Why is evolution unbelievable?

[Papias]

Smidlee wrote:

Your picture is misleading as it shows A evolving B , then B to C to D. The way evolutionist tells it is A split off from U (U= unknown mythological creature) then later B from U , then C from U and finally D from U. The latest find would show D branches off from U before C did.

His picture is OK, though as you point out, it doesn't show all the side branches.

I don't understand why creationists have a problem with branches on evolutionary trees. I see time and again how creationists will "object" to evolution by bringing up side branches, as if those were a problem. They aren't. That's why biologists talk about these as evolutionary trees and not evolutionary flagpoles.

It's not that hard a concept - just as you have siblings and cousins, your descendants are not the same as your cousins descendants - and that still means that all of your are descended from your great-grandfather.

Papias

 

[Papias]

Hi Resha-

Sorry for the delay. Busy stuff.

Originally Posted by Papias

OK, then why do you not accept the idea that God knitted us together in our wombs, as the text literally reads?

Context. It does not follow that if one passage is interpreted literally all must be interpreted literally.


​

Of course not - I've never suggested that. In the case of Genesis, there are plenty of indications that the text is not to be read literally. Which ones are you saying exist in the psalm?

Originally Posted by Papias

How about this attempt at it? Approved statements of position made by the church are "Official". "Doctrine" needs to be present in a creed.

​

The distinction is still not clear in terms of whether a church would expect its members to adhere to one or both of an official position and a doctrinal creed.

It would seem to me that the church expects all member to adhere to both, with the adherence to the creed being required for membership, and that adherence to the official position being an expectation.

Originally Posted by Papias

Um, yes they did. Finding significant mismatch between phylogenic trees would certainly be evidence against UCA. Finding fossils that don't fit the phylogenic tree or established histories would certainly be evidence against UCA. And so on with most of the peices of evidence in 29+ and the papers I listed.

Again, this is the very issue discussed with regard to falsification tests. If a mismatch were found between trees what would biologists question? The integrity of the data or the theory?

They would confirm the data and run to get their Nobel prize.

It is almost exclusively the former - for science in general, not just for biology.

Um, no. Science works by the testing of theories, if the data hold up to examination, and they contradict theory, then it is an exciting and happy occaision. Myself and many others here have experience in actual research, and we'd love to find some reliable, repeatable data that contradicts theory.

If they are indeed questioning a theory, they must articulate how they are focusing on that particular theory and excluding other involved theories. I saw no such thing.

Because the data didn't contradict theory. You haven't shown any data that contradicted theory. You can't expect a biologist to say that they found evidence against a theory when all they found was that the test itself is not useable.

I haven't reviewed your reference recently, but my recollection is that they were discussing the former (data), not the latter (theory). If I am wrong, please cite from the papers. I would be happy to use these as examples of biologists questioning UCA (or phylogenetic trees) per your affirmation, but I thought you were arguing the opposite.

As I pointed out, they found that the data supported the theory.

Originally Posted by Papias

You can treat them as independant events because if one were to think that their methods are wrong, then they give random answers, and thus their conclusions are independent.

Random answers do not automatically follow from a wrong method. Improper methods can produce very consistent results. There is a statistical test for independence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indepen...ability_theory)

Sure there are, but they are only needed when the data can be logically related. When you are talking about two different, unrelated ways of testing something, it's silly to think that they'd be connected. For instance, in looked at, say, skull shape and variations in the gene for lactase production - one doesn't logically cause the other.

Originally Posted by Papias

Because your page linked to is not applicable.

It's very applicable. Remember that the data must be statistically independent. If you add a new data point, and that data point can be incorporated with existing data (i.e. it is not independent), it merely becomes part of the set.

But as I explained above, it is independent.

Your lupus example is nearly an exact analog of the discussion in my link. What you listed were symptoms of lupus, not causes.

I listed symptoms that only appear together in lupus. There is no need to list causes, because that's the whole point of the investigation. That's why it's unrelated to your discussion at your link.

But you weren't claiming symptoms of change. You were claiming causes of evolution.

I used the example to explain the basics of probability, since you didn't want to read the probability textbook I referenced. So of course in my example was was talking about symptoms.

You're going to need more than summary conclusions to convince me. I would need to see the mathematical derivation from the source you cited.

The multiplication of indepentdent probabilities is basic statistics. As an engineer, you likely already had a statistics course. Do you need a derivation that 2+2=4?



Originally Posted by Papias

Well, perhaps your example above points to a larger question, and that is whether or not QM proved newtonian physics "wrong", or if QM was an adjustment which still affirmed newtonian physics correct in a subset of conditions. Which of those two do you see as the case?

You tell me. This is exactly why I called your question loaded. It makes no difference what I think. I doubt you would take my word for it.

OK.

my answer is: QM was an adjustment which still affirmed newtonian physics correct in a subset of conditions. I don't see how that was a loaded question.

It's not a matter of "taking your word" for it, any more than I would need to "take your word for it" as to whether or not 2+2=4.

