Reasons Behind the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.

Post Number:#16  Postby Alun » December 21st, 2009, 9:24 pm

ape wrote:But Alun, it is a lot more than 'some,' more likely 'most' if not 'all.'

I do not have Huxley's bias. Presumably the many Christian people who accept the theory of evolution by natural selection do not either--nor Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, and Muslim scientists. So you need to provide some evidence for that ad hominem.
ape wrote:"Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts."
I L Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities PO Box 231,... Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America.

Ok... That's a nice assertion. How about an argument?

[Edit:] I looked up some I L Cohen for you; he says:
Darwin was Wrong wrote:'Survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection.' No matter what phraseology one generates, the basic fact remains the same: any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides (in the DNA). Nature or species do not have the capacity for rearranging them, nor adding to them. Consequently no leap (saltation) can occur from one species to another. The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence: one who knows what it is doing, such as our genetic engineers are now performing in their laboratories.

I.e. he denies the experiments I cited in the OP (many of which occurred before his book was written) actually happen. So he's simply basing his argument on false premises--unless he knows of reasons why none of those experiments are valid. [/Edit]
ape wrote:But Alun, do you have any biases or prejudices?

Sure, but I've presented the argument above; if it works for you, then that's all that matters. You do not need to concern yourself with me.
ape wrote:Wd you be willing to give up the TOE if proved wrong?

Yes.
ape wrote:Wd you at least give creationsism an equal hearing even now before proved right or wrong?

Even now? Even now that I've heard tens if not hundreds of baseless, fallacious, and even misleading creationist arguments? No, I am not going to patiently hear everyone out. New theories have to sustain the most brutal intellectual attacks, especially when they're similar to previously debunked theories. Also, this thread is not about discussing the probability of alternative theories of evolution; please focus on what is lacking in this theory, not on what other theories have going for them.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi
User avatar
Alun
 
Posts: 1118 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Post Number:#17  Postby ape » December 22nd, 2009, 3:59 am

Alun wrote:I do not have Huxley's bias. Presumably the many Christian people who accept the theory of evolution by natural selection do not either--nor Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, and Muslim scientists. So you need to provide some evidence for that ad hominem.



That ad hominem was in Love and Respect PRO all hominids!:)


My bias or prejudice is Unconditional Love and Respect for creation and evolution, and for all creationists and evolutionists, and for all religions and their opposites.;)


Most Xtians do not love and respect the Hindu nor the Buddhist nor the Wiccan nor the Muslim religions is the evidence of that bias of Hate.


As for most scientists:


"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
H. J. Lipson, F.R.S. "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, vol 31, 1980


"... Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court ..."
(Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space)


alun wrote:Ok... That's a nice assertion. How about an argument?



Please make that an assertive argument! :idea:


alun wrote:[Edit:] I looked up some I L Cohen for you; he says:
Darwin was Wrong wrote:'Survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection.' No matter what phraseology one generates, the basic fact remains the same: any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides (in the DNA). Nature or species do not have the capacity for rearranging them, nor adding to them. Consequently no leap (saltation) can occur from one species to another. The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence: one who knows what it is doing, such as our genetic engineers are now performing in their laboratories.

I.e. he denies the experiments I cited in the OP (many of which occurred before his book was written) actually happen. So he's simply basing his argument on false premises--unless he knows of reasons why none of those experiments are valid. [/Edit]



Maybe the reason why he does know that none are valid, as per FH and CW above, are, in part, the "one part in 10 to the power of 40,000." :idea:


alun wrote:Sure, but I've presented the argument above; if it works for you, then that's all that matters. You do not need to concern yourself with me.



Hmmmmmm So why were you and why did you need to be so concerned about Aldous' motives being unscientific if your's are not and shd not be a concern? :idea:


alun wrote:
ape wrote:Wd you be willing to give up the TOE if proved wrong?

Yes.



Xlnt! :)
But wd you give it up in Love of it as wrong?


alun wrote:
ape wrote:Wd you at least give creationsism an equal hearing even now before proved right or wrong?

Even now? Even now that I've heard tens if not hundreds of baseless, fallacious, and even misleading creationist arguments?



Ah! That's when the hearings occur: Even now before the judgment of the court! :)


Do you have the Bias of Hate for yourself as base and false and misleading and thus will not even give a pre-trial hearing to the baseless and false and even misleading creationists?


So how are you different from Aldous Huxley in motive as colored by Bias or Prejudice?


I think you ARE different from AH based on some of your answers.:)


But you seem to be of 2 minds.


alun wrote:No, I am not going to patiently hear everyone out. New theories have to sustain the most brutal intellectual attacks, especially when they're similar to previously debunked theories.



Hmmmmm Do you as the proposer of your theory want to be patiently heard and heard out when your theory may also be similar to other previously debunked theories, but won't do the same for others?


Is there a balance as opposed to bias there? :idea:



alun wrote:Also, this thread is not about discussing the probability of alternative theories of evolution; please focus on what is lacking in this theory, not on what other theories have going for them.



Exactly! I am doing a VOIR DIRE pretrial discovery-hearing re. any underlying Bias/es a la Aldous Huxley or lack thereof in this theory or more imporetantly, in this theoretician, especially based on your said comments re. Huxley's bias! :)


And even with absurdities in evolution and biases in evolutionists, I am giving you a fair and patient hearing...ahem: :)


"To suppose/think that the eye had evolved by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."
CD


"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.


We take the side of science
in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,
in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life,
in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.


It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations,
no matter how counter-intuitive,
no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.


Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Richard C. Lewontin, Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University, "Billions and Billions of Demons", Review of "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997.
ape
 
Posts: 3323 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Post Number:#18  Postby Alun » December 22nd, 2009, 5:35 am

ape wrote:As for most scientists:
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
H. J. Lipson, F.R.S. "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, vol 31, 1980

"... Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court ..."
(Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space)

But these are still just assertions. I could say, "All proponents of creationism are deluded fools," and that would have just as much force as the above--except for the fact that I'm anonymously posting, whereas these people have their names attached to what they say. I've put the argument up precisely so that you don't have to just trust me you can trust the evidence.
ape wrote:Maybe the reason why he does know that none are valid, as per FH and CW above, are, in part, the "one part in 10 to the power of 40,000." :idea:

Ok, where does that calculation come from? What are the parameters?
ape wrote:Hmmmmmm So why were you and why did you need to be so concerned about Aldous' motives being unscientific if your's are not and shd not be a concern? :idea:

I'm not concerned with Aldous' motives; you're the one who posted a quote of his admittance to bias. All that should matter here are facts and reasoning.
ape wrote:
alun wrote:
ape wrote:Wd you be willing to give up the TOE if proved wrong?
Yes.
Xlnt! :)
But wd you give it up in Love of it as wrong?

