proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Justatruthseeker]

You're not actually explaining how any of those things are evidence of common design. You haven't even bothered to define what common design is.

Instead of just saying "How about the fact that all things are made of common materials", you need to provide a proper explanation. This means defining a scientific model including providing a base definition for what common design is, defining any constraints associated with the model, and subsequent hypotheses (predictions) and then testing of those hypotheses.

And consequently, you'd be able to respond with, "Common materials are evidence of common design because..." and then you continue with an actual explanation detailing how and why common materials are evidence for common design.

So try again. I'll wait.

Got any evidence everything isn’t made up of the exact same protons, neutrons and electrons, from dust to man? Then why assume divergent evolution instead of common design? Apparently everything is made from the same common elements, not divergent random stuff.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You see snideness? That's odd. There wasn't any, but based on what you saw and believed, what other conclusions are there?

So you say, but game players always say it’s the other guy......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That would certainly explain your position. But in science, in order to replace a currently accepted theory, you must have a proposal which explains the currently available data better than the existing theory. "Design" explains nothing. It is a way of saying "God did it," nothing more. But God could have done evolution, too, so what's the point?

But you don’t see evolution. You don’t see the Asian or African evolving into the Afro-Asian. You don’t see the Husky or Mastiff evolving into the Chinook. I don’t see the current theory even coming close to the observable data, so why believe in one that is clearly in error?

 

[Skreeper]

You don’t see the Asian or African evolving into the Afro-Asian.

We already have Afro-Asians. You do know that, right?

Afro-Asians - Wikipedia

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We already have Afro-Asians. You do know that, right?

Afro-Asians - Wikipedia

Yep, and I know how they got here, from Asian and African mating, not from those evolving into them. Your point being? Besides trying to sidestep the issue of how they came about?

 

[Skreeper]

Besides trying to sidestep the issue of how they came about?

Oh don't worry I wasn't gonna sidestep anything. Was just trying to understand the point you were trying to make with the racial categorizations.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I’d say I am alive, bacteria are alive, but rocks aren’t.

Those are examples; I asked for a definition. You understand the difference?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh don't worry I wasn't gonna sidestep anything. Was just trying to understand the point you were trying to make with the racial categorizations.

I thought it obvious. Despite every Asian born with mutations over countless generations, they remain Asian. A new race only came about from interbreeding.

It’s only a racial category because for some reason they don’t classify humans like they do all the other animals (except dogs), even if we are supposed to be nothing but evolved animals....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Those are examples; I asked for a definition. You understand the difference?

Science is still out on that, it’s being debated to this day....

 

[gaara4158]

Why?

Lol, why? Because he needs to substantiate his claim.

You have to prove your positive, not expect us to prove the negative. If you wish to go that route then by your standard, empirically prove God did not create everything in 6 days and made it appear old. But here is the problem. Your side always operates under double standards. Not level playing field. Employs faulty reasoning only show an absence of logic classes or not learning anything since yours is a schoolboy error. One set of rules for your home team and another for the visitors.

I'm glad you see the massive error in making a claim then asking the other to prove you wrong. Unfortunately for you, it's not me who's doing that. See, I'm not positively claiming that irreducible complexity doesn't exist in biology. I'm merely responding skeptically to his claims of irreducible complexity, since to my knowledge it has never been demonstrated. The positive he has to prove is that whatever structure he's talking about is in fact irreducibly complex. That includes proving that its components could not have served other purposes in earlier generations. That's what irreducible complexity is, there's no getting around that. He has to show it, or he doesn't know it.

It won't work. They will dismiss you as a crackpot. Facts exist to be ignored or twisted on your side. It is easy to do reducible complexity experiments. Just take your boat and motor out to the middle of the lake and pull the spark plug and wait for natural processes to compensate for the missing part. The motor will not operate absent the spark plug. You can do it with your lawn mower if you don't want to be stuck out in the middle of a lake.

This response is unsurprising given your misappropriation of the burden of proof above. First off, sometimes when you're constantly getting dismissed as a crackpot, it's because you're a crackpot. Second, no one's claiming irreducible complexity doesn't exist in mechanical engineering. That's a bizarre point to make. What remains to be shown is whether it exists in biology. I'm still waiting for your evidence, which you should now understand you are indeed responsible for showing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Lol, why? Because he needs to substantiate his claim.


I'm glad you see the massive error in making a claim then asking the other to prove you wrong. Unfortunately for you, it's not me who's doing that. See, I'm not positively claiming that irreducible complexity doesn't exist in biology. I'm merely responding skeptically to his claims of irreducible complexity, since to my knowledge it has never been demonstrated. The positive he has to prove is that whatever structure he's talking about is in fact irreducibly complex. That includes proving that its components could not have served other purposes in earlier generations. That's what irreducible complexity is, there's no getting around that. He has to show it, or he doesn't know it.


This response is unsurprising given your misappropriation of the burden of proof above. First off, sometimes when you're constantly getting dismissed as a crackpot, it's because you're a crackpot. Second, no one's claiming irreducible complexity doesn't exist in mechanical engineering. That's a bizarre point to make. What remains to be shown is whether it exists in biology. I'm still waiting for your evidence, which you should now understand you are indeed responsible for showing.

He did show that, but for some reason I’m the only one that responded to his post.

 

[gaara4158]

here is one example:

Construction of a minimum-size functional flagellin of Escherichia coli.

they check how many amino acids required to the protein function. they found that most of its structure required for its basic function.

there is also an interesting experiment on the flaglellum with the same result:

"Minnich testified that he tested whether the bacterial flagella was irreducibly complex by mutating the genes that built the 35 required components of the structure. He testified that whenever the gene(s) for each of the 35 components were mutated, the bacterium lacked motility.[5] Based on this scientific research, Minnich reasoned that bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex beyond the 35 essential components."

