Here's Some Helpful Tips When Questioning Evolution

[mark kennedy]

1) Human-ape common ancestry is a conclusion from data.

It is an a priori assumption that was established 50 years before genetics came on the scene. To date the genetic basis for human evolution has never identified a viable mechanism for the development of the human brain yet common ancestory is never questioned. That is a classic example of an a priori assumption wrongly applied.

2) You characterize human-ape common ancestry as an "a priori assumption."

That is being kind and in your case, I would characterize it as begging the question on your hands and knees.

3) Therefore, you can't tell the difference between a conclusion and an assumption, and you do not know what a priori means.

It means 'without prior' and it's a self-evident truth as opposed to an a posteria proof.

"Mathematics and physics, the two sciences in which reason yields theoretical knowledge, have to determine their objects a priori...understanding has rules which I must presuppose as being in me prior to objects being given to me, and therefore as being a priori. They find expression in a priori concepts to which all objects of experience necessarily conform, and with which they must agree."

(Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant)

I know what a priori means and I know you would have taken it as a compliment, if you had the slightest clue what it meant. I've seen you throw it around mindlessly as if it were a slam of some kind, it's not, unless it's just a concept masquerading as an a priori assumption.

 

[TeddyKGB]

A priori is contextually translated as "prior to experience." It does not, by any historical understanding, describe the model of human-ape common ancestry.

Its counterpart is a posteriori, by the way.

 

[arensb]

Yes, that is the correct use. Unfortunately, many creationists mean something quite different by the term. When asked to describe macro-evolution, they present scenarios that are not an evolutionary possibility.

The best definition I've seen so far is that microevolution is evolution for which the evidence is so overwhelming that not even Answers in Genesis can deny it. Macroevolution is that which has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, not an unreasonable one.

 

[mark kennedy]

A priori is contextually translated as "prior to experience." It does not, by any historical understanding, describe the model of human-ape common ancestry.

It describes it perfectly since the actual laws of inheritance would not come around until 50 years after human ancestry was determined. It was only after modern genetics burst on the scene and Darwinism was on the ropes that they were synthesised. The only thing Darwinism ever offered was a presumption of a single common ancestor universally applied throughout the history of life. The only genetic basis would be random mutations, genetic drift and other known mechanisms that can't explain the genetic basis for human evolution.

Its counterpart is a posteriori, by the way.

I know, in fact I said that in my last post.

 

[TeddyKGB]

It describes it perfectly since the actual laws of inheritance would not come around until 50 years after human ancestry was determined. It was only after modern genetics burst on the scene and Darwinism was on the ropes that they were synthesised. The only thing Darwinism ever offered was a presumption of a single common ancestor universally applied throughout the history of life.

The wrongness-density of this paragraph is astonishing.

Mendel's Laws are not "the actual laws of inheritance." They describe a minority of heritable traits.

Darwinism's central tenet was natural selection. Common ancestry had been theorized years before.

The only genetic basis would be random mutations, genetic drift and other known mechanisms that can't explain the genetic basis for human evolution.

Or so your utter misrepresentations of the HAR1 research claims.

 

[XTE]

Teddy, you are doing a wonderful job on your post and everything you say is easily verifiable.

Someone is working from their own dictionary.

 

[mark kennedy]

The wrongness-density of this paragraph is astonishing.

Mendel's Laws are not "the actual laws of inheritance." They describe a minority of heritable traits.

That is not just wrong it is astonishing. If they are not actual laws then someone should let these people know:

The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century. The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same."

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409860a0_fs.html

Darwinism's central tenet was natural selection. Common ancestry had been theorized years before.

Darwin thought the death of the less fit and the preservation of favored races produced improved fittness. He didn't know that the genes do not actually change and the through recombination the same traits would re-emerge in succeding generations. Darwin's natural selection was supposed to explain everything when it in fact, explains nothing.

Or so your utter misrepresentations of the HAR1 research claims.

How would you know what their claims are, you never read your own source material.

 

[mark kennedy]

Teddy, you are doing a wonderful job on your post and everything you say is easily verifiable.

Someone is working from their own dictionary.

Yea, he is really doing a wonderful job allright. He hasn't made a correct statement yet but he is proevolution, that's all that is important.

 

[Chalnoth]

Darwin thought the death of the less fit and the preservation of favored races produced improved fittness. He didn't know that the genes do not actually change and the through recombination the same traits would re-emerge in succeding generations. Darwin's natural selection was supposed to explain everything when it in fact, explains nothing.

What??? Genes change all the time! Here are a number of examples of them changing in laboratory-controlled environments:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

 

[gluadys]

The best definition I've seen so far is that microevolution is evolution for which the evidence is so overwhelming that not even Answers in Genesis can deny it. Macroevolution is that which has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, not an unreasonable one.

The usual scientific distinction is that micro-evolution applies to changes in species; macro-evolution to the formation of new species and higher taxa.

Since the formation of new species has been directly obseved, macro-evolution has been demonstrated as thoroughly as micro-evolution.


Sometimes, macro-evolution is used as a synonym for common descent. I feel these concepts should be kept separate. I would agree that common descent has not been observed beyond the formation of species, but for higher taxa has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[mark kennedy]

What??? Genes change all the time! Here are a number of examples of them changing in laboratory-controlled environments:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

I've seen the site more times then I can count, 3 out of 29 mutations having a marginal beneficial effect is not impressive. I am aware of the existance of beneficial effects from mutations:

"Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. Some are neutral, that is, they produce no effect strong enough to permit selection for or against" (Rates of Spontaneous Mutation, Genetics 1998)

Notice the bolded part, this is not a mechanism for an adaptive trait. It's a transcript error resulting in defective parts and processes. It might be in your best interests to have a flat tire in the rarest of instances but mostly its' a functional disadvantage that needs to be repaired.

