Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[loveofourlord]

Ok, there are theories on how the planets form, there are theories about galaxy formation, there are theories of how the solar system was formed but these are theories and some of these theories most favored for planet formation are being questioned even now due to new discoveries. We have no real evidence for any of it. There is supportive evidence for some parts of the explanations but as a whole no we don't have evidence of these things happening naturally.

First of all, you are very strong on assumptions. It is not a lack of understanding evolution that I hold the positions I hold. I am not even sure if you know what my position is and I know that you don't know what I know about the subject.

Science doesn't "know" and neither do the scientists that actually do the work of Science. WE have plenty of evidence for evolution as defined. What we don't have evidence for are the claims that are not based on evidence but on assertion.

Once again you make assertions and assumptions. I have researched the subject extensively and have kept updated on new developments. You are using a blanket explanation for everything from Abiogenesis to complex molecular machines rather evidence for specific questions. Evolution is true is not evidence for abiogenesis. Evolution is true is not evidence for molecular machines in all living organisms.

No we don't know the processes that go from "goo" to me. You seem to think we know much more than we actually do.

I am ignoring nothing. It is a story, a story that we have had now for nearly 200 years and we are no closer to providing evidence for it than when it was first supposed.

Well first of all I keep saying there is no evidence because there is no evidence, secondly claiming 95% of scientists disagree with me is using a logical fallacy, which isn't evidence for something anyway.

So we don't see acresion discs of other solar systems forming along with planets and such in them? We havn't found planets that seem to have simular situation as our moon? We can't see early galaxies forming in deep field images? the evidence is there, and being verified the more taht we search, are still in our infancy of being able to see things beyond our solar system, btut the things we do discover are teaching is alot and confirming what we already knew.

I don't know your position, but your often aruging things that arn't part of evolution, or saying no evidence for things we have evidence. It's hard to take your knowledge of evolution as correct when your gettiing things we already know wrong.

Name some assertions that we don't have evidence for lets start there. Because I've provided evidence, and your the one often aserting, "Thats not evidence." it's not evidence when we see bacteria evolve a novel way to fix a problem and asert things that were not there, it was back in response to the article I posted about bacteria repairing the flagellum in a novel way, retrofiting and mutating two genes to work.

Not even sure what you mean by molecular machines, is this another equivication that because it's like a machine it requires a machine maker? An anology is not in fact exactly like something else.

And the fact you think were no closer to provoding evidence, shows you know nothing about evolution, and just making assertions, when you dimiss all evidence and go, "that doesn't count" of course you won't see it, but yet again, majority of scientists in the field that be famous for disproving evolution reject your claims. Why is it that you have found some error that all these others that have been researching it, including Christians that be quiet happy to accept your concepts of evolution if they were true reject your claims? Is it possible your doing nothing more then the dunning kruger effect?

And noi it's not falicy if you don't know how falicies work you might not want to use them, the one your likly thinking of, is appeal to authority but it's not an appeal to authority falicy if they are a expert on the subject, it's an appeal to authority falicy if you said, a eletrical 95% of electrical engineers reject evolution because they arn't experts in the subject and unqualified to determine what is or isn't evolution. And yes it does show something and evidence, otherwise all of science be rejected because just because 99% of scientists think X doesn't make it real." wrong, if that many accept something, you need to have strong hard evidence to show they they are wrong, and not understanding a subject isn't a response.

 

[florida2]

I asked you a question, and I am shoving words in your mouth?????

You started with something along the lines of 'Are you saying that...' followed by a topic that hadn't been mentioned. I feel that's trying to shove words into my mouth - I guess that wasn't your intention but that's just how it came across.

Ah, poor examples...not so much. IF we didn't have any record of the pyramids and they were just there without any form of verification we would still know they were humanly designed and the same is true of the watch. However, we don't just look at the watches outside and think it looks designed but how that watch is structured and the necessary elements that allow it to function would be recognized as design even if we found one on Mars.