Erm. I do not know how happy I would be about evolution by natural selection being wrong, if that's what you're asking, since in your hypothetical I do not know what the alternative theory would be, nor how well it would explain the evidence. I suppose I could speculate and say that I would be happier knowing the truth.
ape wrote:Ah! That's when the hearings occur: Even now before the judgment of the court! :)

Science does not work like a criminal court. Ideas do not have the right to be treated as true until proven false.
ape wrote:Do you have the Bias of Hate for yourself as base and false and misleading and thus will not even give a pre-trial hearing to the baseless and false and even misleading creationists?

So how are you different from Aldous Huxley in motive as colored by Bias or Prejudice?

My 'prejudice' against creationism is not that I would be unhappy in a world in which creationism is true. My 'prejudice' is that creationism has been disproven in countless variations, and therefore I distrust it even more than a theory which has not been tested. However, this thread is not about creationism, it is only about the theory of evolution by natural selection.
ape wrote:I think you ARE different from AH based on some of your answers.:)

Ok. I still don't see why you're so interested in me, when there ought not to be any hidden premises or reasoning in the OP--you should be able to consider it on its own merits, without incorporating my potential bias.
ape wrote:Hmmmmm Do you as the proposer of your theory want to be patiently heard and heard out when your theory may also be similar to other previously debunked theories, but won't do the same for others?

No, if I were proposing a controversial theory, or a theory very similar to many failed theories, I would expect people to be more skeptical. This is how all of science operates, not just how it treats creationism (which is in fact pseudoscience).
ape wrote:Exactly! I am doing a VOIR DIRE pretrial discovery-hearing re. any underlying Bias/es

Ok, well I'll play along for a little longer I guess.
ape wrote:And even with absurdities in evolution and biases in evolutionists, I am giving you a fair and patient hearing...ahem: :)

Can you point out these absurdities in terms of the argument I presented in the OP?
ape wrote:"To suppose/think that the eye had evolved by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."
CD

Well yeah, but you took that out of context. The next paragraph states:
On the Origin of Species wrote:Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)

And really his speculations above about the evolution of the eye have been confirmed by fossil evidence. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the specialized protein that allows our "rods" in the retina to react to light is very similar to bacterial protein--bacteria rhodopsin.
ape wrote:the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories

Science does not permit ad hoc theories or theories with extraneous elements. The basis of science is prediction, which completely undermines accusations of ad hoc argument. Evolution by natural selection can be tested in experiments, which is exactly the whole point of my argument in the OP. How could we have made up the theory to fit reality when we then tested the theory in an unknown situation, and saw that the new information still matched the theory?

On that note, I've edited my opening post to unpack the foundational section of my OP with a premise defining a scientific theory and a conclusion about how science develops a theory to be considered more probable.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi
User avatar
Alun
 
Posts: 1118 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm

Post Number:#19  Postby ape » December 22nd, 2009, 12:22 pm

Alun wrote:But these are still just assertions.



Just like your assertion that you are asserting that these are assertions is also still just an assertion. :)


Alun wrote:I could say, "All proponents of creationism are deluded fools," and that would have just as much force as the above--except for the fact that I'm anonymously posting, whereas these people have their names attached to what they say.



:) But, Alun, if you made that assertive argument, you wd be in error in your interpretation of the facts under your observations or wd have to do a lot more explaining :idea: no matter if you were nonymous or anonymous-----


since all wise men know that they are also fools and that it takes one to know one! :idea:


So the views of those famous names and anonymous names have to stand on their own, and so as of now, that statement of yours on deluded fools has a lot less force than theirs if you don't see wise men as also fools and only go by the facts of how they seem to you--which cd only be made by you if you hate yourself as a fool and so have a bias exactly like Huxley's, the only difference between his and your being at what the Bias is directed: his bias being directed at sexual and political unliberation and your's at fools! :idea:


Do you see how any bias of Hate you have also affects your interpretation of the best evidence?


Alun wrote:I've put the argument up precisely so that you don't have to just trust me you can trust the evidence.



Ah! But that's the point: the evidence is just the evidence: your interpretation of it, HOW you see it, is the key! And so your bias is the key of of that key!


Example:
The evidence is a river.
You see it as a river and I see it as a flower.
Who's right? We both are. But only he who sees it as true both ways is free of the Scientific Bias of Hatred.


The one with the bias of Hatred will exclude the opposing interpretation of the evidence because of that very bias and call it false and fallacious and baseless and refuse to even hear it and will dismiss it out of hand and out of court. :idea:


Alun wrote:Ok, where does that calculation come from? What are the parameters?



Your interest is refreshing! :) You can do a Google or read the book!:idea:


Alun wrote:I'm not concerned with Aldous' motives; you're the one who posted a quote of his admittance to bias.



I am the one who was first concerned and then you ALSO joined me in that concern!:idea:


So I interpret your above FACTUAL statement as:


NOT ONLY I'm OR WAS I concerned with Aldous' motives; you ALSO WEre the one who FIRST posted a quote of his admittance to bias, AND I 2NDED THE CONCERN.:idea:


Alun wrote:All that should matter here are facts and reasoning.



Hmmmm But all reasoning or logic is based on the Bias-free Premise, and all facts can only be properly and judiciously evaluated by a Bias-free attitude of mind: This is The SM: The Scientific Method. :idea:


As you yourself already mentioned in your comment of concern on AH's bias in relation to the SM.


Alun wrote:
ape wrote:Wd you be willing to give up the TOE if proved wrong?
Yes.



Xlnt! :)


ape wrote:But wd you give it up in Love of it as wrong?

Alun wrote:Erm. I do not know how happy I would be about evolution by natural selection being wrong, if that's what you're asking, since in your hypothetical I do not know what the alternative theory would be, nor how well it would explain the evidence.



This is a teachable moment:


The Science of the Bias of Love --a la Lady Justice--involves an attachment of mind to both opposites and so means you can be SAD in Love when proven wrong and so still love what or who was or is wrong! :idea:


Do you see how your Bias of Hate against sadness combined with your Bias of Love for happiness auto-skewed your interpretation of the facts in the evidence of my words?
:idea:


Now if I cd make that mistake with the evidence of contemporaneous words, how wd I handle mute remote evidence of the fossil-kind? :) :idea:


Alun wrote:I suppose I could speculate and say that I would be happier knowing the truth.



Another teachable moment:


A better speculation on or evaluation of the evidence wd be that you wd BOTH be happy in Love at knowing the truth AND also sad in Love at being wrong and still love Evolution!
:idea: :)

See how important that Scientific Bias-free Attitude of Mind of Love is? :)


Alun wrote:Science does not work like a criminal court. Ideas do not have the right to be treated as true until proven false.