Scott Minnich - Wikipedia

again: just like the car example.

Yeah, you bring that one up a lot. Unfortunately, it's not as helpful to your case as you seem to think. It's true that once the flagellum is pared down to its essential 40-odd proteins it can't be broken down any further and still function as a flagellum. But what I've been trying to explain is that those proteins could have served other purposes before the structure evolved. And in fact, that's exactly what we see:

The best studied flagellum, of the E. coli bacterium, contains around 40 different kinds of proteins. Only 23 of these proteins, however, are common to all the other bacterial flagella studied so far. Either a “designer” created thousands of variants on the flagellum or, contrary to creationist claims, it is possible to make considerable changes to the machinery without mucking it up.

What’s more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.

It has also been shown that some of the components that make up a typical flagellum – the motor, the machinery for extruding the “propeller” and a primitive directional control system – can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins.

Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex

Scott Minnich - Wikipedia

again: just like the car example.

You don't need to keep drawing comparisons to cars for irreducible complexity. I know what irreducible complexity is. The point of contention is whether it exists in biology, not whether it's a real term.

 

[gaara4158]

He did show that, but for some reason I’m the only one that responded to his post.

I don't always read every post between those quoting me and the latest, which one are you referring to?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't always read every post between those quoting me and the latest, which one are you referring to?

Well from your post above you read it, then dismissed the fact that as soon as any of the genes leading to mobility were mutated, mobility was lost. So without all functioning together at once, they are useless each on its ow.

It’s not his responsibility to prove they have functions without the others. He did that. It’s your responsibility to show they have a function other than together, which the experiment invalidates. As soon as one changed, all mobility was lost. So without all of them working together in concert, they had no function of mobility.

Without all working together at once, the organism was incapable of movement and would lead to extinction, not something better.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So you've evolved new species of crustaceans?

We shall see, the experiment hasn't started yet. Though, saying I evolved them is a poor choice of wording. More like I am setting up conditions so that the experimental population of Triops will evolve much faster than the control group.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So when you go out on a date how do you tell the wolves and the dogs apart?

Assuming you want to include dog breeds that greatly resemble wolves, one of the easiest ways to tell them apart without checking their insides or even getting to close is the head size to body size ratio. Wolf heads are much larger in comparison to their body size than dogs. Their brains are also much larger, and they are far more intelligent than dogs are. Due to differences in body structure, when a wolf runs, its back remains perfectly flat, whereas a dog's back seems to bob up and down as they run. All this and more from here Differences Between Wolves and Dogs | Mission: Wolf

Also, does your scenario imply I am dating a wolf/dog? I don't see otherwise how it could connect to the rest of the sentence, and the implied bestiality disturbs me.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We shall see, the experiment hasn't started yet. Though, saying I evolved them is a poor choice of wording. More like I am setting up conditions so that the experimental population of Triops will evolve much faster than the control group.

You mean like dogs versus deer that we don’t interfere with? I agree your interbreeding for certain traits will bring about variation within the Kind.

But let’s face it, won’t it be what you admit is a subjective determination that decides whether they become new species, or merely subspecies within that species? After all, it’s that subjective determination that we disagree on.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You mean like dogs versus deer that we don’t interfere with? I agree your interbreeding for certain traits will bring about variation within the Kind.

Oh, actually, I have a restriction that prevents me from being likely to just luck out and have lots of variation in the first generation. I only have 50 eggs to start with, and they all come from the same breeder. Given that they were all very likely collected from the same tank, this greatly restricts the initial gene pool, even if I am lucky and all 50 eggs hatch. The majority of the variation in the final experimental and control groups will be by new mutations.

But let’s face it, won’t it be what you admit is a subjective determination that decides whether they become new species, or merely subspecies within that species?

The species label is somehwhat subjective to begin with, which is why I am not going to determine if the species barrier has been crossed independently. However, I am going to have a few members of the control and experimental population have their genes sequenced, to get a more objective look on the degree of difference between the two.

 

[pitabread]

Got any evidence everything isn’t made up of the exact same protons, neutrons and electrons, from dust to man? Then why assume divergent evolution instead of common design? Apparently everything is made from the same common elements, not divergent random stuff.

Answering a question with a question is poor discussion form. rjs330 keeps asserting that certain things are evidence for 'common design', I'm asking him to explain why. So far he is failing to do so.

If you want to have a crack at it, then by all means go for it. But I'm not going to hold my breath for explanation....

 

[gaara4158]

Well from your post above you read it, then dismissed the fact that as soon as any of the genes leading to mobility were mutated, mobility was lost. So without all functioning together at once, they are useless each on its ow.

NO. STOP. WRONG. PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY. You don't get to conclude that they're useless. They just don't function as a flagellum anymore once those proteins are removed. This objection is so old Darwin himself responded to it the 6th edition of Origin of Species by emphasizing the importance of change of function in evolution.

Here's a link for further reading; if you can find something that's not addressed in here, be my guest. Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

It’s not his responsibility to prove they have functions without the others. He did that. It’s your responsibility to show they have a function other than together, which the experiment invalidates. As soon as one changed, all mobility was lost. So without all of them working together in concert, they had no function of mobility.

As I explained earlier, mobility isn't the issue here. Function is. As long as those proteins served some other function before being a part of a structure that provides mobility, there's no irreducible complexity to be found in the E. Coli bacteria. This is explained in my other response and in the link I've posted above. I really need you to understand this before we move on, otherwise we're going to be talking in circles.