'If' is the very big word there. The fact is that we do have records of the pyramids. As well as records we can determine exactly which tools and methods were used in the construction of pyramids and watches and we could, if so inclined, create copies nowadays. With the idea of intelligent design in life, that isn't possible.

I am not asking for information I lack. I was not involved in any research, but I have researched it extensively. Saying that science science will find an answer is rather begging the question.

Sorry, but that's how science works. It's about looking at the stuff that isn't known and trying to figure it out - sometimes that takes time. There is stuff that simply isn't known, like the exact evolutionary origins of cells. People are working on it. I really don't know what else you want me to say.

Remember that this is not the same thing as we are discussing. You might like to push it off to that but it is not the same and no biologist thinks that way either.

I'm delighted no biologist thinks that a subjective appearance of something is evidence for something.

You were referring to objective empirical evidence, I believe.

You can't build a scientific theory around quotes. It's built on data which can be presented, analysed and discussed. Have a look at some scientific papers and see whether they are built on data or quotes from some scientists.

That is the straw man version of ID. It isn't a true representation of the science behind ID. It is also not a position from ignorance but exactly the opposite. It is with the new technologies that we have that we can actually observe the objective evidence of human like design in living forms.

You haven't shown any objective evidence of ID (please spare us the copy'n'paste quotes again). You need data, measurements, statistical analysis - all the things that go to making a scientific theory. I haven't seen any of that yet for ID. You haven't presented a scientific way of measuring ID to produce useful data.

I am not worried in the least. I think that we are seeing a broadening affect of ID into the scientific mainstream. Time will tell.

In that case progress and discovery will cease. As soon as a problem is reached that those scientists aren't able to figure out, they'd just shove the supernatural in there (I use supernatural to incorporate all religions) and leave it there. The things that Newton put down to God took another 150 years to be figured out, but they were. I'd much rather scientists actually try to continue to make discoveries and solve the problems they face when trying to move beyond their current knowledge level, rather than resorting to ID to solve every problem.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So we don't see acresion discs of other solar systems forming along with planets and such in them? We havn't found planets that seem to have simular situation as our moon? We can't see early galaxies forming in deep field images? the evidence is there, and being verified the more taht we search, are still in our infancy of being able to see things beyond our solar system, btut the things we do discover are teaching is alot and confirming what we already knew.

Oh please, provide the evidence that other solar systems are forming alone with planets and such in them. I would like to see the evidence that galaxies are forming.

I don't know your position, but your often aruging things that arn't part of evolution, or saying no evidence for things we have evidence. It's hard to take your knowledge of evolution as correct when your gettiing things we already know wrong.

What I am seeing is that you really don't know what you think you know about the subject. If you are not prepared to give evidence to support your position, then I will be pointing that out.

Name some assertions that we don't have evidence for lets start there. Because I've provided evidence, and your the one often aserting, "Thats not evidence." it's not evidence when we see bacteria evolve a novel way to fix a problem and asert things that were not there, it was back in response to the article I posted about bacteria repairing the flagellum in a novel way, retrofiting and mutating two genes to work.

Please post this article again. I don't remember seeing it.

Not even sure what you mean by molecular machines, is this another equivication that because it's like a machine it requires a machine maker? An anology is not in fact exactly like something else.

You don't know what I mean by molecular machines but I am the one that doesn't understand evolution...priceless. Here is the molecular machine of the Bacterial Flagellum

And the fact you think were no closer to provoding evidence, shows you know nothing about evolution, and just making assertions, when you dimiss all evidence and go, "that doesn't count" of course you won't see it, but yet again, majority of scientists in the field that be famous for disproving evolution reject your claims. Why is it that you have found some error that all these others that have been researching it, including Christians that be quiet happy to accept your concepts of evolution if they were true reject your claims? Is it possible your doing nothing more then the dunning kruger effect?

