Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[Dirk1540]

#1 It seems that I always wind up in the same place in a lot of these discussions, which is an argument over semantics. The science is the part where you observe the data, and either make future predictions based on observed data, or in the case of non repeatable events you infer from the data what may have taken place in the past. Now that's all well and good, and it seems pretty clear that both Meyer and Perry keep up with the research and know their details. In fact Meyer even said that he's excited over this new theory (as opposed to being angered like some religious people might be). Anyway, as surely as I expected (and why I don't really keep us with the evolution debate much any more) an awful lot of this debate also seemed like an argument over semantics. Of course you had Meyer saying 'Intelligent Agent.' And Perry kept driving at a few phrases like a pre-programmed cell that by nature can easily adapt in any amount of conditions.

Ok let me back up, so the science is where you observe or predict. ANY concept whatsoever about what the 'Driving force' might be behind what the observable data is telling you is philosophy!! So yes I totally agree, the moment Meyer talks about an intelligent agent he is talking philosophy and not science. BUT likewise the moment someone claims that a cell with a nearly unlimited amount of adaptive pre-packed programming data is the driving force behind WHAT a cell does they too are now doing philosophy and not science. WHAT is the science. WHY is the invisible philosophy. Seems to me both people always do it, the secular guy and the religious guy, it's an argument over semantics. So the guy who says 'God did it' is not doing science. The guy who says 'Evolution did it' is not doing science. And the guy who says 'Mother Nature did it' is also not doing science either, but rather all 3 are doing philosophy the moment any of them make those statements. It seems to me that the 'God did it guy' gets pounced on, but the 'Evolution did it' guy gets a free pass. Hmm?? My theory is that this is the case because of this often quoted claim that the guy who thinks 'God did it' gives up on further scientific discovery.

#2, which can somewhat compliment #1, before Darwin it was very very common for world class scientists to claim that they devote their lives to their research in order to 'Unlock the mysteries of how God designed the universe.' In other words there is not this truth to the theory that "If the scientist believes in God he will tend to throw in the towel and just say God did it." As a matter of fact history argues with that assumption. Many Christians contributed to proving the heliocentric model of the universe for example. The fact that they believed that they were shedding light on how God designed the universe was NOT science, that part was philosophy, That part had nothing to do with the observable data. The observable data was the movements of the stars and planets, the math involved, proving their model via accurately predicting eclipses, full moons, etc. Basically, the observable data was the science. The theory of what the invisible driving force was behind that data was their philosophy.

Fast forward to post Darwin. Now the trend is naturalism. Likewise that part of it is just the philosophy part. Darwin's research on the finches for example, the beak sizes, the time frames for the changes in beak size, weather involved, etc, ALL his observable data was the science. His belief that the invisible driving force behind that observable data was nothing more than random selection as opposed to something that was guided was his philosophy!! The unseen, unknown, hypothesized driving force behind the observable data taking place is philosophy, whether religious or secular!

#3, every time I'm in one of these discussions there's this constant effort to blur the lines between evolution and common descent. I completely agree with you that there is undeniable proof that evolution is true, and that it is literally observable right in front of our faces. But unfortunately there always seems to be a sleight of hand going on. A lot of people try to use a bunch of examples of how it's ridiculous to deny 'Evolution', which actually is true and I agree with that, but then all the sudden they fuse undeniable proof for evolution into also meaning undeniable proof for common descent. Why the trickery all the time? Why not just always say common descent??

#4, every time I'm in one of these discussion sure enough 'IT' comes around. Perry had all these examples of how incredible was the ability for things to evolve, and the ability for them to evolve quickly. He talked about rapid evolution. He said at one time "What we don't know is how smart these cells really are. A bacterium can do more software engineering in 12 minutes, than a team of Google engineers can do in 12 weeks!" He talked about examples of this rapid evolution. So what do I mean by 'IT'?? Well 'IT' would be what he sure enough followed up with..."Imagine what these cells could do in 10,000 years! Imagine what they could do in a million years!" UGH!! What happened to the rapid evolution? Sure enough, every evolutionist needs there million years when they enter the common descent side of evolution. I'll make you guys a deal, i'll stop using the word 'Gaps' when you guys stop saying 'A Million Years.' Do we have a deal?? How on Earth is the need to plug in a million years not a gap?? ESPECIALLY after a claim at how impressively rapid evolution is?

 

[Tanj]

#3, every time I'm in one of these discussions there's this constant effort to blur the lines between evolution and common descent.

There is a far more concerted effort to blur the lines between different scientific theories, or split 1 theory up into 2. Common descent is a part of evolutionary theory, just as abiogenesis is not. No amount of whinging about this is going to change it.