Ooops! It is as much like a criminal court as it is not! Remember your opposites! And opposites are also composites!:) So! So it is both as with sad and glad! :idea:


This forum is the court. Peers are jurors, peer-review is the review of the evidence by the jurors/peers, evidence is presented by the prosecutor or pro-evolutionist and challenged by the defense attorney or pro-creationist and pro-evolutionist as he is me,:) the judge is the public or forum members, verdict is rendered day by day --do I need to go on? - don't think so!:)


ape wrote:Do you have the Bias of Hate for yourself as base and false and misleading and thus will not even give a pre-trial hearing to the baseless and false and even misleading creationists?
So how are you different from Aldous Huxley in motive as colored by Bias or Prejudice?

Alun wrote:My 'prejudice' against creationism is not that I would be unhappy in a world in which creationism is true. My 'prejudice' is that creationism has been disproven in countless variations, and therefore I distrust it even more than a theory which has not been tested.



There it is!
Finally! :)


So you have to work on eliminating that Bias of Hate for those you distrust and disprove. You do so by loving in attitude those you trust and those you distrust so that no distrust ever causes an auto-bias of Hate to reappear and mess up yoir evaluation of any evidence.


With Love for both, you just verify what you trust or distrust: Love who you trust and then verify; Love who you distrust and then verify.


Alun wrote:However, this thread is not about creationism, it is only about the theory of evolution by natural selection.



But your attitude towards what this thread is NOT about is STILL key since even NS is a very creative process!:)


Alun wrote:Ok. I still don't see why you're so interested in me, when there ought not to be any hidden premises or reasoning in the OP--you should be able to consider it on its own merits, without incorporating my potential bias.



I hope that by now you can answer that q for yourself.
:idea:


Alun wrote:No, if I were proposing a controversial theory, or a theory very similar to many failed theories, I would expect people to be more skeptical. This is how all of science operates, not just how it treats creationism (which is in fact pseudoscience).



See how self-defeating that is? You are too hard on yourself and so too hard on others! :idea:


Alun wrote:Ok, well I'll play along for a little longer I guess.



That's better--for you and so for me!:)

Alun wrote:Can you point out these absurdities in terms of the argument I presented in the OP?



Hope you can see at least one or 2 for yourself by now on your own! :)


Alun wrote:Well yeah, but you took that out of context.



I can't and cdn't since the Context of all texts is Love for all texts and subtexts and their opposites, and so covers waht CD says in the next context.:)


Alun wrote:The next paragraph states:
On the Origin of Species wrote:Yet reason tells me, ...



Reason without Love for absurdities or the unreasonable is poor logic--really poor premise---since by CD's own reasoning in this para it now takes more faith to believe in Evolution than Creation!!:)


Not to mention that an eye has to work perfectly the first time--or what's an eye for? Let's just go by sonar and be blind as bats who see by their ears! :)


Alun wrote:And really his speculations above about the evolution of the eye have been confirmed by fossil evidence.



Hmmm and how was evidence evalauated? Bias-free? :idea:


Alun wrote:As I've mentioned elsewhere, the specialized protein that allows our "rods" in the retina to react to light is very similar to bacterial protein--bacteria rhodopsin.



And where did that rhodopsin-protein come from? :idea: How did it get the idea to form an eye! :idea:


Alun wrote:Science does not permit ad hoc theories or theories with extraneous elements.



So Science DOES work like a court and issue permits! :)


Alun wrote:The basis of science is prediction, which completely undermines accusations of ad hoc argument.



Oh? But even prediction or prophecy works by the Science of Love for the unpredictable! :)


Alun wrote:Evolution by natural selection can be tested in experiments, which is exactly the whole point of my argument in the OP. How could we have made up the theory to fit reality when we then tested the theory in an unknown situation, and saw that the new information still matched the theory?



The only problem? The evidence matched the opposing theory a lot better based on Occam's Razor! :)


Alun wrote:On that note, I've edited my opening post to unpack the foundational section of my OP with a premise defining a scientific theory and a conclusion about how science develops a theory to be considered more probable.



Thanks! But did you include the thing about the continual need for eliminating The unscientific Bias of Hatred against what we are against since it messes up every step of the SM? If you alreadyy did, fine!:) if not, you know what to do!:)


Now on to your Premise #1. :)
'Finally,' I can hear you say!:)


Premise #1 is now right either because I only now noticed the word 'usually' or because you added it since I last read it! :)


P2, based on P1, proves that there is an alternative basis for any evidence. This alternative basis also fully explains from where all the building blocks of all life came, which explanation the TOE fails to do by not wanting to include it and thus excluding this concern in its purview.


More later.
ape
 
Posts: 3323 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Post Number:#20  Postby Alun » December 22nd, 2009, 9:54 pm

ape wrote:Just like your assertion that you are asserting that these are assertions is also still just an assertion. :)

Not just an assertion. My characterization is based on the fact that you've only presented conclusions, not any premises that can be used to reasonably reach those conclusions.
ape wrote: :) But, Alun, if you made that assertive argument, you wd be in error in your interpretation of the facts under your observations

Would I? Ok, well your sources are in error in their interpretations of the facts. Now what? Now you come up with reasons for those statements, rather than simply repeating them.
ape wrote:Do you see how any bias of Hate you have also affects your interpretation of the best evidence?

Yes, if I had a bias, it would affect my interpretations, that is why I am presenting my whole argument, not just my conclusions--that is why I am not just asserting that evolution occurs by natural selection. Now you can see whether I am reasoning correctly and whether my premises are true, so you can decide objectively, regardless of my biases.
ape wrote:
Alun wrote:I've put the argument up precisely so that you don't have to just trust me you can trust the evidence.

Ah! But that's the point: the evidence is just the evidence: your interpretation of it, HOW you see it, is the key! And so your bias is the key of of that key!