Originally Posted by Papias

I explained three reasons why you were confusing two things. If you have a statement (in context) from Mayr or anyone else, please present it. It's not that the examples are "limited" - it's that you are fundamentally misunderstanding what "extrapolation" is, vs. what "independent confirmation by additonal lines of evidence" is.

Extrapolation and independent data sets are indeed two different issues. I don't know why you think I'm merging them into one issue.

Because you keep claiming that "correlation doesn't mean causation" and "extrapolation" are somehow relevant to the use of independant data sources.

Originally Posted by Papias

Which ones? Being that it illogical to ignore other lines of evidence presented by those other traits, it sounds to me like you are saying that your other citations said to abandon logic. Since I don't think you or I would advocat that, one of us is misunderstanding your proposed citiations. Pointing out which one will help us sort out what you are proposing is being said in that citiation.

Originally Posted by Resha Caner
​

The question then becomes, is it possible according to evolutionary theory for two separate organisms living in the same environment (under the same selective pressures) to evolve similar traits? The answer is yes (see Convergence or Parallel Evolution? | Laelaps).
​

And as I already pointed out, that reference says nothing against using independant sources of information as confirmations. That's why that reference is irrelevant to the point.

Have a good day!

Papias

P. S.
For reference, that last post to list the topics was post #146, with the addition of the views of the biologists on page 17. Also, post #175, plus "discard tree of life" = discard copernican system".

 

[Resha Caner]

Sorry for the delay. Busy stuff.

I understand, but the delay is in part making this conversation untenable. I'm not sure how engaged you are in this discussion because in your previous post you seemed to assert that I was conflating 2 issues, but now in this post you have combined several issues back together.

I had been speaking to several separate issues, and the discussion would require keeping them separate.

Of course not - I've never suggested that. In the case of Genesis, there are plenty of indications that the text is not to be read literally. Which ones are you saying exist in the psalm?

I'm not sure why you're asking about a psalm when the issue related to Genesis. I thought we shared a similar interpretation of the psalm you referenced.

It would seem to me that the church expects all member to adhere to both, with the adherence to the creed being required for membership, and that adherence to the official position being an expectation.

Well, again, the LCMS does not expect members to adhere to a specific scientific theory.

Um, no. Science works by the testing of theories, if the data hold up to examination, and they contradict theory, then it is an exciting and happy occaision. Myself and many others here have experience in actual research, and we'd love to find some reliable, repeatable data that contradicts theory.

Based on this and the other comments you've made on this topic, all I can recommend is that, since I'm not getting through on the issue of falsification, you should read Ernest Nagel & Nancy Cartwright.

But as I explained above, it is independent.

You asserted it, but did not explain it. Based on what you asserted, I could conclude that all data sets are always independent.

I listed symptoms that only appear together in lupus. There is no need to list causes, because that's the whole point of the investigation. That's why it's unrelated to your discussion at your link.

The issue here was cause, so I don't see how it's become irrelevant.

I used the example to explain the basics of probability, since you didn't want to read the probability textbook I referenced.

I never said I didn't want to read it. I checked the source on WorldCat, and it told me the nearest copy was a 3 hr drive away. Since you have access to a copy, it seems to me the lesser effort would be for you to provide what I asked. If the fact that I find an Internet discussion insufficient motivation to buy a book or make a 6 hr round trip to read it means I am at fault, then I guess I'll have to bear that burden.

The multiplication of indepentdent probabilities is basic statistics. As an engineer, you likely already had a statistics course. Do you need a derivation that 2+2=4?

Yes, I had a statistics course. I use statistics frequently. I don't recall any development of a method for establishing cause by combining independent sets of data. I guess I'm getting old, and I'm asking you to provide that development.

my answer is: QM was an adjustment which still affirmed newtonian physics correct in a subset of conditions. I don't see how that was a loaded question.

So, then, I am left to assume that you see this "adjustment" as a smaller event than the transition from creationist to evolutionist ideas - small enough that it would not serve as an example of something well-evidenced that has changed.

And as I already pointed out, that reference says nothing against using independant sources of information as confirmations. That's why that reference is irrelevant to the point.

That's not the question I was answering. As such, I'm still not sure if you accept the statement I made.

 

[Papias]

Resha wrote:

I had been speaking to several separate issues, and the discussion would require keeping them separate.

OK, well, we sure have multiplied topics here. In some cases, it may be useful to start a separate thread on some of them.

Originally Posted by Papias

Of course not - I've never suggested that. In the case of Genesis, there are plenty of indications that the text is not to be read literally. Which ones are you saying exist in the psalm?

I'm not sure why you're asking about a psalm when the issue related to Genesis. I thought we shared a similar interpretation of the psalm you referenced.

Yes, we do. In my case, many of the same reasons the text in the psalm is saying to read it non-literally are also present in Genesis, so I'm being consistent in my interpretation to see them non-literally.

