Evolution via random mutations is impossible

[tas8831]

I'm not a creationist but keep the compliments a rolling.

Interesting that you have not acknowledged the fact that the 1979 essay you found a quote from - on a creationist website - pointed out that these people were creationists in the first place, and I note that you've yet to even attempt to document that this is 'even worse' now.

Oh, and of course you aren't a creationist - you just make creationist arguments, use creationist sources, etc. Yup.. Got it.

 

[xianghua]

Gaps in the fossil record can be filled in with genetics.
. Pew did the numbers on creationist biologists a awhile ago. Iirc 99.15% of biologists accept evolution

are you also aware that most biologists also believe in higher power too?

 

[Speedwell]

are you also aware that most biologists also believe in higher power too?

While accepting evolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

are you also aware that most biologists also believe in higher power too?

-_- believing in "a higher power" is not the same thing as being a theist. One might consider belief in forces which are beyond your control as "a higher power", or even belief that there is an alien civilization more powerful than any on Earth. It's extremely ambiguous. Also, and I am sorry that 2009 is the most recent that I can find numbers for anything like this, I wouldn't call 51% most, since that's not a very strong majority. 41% not believing in deities or a higher power, and 7% that did not want to respond.

It's honestly irrelevant whether or not a biologist is a theist. After all, nothing about biology demands one be a theist or an atheist. It is extremely interesting, however, how much higher the percentage of atheists/agnostics is among scientists compared to the general populace.

Not the best sort of survey, either, but here it is Scientists and Belief

Scroll down to see the various disciplines.

 

[BradB]

There is no scientific ID theory from which to derive predictions from. All such predictions appear to be entirely post-hoc; that is to say, not actually predictions at all.

ID can and does make observable testable predictions all the time. Obviously the baseline of our human experience is what we must draw from. We know how "human" designers act when designing things and therefore this is the base of our understanding. By observing human designers we observe the following four basic features found in design.

1. First we know from our experience that designers have an end goal in mind prior to beginning. We observe that designers problem solve in order to obtain that goal. They often form naturally occurring materials around them into intricate shapes and patters to perform a specific functions in order to attain the end goal. Therefore when we observe something for example, like a monkey using a stick to fish ants out of an ant hill for a meal we are observing a design process in a non human. Albeit as primitive as it may be, it still took a mind to have an end goal (ants for food) and to work through the various problem solving. He knew his hand would not fit but that the end of a stick would. He reasoned that he could hold onto one end of the stick and shove the other end into the hole and understood enough of the nature of ants that they would swarm onto the invading projectile so that he could pull it back out and have a meal.

2. Our experience with designers is that they can quickly process large amounts of information. They often work out the details in a plan prior to executing it through some form of information communication process. An example of this is seen in dolphins in this video starting at minute 2:08.

In this video the dolphins (non humans) are seen displaying intelligent design in the way that they communicate information to each other in order to perform a very specific task...end goal. Humans often put their plans down in some more tangible form that can be stored and pulled back up to view at a later time. These plans use intricate language, blue prints, and a base code of ones and zeros in binary to store the information electronically.

3. We observe that human designers often re-use similar designs that have already solved an end goal problem, in other design projects. We don't start from scratch and re-invent the wheel every time we want to build a new mode of transportation. We simply redeploy the same or similar designs into new and better projects. In this way we observe that design often generates similar "patterns" even though the projects are completely independent of each other.

4. We also observe that human designers create things with a functions that we may not understand its purpose and think it has none, but it really does. Some examples of what I mean seen here:

We can convert these observations into a working hypothesis that predicts what we should observe if something is designed.

1. We predict that if life is the product of design it will have several parts arranged in patterns in such a way to perform specific functions.
2. We predict that if life were the product of design then forms found in the fossil record will appear suddenly with already developed large amounts of information. And that any change from its first appearance in the fossil record to its disappearance will be none to very minimal. That the fossil record will not display a gradual progression of life over time in any one geological region. We also expect to see examples of information transfer, processing, and recall in living organisms and their genes.
3. We predict that if life is the product of design that we will observe very similar designs redeployed many times in not only the functional physical structures but also in the DNA gene codes themselves of all life.
4. Finally we predict that if life is the product of design, that many things believed to serve no purpose or have no understood purpose (often considered vestigial organs and or junk DNA) will be discovered to perform valuable functions in the future.
​

All of these predictions are observed in the physical evidence.

 

[BradB]

Actually, I merely responded to exactly what you wrote:

"One cannot determine specificity of something without knowing what it does."



So weird - are you saying your words mean the opposite of what you actually write?

No if you go back and read it in the context and specifically the context just below it you will see I was not saying that at all. This is a common problem when someone's goal is just to pick apart another and really have no care for what is actually being said. I was responding to someone else who seemed to be implying this and I just restated to clarify that is what he meant.

 

[BradB]

Wait... what?

Are you really claiming "Embryology" is pseudoscience?