 

[Chalnoth]

Because I don't make a priori assumptions that can't be founded on facts.

That's a contradictory statement. "A priori" means "before the fact."

Our descent from apes is a conclusion, not an assumption.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's a contradictory statement. "A priori" means "before the fact."

Our descent from apes is a conclusion, not an assumption.

No it's not, alternatives are never explored, never have been, never will be. The single common ancestor model is universally applied throughout all living systems in infinate regress through primordial time. The only explanation is that it is an a priori assumption based on a conceptual intuition rather then an empirically demonstrated fact.

 

[XTE]

Yea, he is really doing a wonderful job allright. He hasn't made a correct statement yet but he is proevolution, that's all that is important.

Actually, all I see is you choking on neccessity.

Where are your fans?

Teddy makes perfect sense, I see a calm demeanor that's probably just agast at what he is seeing. Maybe I'm just throwing myself on him too though.

It's time you started a new thread.

 

[Chalnoth]

I've seen the site more times then I can count, 3 out of 29 mutations having a marginal beneficial effect is not impressive. I am aware of the existance of beneficial effects from mutations:

"Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. Some are neutral, that is, they produce no effect strong enough to permit selection for or against" (Rates of Spontaneous Mutation, Genetics 1998)

Notice the bolded part, this is not a mechanism for an adaptive trait. It's a transcript error resulting in defective parts and processes. It might be in your best interests to have a flat tire in the rarest of instances but mostly its' a functional disadvantage that needs to be repaired.

Whether or not a mutation is beneficial long-term depends entirely upon the environment. If the environment changes back, that mutation may no longer be beneficial. This is just blatantly obvious, and is not evidence that mutations aren't beneficial long-term. It has more to do with the specific experiment that this group was working on.

But evolution typically happens at such a high rate compared to environmental change (if it doesn't, the organisms die out). The fact that these experiments testing evolution in the link you're attempting to refute change the environment is essential: the incoming organism was already optimized for a specific environment. Changing that environment is what causes natural selection to push evolution forward.

Of course the vast majority of mutations are detrimental to an organism that has already adapted to its environment. When you modify the environment, suddenly a large percentage of random mutations become beneficial.

 

[Chalnoth]

No it's not, alternatives are never explored, never have been, never will be. The single common ancestor model is universally applied throughout all living systems in infinate regress through primordial time. The only explanation is that it is an a priori assumption based on a conceptual intuition rather then an empirically demonstrated fact.

A priori also means, "without testing," though. Common ancestry has been tested time and time again.

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually, all I see is you choking on neccessity.

Me thinks none so blind...

Where are your fans?

So now popularity makes you right, excellent standard by which to gage the truth.

Teddy makes perfect sense, I see a calm demeanor that's probably just agast at what he is seeing. Maybe I'm just throwing myself on him too though.

He has not made a correct statement yet or a substantive one. There are some well read and highly intelligent evolutionists that come on here, Teddy's just not one of them.

It's time you started a new thread.

What, and miss all these usefull tips on questioning evolution...I don't think so.

 

[mark kennedy]

A priori also means, "without testing," though. Common ancestry has been tested time and time again.

The common ancestry of men and apes cannot be empircally tested, the animal rights activists would go absolutly nuts. Common ancestry is an intuition based on framentary fossil evidence and genetic mechanisms that cannot be rationally applied across broad catagories of living systems. It is an a priori assumption based on a conception of exclusivly naturalistic causation, nothing more.

 

[Chalnoth]

The common ancestry of men and apes cannot be empircally tested, the animal rights activists would go absolutly nuts. Common ancestry is an intuition based on framentary fossil evidence and genetic mechanisms that cannot be rationally applied across broad catagories of living systems. It is an a priori assumption based on a conception of exclusivly naturalistic causation, nothing more.

You're falling off the deep end here, claiming that we can't be sure the physical laws and systems of today were the same in the past, despite the fact that they have been measured to be the same over billions of years.

There's not a single piece of the endogenous retrovirus evidence for common ancestry that you can't test directly in a lab:

1. What is the rate of insertion of viruses?
2. What is the probability that the endogenous retrovirus is passed on to offspring?
3. What is the relative probability of retroviruses to be inserted in different places in the genome?
4. How many retroviruses can infect many different species?
5. What is the mutation rate of endogenous retroviruses?
6. What is the current distribution of endogenous retroviruses in various organisms' genomes?

So, you go out, you test them all, and you find conclusively that we must have descended from apes, given the hierarchy of common endogenous retroviruses.

 

[XTE]

So now popularity makes you right, excellent standard by which to gage the truth.

Yeah, I'm a liberal when it comes to social rights as in the rights of Man. I'm all for "majority rule" when it comes to science. WHAT DO YOU THINK PEER REVIEW IS? LOL

He has not made a correct statement yet or a substantive one. There are some well read and highly intelligent evolutionists that come on here, Teddy's just not one of them.

I think there are plenty and Teddy IS one of them. I think YOU think you are. So much so, that you can't look out of your own COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDING of an "nonunified theory." You know, unified theories are much easier to understand. Evolution is very easy!