However, in your case, you seem to saying that the psalm is to be read non-literally, yet Genesis is to be read strictly literally - even though it seems to me that the text itself, in often the same ways, is indicating that a symbolic reading is being suggested. So I'm simply asking what basis you have for the psalm, which you don't think applies to genesis.

Originally Posted by Papias

It would seem to me that the church expects all member to adhere to both, with the adherence to the creed being required for membership, and that adherence to the official position being an expectation.

Well, again, the LCMS does not expect members to adhere to a specific scientific theory.

Well, again, that's a bare assertion on your part, contradicted by the LCMS itself.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod believes,teaches and confesses that Adam and Eve were real historic individuals

​

​

and that the Genesis account of Creation is true and factual,

not merely a “myth”or a “story”made up to explain the origin
of all things.
.....Evolution cannot be “baptized”to make it compatible​

with the Christian faith.

​

Belief and Practice - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
http://lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=1103


It says that the LCMS "Believes" this - not that it's an "option" that some believe and others don't.



​

Originally Posted by Papias

Um, no. Science works by the testing of theories, if the data hold up to examination, and they contradict theory, then it is an exciting and happy occaision. Myself and many others here have experience in actual research, and we'd love to find some reliable, repeatable data that contradicts theory.

Based on this and the other comments you've made on this topic, all I can recommend is that, since I'm not getting through on the issue of falsification, you should read Ernest Nagel & Nancy Cartwright.

Why would you think that some commentary by them is going to be relevant compared to the stated way all of science works, as well as the experience of myself and tens of millions of others who work within that framework every day?

I never said I didn't want to read it. I checked the source on WorldCat, and it told me the nearest copy was a 3 hr drive away. Since you have access to a copy, it seems to me the lesser effort would be for you to provide what I asked. If the fact that I find an Internet discussion insufficient motivation to buy a book or make a 6 hr round trip to read it means I am at fault, then I guess I'll have to bear that burden.

The same statistical basics are present in any basic text on statistics. Which text is your text you used for your class? I might be able to point out the page there too, if it is one with a copy around here.

Originally Posted by Papias

The multiplication of indepentdent probabilities is basic statistics. As an engineer, you likely already had a statistics course. Do you need a derivation that 2+2=4?

​

Yes, I had a statistics course. I use statistics frequently. I don't recall any development of a method for establishing cause by combining independent sets of data. I guess I'm getting old, and I'm asking you to provide that development.


.....

You asserted it, but did not explain it. Based on what you asserted, I could conclude that all data sets are always independent.

Look, it's basic to how we live our lives and deal with data. If you are saying that a given common cause (like common descent) is not the case, then you are asserting that they argee by chance (or please provide a reason why they would be dependant).

I tried to explain this with the lupus example, but maybe the trial example is more clear. Remember that one:

For instance, say in a murder trial that the fingerprint data from the gun matched the suspect (1), then the bullet scorings matched those in the barrel of that same gun (2), then the suspect's DNA was found in material under the victim's fingernails (3), then a security video showed the suspect shooting the victim (4), then a witness testified that they saw the suspect shoot the victim (5).

Now, if you are going to say "but your honor, we don't know that #3 and #1, are indepentant, so they could agree for some reason other than the idea that the suspect is guilty!

Then, you need to either provide your reason why 3 and 1 are not independant, or apply the statistics as if they were independant. We agree on that, right?

Originally Posted by Papias

my answer is: QM was an adjustment which still affirmed newtonian physics correct in a subset of conditions. I don't see how that was a loaded question.

So, then, I am left to assume that you see this "adjustment" as a smaller event than the transition from creationist to evolutionist ideas - small enough that it would not serve as an example of something well-evidenced that has changed.

No, you mean "a smaller event than a possible transition from evolutionist to creationist ideas", right? Because this is all based on your original statement that scientists have been "wrong" before about things that were well established - and I think we agree that we never had a lot of evidence in support of creationist ideas, then or now, right?

Have a nice day-

Papias

 

[Resha Caner]

So I'm simply asking what basis you have for the psalm, which you don't think applies to genesis.

And I answered.

Well, again, that's a bare assertion on your part, contradicted by the LCMS itself.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod believes,teaches and confesses that Adam and Eve were real historic individuals

​

​

and that the Genesis account of Creation is true and factual,

not merely a “myth”or a “story”made up to explain the origin
of all things.
.....Evolution cannot be “baptized”to make it compatible​

with the Christian faith.

​

Belief and Practice - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
http://lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=1103


It says that the LCMS "Believes" this - not that it's an "option" that some believe and others don't.

I don't see any scientific propositions in there, only affirmations of the truth of Scripture.

The same statistical basics are present in any basic text on statistics. Which text is your text you used for your class? I might be able to point out the page there too, if it is one with a copy around here.

I assume we both have access to Google books.

Look, it's basic to how we live our lives and deal with data. If you are saying that a given common cause (like common descent) is not the case, then you are asserting that they argee by chance (or please provide a reason why they would be dependant).

I am not asserting the information you provided agrees by chance, and I did provide a link about how to determine statistical independence. I also provided a link about combining probabilities. You tend to dismiss my citations, so I don't see how another would help.

