Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[justlookinla]

I am having a discussion with you, not a video.



I don't deny that the appearance of design is an illusion, just like the duck in the cloud, and just like the experts have been telling you.

Where is the evidence for actual design?

Tactile sensory units

 

[Oncedeceived]

...So what's the "purpose" of the molecular machines in our cells?

To provide the functions necessary for the system to do what it needs to do.



The problem is that it's trivial to claim that anything is designed. That something looks designed. Anyone can say that about basically anything. But just saying "it looks designed" is not an answer to the question of "how do you know it was designed". Whether or not something looks designed is entirely subjective. In the past, people have claimed the craters on the moon "looked" designed, and some people to this day would claim that there's a face on Mars which clearly is designed (although they are left to hypothesize as to its purpose). Simply claiming that something appears designed does not get us anywhere. Particularly when we have naturalistic mechanisms that do a pretty good job of explaining how this illusion occurred.[/QUOTE]

So is the appearance there and only an illusion or is only subjective which means that it isn't an illusion it just isn't really there at all?

 

[The Cadet]

What evidence do you think Design would leave?

...And here we get to the root of the problem, don't we? It doesn't. The only firm evidence we could find is direct indications of the designer's work. Watching the house being built, going to city hall to pick up the blueprints. Beyond that, you can go a step down in terms and see if analogous structures were "designed", and if this structure has any known way of forming naturally. For example, a very old building - no known naturalistic mechanism is known for the construction of buildings, and every building we've seen so far has been constructed by humans.

Beyond that, though? The logic doesn't hold up at all. We have no evidence of anything that could have designed this, so you're already putting the cart before the horse; there is a fairly decent understanding of naturalistic mechanisms that can produce such structures; the "appearance" of design is largely subjective and not universal. You're trying to establish design backwards, and it doesn't really work.

 

[The Cadet]

To provide the functions necessary for the system to do what it needs to do.

So why doesn't this apply to HIV protease?

So is the appearance there and only an illusion or is only subjective which means that it isn't an illusion it just isn't really there at all?

Both. The appearance is subjective and an illusion when present.

 

[crjmurray]

What evidence do you think Design would leave?

I don't know. In the same way that I do not know what evidence I would look for if I were searching for leprechauns. Since id is a concept with absolutely zero evidence behind it, I do not know what type or kind of evidence would be consistent with id. If you have some evidence that you believe supports id then share it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Tactile sensory units

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't know. In the same way that I do not know what evidence I would look for if I were searching for leprechauns. Since id is a concept with absolutely zero evidence behind it, I do not know what type or kind of evidence would be consistent with id. If you have some evidence that you believe supports id then share it.

When a human designs something, such as an artist carving Mt. Rushmore what evidence is there for that human design?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So why doesn't this apply to HIV protease?

Is HIV a system that the life form requires?

Both. The appearance is subjective and an illusion when present.

When does something become objective in terms of science?

 

[The Cadet]

When a human designs something, such as an artist carving Mt. Rushmore what evidence is there for that human design?

Blueprints and historical documents describing the human carving. What else is there?

 

[bhsmte]

How can we do that when creation isn't scientific? what can we discuss about creationism in regards to science?
there is nothing to discuss, the creation in the bible is just a story and science deals with reality.

That is where the special pleading comes in handy.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

But calcification occurs in living organisms. Why are you associating this with the collagen being 'mineralized' in the sense of being fossilized? From every test they ran they have concluded that the structures are virtually indistinguishable from actual protein.

You didn't answer my question. What exactly do you think they found?

I think they found what they claimed to. Calcified collagen fibres. The distinctionI was making is that this is not pliable tissue likethat discovered by Schweitzer via demineralizing fossil bone.

Schweitzer is extrapolating a laboratory environment-controlled 2 year experiment to 70,000,000 years with natural exposure to the elements. If that isn't speculation, I would like to know what your idea of speculation is.

Speculation is pure theorizing. Extrapolation is based on known facts. In this case Schweitzer is extrapolating from the empirically established fact that iron preserves tissue far longer than
tissue not similarly exposed. And it's worth noting, as I said before, that the tissues didn't take two years to rot, rather they had not really degraded at all.

Also remember that the argument is not necessarily that iron preserves tissue for millions of years. It may simply preserve tissue long enough for other fossilization processes to preserve them.

And your lack of comment on the point about how fast fossilization proponents make claims based on a process that is not actually the same process as fossilazation at all suggests you concede that such arguments are not comparable to Schweitzer's extrapolation as you claimed.

I haven't read Angstrom's critique.

