments with the same mutations among species that appear to be genetically related from other genes too, do you think?

 

[Jro]

Sorry, but this is kind of funny. It only shows all the more why my example is a good one. I once challenged a biologist with this question: If we had the ability to duplicate the initial conditions that produced the earth, would we reproduce the same evolutionary result?

His answer: probably not because mutations are random.

So, just as in my example, evolution cannot guarantee a test that will produce the "same" result every time. I think I know what your reply to that will be, but it's safer for me to just let you say it.

That's like saying "because the mountains might not have been formed in the same way, geology isn't testable." Just because the landscape is a little different doesn't mean that it wasn't shaped and formed by the same processes.

 

[Research6]

The more useful definition of evolution is a change in allele frequencies of a population
====

Yes, evolutionists change the definition of evolution every few years. If you compare how evolution is defined in a 1990 textbook, to a 2000 textbook, to a 2010 textbook you would think they are defining a completely different word each time.

 

[Jro]

The more useful definition of evolution is a change in allele frequencies of a population
====

Yes, evolutionists change the definition of evolution every few years. If you compare how evolution is defined in a 1990 textbook, to a 2000 textbook, to a 2010 textbook you would think they are defining a completely different word each time.

Which textbooks?

 

[Research6]

Which textbooks?

Campbell, Reece, Mitchell, Biology 5th Edition, 1999, p. 432:

''Evolution is a generation-to-generation change in a population's frequencies of alleles or genotypes. Because such a change in a gene pool is evolution on the smallest scale, it is referred to more specifically as microevolution''

Note: This definition is the same as chris4243's above. But what's the difference? The biology textbook defines this only as micro, but Chris (like most evolutionists) now has changed this to include macro.

Only the uneducated are fooled. The evolutionists can play around with words all they like but it doesn't change the fact macroevolution is not science (it's never been observed or tested).

 

[keith99]

Well said!

Here's a few other things science can neither deny or verify:

Odin.
Invisible pink unicorns.
Cthulu.
Yog Sothoth.
Quetzalcoatl.
Allah.
The flying spaghetti monster.
Ra.
Hades.
Zeus.
The Force.
The Underpant Gnomes.
Sauron.
Khorne.
Nurgle.
Tzeentch.
Slaanesh.
A teapot orbiting Pluto.

That'll do for now.

He can assume God exists as much as he likes, but God is no more real than anything mentioned above - at least. Anything you could possibly imagine can be easily added to that list, as well.

Science deals in what can be demonstrably shown to exist, and God can't.

Demonstrably show that God exists, and I'll happily accept that he does - until then, I have absolutely no reason to.

Bolding mine.

Those science can verify. Especially the teapot. Any of those (if they exist) might be found and if found then seen and touched. Heck for Sauron I'd be satisfied he exists or existed if Glorfindel stops by and makes the claim.

 

[sfs]

See my reply to chris. Maybe that will help. But in general, I've encountered 2 misunderstandings. The first is that there is some "scientific" way to show that one assumption is better than another. The second is that there is only one assumption about a particular issue, or, that if there is more than one assumption "good" logic will take both assumptions to the same conclusion.

At this point in the thread, I still have no idea what assumptions you think that scientists are making, and no idea of how competing assumptions could lead to different understandings of, say, comparative genomics. Could you list some of these assumptions?

Then we've had different experiences. Whatever word you might want to use, I've encountered this at work where people argue competing theories until they're blue in the face. In my experience, politics often steps in to settle the argument rather than some definitive test. If you want published examples of that, check out The Fire in the Equations by Kitty Ferguson.

Sorry, but I am extremely short on time at present. If you think there are substantial numbers of genuine cases of incomensurability within, say, the last 150 years of science history, could you just give some of them?

Then, there is the interesting historical example of Newton working on his Principia. Since he was the first to try using calculus to justify a scientific position, he was worried about it being rejected. So, he tried proving everything using older methods (a lot of verbage coupled with geometry). And, it was those older methods that (very gradually) won people over. It was only after they were convinced by the methods they knew that they began to switch over and use Newton's newer methods - which have magnitudes more explanatory power. It seems it may have been more the explanatory power that caused the switch to calculus rather than people accepting it out of the box as a proper method.

If so, why?

Why should they have accepted it before seeing that it was useful for describing real things?

 

[Insane_Duck]

Bolding mine.

Those science can verify. Especially the teapot. Any of those (if they exist) might be found and if found then seen and touched. Heck for Sauron I'd be satisfied he exists or existed if Glorfindel stops by and makes the claim.

Nonsense, Underpants Gnomes are outside the bounds of so called "science".

 

[rjc34]

In the end, for me it comes down to the necessity of a causeless cause (or a first cause if one prefers that terminology). All the roads I've traveled (including things like infinite regress) come to that same conclusion.

Why insert God? Why not go with the physicists and check out quantum fluctuations. Doing anything else is just using a god of the gaps argument.

Check out Lawrence Krauss' brilliant lecture entitled 'A Universe From Nothing'. It's up on YouTube.

But that speaks more to the issue of genesis than evolution. People always bring up the idea: couldn't God have used evolution as the means? I'm not going to rule that out as an absolute impossibility. So, it may seem a much too subtle twist of phrase, but my position is not to reject evolution as impossible. Rather, I simply do not find the evidence convincing enough to accept it as the necessary & sufficient mechanism for the descent of species. From that departure point, I hold many theological and philosophical views that conflict with the idea of evolution.

Could you detail a bit about what you have studied in terms of evolutionary theory? Taken any post-secondary biology courses?

The standard counter to the common 'I just don't find the evidence convincing' is that you ether haven't looked at or studied all of the evidence, or you have and are willfully denying it.

 

[rjc34]

Ah, yes. I have often noticed that in debates of these types no one seems to be talking about the same thing. "Evolution" is a very emotionally laden word that has a spectrum of meanings.

It's only really 'emotional' for you guys. It's just another branch of science to the rest of us.

In past debates I've shown how one can go to University A's website and find a definition that seems to be all-encompassing (abiogenesis, macro, micro, and all topics regarding how life changes) and then go to University B and find a very narrow definition (i.e. that evolution is merely a synonym for genetic mutation). I've yet to find a standard, accepted definition. I will say that when I use the word I tend to mean the former, but since I don't accept such, I'm open to letting those who say they believe it provide the definition.

In the simplest sense, evolution is defined as meaning 'change in allele frequency over time'. The other definition you're giving would be one for the entire body of evolutionary theory. Basically, it starts from the first imperfect self-replicators to the present.

2) For the evolutionist, it seems there is an assumption that one can trace a series of past events from latent data.

We assume physical laws are constant. It's called forensic science.

 

[rjc34]

Evolution (macro) - assuming large scale phenotypic change occurs when its not observable in the lifetime to directly observe.

Large scale phenotypic changes aren't assumed, they're inferred from the evidence.

 

[rjc34]

Yes, but I think the issue is different than the points you've raised. Much of science deals with future events. I observe something happening and make a prediction of what will happen in the future. If it happens, I take that as confirmation.

Predictive power does not only work forwards, it also works backwards. Tiktaalik is one of the best examples of the theory of evolution flexing its predictive muscle.