Taught embryology last semester. Science from start to finish.

What is your background, exactly? Used car salesman? Rodeo clown?

Well since you want to be insulting I will take the rodeo clowns bow here and just ask this. Does the fact that many crystal structures of different materials, start out forming with similar features, mean they have to have a common ancestor? There is nothing scientific about looking at the way a human embryo develops and the way a bird embryo develops and claiming they must be related because you see similar features. I see rodeo clowns in the clouds and Elvis in my pancake batter too.

 

[Speedwell]

1. First we know from our experience that designers have an end goal in mind prior to beginning. We observe that designers problem solve in order to obtain that goal. They often form naturally occurring materials around them into intricate shapes and patters to perform a specific functions in order to attain the end goal. Therefore when we observe something for example, like a monkey using a stick to fish ants out of an ant hill for a meal we are observing a design process in a non human. Albeit as primitive as it may be, it still took a mind to have an end goal (ants for food) and to work through the various problem solving. He knew his hand would not fit but that the end of a stick would. He reasoned that he could hold onto one end of the stick and shove the other end into the hole and understood enough of the nature of ants that they would swarm onto the invading projectile so that he could pull it back out and have a meal.

And when he finishes his snack, throws down the stick and walks away, how can you tell that stick from any other stick?

 

[FormerAtheist]

-_- if you aren't a creationist, then why are you posting a bunch of creationist arguments? It's not like you are deconstructing them or anything, you're just posting them.

Hey don't be jealous if their arguments are better then yours then ... that's how it goes.

I'm rolling with the winners.

 

[FormerAtheist]

No, it didnt happen then and its not happening now, why do you lie?

Why would I lie? That would imply I have far more time for this then you give me credit .... sadly I don't have that kind of time

 

[Brightmoon]

Well since you want to be insulting I will take the rodeo clowns bow here and just ask this. Does the fact that many crystal structures of different materials, start out forming with similar features, mean they have to have a common ancestor? There is nothing scientific about looking at the way a human embryo develops and the way a bird embryo develops and claiming they must be related because you see similar features. I see rodeo clowns in the clouds and Elvis in my pancake batter too.

Since Elvis really isn’t in your pancake batter it just sorta kinda looks like him to your brain. Experiments around Common descent can test for that type of confirmation bias

Hey don't be jealous if their arguments are better then yours then ... that's how it goes.

I'm rolling with the winners.

Dang are you in trouble then !!!

 

[FormerAtheist]

Interesting that you have not acknowledged the fact that the 1979 essay you found a quote from a creationist website pointed that these people were creationists in the first place, and I note that you've yet to even attempt to document that this is 'even worse' now.

Oh, and of course you aren't a creationist - you just make creationist arguments, use creationist sources, etc. Yup.. Got it.

I don't get it what exactly is wrong with a creationist website or for that matter and intelligent design website if the information is good then the information is good or is it because they don't believe like you do?

 

[Brightmoon]

Creationist websites change accepted scientific definitions . For example, their misuse of the term macroevolution. Real biologists understand macroevolution to be speciation . They demonstrate incompetence by coming up with fanciful scenarios that would cause major catastrophic devastation on the earth if they had really happened. Example -Noah’s Flood,as written, would have caused the earth’s surface to heat up to above the melting point of lead. It would also have caused genetic bottlenecks so bad that most species would have gone extinct. Creationist pseudoscientists handwave away any inconveniences like the previous problems without understanding that these processes would have left physical evidence . They continually and pointlessly complain about evolution without coming up with any evidence for creation . They’re also not above outright lying . The more ignorant creationist preachers ( usually YEC) make up just-so stories. And if you don’t know what a just-so story is, Google Rudyard Kipling

 

[Ophiolite]

That's interesting. Could you give a source on that. Because I have never heard that before. I'm on the road so I'll look it up and post sources of mine as well.

The source is me. The observations are self evident. You only have to read a hundred or so papers on biology to recognise that the first four classes are the forms of dissent from evolutionary theory that are present. I am sure another person, familiar with such material, might choose a different classification system, but the essentials would be the same and all rational forms of dissent would be represented.

Variant 5, "I don't believe evolution occurred" appears to be limited to the seriously undeducated." Variant 6, "I don't believe that evolution occurred without the intervention of a superior intelligence" is the default position of those creationists who accept the reality of evolution, but dispute its mechanism.

Feel free to refute my classification with well explained examples.

Aside: thank you for dropping the annoying hip-dude writing style. We may get somewhere now.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't get it what exactly is wrong with a creationist website or for that matter and intelligent design website if the information is good then the information is good or is it because they don't believe like you do?

Probably the worst fault is that they build a straw man they call "evolution" so you can watch them knock it down. If one of those sites tells you something like, "Atheistic scientists believe..." or "The theory of evolution says..." you can pretty much bet the ranch that what follows will be a fib. That's why we spend most of our time in these forums trying to convince creationists of what the theory of evolution claims, not arguing for it or presenting evidence, but what the theory of evolution actually says. At that, we will often be accused outright of lying about it.