No, you mean "a smaller event than a possible transition from evolutionist to creationist ideas", right? Because this is all based on your original statement that scientists have been "wrong" before about things that were well established - and I think we agree that we never had a lot of evidence in support of creationist ideas, then or now, right?

I understand what you're trying to say, but it seems a minor side issue to the point that was being discussed.

 

[Papias]

Originally Posted by Papias

So I'm simply asking what basis you have for the psalm, which you don't think applies to genesis.

And I answered.

All you answered was that you didn't read the psalm literally, but do insist on reading Genesis literally. Are you reluctant to consider why you are reading one literally and not the other?

Originally Posted by Papias

Well, again, that's a bare assertion on your part, contradicted by the LCMS itself.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod believes,teaches and confesses that Adam and Eve were real historic individuals

​

and that the Genesis account of Creation is true and factual,

not merely a “myth”or a “story”made up to explain the origin
of all things.
.....Evolution cannot be “baptized”to make it compatible​

with the Christian faith.

​

Belief and Practice - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
http://lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=1103


It says that the LCMS "Believes" this - not that it's an "option" that some believe and others don't.

I don't see any scientific propositions in there, only affirmations of the truth of Scripture.

​

It states that "evolution cannot be ... made consistent with the Christian faith". That clearly goes beyond an affirmation of the truth of Scripture. Remember - you and I both hold Scripture to be true. I hold that as an absolute, and I suspect you do too.

Originally Posted by Papias

The same statistical basics are present in any basic text on statistics. Which text is your text you used for your class? I might be able to point out the page there too, if it is one with a copy around here.

I assume we both have access to Google books.

OK, then should I try to use google books to help you find the relevant place in your statistics text?

Originally Posted by Papias

Look, it's basic to how we live our lives and deal with data. If you are saying that a given common cause (like common descent) is not the case, then you are asserting that they argee by chance (or please provide a reason why they would be dependant).

​

I am not asserting the information you provided agrees by chance,

Yes you are, unless you provide a hypothesis that explains the agreement without useing chance - which I haven't seen you do. If you did and I missed it, then please repeat it or point to where it is.

This also applies to the trial example - I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think the DNA and fingerprint evidence are not independant.

and I did provide a link about how to determine statistical independence.

Which I pointed out was irrelevant because in the real world, we don't just have to floating data sets - we have information as to how they were obtained, from what kind of source, etc.

I also provided a link about combining probabilities.

Which I pointed out was irrelevant because it describes a different situation - one that is statistically underdetermined.

You tend to dismiss my citations, so I don't see how another would help.

Because you supply citiations that are for unrelated situations, and claim that they make points that they don't. In addition to the two examples above, another example of this is theobald, and so is Otsuko, both of which you brought up as if they were evidence against common descent, which I hope we now agree, they aren't. If you want to cite a relevant and applicable citation, then yes, it would help.

Originally Posted by Papias

No, you mean "a smaller event than a possible transition from evolutionist to creationist ideas", right? Because this is all based on your original statement that scientists have been "wrong" before about things that were well established - and I think we agree that we never had a lot of evidence in support of creationist ideas, then or now, right?

I understand what you're trying to say, but it seems a minor side issue to the point that was being discussed.

As before, I'm mentioning this in response to your statement that scientists have abandoned ideas before - after which I asked for an example of when science has abandoned any idea with this much support, to which you still have not either given an example, or agreed that you don't have one. Please consider doing either of those two things so as to maintain a useful discussion.

I also see that you dropped the falsification sub-discussion. The way that was going, it sounded like you simply didn't understand how science works (along with the Nobel prize sub-discussion on this thread). I recently saw some other threads where you discussed that with others, and they too attempted to help. Did any of that make sense? Are there specific questions there I can help with?

Thanks-

Papias


P. S.
For reference, that last post to list the topics was post #146, with the addition of the views of the biologists on page 17. Also, post #175, plus "discard tree of life" = discard copernican system".

 

[Resha Caner]

All you answered was that you didn't read the psalm literally, but do insist on reading Genesis literally. Are you reluctant to consider why you are reading one literally and not the other?

I gave you an answer (context), and this will be my last comment on this topic. Genesis is obviously meant to be taken as a historical event as it is a continuous story beginning with a statement that God created everything and moving from an account of that creation into an account of the lives of early people. I see no indication that the Hebrews included God as a player in allegorical stories. They wouldn't even speak his name. In the NT, all of Jesus' parables use a substitute - the father in the prodigal son, Abraham in the rich man & Lazarus, the owner of the vineyard, etc. To say God is now part of an allegory seems to me drastically out of character for Hebrew literature.

Studies of Hebrew poetry show a pattern of two reinforcing lines (see, for example, C.S. Lewis' Reflections on the Psalms). The two lines reinforce meaning by stating the same thing using different words. Psalm 139:13 is a classic example of this:

For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.

