Some random discussion on evolution...

[HitchSlap]

Have you seen my Apple Challenge?

This is special pleading, and is a logical fallacy.

The challenge I issued some time ago to get unbelievers to admit no evidence would be generated?

I understand your motivations. You'd like to continue to believe something that no rational person, apprised of the facts, should accept.

They were smart enough to avoid answering it.

Most people who avoid snake oil salesmen usually are.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is special pleading, and is a logical fallacy.

So rather than admit no evidence would be generated by an act of creatio ex nihilo, you'd rather consider it special pleading?

I understand your motivations. You'd like to continue to believe something that no rational person, apprised of the facts, should accept.

Fair enough. Then by all means feel free to tell me what evidence I should believe?

Plasma cloud? ion trail? time crystals? microwave background? what is it I'm overlooking?

Most people who avoid snake oil salesmen usually are.

That's nice. Do you have an answer to my challenge?

 

[HitchSlap]

So rather than admit no evidence would be generated by an act of creatio ex nihilo,

You can't define something into existence.

you'd rather consider it special pleading?Fair enough.

Honest interlocutors avoid logical fallacies.

Then by all means feel free to tell me what evidence I should believe?

Reason is not something that lead to your beliefs, so expecting you to accept reasonable evidence would be foolish.

Plasma cloud? ion trail? time crystals? microwave background? what is it I'm overlooking?That's nice.

Let's put all available evidence into one set, and let's call it "all the evidence available," and it wouldn't matter. You have a belief, and no amount of evidence will sway you.

Do you have an answer to my challenge?

There's no point to your challenge. None of us really care what you believe your myth says, and none of us are convinced by "challenges."

 

[AV1611VET]

You have a belief, and no amount of evidence will sway you.

What evidence?

 

[HitchSlap]

What evidence?

... and circle squared.

Carry on.

 

[AV1611VET]

... and circle squared.

Carry on.

I'd like to carry with me your answer to my Apple Challenge, but I have a feeling you can't get hemoglobin from a Brassica rapa.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'd like to carry with me your answer to my Apple Challenge, but I have a feeling you can't get hemoglobin from a Brassica rapa.

Does my answering a silly challenge in any way effect reality?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does my answering a silly challenge in any way effect reality?

Effect?

As in "bring it about"?

No.

So what is it?

 

[Kylie]

Have you seen my Apple Challenge?

The challenge I issued some time ago to get unbelievers to admit no evidence would be generated?

They were smart enough to avoid answering it.

I seem to recall that it was pointed out that evidence would be created - the increased mass of the universe as the apple was created from nothing.

 

[AV1611VET]

I seem to recall that it was pointed out that evidence would be created - the increased mass of the universe as the apple was created from nothing.

Yes ... I'm the one who pointed that out; but I also pointed out that it would require knowledge beyond our capacity to acquire it on our own.

Therefore, for Occam razor's sake, I just say there isn't any.

Besides, you need a reference point for that.

Day One = n-amount of mass/energy in the universe.
Day Two = n-amount of mass/energy in the universe.
Etc.

And we don't have that information.

 

[Kylie]

Yes ... I'm the one who pointed that out; but I also pointed out that it would require knowledge beyond our capacity to acquire it on our own.

How do you figure that it's beyond our capacity?

Therefore, for Occam razor's sake, I just say there isn't any.

Besides, you need a reference point for that.

Day One = n-amount of mass/energy in the universe.
Day Two = n-amount of mass/energy in the universe.
Etc.

And we don't have that information.

No, you just need two reference points - pre-apple and post-apple.

 

[Contradiction]

.

 

[Speedwell]

And another straw man bites the dust!

 

[pitabread]

Here's more detailed explanation of why The Fact of Evolution Refutes the Theory of Evolution

Hey, you're back! Skimmed through what you wrote there, but looks like it's making all the same conceptual errors you made in the OP.

Oh well.

 

[Yttrium]

Here's more detailed explanation of why The Fact of Evolution Refutes the Theory of Evolution

Well, let's look at some things in that article.

"In order for this theory to grant such status, one has to use the scientific method of observation and experimentation and demonstrate the capability of the evolution process to produce higher life forms."

The author apparently doesn't understand how scientific theories work. Observation and experimentation are important parts of testing predictions. It is not necessary to observe and test all aspects of a scientific theory. How do you observe and test the formation of a black hole in laboratory conditions? You don't. That doesn't prevent us from having a theory about it.