No, you can look at the evidence too, because I put it right here in front of you. If you really think it's a flower, not a river, then you should explain what about it makes it a flower, not a river.
ape wrote:
Alun wrote:Ok, where does that calculation come from? What are the parameters?
Your interest is refreshing! :) You can do a Google or read the book!:idea:

Respectfully, I do not have the patience to go digging through another creationist book. I already found a premise that contradicts the experimental results of my OP. If you think he supports the argument with more than this premise, or that my experimental results are invalid, then the pressure is on you to show that.
ape wrote:I am the one who was first concerned and then you ALSO joined me in that concern!:idea:

I don't care about anyone's motives when they are presenting their evidence in an objective manner. I would care about motives if they stated this as a part of their argument for the position, in so far as I would then likely not trust their argument.
ape wrote:The Science of the Bias of Love --a la Lady Justice--involves an attachment of mind to both opposites and so means you can be SAD in Love when proven wrong and so still love what or who was or is wrong! :idea:

I am not sure that I would hate sadness either, but I do not fully understand what it means to love a concept such as wrongness or rightness. As best I can manage, I would love whatever it is that is true about the world, and therefore I would not hate for the theory to be wrong, since knowing this would bring me closer to the truth.
ape wrote:
Alun wrote:Science does not work like a criminal court. Ideas do not have the right to be treated as true until proven false.
Ooops! It is as much like a criminal court as it is not! Remember your opposites! And opposites are also composites!:) So! So it is both as with sad and glad! :idea:

I use negation to refer to the immediate context; it is a wasteful concept if negation is also not negation.
ape wrote:This forum is the court...do I need to go on? - don't think so!:)

But none of those conditions imply that the matter in question--the principle of treating a person innocent until proven guilty--translates into the analogy. In fact it does not; we treat things as false until they are proven true.
ape wrote:So you have to work on eliminating that Bias of Hate for those you distrust and disprove.

The way I love those I distrust is by holding them to a higher standard of inquiry.
ape wrote:
Alun wrote:No, if I were proposing a controversial theory, or a theory very similar to many failed theories, I would expect people to be more skeptical. This is how all of science operates, not just how it treats creationism (which is in fact pseudoscience).
See how self-defeating that is? You are too hard on yourself and so too hard on others! :idea:

We've gotten quite far with this principle. As I said, it is used for any realm of science. Therefore I think this would be, in your terms, "tough love."
ape wrote:Reason without Love for absurdities or the unreasonable is poor logic--really poor premise---since by CD's own reasoning in this para it now takes more faith to believe in Evolution than Creation!!:)

I disagree. Just because something seems absurd at first glance does not mean that it requires faith to accept. If you described an airplane to St. Aquinas, he would consider it absurd. Yet if we tested the claim about airplanes, we'd see that they do in fact work as described; we don't need faith to believe in them.
ape wrote:Not to mention that an eye has to work perfectly the first time--or what's an eye for? Let's just go by sonar and be blind as bats who see by their ears! :)

No, eyes still don't work "perfectly." Again, bacteria respond to light; at the tiniest level, vision is possible. Hence gradual change to get better and better vision is possible.
ape wrote:Hmmm and how was evidence evalauated? Bias-free? :idea:

Yes, at least in its presentation. He made a prediction, and only later did we discover that it held.
ape wrote:And where did that rhodopsin-protein come from? :idea: How did it get the idea to form an eye! :idea:

I do not know exactly how rhodopsin evolved, since bacterial fossils tend to be hard to analyze. This gets into the unknown areas of biogenesis as well, although there are plenty of similar, simpler proteins that could theoretically be related to rhodopsin. However, rhodopsin is essentially the same as the special protein in the rod cells of an eye.

It doesn't take much imagination to consider that grouping more rhodopsin-filled cells together would create a more light-sensitive area, and that forming a cell layer over the rhodopsin cells with a certain density pattern would concentrate light, further increasing efficiency. Further, having the light sensitive cells in a rounded depression would offer the organism information about the direction of the light. Eventually, this process could achieve a more optimal spherical structure, with more optimal ability to see where light is coming from. in fact we see this process mirrored in ancestors today: e.g. flatworms have "cup-like" eyes (since they only need to be able to detect movement, lenses to focus and various protein modifications to detect color aren't needed - source).

Also, wikipedia's picture is more generally informative:
Image
Each stage above is advantageous in its own right, and can be implemented gradually--bestowing gradual advantage. In fact the eye is demonstrative of natural selection, since each stage is still seen in the wild where the advantage of the next stage would not be important to the niche.
ape wrote:The only problem? The evidence matched the opposing theory a lot better based on Occam's Razor! :)

No, natural selection does not involve an outside intelligence, whereas ID does. That is an extraneous addition to the theory, unless the intelligence actually explains something. What is it that natural selection cannot explain?
ape wrote:Premise #1 is now right either because I only now noticed the word 'usually' or because you added it since I last read it! :)

I did add the "usually," because it made it clearer. I had originally intended that 'usually' be implied, in a sense; i.e. in cases where P1-0 doesn't hold, then that would draw everything into question--which is true.
ape wrote:This alternative basis also fully explains from where all the building blocks of all life came, which explanation the TOE fails to do by not wanting to include it and thus excluding this concern in its purview.

Eh? Yes I am not talking about biogenesis.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi
User avatar
Alun
 
Posts: 1118 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm

Post Number:#21  Postby ape » December 23rd, 2009, 4:08 pm

Alun wrote: ....Not just an assertion. My characterization is based on the fact that you've only presented conclusions, not any premises that can be used to reasonably reach those conclusions.



Well, I can see why you reasonably reached that reasonable or unreasonable conclusion! :idea:


My one and only premise is the POP: the Premise of Premises, which is another TOE: the Theory Of Everything: that POP and TOE is Love and Respect of all words and their opposites, which makes Love also another POP, the Personality of Personalities, which is what Character is.


Example of Applied Love as in Applied Math: Because Love loves all things and their opposites, Love is the reason for everything, and so makes everything reasonable, even makes even the unreasonable reasonable! :) :idea:


So for example, with that Premise of Love, you wd have been able to properly characterize and reasonably see how and why I reached my assertive conclusions or conclusionary assertions even if they were unreasonable to you!:)


Alun wrote:
ape wrote: :) But, Alun, if you made that assertive argument, you wd be in error in your interpretation of the facts under your observations

Would I?



Yes, because a wise man is also a fool and so deluded fools must also be wise men!:)


So the real foolishness is Hate for fools! :) and the real wisdom is Love for the fool and the wiseman, who is actually the one and the same person!:idea:


Alun wrote:Ok, well your sources are in error in their interpretations of the facts.



Correct, but their interpretation of the facts cd only be in error only if, like you, and like I used to be, they hate fools!:idea:


To be inerrant in attitude and character and in axiom or in premise, we have to love being in error and inerrant!:)


Alun wrote:Now what? Now you come up with reasons for those statements, rather than simply repeating them.



Just did and explicitly too, monsieur, so you cd do it for yourself at all times and so do for me the next time I assume or presume the self-evident evidence of the Premise Of Premises: Love for evolution and its opposite! :)


Alun wrote:
ape wrote:Do you see how any bias of Hate you have also affects your interpretation of the best evidence?