The word "knitted" is simply used as a synonym of "formed" (or in some translations, "created"). It is simply a statement of God's creative actions, not a recipe for the tools he used. Some (such as the KJV) try to interpret the Hebrew word in this verse as "cover" (i.e. protect), but the dual nature of the Hebrew poetry and the way it matches with the other word clearly makes that an improper translation - true as it may be that God values & protects those in the womb.

It states that "evolution cannot be ... made consistent with the Christian faith". That clearly goes beyond an affirmation of the truth of Scripture.

I disagree. Sometimes affirming Scripture means disagreeing with the world. I've had atheists tell me my experiences of God have been proven by psychology as an attempt by the mind to rationalize the unknown. When I affirm that my experiences are real, that is all I'm doing - affirming my experiences. The atheist can talk all he wants that I'm going beyond that affirmation to a scientific proposition (and from there they usually shoot down said strawman as a "goddidit" argument). The atheist is wrong, and it is an attempt to put words in my mouth.

Again. My last comment on this topic.

OK, then should I try to use google books to help you find the relevant place in your statistics text?

You said it's in every statistics textbook, so it shouldn't matter. Pick one I can read at Google Books.

Yes you are, unless you provide a hypothesis that explains the agreement without useing chance - which I haven't seen you do.

It's your data - your hypothesis, not mine. I'm disputing your claim that independent data sets reaching identical conclusions increases confidence in a cause. I've made no claims about the nature of the data or any hypotheses about that data other than that it is improper to say they reinforce each other's conclusions.

I will add, however, that I don't think you can prove them independent. To use an example I've seen, if I ran a test asking whether people like ice cream, and then ran a second test asking if people like chocolate ice cream, I cannot claim the 2 data sets are independent. They are dependent because they share overlapping domains - the 2nd question is a subset of the first.

Likewise, with your data, the fossil data and morphologies are claimed to be emergent properties of genetics. The holy grail would be to find a transform between them. If the theory supposes a transform exists between these data sets, it cannot also be claimed that they are independent.

As before, I'm mentioning this in response to your statement that scientists have abandoned ideas before - after which I asked for an example of when science has abandoned any idea with this much support, to which you still have not either given an example, or agreed that you don't have one. Please consider doing either of those two things so as to maintain a useful discussion.

It rather seemed to me you were spinning off into other digressions. The example was Newtonian mechanics (I don't think I brought up geocentrism vs. heliocentrism vs. nocentrism, but I suppose the same question would apply to it). You never commented on whether this rises to the level of significance you are demanding and yet leaving undefined.

I don't even remember the original context of how this came up - why we were discussing replacing one theory with another. So, I'm inclined to drop this one as well. Yes, I'm discussing this elsewhere, and that discussion has made much more progress.

I also see that you dropped the falsification sub-discussion.

I didn't drop it. You declined to demonstrate any familiarity with the texts I mentioned. I'm not going to play these games, so, again, my last comment on that.

 

[McMatt]

I gave you an answer (context), and this will be my last comment on this topic. Genesis is obviously meant to be taken as a historical event as it is a continuous story beginning with a statement that God created everything and moving from an account of that creation into an account of the lives of early people. I see no indication that the Hebrews included God as a player in allegorical stories. They wouldn't even speak his name. In the NT, all of Jesus' parables use a substitute - the father in the prodigal son, Abraham in the rich man & Lazarus, the owner of the vineyard, etc. To say God is now part of an allegory seems to me drastically out of character for Hebrew literature.

Studies of Hebrew poetry show a pattern of two reinforcing lines (see, for example, C.S. Lewis' Reflections on the Psalms). The two lines reinforce meaning by stating the same thing using different words. Psalm 139:13 is a classic example of this:

For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.

The word "knitted" is simply used as a synonym of "formed" (or in some translations, "created"). It is simply a statement of God's creative actions, not a recipe for the tools he used. Some (such as the KJV) try to interpret the Hebrew word in this verse as "cover" (i.e. protect), but the dual nature of the Hebrew poetry and the way it matches with the other word clearly makes that an improper translation - true as it may be that God values & protects those in the womb.



I disagree. I've had atheists tell me my experiences of God have been proven by psychology as an attempt by the mind to rationalize the unknown. When I affirm that my experiences are real, that is all I'm doing - affirming my experiences. The atheist can talk all he wants that I'm going beyond that affirmation to a scientific proposition (and from there they usually shoot down said strawman as a "goddidit" argument). The atheist is wrong, and it is an attempt to put words in my mouth.

Again. My last comment on this topic.



You said it's in every statistics textbook, so it shouldn't matter. Pick one I can read at Google Books.



It's your data - your hypothesis, not mine. I'm disputing your claim that independent data sets reaching identical conclusions increases confidence in a cause. I've made no claims about the nature of the data or any hypotheses about that data other than that it is improper to say they reinforce each other's conclusions.

I will add, however, that I don't think you can prove them independent. To use an example I've seen, if I ran a test asking whether people like ice cream, and then ran a second test asking if people like chocolate ice cream, I cannot claim the 2 data sets are independent. They are dependent because they share overlapping domains - the 2nd question is a subset of the first.