I don't even know what you are talking about here.

And noi it's not falicy if you don't know how falicies work you might not want to use them, the one your likly thinking of, is appeal to authority but it's not an appeal to authority falicy if they are a expert on the subject, it's an appeal to authority falicy if you said, a eletrical 95% of electrical engineers reject evolution because they arn't experts in the subject and unqualified to determine what is or isn't evolution. And yes it does show something and evidence, otherwise all of science be rejected because just because 99% of scientists think X doesn't make it real." wrong, if that many accept something, you need to have strong hard evidence to show they they are wrong, and not understanding a subject isn't a response.

It is called argument from popularity or Ad populum:

1. In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

 

[loveofourlord]

Oh please, provide the evidence that other solar systems are forming alone with planets and such in them. I would like to see the evidence that galaxies are forming.

What I am seeing is that you really don't know what you think you know about the subject. If you are not prepared to give evidence to support your position, then I will be pointing that out.

Please post this article again. I don't remember seeing it.

You don't know what I mean by molecular machines but I am the one that doesn't understand evolution...priceless. Here is the molecular machine of the Bacterial Flagellum

I don't even know what you are talking about here.

It is called argument from popularity or Ad populum:

1. In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

I know what that is, it's not a 'machine' in the way your using it, it's a part of the bacteria, again like I said equivication, your trying to claim one thing is something else. We have good evidence for how it formed, maybe you should look it up.

On the solar system here is one image that is EXACTLY as we predicted it would be.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...ver-high-resolution-image-of-planet-formation

You can see the star, the acretion disk of material, and the gaps where planets are starting to form.

And it's not a falicy to say majority of experts agree with X proposition or NOTHING could ever ben accepted, because it's just a falicy, when majority of experts with the right training in a subject agree on something there is a reason for it, please understand falicies and their uses before looking silly, this is just another, "Objection." type argument. Majority of phycaists agree radition is bad, "Well thats just argument from popularity." and I'm not arguing evolution is true because majority of scientists accept it, I'm asking you to explain without ad hoc reasoning why majority of experts in the appropriate fields accept evolution. If you were correct you would expect people to agree with you.

Remember abssence of evidence is evidence of absence when you would expect evidence. AKA For you to be right and all scientists to be wrong you need a reason a explnation for why you have found something that 95%+ of scientists in the proper subjects have some how missed, or ignored, especially those that would want your beliefs to be right.

Also careful of the falicy falicy, you thinking it's a falicy doesn't make it wrong, you also have to show why it is wrong.

Please stop equviciating things, when people say it's like a machine, or it's a 'biological' machine they arn't saying it's some machine that was built for a purpose by some being or such, again it's called a ANALOGY please look up this word it will save you alot of time looking foolish and save me and others in this topic alot of headaches.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I know what that is, it's not a 'machine' in the way your using it, it's a part of the bacteria, again like I said equivication, your trying to claim one thing is something else. We have good evidence for how it formed, maybe you should look it up.

On the solar system here is one image that is EXACTLY as we predicted it would be.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...ver-high-resolution-image-of-planet-formation

You can see the star, the acretion disk of material, and the gaps where planets are starting to form.

Awesome. However, they believe it to be a planet but they are still not sure (fairly certain but not 100%) as it can't be observed. It isn't as they predicted and as usual that is what is always said but in fact the star is very young and was not expected let alone predicted to have planetary bodies.

And it's not a falicy to say majority of experts agree with X proposition or NOTHING could ever ben accepted, because it's just a falicy, when majority of experts with the right training in a subject agree on something there is a reason for it, please understand falicies and their uses before looking silly, this is just another, "Objection." type argument. Majority of phycaists agree radition is bad, "Well thats just argument from popularity." and I'm not arguing evolution is true because majority of scientists accept it, I'm asking you to explain without ad hoc reasoning why majority of experts in the appropriate fields accept evolution. If you were correct you would expect people to agree with you.