Sorry, I meant Armitage.You didn't address my rebuttal to his video and so Iassume you concede that his points are as weak as I described.

Yes, but you know perfectly well such considerations are completely banned from discussion. Not only can the idea of dinosaurs being younger than previously thought not be discussed in a formal academic setting, but for a secular scientist to even communicate such an idea on a personal blog would possibly cost him his career, for both being a heretic and lending comfort to the enemy. Lets be honest. That is the politicized environment your camp has cultivated over the years.

So now this line of evidence that questions deep-time will be absorbed into deep-time. The next generation of students will grow up believing it has been proven that such organic material can potentially be preserved for hundreds of millions of years.

That is why your analogy below fails. It does not do service to the complex ad-hoc nature of deep-time/evolution models.

In principle you are correct, but equating the subject at hand with the cougar scenario is simplified to the point of being plain wrong.

You've just reiterated your opinion, not supported it. Why does your belief that any conflicting evidence will be absorbed into the theory change the logic of rejecting an old understanding in favour of several consilient lines of evidence that show that understanding is flawed?

Yes, sources of contamination are studied in some cases. That doesn't really change my argument, that old-earth geologic dating models are constructed based on whether or not the data agrees with evolution. Data that does not fit with the evolutionary model will be discarded whether or not contamination is identified. It has to be.

But you have not substantiated that claim I'm any way. You have provided no evidence that certain data "will be discarded whether or not contamination is identified". This is especially problematic for you because someone who has actually done work in the field has told you otherwise.

But the interpretations that established an old-earth view were wrong. And also it can be argued that the idea of an old-earth was becoming philosophically fashionable by the intelligentsia of this time who held considerable sway over scholarly institutions. (much like the ideological push for Darwinian Evolution a few decades later) The actual scientific data is only part of the equation. On both sides we are dealing with men with beliefs.

Anyways. regardless of its inception, the fact is that nobody has been allowed to question deep-time for generations. Hypotheses and models must conform to evolutionary beliefs or be discarded. There is no other option.

The early calculations of Earth's age were inaccurate, but they were generally based on data that showed at the very least that the Earth was not a few thousand years old. So your suggestion that such notions were fashionable is really describing an effect rather than a cause. Despite early inaccuracies, the fact remains that early Old Earth proponents had to and did by the strength of the evidence overcome the traditional notion that the earth was only a few thousand years old.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Blueprints and historical documents describing the human carving. What else is there?

Sorry, I meant if far into the future it was found.

 

[crjmurray]

Sorry, I meant if far into the future it was found.

The resemblance between the structure and known figures. Tool marks. Known construction methods. Construction plans. Names of engineers. Names of architects. Employee records. Supplies found at the site. Records detailing what supplies were required for the job. ETC....

 

[Jan Volkes]

They have the signature of design in the the assembly line features, factory like features, complex functionality that works in the main system as well as the whole organism. Are you denying that life forms appear designed?

Your arguments are pathetic and you know it, ID is just another way to relieve the gullible of their money.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If claims are going to be made that require it yes.

What claim have I made that requires the exact evolutionary pathway of every single mutation in the 3.6/3.8 billion year history of life?

And, most important of all, in your understand of evolution theory, do you think it is actually even possible to do this?

I haven't but biologists in the field have.

The "minimum required complexity" of what, exactly?

I am using the first replicating cell. Not the origin of life. The cell that had the ability to replicate and able to evolve. I hope that clears that up.

Not really, no....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cellular_life

Non-cellular life is life that exists without a cellular structure. This term presumes the phylogenetic scientific classification of viruses as lifeforms,[1] which is a controversial issue.[2][3][4]

Hypothesized artificial life, self-replicating machines, and most simple molecules capable of self-replication are not usually considered living

Yes. That creates an even bigger problem for a materialist

Are you capable of staying on topic? Which is evolution.
The scope of evolution is to explain the processes that existing life is subject to.
To discuss this subject, I'm even prepared to humor you and assume the faith-based, unsupportable notion that your deity of choice created that first living thing.

It does not matter.

No, it isn't hard. I think it is a cop out but that is my opinion.

Not pretending that explanations are applicable in context that are out of scope is not a "cop out".

Saying that gravity does not explain rainbows is not a cop-out.
Similarly, saying that evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, is not a cop-out.

Rather, it's intellectually honest.

Right,

So... you acknowledge that evolution is all about adaption to environment?
Just to be clear... Because you seem to be dancing all around the points being made.

and I don't really care about those organisms that come later although they still have immense complexity I am discussing the first life forms.