Yes, if I had a bias, it would affect my interpretations, that is why I am presenting my whole argument, not just my conclusions--that is why I am not just asserting that evolution occurs by natural selection.



Excellent for effort! :)


But to correct your Bias of Hate for any word as you interpret the body of evidence, you have to present both OPPOSITES: the reasons FOR evolution and AGAINST evolution, for evolution and for no evolution.


See?


You can't just lock in on the likely suspect and ignore a set-up!:idea: :)


So: when we present the whole argument and complete reason for Evolution, that is still HALF the story!
:idea:


What bout any other suspects? :)


Alun wrote:Now you can see whether I am reasoning correctly and whether my premises are true, so you can decide objectively, regardless of my biases.



Uh uh! Any Premise of Hate or any Hate in your premise makes your premise automatically de facto and ipso facto illogical and unreasonale and not impartial, and so makes your subsequent perfect logic imperfect and illogical, makes you illogically logical, unreasonably reasonable, wrong in your rightness, in error in your inerrancy, and etc, and vice versa!:) :idea:


Example: If your premise is, and so you think, that you are right side up when you are actually up side down, --which makes your premise wrong or in error from the get-go, then you will and must subsequently and logically and reasonably think that you are being turned upside down when you are actually being turned right side up!:) :idea:


So error of bias in premise can only be corrected IN the premise, NOT in the logic, which logic is nothing but logical of itself, nor in presenting the whole logical argument or assertion. :idea:


So? So you have to love both evolution and whatever is its opposite to you to correct the bias of Hate in all your axioms or premises or hypotheticals! Qed.


Alun wrote:
ape wrote:
Alun wrote:I've put the argument up precisely so that you don't have to just trust me you can trust the evidence.

Ah! But that's the point: the evidence is just the evidence: your interpretation of it, HOW you see it, is the key! And so your bias is the key of of that key!

No, you can look at the evidence too, because I put it right here in front of you.



I, Me, Moi, I Ape or you or anyone can look at the evidence and see all of it because and when I and whoever else love both what we see and don't see! :)


But you or me with any bias of Hate for any word are in effect blinded by the light of the evidence since you or me can look but can't see since you or I won't see since there are none so blind as those who do not want to see, and none who so unwilling to see as those who already hate what they are about to look at!:idea:


Alun wrote:If you really think it's a flower, not a river, then you should explain what about it makes it a flower, not a river.



See how without Love for all words and their opposites, we can not see what evidence is self-evidently right before our eyes? The reason is words are the eyes of our eyes, and the word Love is the Eye of All Words! :idea: :)


Rivers flow.
So all rivers are also flowers. Qed.


As a side-bar, do you now see why and how we call flowers flowers? Because they flow out of stems! So? What are 'flowers' really? What's their real name? :)


One more: so what do all women have each month after puberty and until menopause:
Flo-ers or floW-ers?


See how all of sudden, you are seeing more? :) What hapened? You are using just ONE MORE WORD, just one more EYE of your eyes! :)


Now surprise and delight your other peers with your INsight! :)


ape wrote:
Alun wrote:Ok, where does that calculation come from? What are the parameters?
Your interest is refreshing! :) You can do a Google or read the book!:idea:

Respectfully, ...[/quote]


Xlnt! :)


Alun wrote:I do not have the patience to go digging through another creationist book.



Lack of patience in this case exposes a possible if not probable case of the presence of the Bias of Hate towards oneself as sick: sick people are patients ans so patient people lool sick! :idea:


Alun wrote:
I already found a premise that contradicts the experimental results of my OP.



Hmmm If your premise includes the Bias of Hate for contras, it is a wrong premise even when the results are correct...which means the results contain more results than you can see or than you are seeing, and that we can right in the wrong!
:idea:


Alun wrote: If you think he supports the argument with more than this premise, or that my experimental results are invalid, then the pressure is on you to show that.



No pressure at all since I, like Einstein, just deal with the premise! Premise right, conclusion and its opposite are both right!:)


Alun wrote:
ape wrote:I am the one who was first concerned and then you ALSO joined me in that concern!:idea:

I don't care about anyone's motives when they are presenting their evidence in an objective manner.



Agreed! The motive or sub-motive or 2ndary motive is always irrelevant. What is always relevant is the attitude of mind or the Motive of Motives of itself: that is what makes the other sub-motives right or wrong, and is what is the objective manner of Love and Respect for all pros and all cons, all objects and all subjects!;)


Example: The Bias of Malice or Hate in Mind is the attitude or Prime Mover or Prime Motive that makes wrong any motive for killing anyone or for AH's motive and so is what makes his motive wrong.

Nothing wrong with the motive of being sexually or politically free except the Bias of Hate for being unfree!


So too nothing wrong with Evolution except any the Bias of Malice or Disrspect for its opposite in the Evolutionist. And vice versa! :idea:


Alun wrote:I would care about motives if they stated this as a part of their argument for the position, in so far as I would then likely not trust their argument.



The Bias of Hate for any word is the motive which auto-covers all other words and so all other motives...automatically.


Example: To love or hate fools is to love or hate every one else and everything else as a fool or as foolish. So it's one for all and all for one. :)


So we have to ever care about the MOM at all times for all subjects! :idea:


Alun wrote:
ape wrote:The Science of the Bias of Love --a la Lady Justice--involves an attachment of mind to both opposites and so means you can be SAD in Love when proven wrong and so still love what or who was or is wrong! :idea:

I am not sure that I would hate sadness either, but I do not fully understand what it means to love a concept such as wrongness or rightness. As best I can manage, I would love whatever it is that is true about the world, and therefore I would not hate for the theory to be wrong, since knowing this would bring me closer to the truth.



Well expressed even with a lack of full understanding!
:)


It has to do witjh you having an attitude of Love and Respect for you unders all conditions and at all times.


And since our brains work by words and all words have opposites, to have that One Right Attitude or Motive of Mind of Love and Respect for yourself at all times, you just have to love yourself as all words and their opposites so that you auto-bring that Fairminded attitude to every other person and subject--just as you had as a kid when youi used to say :IT TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE! :)


EXAMPLE: So to hate myself as an evolutionist or to hate evolution is to be a poor creationist-- since the God I believe created everything tells me that to hate an evolutionist is to hate Him since he COULD have done it that evolving way--especially since 'EVOLUTION' is an anagram of 'LOVEUTION.'!!!!!!
:idea:


See?


Alun wrote:
ape wrote:
Alun wrote:Science does not work like a criminal court. Ideas do not have the right to be treated as true until proven false.
Ooops! It is as much like a criminal court as it is not! Remember your opposites! And opposites are also composites!:) So! So it is both as with sad and glad! :idea:

I use negation to refer to the immediate context; it is a wasteful concept if negation is also not negation.