This time I misunderstood you. I thought we were talking about something we didn't have evidence for, I was not aware that you were talking about evolution as a whole. I know why the majority of experts believe that evolution happens, in fact, MOST creationists do as well. Few Christians or creationists believe that God had nothing to do with the process of evolution.

Remember abssence of evidence is evidence of absence when you would expect evidence. AKA For you to be right and all scientists to be wrong you need a reason a explnation for why you have found something that 95%+ of scientists in the proper subjects have some how missed, or ignored, especially those that would want your beliefs to be right.

What? This really doesn't make sense to me. There are experts that agree with me. There are probably more who don't voice their own personal beliefs.

Please stop equviciating things, when people say it's like a machine, or it's a 'biological' machine they arn't saying it's some machine that was built for a purpose by some being or such, again it's called a ANALOGY please look up this word it will save you alot of time looking foolish and save me and others in this topic alot of headaches.

Many scientists are doing reverse engineering based on the concepts you are denying.

 

[loveofourlord]

Awesome. However, they believe it to be a planet but they are still not sure (fairly certain but not 100%) as it can't be observed. It isn't as they predicted and as usual that is what is always said but in fact the star is very young and was not expected let alone predicted to have planetary bodies.


This time I misunderstood you. I thought we were talking about something we didn't have evidence for, I was not aware that you were talking about evolution as a whole. I know why the majority of experts believe that evolution happens, in fact, MOST creationists do as well. Few Christians or creationists believe that God had nothing to do with the process of evolution.





What? This really doesn't make sense to me. There are experts that agree with me. There are probably more who don't voice their own personal beliefs.


Many scientists are doing reverse engineering based on the concepts you are denying.

where are they? look up project steve, a tongue in cheek response to something the discover institute did where they got a list of thousands of names of people in appropriate fields named steve that accept evolution as science calls it, micro, macro and all.

And on the solar system, so it turns out that solar systems can appear earlier then thought ='s solar systems don't form? Of course it can be observed, that image is exactly what was predicted decades ago, heck when I was in elementry school 30 some odd years ago that very image was in the text books, only thing missing is the dots that are the planets, but if they are still fairly young, wich as the article says they are, and given by the amount of the disk still left they are too small to see yet, but they are there within the black rings, wich repersent the planets gravity pulling in the material of the disk. And thats not the only one we can see, thats just the best image we have of one, and will continue to get better.

If thats not a solar system forming as predicted over 30+ years go what is it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is simply untrue.

You should read the book that term is found in.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It isn't that we don't understand it is that you don't understand.

So, you deny that GA's simulate the evolutionary process?

It's a yes/no question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't know if you realize it or not but the information in one human molecule of DNA is equivalent to filling 1,000 books or million-page encyclopedia. That is a lot of information. It holds instructions for all elements of life.

Yes once, I know it's a ginormous molecule.

Like I said, it doesn't matter if it's 8 bits in length or a gazillion gigabytes.

Information:
the process of informing and the act of receiving...
Data that is (1) accurate and timely, (2) specific and organized for a purpose, (3) presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance, and (4) can lead to an increase in understanding and decrease in uncertainty.

It's funny, because this definition of information doesn't apply to DNA.
There is no transmission of data, to start with.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How do the laws of physics exist?

Evolution theory does not explain the origins of physics.

How does the chemistry exist?

Evolution theory does not explain the origins of chemistry.

How does the planet exist?

Evolution theory does not explain the origins of planets.

How does the sun exist?

Evolution theory does not explain the origins of stars.

In other words, why does the universe exist and how did it originate with all the laws of physics, chemistry and life on this planet with the sun located exactly where it needs to be?

Evolution theory does not explain the origins of the cosmos.

Evolution theory explains the origins of diversity in living things.
In doing so, evolution theory is allowed to assume that life,the universe, the earth, the sun, chemistry and physics exists because...well.....they demonstrably do exist, so I guess it's quite fine to assume that they do!