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't get it what exactly is wrong with a creationist website or for that matter and intelligent design website if the information is good then the information is good or is it because they don't believe like you do?

Do you really think that ignoring evidence that conflicts with one's religious views is a good way to approach science?

(I'm referring to creationist sites like ICR, AIG etc)

 

[tas8831]

This is precious. I find it entertaining when, in support of the notion of an Intelligent Designer of life and the universe (but not God, wink wink), the creationist will posit all manner of intelligent design that.. humans... do... and claim it is evidence for God. I mean the IDer.

ID can and does make observable testable predictions all the time.

LOL!

Right - like how ID "predicted" that some junk DNA would be functional... DECADES after real scientists had hypothesized and DISCOVERED and published this... Great 'predictive' power.

Obviously the baseline of our human experience is what we must draw from.

Why is that obvious? Is it because your crowd only recognizes the 'intelligent design' of humans? And you are just extrapolating that to your deity and claiming it is evidence?

We know how "human" designers act when designing things and therefore this is the base of our understanding.

Wow - you are totally admitting that all you have is argument from analogy! Hilarious!

By observing human designers we observe the following four basic features found in design.

1. First we know from our experience that designers have an end goal in mind prior to beginning.

What was your Intelligent Designer's end goal in His amazing design of the female hyena's pseudopenis?

2. Our experience with designers is that they can quickly process large amounts of information.

And this is seen in Nature.... how and where?

3. We observe that human designers often re-use similar designs that have already solved an end goal problem, in other design projects.

We do that, sure.

But you are implying that a superbeing with the ability to create the entire UNIVERSE is limited to but a handful of basic body plans and must re-use even less-than efficient designs over and over?

Your deity seems to be a puny deity.

4. We also observe that human designers create things with a functions that we may not understand its purpose and think it has none, but it really does. Some examples of what I mean seen here:

We can convert these observations into a working hypothesis that predicts what we should observe if something is designed.

1. We predict that if life is the product of design it will have several parts arranged in patterns in such a way to perform specific functions.​

WOW! Super insightful!


Not.

Sorry bro - I know you think this is profound and all, but it amounts to little more (actually, a little less) than navel gazing.

More like a lot of question begging and post-hoc justification/equivocation.

 

[tas8831]

I don't get it what exactly is wrong with a creationist website or for that matter and intelligent design website if the information is good then the information is good or is it because they don't believe like you do?

You do not seem to be able to tell good information from bad - and most of your YEC/ID sites present bad information, and that has nothing to do with what I like or dislike (though I must admit that I dislike phony Christians that feel the need to lie and deceive and distort to prop up their idiosyncratic interpretations of ancient superstitions).

Are you claiming that the hackneyed copy-pasted quote from 1979 is good information?

Why do your creationist websites not tell the whole story:

... “most or all of the Creationists are devout fundamentalist Protestant Christians. Many of them testify that they adopted their creationist positions in childhood, long before their professional training, and have not wavered since.”
​

Since you believe that essay is "good information", the fact that it points out that these people "leaving" evolution were creationists all along sort of demolishes your point, doesn't it?

So now you are in a pickle - does your copy-pasted quote represent "good information", thus by extension meaning that the entire quoted article from 1979 contains 'good information' meaning that the reason these scientists are abandoning evolution is that they were never evolutionists in the first place, that many of them had been creationists since childhood, and nothing they had learned along the way swayed their brainwashing?


Or is just the out of context quote you copy-pasted from a creationist website 'good', and the other damning parts of the article 'bad'?

Whatever shall you do???

 

[xianghua]

-_- believing in "a higher power" is not the same thing as being a theist. One might consider belief in forces which are beyond your control as "a higher power", or even belief that there is an alien civilization more powerful than any on Earth. It's extremely ambiguous. Also, and I am sorry that 2009 is the most recent that I can find numbers for anything like this, I wouldn't call 51% most, since that's not a very strong majority. 41% not believing in deities or a higher power, and 7% that did not want to respond.

It's honestly irrelevant whether or not a biologist is a theist. After all, nothing about biology demands one be a theist or an atheist. It is extremely interesting, however, how much higher the percentage of atheists/agnostics is among scientists compared to the general populace.

Not the best sort of survey, either, but here it is Scientists and Belief

Scroll down to see the various disciplines.

yep. i aware about this suurvey.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hey don't be jealous if their arguments are better then yours then ... that's how it goes.

I'm rolling with the winners.

-_- so you ARE a creationist, you just feel like posting the arguments of others rather than your own. And no, the one I responded to was filled with holes and inaccurate statements. If you understood enough about the arguments you post, you might be able to attempt to defend them or something, but you seem complacent in just sprinkling them around and getting joy that other people respond to them. Without actually caring about their counterarguments.