 

[Dirk1540]

There is a far more concerted effort to blur the lines between different scientific theories, or split 1 theory up into 2. Common descent is a part of evolutionary theory, just as abiogenesis is not. No amount of whinging about this is going to change it.

Not even close. Are you gonna tell me that the evolution of a virus, which could be literally SEEN under a microscope is comparable to holding 2 ancient fossils together and theorizing a transition are even remotely close? It is absolutely blurring the lines!! You want laypersons to completely be overrun by constant claims in the public square of how only religious wingnuts do not believe in evolution...knowing that certain forms of evolution are undeniable, and then you want to fuse it with common descent as if the 2 are on par as far as evidence is involved. It's a move that any modern politician would be proud of!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not even close. Are you gonna tell me that the evolution of a virus, which could be literally SEEN under a microscope is comparable to holding 2 ancient fossils together and theorizing a transition are even remotely close? It is absolutely blurring the lines!! You want laypersons to completely be overrun by constant claims in the public square of how only religious wingnuts do not believe in evolution...knowing that certain forms of evolution are undeniable, and then you want to fuse it with common descent as if the 2 are on par as far as evidence is involved. It's a move that any modern politician would be proud of!

It is not honest to make a strawman argument, and that is just what you did. If you had a valid claim you should be able support it properly.

 

[Tanj]

Not even close.

So close, in fact, that you cannot separate them.

Are you gonna tell me that the evolution of a virus

Well, we are off to a good start, I have over 10 peer reviewed papers on virus evolution. It's what I did a part of my PhD and second post-doc in.

which could be literally SEEN under a microscope

Yeah, actually, they literally cannot be SEEN under a microscope. Maybe you were thinking of bacteria? You need an electron microscope for viruses. Regardless that's for imaging the particles/cells, the evolution of neither can be viewed under any microscope, electron or otherwise.

is comparable to holding 2 ancient fossils together and theorizing a transition are even remotely close?

No-one does that.

You want me to compare your completely wrong understanding of viruses and evolution with your completely wrong understanding of palaeontology? Sorry, but I wouldn't know where to start.

You want laypersons to completely be overrun by constant claims in the public square of how only religious wingnuts do not believe in evolution

No I don't. Please don't misrepresent me.

knowing that certain forms of evolution are undeniable, and then you want to fuse it with common descent as if the 2 are on par as far as evidence is involved.

Like I said, "evolution with common descent" is the basis of the ToE, and no amount of layperson whinging is going to change that.

ETA: I would accept your definition of evolution if you accept my defintion of Christianity.

 

[Mountainmike]

You might want to talk to Kenneth Miller:

Kenneth R. Miller - Wikipedia

But he probably thinks that abiogenesis is how life first appeared on the Earth.

But he had no scientific basis for that conjecture about abiogenesis, for which there is not even a conjectured pathway nor any valid hypothesis. It is a belief formed of necessity to fill the gaping hole of evidence in their assumption of the development of life, nothing else. Abiogenesis is a word used to describe a hole in a theory of life, not the existence of a theory!

Thats the thing about atheists. Their standards of acceptable evidence change completely according to whether they "Like" an idea or dislike it. Which is the complete antithesis of science.

There is far more forensic evidence for life from eucharistic miracles , in the form of detected white cells, so if they are interested in evidence they should study those instead. Even the silliest of rantings (and they set new standards for that!) on non science websites from csicorp, to rationalwiki to skepdic, cant change what I said.

In the evidence stakes the score is: Forensic evidence for life from eucharistic miracles 5, abiogenesis big fat 0.

 

[Tanj]

Thats the thing about atheists. Their standards of acceptable evidence change completely according to whether they "Like" an idea or dislike it. Which is the complete antithesis of science.

You are entirely incorrect. I extremely dislike the idea of Trump being president, I still accept the evidence he is.

Even the silliest of rantings (and they set new standards for that!) on non science websites from csicorp, to rationalwiki to skepdic, cant change what I said.

Change it? No. Show it to be completely false? You betcha!

 

[dmmesdale]

Like I said, "evolution with common descent" is the basis of the ToE, and no amount of layperson whinging is going to change that.

A Primer on the Tree of Life | Center for Science and Culture
The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion, and whenever data contradicts expectations of common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of different ad hoc rationalizations to save common descent from being falsified.