Likewise, with your data, the fossil data and morphologies are claimed to be emergent properties of genetics. The holy grail would be to find a transform between them. If the theory supposes a transform exists between these data sets, it cannot also be claimed that they are independent.



It rather seemed to me you were spinning off into other digressions. The example was Newtonian mechanics (I don't think I brought up geocentrism vs. heliocentrism vs. nocentrism, but I suppose the same question would apply to it). You never commented on whether this rises to the level of significance you are demanding and yet leaving undefined.

I don't even remember the original context of how this came up - why we were discussing replacing one theory with another. So, I'm inclined to drop this one as well. Yes, I'm discussing this elsewhere, and that discussion has made much more progress.



I didn't drop it. You declined to demonstrate any familiarity with the texts I mentioned. I'm not going to play these games, so, again, my last comment on that.

How can you refute something that has been proven? Will you argue that the sky isn't blue next?

 

[Smidlee]

How can you refute something that has been proven? Will you argue that the sky isn't blue next?

The sky is only blue in your mind.

 

[Papias]

Originally Posted by Papias

All you answered was that you didn't read the psalm literally, but do insist on reading Genesis literally. Are you reluctant to consider why you are reading one literally and not the other?

I gave you an answer (context), and this will be my last comment on this topic.

Studies of Hebrew poetry show a pattern of two reinforcing lines (see, for example, C.S. Lewis' Reflections on the Psalms). The two lines reinforce meaning by stating the same thing using different words. Psalm 139:13 is a classic example of this:

For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.

Exaclty. And Biblical scholars have pointed out the same type of alliterive poetic structure in Genesis. That's part of why it is so clear - from the text itself, that the early chapters of Genesis are meant to be seen as poetic text - consistent with the same reason you don't reject obstetrics due to the Psalm.

I don't have poll data, but TE's I've talked to often reject a literal reading of the creation story in Genesis primarily because God's word, itself, tells them to. That's certainly true for me. Regardless of the evidence for evolution or obstetrics, I reject a literal reading of both those parts of Genesis and Psalms because God's Word itself is telling me that those aren't literal stories.

And, I'm doing so for the exact same reason you do so with the Psalm.

Genesis is obviously meant to be taken as a historical event as it is a continuous story beginning with a statement that God created everything and moving from an account of that creation into an account of the lives of early people.

That makes no sense. Each of Jesus's parables is also a continuous story. Figurative and symbolic stories are of course continuous. In fact, if one were to say that, then Genesis wouldn't fit that anyway, because a simple reading of Gen 1 then Gen 2 shows they are not continuous themselves.

To say God is now part of an allegory seems to me drastically out of character for Hebrew literature.

That makes no sense either. Have you not read daniel? There is all kinds of symbolism, yet God is in that too. All through the Bible God is present in symbolic stories, both as a symbol and as God - Revelation, etc, too.

Originally Posted by Papias

It states that "evolution cannot be ... made consistent with the Christian faith". That clearly goes beyond an affirmation of the truth of Scripture.

I disagree. Sometimes affirming Scripture means disagreeing with the world. ...Again. My last comment on this topic.

But you said it didn't say anything about science, and it clearly does.

Originally Posted by Papias

OK, then should I try to use google books to help you find the relevant place in your statistics text?

You said it's in every statistics textbook, so it shouldn't matter. Pick one I can read at Google Books.

OK, tell me which one you can read, and I'll find it for you.

Originally Posted by Papias

Yes you are, unless you provide a hypothesis that explains the agreement without useing chance - which I haven't seen you do.

It's your data - your hypothesis, not mine. I'm disputing your claim that independent data sets reaching identical conclusions increases confidence in a cause. I've made no claims about the nature of the data or any hypotheses about that data other than that it is improper to say they reinforce each other's conclusions.

Yes you have - by refusing to use that simple method - which we all use everyday - you are claiming that we can't use it in that one area - and supplying no basis for your claim that it is improper to do so.

I will add, however, that I don't think you can prove them independent.

You have still not addressed my courtroom example - which shows that we all, by default, assume that data sets are indepentant when different methods are used. I don't have to prove them independant when we all - yourself included - act that way every day, because it is part of being a rational person.

Likewise, with your data, the fossil data and morphologies are claimed to be emergent properties of genetics. The holy grail would be to find a transform between them. If the theory supposes a transform exists between these data sets, it cannot also be claimed that they are independent.

That "transform" - that underlying reason for agreement - is the very phylogenic tree shown by UCA. By denying UCA, you are saying that they are either independant and agree by chance (impossible), or that they agree for some other reason. That other reason is what I've been asking you for. If you don't have one, and agree that chance is impossible, then UCA is the best explanation left.

Originally Posted by Papias

As before, I'm mentioning this in response to your statement that scientists have abandoned ideas before - after which I asked for an example of when science has abandoned any idea with this much support, to which you still have not either given an example, or agreed that you don't have one. Please consider doing either of those two things so as to maintain a useful discussion.