It doesn't explain the complexity of life after life exists.

It explains how existing life grows more complex through the process of evolution.

The necessities for reproduction of that life require already complex systems and molecular machines that are themselves unexplained by evolution.

Evolution theory does not explain the origins of life.

Actually it is not argument from ignorance because it is an argument based on what we know is required for life to reproduce, it is an argument based on evidence of the life forms that first appear in our fossil evidence.

Evolution theory does not explain the origins of life.

It seems your argument is more from ignorance as you don't seem to appreciate the implications of the evidence nor the actual argument from design.

What argument from design?

Is that the part where you just state "it appears designed, therefor it is"?
And when you are asked to support that statement, you respond with "prove that it isn't design"?

As bhsmt always says... we are still waiting on your falsifiable definition of design and an objective way to test for it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You can't strip away the realities of biological evolution which is what you are doing.

I'm doing nothing of the sort.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

In the field of artificial intelligence, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural selection. This heuristic (also sometimes called a metaheuristic) is routinely used to generate useful solutions to optimization and search problems.[1] Genetic algorithms belong to the larger class of evolutionary algorithms (EA), which generate solutions to optimization problems using techniques inspired by natural evolution, such as inheritance, mutation, selection, and crossover.

 

[whois]

Like I said, it doesn't matter if it's 8 bits in length or a gazillion gigabytes.

hilarious.
you just used terminology of information technology that you swear isn't "information" at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

hilarious.
you just used terminology of information technology that you swear isn't "information" at all.

It's only hilarious if you didn't follow the conversation.

I prefixed it with "like I said"

The first time I said it, I was talking in context of a genetic algoritm, where the chromosome is stored in binary.

As I have explained already, multiple times, just because you can draw neat analogies between Y and X, it doesn't mean that Y and X are the same thing.

So yes, it doesn't matter if DNA is small or huge.
Just like it doesn't matter if the chromosome in a GA is small or huge.

The exact same principles apply.

There is heredity, mutation and fitness.

Large or small, it doesn't matter.

 

[whois]

As I have explained already, multiple times, just because you can draw neat analogies between Y and X, it doesn't mean that Y and X are the same thing.

this is even more hilarious.
this is EXACTLY what you are doing with the boxcar2d program.

 

[DogmaHunter]

this is even more hilarious.
this is EXACTLY what you are doing with the boxcar2d program.

When will you stop lying about this?

GA's simulate the process. Not the physical things subject to that process.

GA's are not "analogous" to the evolutionary process.
No, they USE the ACTUAL abstraction of the evolutionary process.

 

[The Cadet]

Information is information whether or not it is chemistry or not.

Noooooo.

"Information" as the term is used in science has a specific definition, meaning, and context. It refers to a particular way of viewing information, as described by information theory. The definition you described was not the same thing, and saying "information is information" when you're using two different definitions is a textbook equivocation fallacy, along the lines of "Feathers are light; what is light is not dark, therefore no feathers are dark". And as I and DogmaHunter keep on pointing out, the definition you want to use doesn't actually apply to DNA.

the process of informing and the act of receiving...
Data that is (1) accurate and timely, (2) specific and organized for a purpose, (3) presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance, and (4) can lead to an increase in understanding and decrease in uncertainty.

You have not demonstrated that DNA is meant to be informed or to be received and there is no reason to believe that that is the case. Ribosomes are not "receiving" DNA in the sense you imply. It's chemistry. You no more need an intelligent ribosome to read DNA than you need intelligent water molecules to participate in hydrolysis.

DNA is a code, a code that we in fact have cracked and read.