Some of these ad hoc rationalizations may appear reasonable — horizontal gene transfer, convergent evolution, differing rates of evolution (rapid evolution is conveniently said to muddy any phylogenetic signal), fusion of genomes — but at the end of the day, we must call them what they are: ad hoc rationalizations designed to save a theory that has already been falsified. Because it is taken as an assumption, evolutionists effectively treat common ancestry in an unfalsifiable and unscientific fashion, where any data that contradicts the expectations of common descent is simply explained away via one of the above ad hoc rationalizations. But if we treat common descent as it ought to be treated — as a testable hypothesis — then it contradicts much data.

ETA: I would accept your definition of evolution if you accept my defintion of Christianity.

Christianity is not hard to define.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Kenny, you need to quit running away from the fact that you do not understand what is and what is not evidence first. I have posted evidence that supports evolution. So have countless others. If you did not understand it then you would not understand it if I did so for you now.



Whoa, whoa, whoa. You are the one that is in the wrong and keeps running away. You don't get to make demands.



Nope, not until you learn what is and what is not evidence first. If you don't know what evidence is you will not be able to understand how it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.



Once again, until you learn what is and what is not evidence you have no business making demands. A math student that can't even multiply might as well demand a "proof of calculus".




Yep, that is what I am trying to do. First things first. You need to learn the basics.



Kenny, since I and others have posted this for you there is no point in doing so again until you learn the basics. Evolution is a proven fact. You can deny it, you can run away, but I and others will still claim what you can't or won't understand.




And I see that Kenny confirmed my claim that he did not understand what is and what is not evidence.

Once again Kenny, is the fossil record evidence for the theory of evolution? Yes or no. Your answer will tell us whether or not you understand the concept of evidence. Running away only confirms my claim.

You 'll have to forgive me for having given up on you for the most part, the very reason I'm just skimming your posts and missed that question.

So you are now saying if I answer in a way that works for you, I understand and if I don't, I do not? and as usual, we are just supposed to take your word for that? Haven't I already accused you of trying to get away with that once? But is doesn't matter, I expect as much by now (or as little). Though the question is easy to answer, with I'd have to know all the details on "The" fossil record first, as I've already questioned one record someone brought up and it didn't pan out to be what is was touted as, but that doesn't matter either, you still have not laid out your proof, but maybe that's all you have, and it all hangs on my answering your question the way you choose for me to answer, and if I don't, I don't understand. Sorry for repeating that but seriously dude, that is one hilarious expectation.

See, you should have just added that to your line of proof, and then we can discuss it all, but instead you want to get hung up on that, and by design I assume, so you have another excuse to not answer what should be a very simple question the way you go on about evolution being a fact, and prove it already.

Anyway, I did notice how you tried to change the subject there, and are now going to try to prove a theory, what ever the heck that means, and not evolution as I requested. So you are now back peddling on top of everything else. I already know evolution is a theory.

That in mind, and after all the trouble I went to in my last post to make my request easy to understand, yet still you spout the same old excuses,...I think it's pretty safe to say you will not be proving evolution.

The whole purpose was simply to let others know that when it comes right down to it you fall apart completely when it comes to proof, no matter how hard one might try to get it out of you.

Now I have a question, have you proven evolution as you keep claiming you can, and if so, can you show me where you did that?

and BTW, did you ever answer my first question, as in...

Once again, prove first there is no "real" doubt, or what makes the doubt in the OP not "real", or that there isn't enough doubt to constitute "real" doubt.

...or did you realize you were wrong/just talking again, with no walk to back it up, thus you had no answer, and just kind of skipped past it? You wouldn't do that...would you?

 

[Dirk1540]

It is not honest to make a strawman argument, and that is just what you did. If you had a valid claim you should be able support it properly.

Is the amount of proof that there is for the general concept of evolution on par with the amount of proof there is for common descent? Let's see how you answer that before we talk about the word honestly, and straw men arguments.

 

[Kenny'sID]

1. Geologic record shows CHANGE IN LIFE OVER TIME: It shows the development of new animals that were not present earlier and it shows the extinction of other animals.

2. Life is self-replicating (using standard chemistry, nothing magical)

3. Self-replication can and does show mutations (provides a mechanism by which it is possible to introduce changes)

4. Living things die meaning that maladaptive features can be filtered OUT

(So far nothing really controversial here).

5. Universal Common Descent: This is one of the keys. If we can establish universal common descent then it follows that evolution on the larger scale is true. There's an article which you likely have already seen or read called 29+ Evidences of Macroevolution which provides the scientifically robust concepts of "PREDICTION" and "VERIFICATION". The article (HERE) goes through the basics of universal common descent, provides PREDICTIONS of what one would expect to find as well as VERIFICATION of those predictions.



The data seems to support the concept of universal common descent and we see phylogenetic relationships in the fossil record, even transitional forms, as well as several molecular evidences for it.



