Purpose of Mosquitos and other pests

[Astrid]

What explanation, other than descent with modification (evolution), can you offer for the observed facts of anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, biogeography, and palaeontology? So far as I know, the only naturalistic explanation for these facts that does not postulate some form of evolution is spontaneous generation, and that was conclusively disproved more than a hundred years ago.

It sure goes beyond what our friend so grossly
characterizes as a mere "claim".

But it's as close as anyone ever gets to offering disproof.

 

[Kylie]

Many do that.

And many don't.

Do you believe that if some of the evidence is not available to our minds, so that we are not able to fully describe, that the claim is false? Or is merely unsupported from our human empirical viewpoint?

In such a case, the claim is unsupported.

However, if the evidence required to support the claim would necessarily contradict evidence we already have, then it's safe to say that the claim must be false.

I expect you merely misspoke, here, to make your point, because "highly ordered and specific results" always result from cause. —In the case of the popcorn, several causes, every last one of which is very specific, and all but one of which is itself a result of other causes.

My point with the popcorn example was that we can get highly ordered results (specifically, the kernels being sorted by size, with the largest at the top and the smallest at the bottom) comes about because of completely random causes (specifically, the random jostling that the box experiences).

It also delineates its SCOPE. There's the difference. The theory of gravity does not attempt to describe a debatable range of inclusion.

Care to translate this out of technobabble?

If I remember correctly, my objection was not only that Darwin's data was incomplete, but faulty. But being ignorant, I suppose I should not point out the likelihood that that is still going on today, since we are at the apparent pinnacle of knowledge.

What do you think Darwin's idea was, and what part of that idea do you claim is faulty?

Those were quotes from an article to which I was directed. Not my many words. But, "yeah, evolution's different."

Therefore, special pleading.

 

[SelfSim]

Descent by modification.

The act of modification, is still theoretically consistent with 'the facts of anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, biogeography, and palaeontology', once one accepts the evidence that defines 'what a belief is'.

 

[Jonaitis]

Why did God create them? I often ponder this question

[serious question]

What do you mean? No offense, but that's like asking why God created predatory animals.

 

[AV1611VET]

The act of modification, is still theoretically consistent with 'the facts of anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, biogeography, and palaeontology', once one accepts the evidence that defines 'what a belief is'.

We started out perfect.

Then the Fall.

After that, descent by modification sets in.

By the time of Moses, you can no longer marry your sister or near kin, and it had to be made taboo.

 

[Astrid]

What explanation, other than descent with modification (evolution), can you offer for the observed facts of anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, biogeography, and palaeontology? So far as I know, the only naturalistic explanation for these facts that does not postulate some form of evolution is spontaneous generation, and that was conclusively disproved more than a hundred years ago.

No it wasnt

 

[Mark Quayle]

So there is a "Law of cause and effect" except when
there isnt.
Thats quite a law!
And you speak of "holes" in a theory.

Honestly, people in America.

Don't even know that no theory could ever be
based on a complete data set.

Yes, it is quite a law. The only thing it doesn't govern, as far as I can tell, is ITS cause. No holes there. Just the beginning, or cause, of a principle.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You do depend so on strawmen. I didnt claim you did, with or without the scrambled phrasing of it being
"not only a theory".

Do you mean it's more than a theory?
Do explain.

And of course, ignoring or not even comprehending why words like " merely" or "only" applying so poorly to scientific theories that people saying those just reveal how clueless they are.

Which is why gravity was mentioned.

You clearly did not understand the reason for it.

What was the reason for it then? If you mean, the reason for saying "Gravity is ONLY a theory", that is —I don't want to assume that is what you are referring to. If not, please enlighten the clueless.

Not that I haven't explained at length already, but yes, Gravity is a real active effective principle. The theory is wonderful, no doubt, but it is not gravity. But maybe gravity isn't what you are referring to —I don't want to assume...

 

[Astrid]

Yes, it is quite a law. The only thing it doesn't govern, as far as I can tell, is ITS cause. No holes there. Just the beginning, or cause, of a principle.

It's not a hole so much as an exception.
An exception bigger than anything in the so called " law".
A law that's a law except when it isn't.
And that's supposed to be logic.

In science if there's even one exception it's not a law.
Same as a theory is invalidated if there is even one exception

In make believe you can have whatever you want.
Except, of course, any credibility.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What explanation, other than descent with modification (evolution), can you offer for the observed facts of anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, biogeography, and palaeontology? So far as I know, the only naturalistic explanation for these facts that does not postulate some form of evolution is spontaneous generation, and that was conclusively disproved more than a hundred years ago.

Creation.

 

[Kylie]

Creation.

And how, exactly, does "creation" explain the observed facts of anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, biogeography, and palaeontology?

 

[Mark Quayle]

However, if the evidence required to support the claim would necessarily contradict evidence we already have, then it's safe to say that the claim must be false.

Doesn't seem so safe to me. Could be the evidence we already have has been mistakenly interpreted/applied. Nevertheless, I don't see a contradiction; your evidence, even if it has been correctly used, doesn't show, (to my mind, granted), young earth wrong, and certainly doesn't show the cosmological argument wrong.