And once again, you're mangling the technical terms. DNA is not a code, we impose a code onto it. DNA is a series of nucleotide base pairs connected by deoxyribose and a phosphate group, all controlled by intricate chemistry and biomechanisms. The fact that we can impose a code onto it and get something of use says nothing about design. DNA has explicit resemblances to code, but as we've established quite firmly, looking like something or being similar to something does not make you equivalent to something. DNA has many useful analogies to code. However, by any strict scientific definition, it is not a code. We impose a code onto it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

where are they? look up project steve, a tongue in cheek response to something the discover institute did where they got a list of thousands of names of people in appropriate fields named steve that accept evolution as science calls it, micro, macro and all.

And on the solar system, so it turns out that solar systems can appear earlier then thought ='s solar systems don't form? Of course it can be observed, that image is exactly what was predicted decades ago, heck when I was in elementry school 30 some odd years ago that very image was in the text books, only thing missing is the dots that are the planets, but if they are still fairly young, wich as the article says they are, and given by the amount of the disk still left they are too small to see yet, but they are there within the black rings, wich repersent the planets gravity pulling in the material of the disk. And thats not the only one we can see, thats just the best image we have of one, and will continue to get better.

If thats not a solar system forming as predicted over 30+ years go what is it?

Ok.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So, you deny that GA's simulate the evolutionary process?

It's a yes/no question.

I have said no. Why would you need to ask? It is too simplistic, and if anything it shows how ID is necessary. How many selective probabilities were included in this program?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes once, I know it's a ginormous molecule.

Good that is one point of agreement.

Like I said, it doesn't matter if it's 8 bits in length or a gazillion gigabytes.

If it doesn't take that into account (of course it can't realistically) it is not a true reflection of evolution.

It's funny, because this definition of information doesn't apply to DNA.
There is no transmission of data, to start with.

DNA
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions for the development and function of living things.

All known cellular life and some viruses contain DNA.

The main role of DNA in the cell is the long-term storage of information.

It is often compared to a blueprint, since it contains the instructions to construct other components of the cell, such as proteins and RNA molecules.

The DNA segments that carry genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in regulating the expression of genetic information. Emphasis mine.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/dna.htm
DNA transcription...
These steps are:

1. Transcription - specialized proteins attach to the DNA strand and make a copy of the DNA sequence in the form of a molecule called messenger RNA (mRNA).
2. The genetic message is transferred outside the nucleus via mRNA.
3. Translation - Cellular machinery reads the genetic instructions in the mRNA and synthesizes proteins.

the process of informing and the act of receiving...
Data that is (1) accurate and timely, (2) specific and organized for a purpose, (3) presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance, and (4) can lead to an increase in understanding and decrease in uncertainty.

http://www.nchpeg.org/bssr/index.ph...ic-information-read-and-expressed?&Itemid=126

[/QUOTE]

 

[Oncedeceived]

Evolution theory does not explain the origins of physics.



Evolution theory does not explain the origins of chemistry.



Evolution theory does not explain the origins of planets.



Evolution theory does not explain the origins of stars.



Evolution theory does not explain the origins of the cosmos.

Very true, but it depends on all of these and all of these.

Evolution theory explains the origins of diversity in living things.
In doing so, evolution theory is allowed to assume that life,the universe, the earth, the sun, chemistry and physics exists because...well.....they demonstrably do exist, so I guess it's quite fine to assume that they do!

It explains how existing life grows more complex through the process of evolution.

Except when it becomes simpler, and except all the evidence shows complex systems were in operation at the beginning, so the complexity needed to reproduce once life existed is not explained by evolution...evolution did not evolve.

Evolution theory does not explain the origins of life.

Right and it doesn't explain how the complex systems originated after life was present.

Evolution theory does not explain the origins of life.

See above.

What argument from design?

Is that the part where you just state "it appears designed, therefor it is"?
And when you are asked to support that statement, you respond with "prove that it isn't design"?

Straw man argument.

As bhsmt always says... we are still waiting on your falsifiable definition of design and an objective way to test for it.

Yes, Dawkins took care of that and I've provided that.