Exactly!:) The negative of negative is positive!:idea:


Alun wrote:
ape wrote:This forum is the court...

But none of those conditions imply that the matter in question--the principle of treating a person innocent until proven guilty--translates into the analogy.



Think flowers and rivers again!:) And think The Theory of Relativity! :idea:


When loved, each word is related to or is a relative of or is analogous to or comparable to or on par with or a metaphor for all other words!


How is a road like a man? It has shoulders!:)


See?

So all those conditions apply: a guilty man is imnocent of innocence, and an innocent man is guilty of innocence! :idea:


This Lack of Love for being guilty is why evolutionists will not deal and so can not deal with: But where did all of this stuff that evolved come from in the first place?


Alun wrote:
In fact it does not;



It is both: similes and dis-similes!:idea:


Alun wrote:we treat things as false until they are proven true.



But do you have the Bias of Love for both the false and the true, or do you have the Bias of Hate for the false? The truth is the father of lies. The lie is the father of truths!:idea:


Alun wrote:
ape wrote:So you have to work on eliminating that Bias of Hate for those you distrust and disprove.

The way I love those I distrust is by holding them to a higher standard of inquiry.



Good, but not good enough: you have to hold the Same 100% Level of Love for both those you hold higher and lower, both the false and the true, both opposites at all times.


ape wrote:
Alun wrote:No, if I were proposing a controversial theory, or a theory very similar to many failed theories, I would expect people to be more skeptical. This is how all of science operates, not just how it treats creationism (which is in fact pseudoscience).
See how self-defeating that is? You are too hard on yourself and so too hard on others! :idea:

We've gotten quite far with this principle. As I said, it is used for any realm of science. Therefore I think this would be, in your terms, "tough love."
[/quote]


:) Most Improved Thinker's Award to you, Alun!:) Now you're talking! And tough Love means loving those you are soft on and those you are tough with with the same 100% Love!:)


ape wrote:Reason without Love for absurdities or the unreasonable is poor logic--really poor premise---since by CD's own reasoning in this para it now takes more faith to believe in Evolution than Creation!!:)

I disagree. Just because something seems absurd at first glance does not mean that it requires faith to accept.[/quote]


Excellent! Exactly! So that lack of faith applies to the absurdity of creation too! Just showing you how. CD can be used against CD due to his Bias of Hate for whatever word!:)
Qed.


Alun wrote:If you described an airplane to St. Aquinas, he would consider it absurd.



Only if St. Aquinas hated or had the BIAS OF HATE for birds!:)
In Love of birds and air and plain clothes AND SHIPS, he must have already thought of 'PLAIN BIRDS' and 'SHIPS OF THE AIR' AND 'PLAIN AIRSHIPS! :)

You mean you can't imagine he ever saw a leaf fly or a horse-fly or hailstones fly or trees fly or the Sun fly or the Moon fly or Comets fly or Meteors fly or Stars fly as they free-fall or etc?:) :idea:


Alun wrote:Yet if we tested the claim about airplanes, we'd see that they do in fact work as described; we don't need faith to believe in them.



Exactly! So the opposite of evolution does not need faith to believe in either!:)


ape wrote:Not to mention that an eye has to work perfectly the first time--or what's an eye for? Let's just go by sonar and be blind as bats who see by their ears! :)

No, eyes still don't work "perfectly." Again, bacteria respond to light; at the tiniest level, vision is possible. Hence gradual change to get better and better vision is possible.[/quote]


Exactly! There is imperfection in perfection! So eyes working perfectly includes them seeing well by seeing imperfectly! :)

Sonar works perfectly by working imperectly!:idea: Check out The FLAWED POT.


Alun wrote:
ape wrote:Hmmm and how was evidence evalauated? Bias-free? :idea:

Yes, at least in its presentation. He made a prediction, and only later did we discover that it held.



Bias covers preture and post-ture and all in-between.:idea:


ape wrote:And where did that rhodopsin-protein come from? :idea: How did it get the idea to form an eye! :idea:

I do not know exactly how rhodopsin evolved, since bacterial fossils tend to be hard to analyze. This gets into the unknown areas of biogenesis as well, ...[/quote]


Ahem! Those areas are unlnown only due to us being wilfully ignorant. :idea:


Alun wrote:
ape wrote:The only problem? The evidence matched the opposing theory a lot better based on Occam's Razor! :)

No, natural selection does not involve an outside intelligence, whereas ID does.



NS involves inside intel and so auto involves outside intel just as I'd involves both outside and inside intel! :) :idea:


Alun wrote:That is an extraneous addition to the theory, unless the intelligence actually explains something. What is it that natural selection cannot explain?



What's extra is also intra or entra! :) :idea:

NS explains it all: That its inside intel means outside intel!:) :idea:


ape wrote:Premise #1 is now right either because I only now noticed the word 'usually' or because you added it since I last read it! :)

I did add the "usually," because it made it clearer. I had originally intended that 'usually' be implied, in a sense; i.e. in cases where P1-0 doesn't hold, then that would draw everything into question--which is true.[/quote]


Sigh Honesty in Love does beget honesty --and hopefully in Love! :)


Alun wrote:
ape wrote:This alternative basis also fully explains from where all the building blocks of all life came, which explanation the TOE fails to do by not wanting to include it and thus excluding this concern in its purview.

Eh? Yes I am not talking about biogenesis.



Eh? Eh eh! NS has a genesis that deal with all life and so does deal with biogenesis IN OTHER WORDS! :) :idea:
ape
 
Posts: 3323 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Post Number:#22  Postby Alun » December 23rd, 2009, 4:33 pm

ape wrote:But to correct your Bias of Hate for any word as you interpret the body of evidence, you have to present both OPPOSITES: the reasons FOR evolution and AGAINST evolution, for evolution and for no evolution.

A.k.a. confirmation bias. (I think most of your post is making this point, so I won't respond to each bit individually.) Which alternative possibilities have I not taken into account?
ape wrote:This Lack of Love for being guilty is why evolutionists will not deal and so can not deal with: But where did all of this stuff that evolved come from in the first place?

I still don't want to talk about biogenesis :)
ape wrote:
Alun wrote:we treat things as false until they are proven true.
But do you have the Bias of Love for both the false and the true, or do you have the Bias of Hate for the false? The truth is the father of lies. The lie is the father of truths!

I do not love the false as true; I only love the false as false.
ape wrote:
Alun wrote:The way I love those I distrust is by holding them to a higher standard of inquiry.
Good, but not good enough: you have to hold the Same 100% Level of Love for both those you hold higher and lower, both the false and the true, both opposites at all times.