Many of us who have worked in the sciences understand the details about "proof" in the sciences. It is never 100% perfect proof (that is mathematics). It is an attempt to explain as much of the data in as parsimonius a method as possible.



Why do you talk down to Subduction Zone like that? I believe SZ is a scientist. What is your area of science?

So you are saying now that if I am not a scientist and Z claims he is, I should bow to what he claims without proof? If so, you are much to easy. To subscribe to such nonsense would mean you will probably believe about anything told you.

Oh and was all that you spouted there, your proof of evolution?

 

[Kenny'sID]

It is not honest to make a strawman argument, and that is just what you did. If you had a valid claim you should be able support it properly.

Ha! I didn't see that post, so I would have to repeat my request a 3rd time, for you to back up what I thought was a pretty serious claim, you know, that request you conveniently skipped and I mentioned at the end of my post before last. You claim others are dishonest for not backing claims, so lets see how you make out here.

Once again, prove first there is no "real" doubt as you claimed, or what makes the doubt in the OP not "real", or that there isn't enough doubt to constitute "real" doubt.

Another reason this is important is you often make baseless little claims like that, and I agree, it's very dishonest, so you need to be called on them on occasion.

 

[Dirk1540]

So close, in fact, that you cannot separate them.



Well, we are off to a good start, I have over 10 peer reviewed papers on virus evolution. It's what I did a part of my PhD and second post-doc in.



Yeah, actually, they literally cannot be SEEN under a microscope. Maybe you were thinking of bacteria? You need an electron microscope for viruses. Regardless that's for imaging the particles/cells, the evolution of neither can be viewed under any microscope, electron or otherwise.


No-one does that.

You want me to compare your completely wrong understanding of viruses and evolution with your completely wrong understanding of palaeontology? Sorry, but I wouldn't know where to start.



No I don't. Please don't misrepresent me.



Like I said, "evolution with common descent" is the basis of the ToE, and no amount of layperson whinging is going to change that.

ETA: I would accept your definition of evolution if you accept my defintion of Christianity.

Now here's a guy who 'Supposedly' has all kinds of evolution credentials, and I'll be the first to admit called me out on an error that I'm guilty of.

Ok here's my question, you're an expert in evolution right? Just wondering if you might answer the question that YOU of all people should know...does the general concept of evolution have way more proof than the theory of common descent?

 

[Dirk1540]

So you are now saying if I answer in a way that works for you, I understand and if I don't, I do not? and as usual, we are just supposed to take your word for that?

HAHAHAHA!

 

[Sanoy]

I woke up with 7 dialogues awaiting me. I'll reply to the only ones that I think are capable of listening, and a few don't require a reply. To the remainder, I dedicate time to Atheists, but not Atheist Apologists who fight for nothing but the ostensible last word. You can fight for what can be seen, I'll fight for the unseen.

Speedwell.
Evolution doesn't show a convergence. Darwins tree is now a forest, we don't have a record of slow divergence, we have a record of species coming into being already as they are. The whole idea of bird evolution is suffering tremendous problems in the fossil "record", in the discovery of no feathers on preciously thought transitional forms, with the fall of Archaeopteryx, there was even a forgery put into peer review, and we are finding more and more that the dinosaurs would be at a lethal disadvantage and preferred for natural selection if they were transitioning to birds.

I won't hold my breath because those scientists won't become Bible-Believing anything. This is what I said in my opening post, what I fear is actually what they will become in response to the loss of Darwinism.

Ok well Gods constant causal support is guided evolution, not random mutation. Random mutation is going to need God because it isn't enough to produce another species. If God is guiding it, it's not a closed system. Even if he is acting as "Maxwells Demon" it is an open system as Maxwells Demon has been proved an energy in the laboratory. By Christ this world is not a closed system. A closed system is incompatible with Christianity, as it means God does nothing, and did nothing.

Pitabread
Yes, all of the major ones were. All that remained were the "transitional" hominids, which we now have far less off. Darwinism lives by force of mouth.

 

[Job 33:6]

If the fossil succession did not exist, then, as the question goes, why do we not find rabbits in the cambrian?

People try to discredit archaeopteryx, but it, along with other bird-theropod dinosaur fossils shares traits of both dinosaur and bird. People try to discredit fossils like tiktaalik, but it is a fish with legs. Sahelanthropus is a mix of both human and primitive ape. And Archaeopteryx wasnt found in the cambrian or pleistocene. Tiktaalik wasnt found in the cenozoic or mesozoic. Sahelanthropus wasnt found in the devonian etc. These fossils have been found where we would anticipate them being. Hence why people could get in a helicopter and could fly to the middle of nowhere in canada, dig down to fresh water rock and found tiktaalik. They didnt catch a helicopter to go look at mesozoic fossils in western pa, nor did the chinese go to devonian rock to find archaeopteryx etc.