My point with the popcorn example was that we can get highly ordered results (specifically, the kernels being sorted by size, with the largest at the top and the smallest at the bottom) comes about because of completely random causes (specifically, the random jostling that the box experiences).

I expect you mean 'random' to describe OUR view of it, not the facts? Every effect has a cause.

Care to translate this out of technobabble?

(Aw, c'mon, you can hurt me more than that! I can take it! You're not reading the whole thread! Learn, by example, how to defend your thesis with ad hom and scathing rebuke! If I didn't know better, I'd think you were giving me a complement!)

Certainly I care to. Let me try this: Gravity is immediately obvious. Evolution is not. Everyone agrees we have gravity. Not everyone agrees we have evolution, at least, not on the scale that Darwin proposes. The theory of gravity does not attempt to show the range of gravity's influence. It is meant to describe why or how it happens, what causes it, even what it is. The theory of evolution must support a thesis that is not obvious. It has to present the range of steps from first to last, and how and why it happens.

What do you think Darwin's idea was, and what part of that idea do you claim is faulty?

I'm not the one claiming it. I heard it on this site. No, I don't remember from whom or on what thread, but it was an evolutionist. Darwin, it was said, had several things wrong, but they don't destroy his main thesis, since more evidence has been found since then. Or something like that.

Those were quotes from an article to which I was directed. Not my many words. But, "yeah, evolution's different."

Therefore, special pleading.

(You do make me smile. You are too kind, too polite, not disparaging enough. I like you. You actually do argue, engage. Thank you.) Sadly, I can't figure out what this was about. I tried following the thread, but got lost. If I remember, I will try again later. Remind me, if it matters.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok, I found it:

MQ: But, evolution is not the same. Everyone pretty much agrees with what Gravity is, or at least what effects we can see from it. Not everyone pretty much agrees that Evolution has the breadth of effects (change) that apparently most of the scientific community claims it has, from somewhere after a pre-life chance complex molecule, to modern life-forms to include human.

MQ: Those were quotes from an article to which I was directed. Not my many words. But, "yeah, evolution's different."

Therefore, special pleading.

Now, I'm confused. What was the special pleading there?

 

[Mark Quayle]

And how, exactly, does "creation" explain the observed facts of anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, biogeography, and palaeontology?

God made it that way. Pretty cool, huh?

Occam's razor and all...

 

[SelfSim]

God made it that way. Pretty cool, huh?

Occam's razor and all...

The explanation is insufficient for gaining the necessary understanding in the respective areas. (Eg: unlike the medical sciences, the 'Creator' explanation hasn't saved millions from certain death and suffering since it was devised).

 

[Kylie]

Doesn't seem so safe to me. Could be the evidence we already have has been mistakenly interpreted/applied.

In such a case, the information we have now is likely to provide results that do not match reality, and we'd be able to see that inconsistency.

I expect you mean 'random' to describe OUR view of it, not the facts? Every effect has a cause.

I meant "random" as in "unpredictable".

If I give you the specific arrangement of the kernels in the box and tell you exactly what movements I'm going to make, could you predict the finishing location of a specific kernal?

Certainly I care to. Let me try this: Gravity is immediately obvious. Evolution is not. Everyone agrees we have gravity. Not everyone agrees we have evolution, at least, not on the scale that Darwin proposes. The theory of gravity does not attempt to show the range of gravity's influence. It is meant to describe why or how it happens, what causes it, even what it is. The theory of evolution must support a thesis that is not obvious. It has to present the range of steps from first to last, and how and why it happens.

How obvious something is has no influence on its validity.

And evolution is understood well enough to be able to make predictions.

 

[Kylie]

Ok, I found it:

MQ: But, evolution is not the same. Everyone pretty much agrees with what Gravity is, or at least what effects we can see from it. Not everyone pretty much agrees that Evolution has the breadth of effects (change) that apparently most of the scientific community claims it has, from somewhere after a pre-life chance complex molecule, to modern life-forms to include human.

MQ: Those were quotes from an article to which I was directed. Not my many words. But, "yeah, evolution's different."



Now, I'm confused. What was the special pleading there?

Special pleading because you are saying there's an exception for evolution, but you don't give a good reason why.

 

[Kylie]

God made it that way. Pretty cool, huh?

Occam's razor and all...

That tells us nothing of value.

Evolution can be used to make predictions about what will happen in certain cases. Please show me how that can be done with creationism.

 

[Shemjaza]

Those are not —to me, anyhow— typical of the arguments against modern Darwinian evolution. (Not at all saying those don't happen all the time, but...) Just for one: Reasoning of what "might be", (or from your point of view, "probably is"), is substituted for the many missing links in the progression of evolution, is it not? When I brought that up in arguing with one evolutionist, he said something to the effect of, "Well, from time to time, evolution takes a huge leap forward." I asked, "Where is the evidence of that?" He said that it was in the fossil record. Really?

Your statement is extremely vague so I can't really comment on it's detail. But your question is trivially explained by the theory.

Evolution moves at different rates due to the variation of the intensity of the pressures of the environment. This can be observed in real time on a micro scale and in models... it is also (as your conversational partner said) observable in the fossil record. The point is that variation and common ancestry is demonstrated by genetics and backed up by fossils... and the fossils demonstrate the variable rate of change over geological time.

 

[Astrid]

.