On a second pass, maybe, but as I said I tend to limit my language to the immediate context, not try to talk about the whole universe at once.
ape wrote:You mean you can't imagine he [Aquinas] ever saw a leaf fly or a horse-fly or hailstones fly or trees fly or the Sun fly or the Moon fly or Comets fly or Meteors fly or Stars fly as they free-fall or etc?:) :idea:

I do not think he believed that the moon 'flies.' Where I am suggesting he would be skeptical is in the proposition that an enormous metal tube full of people could fly.
ape wrote:
Alun wrote:Yet if we tested the claim about airplanes, we'd see that they do in fact work as described; we don't need faith to believe in them.
Exactly! So the opposite of evolution does not need faith to believe in either!:)

Except that there is no theory that explains evolution in a testable manner besides natural selection which has not been roundly falsified. And there is no theory that dispute evolution itself in a testable that has not been roundly falsified.
ape wrote:
Alun wrote:I do not know exactly how rhodopsin evolved, since bacterial fossils tend to be hard to analyze. This gets into the unknown areas of biogenesis as well, ...

Ahem! Those areas are unlnown only due to us being wilfully ignorant. :idea:

No, people have devoted their whole careers to this stuff. The problem is that there are only tiny clues as to what happened, so we mostly have to try and recreate possible scenarios and see what turns up.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi
User avatar
Alun
 
Posts: 1118 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm

Post Number:#23  Postby ape » December 23rd, 2009, 5:12 pm

Alun wrote:
ape wrote:But to correct your Bias of Hate for any word as you interpret the body of evidence, you have to present both OPPOSITES: the reasons FOR evolution and AGAINST evolution, for evolution and for no evolution.

A.k.a. confirmation bias. (I think most of your post is making this point, so I won't respond to each bit individually.) Which alternative possibilities have I not taken into account?



The opposite of Evolutionism. :)


Alun wrote:
ape wrote:This Lack of Love for being guilty is why evolutionists will not deal and so can not deal with: But where did all of this stuff that evolved come from in the first place?

I still don't want to talk about biogenesis :)



Exactly! So you still don't really want to talk about Natural Selection as the genesis of life! :idea:


Alun wrote:
ape wrote:
Alun wrote:we treat things as false until they are proven true.
But do you have the Bias of Love for both the false and the true, or do you have the Bias of Hate for the false? The truth is the father of lies. The lie is the father of truths!

I do not love the false as true; I only love the false as false.



Thus you must also not love the truth that is not believed: the truth that is not beleived is or might as well be a lie!:idea:


And thus, you must also love the lie that is believed: the lie that is believed is and might as well be the truth!
:idea:


"An honest man [IN LOVE], armed [IN LOVE] with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner, biochemist and co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule.(1981)


Alun wrote:
ape wrote:
Alun wrote:The way I love those I distrust is by holding them to a higher standard of inquiry.
Good, but not good enough: you have to hold the Same 100% Level of Love for both those you hold higher and lower, both the false and the true, both opposites at all times.

On a second pass, maybe, but as I said I tend to limit my language to the immediate context, not try to talk about the whole universe at once.



Exactly! Limited Love or Love limited by Hate of any words is auto-limited in conscious sense so that you always mean more than you know you know and always don't mean what you also think you mean!:)


In actual fact, when you talk about any atom or about any action, you are automatically talking about the universe and all reactions, and vice versa!:idea:


Alun wrote:
ape wrote:You mean you can't imagine he [Aquinas] ever saw a leaf fly or a horse-fly or hailstones fly or trees fly or the Sun fly or the Moon fly or Comets fly or Meteors fly or Stars fly as they free-fall or etc?:) :idea:

I do not think he believed that the moon 'flies.' Where I am suggesting he would be skeptical is in the proposition that an enormous metal tube full of people could fly.



I know that ---even tho the Moon does fly or move in slow-motion to us earthlings! :)


I was trying to expand your image-ination as to what you are also seeing when you see a bird---a heavier-than-air machine---- fly! :)



Alun wrote:
ape wrote:
Alun wrote:Yet if we tested the claim about airplanes, we'd see that they do in fact work as described; we don't need faith to believe in them.
Exactly! So the opposite of evolution does not need faith to believe in either!:)

Except that there is no theory that explains evolution in a testable manner besides natural selection which has not been roundly falsified. And there is no theory that dispute evolution itself in a testable that has not been roundly falsified.



As you said, you do limit your thinking.
Evolution has also been roundly and self-evidently shown to be false since there are no transitional species of which there shd be more than any specific species!:idea:


"He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. ... 120 years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong."
NILES ELIDRIDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum of Nat. Hist., The Myths of Human Evolution.


"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the "official" position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Bauplane are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). Even so convinced a gradualist as G. G. Simpson (1944) invoked quantum evolution and inadaptive phases to explain these transitions."
Stephen J. Gould, Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA] & Niles Eldredge, Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History, "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered," Paleobiology, Vol. 3, 1977.


Alun wrote:
ape wrote:
Alun wrote:I do not know exactly how rhodopsin evolved, since bacterial fossils tend to be hard to analyze. This gets into the unknown areas of biogenesis as well, ...

Ahem! Those areas are unknown only due to us being wilfully ignorant. :idea:

No, people have devoted their whole careers to this stuff. The problem is that there are only tiny clues as to what happened, so we mostly have to try and recreate possible scenarios and see what turns up.



Exactly, they mostly make up stories and see what sticks!:)


"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book.
If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...
I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." (1979)
Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London.

"Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing...that is true?
I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence.
I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time but eventually one person said,
'I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school.'" (1981)
Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.


"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student...have now been 'debunked.' Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineage's among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive."
Derek Ager, Univ. at Swansea, Wales, PROC. GEOL. ASSO., Vol.87, p.132


"Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory.


I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: ... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?"
S. Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth.
ape
 
Posts: 3323 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Post Number:#24  Postby Alun » December 24th, 2009, 2:52 am

ape wrote:
Alun wrote:Which alternative possibilities have I not taken into account?