Then you are in the wrong thread, because the first lifeforms are not within the scope of evolution theory.

This is the 5th time I had to repeat that in this exchange alone. Somehow, I'm quite positive that a 6th and 7th will follow shortly.

Its your choice if you don't wish to take a look.

And it's your choice if you don't wish to paraphrase the points of the video you think are relevant (like general netiquette - not to mention the forum rules - actually requires you to do).

You made a positive claim. Support it.

I did not. You understand what "no X" means, right?
I can dissmiss without evidence that which is asserted without evidence.
Before I can dissmiss the presence of X, someone needs to assert the presence of X.
That someone has a burden of proof for the presence of X.

In this case: you have the burden of proof and your claimed "x" is the presence of:
- design
- purpose
- planning
- a supernatural entity that is responsible for the previous 3 points.

If you can't properly support those, then I have no justification to accept your claims. As a result thereof, I reject your claims and for all practical intents and purposes, this means I will assume that none of those things are present.

Just like you assume for all practical intents and purposes that no invisible rock is blocking your way. You don't KNOW such rock isn't there. You can't PROVE such rock isn't there. You just have no justification to assume that it IS there.
So for practicallity, you assume it isn't there. The result is that you simply drive on and don't slam your breaks. You wouldn't even change lanes.

My rejection of supernatural shennanigans and cosmic purposes for humans is the exact same type of rejection.

To conclude: no, I don't have a burden of proof. I don't need evidence to reject your baseless claims for being baseless.

This is an atheist support concept that allows them to side step their own responsibility for their claims.

This has nothing to do with atheism and everything with logic and rationality.

Do you have a burden of proof when you dissmiss the idea that an invisible rock blocks your lane on the highway?

Do you have a burden of proof to dissmiss Thor smashing his Hammer to cause thunder?

Why then would I have a burden of proof to dissmiss your baseless claims?

The design is seen in life forms, the purpose of function is present in life forms.

So you keep claiming. But not once have you rationally justified it.

Design is in evidence

How exactly? Don't just repeat your claims... actually try to support them for a change. Give me something I can actually reply to. Instead of just bare assertions.

, if you claim it is not design but an illusion, that no purpose or planning is involved it is up to you to support your counter claim.

No, it's not.
I doubt if you could be more blatant about trying to shift your burden of proof......

I AM NOT MAKING A CLAIM.

YOU are making the claim and I'm merely disagreeing with it.

When you make the claim without evidence, I can simply reject it without evidence as well.

When you try to support your claim with evidence, then I'll have to address that evidence. To then dissmiss your claim, I'ld have to show why your evidence is not sufficient or flawed or whatever.

I don't need evidence when I'm not making claims.
Responding to your claim is not the same as making a claim of my own.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Design is already invoked and not by me but by the biologists that work in the field.

You are again being dishonest about what biologists actually say about it.
They don't invoke design. Not even by a long shot.

Rather, they state (well, some of them do) that there is an appearance of design and that it is the result of the natural process of evolution.

If you don't understand the difference between "actual X" and mere "appearance of X", then this point will obviously fly straight over your head.

I can only inform you that your misrepresenting the actual position of these biologists.
And it doesn't seem to bother you at all, since you continue to repeat it time and again after SO MANY people have already informed you that you misrepresent these statements.

I don't wish to engage in personal attacks, but after so many times, it becomes really hard not to think you are being dishonest on purpose...

What do you think to accomplish by misrepresenting both evolution as the experts working in that field? Do you really think you can score points here by doing that?

Nehemiah 9:6:
"You alone are the LORD You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You.

Isaiah 66:2
"For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being," declares the LORD "But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.

Isaiah 45:18
For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else.

Colossians 1:16
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.

"There can be only one" - Duncan McLeod.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, there is a blend. The physical world was created by the supernatural. We can discover and gain knowledge about the natural world and in that world we can see that supernatural hand in it, not always but certainly in life forms and the universe's laws and parameters.

How can we see this and how can we determine supernatural causes vs natural causes?

Be specific. Preferably with an example.

 

[DogmaHunter]

God and the Bible. You asked for my personal story and that is it. Here however, we try to stay within the scientific areas of discussion.

Really now?
Then why do you state that the natural was created by the supernatural?
When and how did scientific inquiry demonstrate that?

 

[DogmaHunter]

When a human designs something, such as an artist carving Mt. Rushmore what evidence is there for that human design?

Signs of carving. Carving leaves recognizable traces.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your arguments are pathetic and you know it, ID is just another way to relieve the gullible of their money.

And who relieved college students of their money when their tuition was tripled by Parliament?