It rather seemed to me you were spinning off into other digressions. The example was Newtonian mechanics (I don't think I brought up geocentrism vs. heliocentrism vs. nocentrism, but I suppose the same question would apply to it). You never commented on whether this rises to the level of significance you are demanding and yet leaving undefined.

I don't even remember the original context of how this came up - why we were discussing replacing one theory with another. So, I'm inclined to drop this one as well. Yes, I'm discussing this elsewhere, and that discussion has made much more progress.

It came up when you said that scientists have rejected ideas before, and I asked you to either back that up with a time that they rejected an idea with the support from the evidence that UCS has today, or drop the claim. So sure, drop this one - after agreeing that you had no basis to suggest that UCA could be discarded because "sciensts have been wrong before.".

Originally Posted by Papias

I also see that you dropped the falsification sub-discussion.

I didn't drop it. You declined to demonstrate any familiarity with the texts I mentioned. I'm not going to play these games, so, again, my last comment on that.

Because, as I showed and pointed out - that text was yet again irrelevant. I did look at it, just as I've looked over Poppers falsification and others. Falsification is a basic scientific idea. Refusing to discuss it because I didn't talk enough about a specific text is like refusing to talk about basic addition (like 2+2=4) because I didn't talk enough about a recent paper on math. It's not some new idea where there is a radical change in a recent paper.

This is another example that appears much like a standard creationist tactic of objecting to a basic and well -accepted idea and then citing some recent, irrelevant paper. I again give you the benefit of the doubt and ask what your basic point was wrt the subject - in this case falsification.

Have a good weekend-

Papias

P. S.
For reference, that last post to list the topics was post #146, with the addition of the views of the biologists on page 17. Also, post #175, plus "discard tree of life" = discard copernican system".

 

[Tomm]

Random events always obey the laws of probability.
If you throw a coin 10 times, you might not get 50% heads and 50% tails. But if you do it 200 times, the proportions would be close to that.
If you do it 2000 times, then the proportions would almost obey the law of probability perfectly.

The theory of evolution fails this test significantly.
If evolution were true, then many living things we see today should
be in intermediate stages. But, in reality, this is not the case.

Of course, they said that natural selection is not a random event.
But it is ridiculous to claim that a random event can create a non-random event.

 

[gluadys]

Random events always obey the laws of probability.
If you throw a coin 10 times, you might not get 50% heads and 50% tails. But if you do it 200 times, the proportions would be close to that.
If you do it 2000 times, then the proportions would almost obey the law of probability perfectly.

The theory of evolution fails this test significantly.

As it should. Evolution is not a theory of random change, but of change mediated by a non-random filtering process.

If you empty out a bag of coins on the table, they will scatter randomly. If you then run them through a sorter, they will be sorted non-randomly.

Just as the sorter produces a non-random result from a random situation, evolution brings about non-random results from initially random variation.

So, evolution should fail the tests of random probability distribution. In fact, it is precisely when inheritance deviates from the random probabilities of Mendelian genetics that you know evolution is happening.

As long as you have a stable Mendelian balance, due to the random assortment of chromosomes, in a population, it stays pretty much the same. When you get movement away from that balance it is because a non-random factor has been introduced. That changes the nature of the population in a non-random way, and that change is evolution.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

As it should. Evolution is not a theory of random change, but of change mediated by a non-random filtering process.

If you empty out a bag of coins on the table, they will scatter randomly. If you then run them through a sorter, they will be sorted non-randomly.

Just as the sorter produces a non-random result from a random situation, evolution brings about non-random results from initially random variation.

So, evolution should fail the tests of random probability distribution. In fact, it is precisely when inheritance deviates from the random probabilities of Mendelian genetics that you know evolution is happening.

As long as you have a stable Mendelian balance, due to the random assortment of chromosomes, in a population, it stays pretty much the same. When you get movement away from that balance it is because a non-random factor has been introduced. That changes the nature of the population in a non-random way, and that change is evolution.

And what is the non random filtering process exactly?

 

[gluadys]

And what is the non random filtering process exactly?

There are several actually. One that occurs right during the process of DNA replication are correction mechanisms that restore the original sequencing when it has been miscopied.

There are other cellular mechanisms as well that work to stabilize protein production and function. Genes and proteins both are actually fairly flexible in the amount of variation they can tolerate. So a lot of mutations have no harmful effect; the different sequencing is no more significant than alternate approved spellings (like American vs. British spelling of words like colour/color; tyre/tire; gaol/jail). The protein still functions as it should.

The "last stand" filtering mechanism, of course, is the one that Darwin named "natural selection". This consists of a changing proportion of those born with/without an inheritable character trait. A changing proportion of the occurrence of any character trait in a population goes directly counter to the rule of Mendelian balance (which is what you get with random mating and random survival) and can only occur in an ecological situation that introduces a non-random factor with respect to that trait.