"Suppose there are structures that make up the female reproductive systems, but structures that would make up the male reproductive system are missing, which means that sexual reproductive function is non-existent at this point. Now, how can this function appear only by means of evolutionary process? Well, the variation part of this process must arrange DNA so that it codes for structures that will fit female reproductive system. Once this is done sexual reproductive function will appear and the selection part of the evolution process would be able to act on it. But, can the evolution process actually produce all the microbiological and macrobiological structures to fit structures of female reproductive system?"



You don't start with a complex reproductive system for one sex and then evolve the other one. They both start from simple, primitive origins and evolve together. The author needs to learn a lot more about evolution, along with scientific theory.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Here's more detailed explanation of why The Fact of Evolution Refutes the Theory of Evolution

This is logically very poor. It attempts an argument from incredulity (which would itself be a fallacy) by claiming that certain creatures evolved "all sorts of novel functions" in "an evolutionary blink of an eye". However, this is clearly begging the question - fast or slow, evolution takes the necessary evolutionary time by definition. So he fails to achieve one fallacy by falling into another. The author may have meant "a geological blink of an eye", but that simply makes him careless, and the argument still fallacious.

This is followed by a double misunderstanding of selection pressure in the process of evolution - humans have evolved novel functionality that has facilitated adaptation to new niches, but major structural changes have not been necessary, as we can adapt to new niches through our technological creativity and flexibility. Significant evolutionary changes occur when there are significant selection pressures, i.e. survival pressures, in some direction that cannot be fully managed by flexible adaptive behaviour.

For example, on high plateaux, there may a selection pressure due to extreme cold, but the behavioural adaptation of wearing furs means it is not the strong evolutionary pressure to grow fur or blubber that it would otherwise be. OTOH, the air may have a lower concentration of oxygen, which flexible behaviour cannot easily compensate for - hence some high plateaux populations have evolved more efficient oxygen management.

Similar considerations apply to experiments on bacteria - given suitable conditions, i.e. little or no alternative, they can evolve the capability to metabolize entirely new materials, such as the byproducts of nylon manufacture. How does the author think antibiotic resistance arises?

The rest is more argument from incredulity, using an imaginary keyless lock 'straw man' - could the author not find a realistic biological example?

 

[pitabread]

You don't start with a complex reproductive system for one sex and then evolve the other one. They both start from simple, primitive origins and evolve together. The author needs to learn a lot more about evolution, along with scientific theory.

Reading the author's argument, they don't seem at all familiar with the biology of reproduction. Especially when it comes to organisms capable of both asexual and sexual reproduction. The idea that organisms much independently evolve sexes in order to sexually reproduce just doesn't make any sense.

 

[pitabread]

Here's more detailed explanation of why The Fact of Evolution Refutes the Theory of Evolution

Just as a note, but this claim is clearly not correct:

After an enormous number of evolutionary variations, humans are anatomically, morphologically and physiologically practically identical without any traces of novel functions starting to develop. ​

An example of the first steps of novel adaptation is the The Bajau people in Indonesia: Indonesian divers have evolved bigger spleens to hunt underwater

This is a wonderful example of how biological differentiation can lead to greater adaptation for different environments (e.g. semi-aquatic in this case) and what the first steps of transition to aquatic adaption would look like.

I'm sure this will be casually dismissed all the same by creationists, but ce la vie.

*********************************************

Also, this is incorrect:

The same goes for the supposed whale evolution. Given the new fossil find of the oldest antarctic whale (John Roach, 2011), these creatures must have evolved in just 4 million years.
​

The date of the whale fossil in question was revised in the published paper and that 4 million year period is not correct. I remember bringing this up in the earlier discussion; I suppose you missed it.

 

[chuckpeterson]

The Fact of Evolution Proves the Theory of Evolution Wrong

Since this discussion is all based on the hypothetical lets hypothesize a bit more.

If the creators (assuming there is such a thing); and the creator wanted his creation to have all the knowledge needed to flourish and survive in this environment; he/she/it would require that they learn from experience and from this experience they would learn how to survive.

No matter how you cut it or slice it; this learning process is called evolution.

And through evolution we are what we are today

 

[Contradiction]

.