And with that succession, you have a correlation with genetic similarities in living things.

What is there to debate? It just is what it is.

Some try to discredit radioactive dating, but when you have various labs independently verifying the results of other labs, it is what it is.

 

[xianghua]

That's an odd argument. Science is kind of based on the idea that if a "better" explanation comes along, that's the one you go with. It's a pretty central part of the whole process. Once you learn that disease is caused by germs and not plague-demons, you stop trying to ward off the plague-demons with magic flutes and start washing your hands instead. Works better. Also, I don't know of anyone who has ever described evolution as "beloved" before. Accepted, yes. Beloved? Uh-uh. That would be akin to describing electron orbitals as "beloved"

Personally, I just find them kind of nice.

as for the batter explanation: the best explanation is that nature need a designer. like the best explanation for the existence of a self replicating organic robot is that it was made by a designer.

 

[Mountainmike]

You are entirely incorrect. I extremely dislike the idea of Trump being president, I still accept the evidence he is.



Change it? No. Show it to be completely false? You betcha!

Your first remark is facile in the context I stated it.

I compared the wholesale lack of evidence for abiogenesis which is widely accepted despite being an extraordinary claim. Yet I see nothing stating how silly it is on skedpdic.

I compared that with the substantial amount of forensic evidence for eucharistic miracles, which is therefore proper science, yet skepdic calls it silly!

Why the double standards? The difference is atheists "Like" abiogenesis, it follows their wholly unsubstantiated paradigm of life as a biochemical accident evolved. They dislike eucharistic miracles because of theistic overtones, so ignore the science, and as you did claim it to be false without a shred of evidence against it.

The atheist faith is clearly strong, for its adherents to ignore science as they do and prefer pure conjecture with abiogenesis. Which is a name they give to a gaping hole in their conjecture on life, it certainly does not even qualify as a hypothesis, let alone theory.

In forensic and scientific evidence for origin of lifeform, the score is STILL abiogenesis 0, life from eucharistic miracles (at least) 5

 

[Subduction Zone]

But he had no scientific basis for that conjecture about abiogenesis, for which there is not even a conjectured pathway nor any valid hypothesis. It is a belief formed of necessity to fill the gaping hole of evidence in their assumption of the development of life, nothing else. Abiogenesis is a word used to describe a hole in a theory of life, not the existence of a theory!

There is more than one "conjectured pathway" and there are hypotheses of abiogenesis. They are not developed to the point of being a theory yet. And there is no "theory of life". No one has ever made that claim except for those that do not understand what they are talking about. Of course there is evidence for abiogenesis which puts it miles ahead of creationism which has only the claim of magic.

Thats the thing about atheists. Their standards of acceptable evidence change completely according to whether they "Like" an idea or dislike it. Which is the complete antithesis of science.

That is simply not true. First off we are not talking about atheists, we are talking about scientists. Some of them are even <gasp!> Christians. The standard of acceptable evidence is clear. Sadly creationists run away from that standard.

There is far more forensic evidence for life from eucharistic miracles , in the form of detected white cells, so if they are interested in evidence they should study those instead. Even the silliest of rantings (and they set new standards for that!) on non science websites from csicorp, to rationalwiki to skepdic, cant change what I said.

Nope, there is not a lick of evidence for that nonsense. And all of the sites that you listed beat the tar out of any of your favorite sites. Probably why you hate them so much.

In the evidence stakes the score is: Forensic evidence for life from eucharistic miracles 5, abiogenesis big fat 0.

LOL! Oh my! No, you are just fooling yourself right now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ha! I didn't see that post, so I would have to repeat my request a 3rd time, for you to back up what I thought was a pretty serious claim, you know, that request you conveniently skipped and I mentioned at the end of my post before last. You claim others are dishonest for not backing claims, so lets see how you make out here.

Kenny, until you learn what evidence is you are in no position to even ask. I am more than willing to help you to learn what evidence is, but you have lost all credibility because you have rejected evidence when it has been given to you.

Another reason this is important is you often make baseless little claims like that, and I agree, it's very dishonest, so you need to be called on them on occasion.

Whoa! I never make "baseless claims". After we have our discussion on evidence you can ask whatever questions you wish. And once again here is the simple yes no question that scares you so much lately. You know what the right answer is, let's see if you can answer it:

Is the fossil record evidence for the theory of evolution?