Real detail on this requires following an actual genetic mutation through several generations. If you are up to that, we can explore it here, though the material is readily available on-line. I highly recommend the series on Evolution Basics Evolution Basics | The BioLogos Forum especially the episodes on The Basis of Heritable Variation and From Variation to Speciation.

 

[The Barbarian]

We do, however, see thousands of organisms in intermediate stages. Would you like to see some examples?

 

[frogman2x]

We do, however, see thousands of organisms in intermediate stages. Would you like to see some examples?

How do you determine, biologically of course, how any species is not a distinct, individual species. Two of your heros in the faith, Gould and Ernst Mayer say intermediate fossils are very rare.

I would likk to see the linkage, biologially of course, between pakicetus and modern whales.

 

[frogman2x]

As it should. Evolution is not a theory of random change, but of change mediated by a non-random filtering process.

If you empty out a bag of coins on the table, they will scatter randomly. If you then run them through a sorter, they will be sorted non-randomly.

Just as the sorter produces a non-random result from a random situation, evolution brings about non-random results from initially random variation.

So, evolution should fail the tests of random probability distribution. In fact, it is precisely when inheritance deviates from the random probabilities of Mendelian genetics that you know evolution is happening.

How does evolution do that. Please no standard evo rhetoric, include the biological evidene that makes it possible,

As long as you have a stable Mendelian balance, due to the random assortment of chromosomes, in a population, it stays pretty much the same. When you get movement away from that balance it is because a non-random factor has been introduced. That changes the nature of the population in a non-random way, and that change is evolution.

Actually it doesn't. The only non-random factor is a mutation and no mutation ever caused a species to change into a species it's parents were not.

 

[frogman2x]

There are several actually. One that occurs right during the process of DNA replication are correction mechanisms that restore the original sequencing when it has been miscopied.

There are other cellular mechanisms as well that work to stabilize protein production and function. Genes and proteins both are actually fairly flexible in the amount of variation they can tolerate. So a lot of mutations have no harmful effect; the different sequencing is no more significant than alternate approved spellings (like American vs. British spelling of words like colour/color; tyre/tire; gaol/jail). The protein still functions as it should.

The "last stand" filtering mechanism, of course, is the one that Darwin named "natural selection". This consists of a changing proportion of those born with/without an inheritable character trait. A changing proportion of the occurrence of any character trait in a population goes directly counter to the rule of Mendelian balance (which is what you get with random mating and random survival) and can only occur in an ecological situation that introduces a non-random factor with respect to that trait.

Real detail on this requires following an actual genetic mutation through several generations. If you are up to that, we can explore it here, though the material is readily available on-line. I highly recommend the series on Evolution Basics Evolution Basics | The BioLogos Forum especially the episodes on The Basis of Heritable Variation and From Variation to Speciation.

you cannot prove, biologically of course, natural selection. Even if you could, it might help the species survive but it is not a mechanism for a species to become a different species.

 

[gluadys]

How do you determine, biologically of course, how any species is not a distinct, individual species.

Should the "not" be eliminated from this question? It doesn't seem to make sense as it stands.

Two of your heros in the faith, Gould and Ernst Mayer say intermediate fossils are very rare.

No, what they said is that intermediate fossils linking one species to another are very rare. Most intermediate fossils link larger groups such as families or orders. There are thousands of these.

I would likk to see the linkage, biologially of course, between pakicetus and modern whales.

Try this: it specifically aims to show the step-by-step sequence of changes in whale evolution.
Species New to Science: [Cetology • 2013] A Phylogenetic Blueprint for a modern Whale

How does evolution do that. Please no standard evo rhetoric, include the biological evidene that makes it possible,

That might be a little difficult since you would probably dismiss the biological evidence as "standard evo rhetoric".

I suggest instead that you review the videos of Evolution Basics previously referenced in this thread, which provide a better view than I can on a forum post.

Could you give some examples of "standard evo rhetoric" and your precise objections to those examples?

Actually it doesn't. The only non-random factor is a mutation and no mutation ever caused a species to change into a species it's parents were not.

Well, you are correct in saying that no mutation caused a species to change into a species its parents were not. But you are way off the mark in saying a mutation is a non-random factor. Mutations are very much random. In the coin-sorter analogy, mutations are the coins which need to be sorted. The non-random factor has to be something more like the sorter than like the coins. Since mutations are what need to be filtered, they can't be the filter.

you cannot prove, biologically of course, natural selection. Even if you could, it might help the species survive but it is not a mechanism for a species to become a different species.

Natural selection has been proven by direct observation many times, both in nature and in laboratory experiments.

You are correct in saying that natural selection is not primarily a mechanism for a species to become a different species. We have plenty of examples of natural selection within a species.

But natural selection does play a significant role, along with other factors, in promoting the divergence of populations from each other, the end consequence of which is that they often become different species.
IOW you won't get speciation from natural selection alone (what you will get is adaptation of the species to its habitat); but if you add isolation and some other factors along with natural selection, then you may get speciation.

 

[kellhus]

One reason I don't believe we came from apes

This is the part where you failed completely.