The opposite of Evolutionism. :)

There is no way to explain all of the fossils we see, along with their geological placement and state of radioactive decay, without admitting that the species living on earth have changed gradually over millions of years. What alternative is there to this? That the fossils are a trick? That nearly all of geology and nuclear physics are wrong? That there just don't happen to be fossils of humans from the Cambrian? What?
ape wrote:Exactly! So you still don't really want to talk about the genesis of life as per Natural Selection! :idea:

Natural selection did not create life; natural selection only directs changes.
ape wrote:Thus you must also not love the truth that is not believed: the truth that is not beleived is or might as well be a lie!:idea:

Good point, but I do not rule anything out completely; even what I think is false could be true. But if something is really false, then I would not love it as true.
ape wrote:As you said, you do limit your thinking.
Evolution has also been roundly and self-evidently shown to be false since there are no transitional species of which there shd be more than any specific species!:idea:

You mean natural selection has been shown to be false? Or are you advocating young earth creationism? Unfortunately, fossilization is not so simple. We do not expect that every species that ever lived would leave a fossil--in fact most do not. However, the number of transitional fossils that do exist is not less than expected.
ape wrote:"He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. ... The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong."
NILES ELIDRIDGE

Again, you're taking this out of context. Although there's a good point to be made here: 'Darwinism' is not an apt name for the modern theory of evolution by natural selection. The theory today talks about mutation, genetic drift, and punctuated equilibrium. Darwin, however, envisioned evolution to occur at a fairly constant rate under selective pressure. Punctuated equilibrium is the alternative; genes change gradually, without being utilized, when there are no new selective forces. But when the environment changes--e.g. a natural disaster changes the lanscape, or a change occurs in the competition--these genes which have built up mutations are likely to be 'tried out,' so-to-speak, and so outward change occurs rapidly.
ape wrote:"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the "official" position of most Western evolutionists." -Stephen J. Gould

Ok and now this quote is explicitly talking about 'gradualism' versus punctuated equilibrium. Both of these theories are facets of natural selection. I.e. Gould is going against what used to be a widely-held view in the scientific community by arguing that natural selection occurs in a punctuated equilibrium model, which emphasizes genetic drift, rather than a gradualism model, which emphasizes selection of specific mutations. (There's more on what they really said here.)
ape wrote:"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book..."
Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London.

Oy. Here's the same site on how you're misreading Patterson.
Talk Origins wrote:"The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question." [-Colin Patterson]

ape wrote:"Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing...that is true?..."
Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.

This is not about what you think it's about. He's discussing systematics--how things are named--not whether or not evolution actually happened. His point is that viewing things from the standpoint of evolution blinds people to make other observations--i.e. we should look as deeply as we can at the similarities and differences between known species, not fall back on a proposed evolutionary lineage.
ape wrote:"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student...have now been 'debunked.' Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineage's among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive."
Derek Ager, Univ. at Swansea, Wales, PROC. GEOL. ASSO., Vol.87, p.132

Which is exactly what I'm saying. Fossils do not occur all the time; there are massive gaps.
ape wrote:"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?"
S. Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth.

Again, there's a big difference between Darwin's ideas and what modern scientists think about natural selection. We've got a whole new school of data now. Lovtrup is espousing "Process Structuralism" (see wiki on it), which does not even contradict the basic outline of natural selection I presented in the OP. In fact it's another way to think about how evolution by natural selection is more feasible, since relatively small changes in genetic code often lead to a systematic changes in an entire organism.

In contrast, Darwin seemed to deal with organisms piece-meal, thinking that the beaks of his bird species changed independently of the rest of the bird.

**********

I've got to say, this dramatically undermines my interest in your presentation. You likely copied all of these quotes from a creationist website or even a book without looking into the context of any of them. How about you look at the arguments people make, instead of trying to interpret their conclusions without any background? None of these scientists you've quote-mined disagree with me.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi
User avatar
Alun
 
Posts: 1118 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm

Post Number:#25  Postby ape » December 24th, 2009, 10:52 am

Alun wrote:
ape wrote:
Alun wrote:Which alternative possibilities have I not taken into account?

The opposite of Evolutionism. :)

There is no way to explain all of the fossils we see, along with their geological placement and state of radioactive decay, without admitting that the species living on earth have changed gradually over millions of years. What alternative is there to this? That the fossils are a trick? That nearly all of geology and nuclear physics are wrong? That there just don't happen to be fossils of humans from the Cambrian? What?
underline by ape


Have you studied why and how bees are tricked to carry out pollinization by having sex with flowers which mimic female bees?:)


Remember flowers and rivers! :idea:


Have you heard of the trick of the mirage?;)


We've go to get in the Flow of or the Flower of or the River of Love to ride the tricks in Nature!:)


Is NS tricky and love to play jokes? :idea:


"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change...All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (1977)
Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist at Harvard.


"...one outstanding fact of the fossil record that many of you may not be aware of; that since the so called Cambrian explosion...during which essentially all the anatomical designs of modern multicellular life made their first appearance in the fossil record, no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record."
STEPHEN GOULD, Harvard, Speech at SMU, Oct.2, 1990.


Alun wrote:
ape wrote:Exactly! So you still don't really want to talk about the genesis of life as per Natural Selection! :idea:

Natural selection did not create life; natural selection only directs changes.
underline by ape


Sorry to make you admit it: there it is!
But glad you did admit it!
So that's the end of story!;)


And since you made that statement, you'll be interested in this:


"This was only one of Pasteur's experiments. It is no easy matter to deal with so deeply ingrained and common-sense a belief as that in spontaneous generation. One can ask for nothing better in such a pass than a noisy and stubborn opponent, and this Pasteur had in the naturalist Felix Pouchet, whose arguments before the French Academy of Sciences drove Pasteur to more and more rigorous experiments. When he had finished, nothing remained of the belief in spontaneous generation.
We tell this story to beginning students of biology as though it represents a triumph of reason over mysticism.
In fact it is very nearly the opposite.
The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation;
the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation.
There is no third position.


For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity."


It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated.
Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.


[Inspite of all of that] I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation.
What the controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the belief that living organisms arrive spontaneously under present conditions.
We have now to face a somewhat different problem:
how organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions in some former period, granted that they do so no longer.


"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.
Yet [still] here we are as a result, I [still have to] believe, of spontaneous generation."


"Time is the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years... Given so much time the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles."
George Wald, 1967 Nobel Prize winner in Medicine, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, vol. 191 1954, p. 46.
bolds and underlines by ape


Alun wrote:
ape wrote:Thus you must also not love the truth that is not believed: the truth that is not beleived is or might as well be a lie!:idea:

Good point, but I do not rule anything out completely; even what I think is false could be true.



Xlnt! So you do not rule out creation completely! :)
Your right scientific attitude of Love & Respect is shining thru!:)


Alun wrote:But if something is really false, then I would not love it as true.



A for effort! Loving oneself as a liar is a very hard level to get to because we use words to think by.


Do you love jokes---which jokes are mainly lies?idea:


Do you joke around a lot---which makes you a liar?:idea:


Alun wrote:
ape wrote:As you said, you do limit your thinking.
Evolution has also been roundly and self-evidently shown to be false since there are no transitional species of which there shd be more than any specific species!:idea:

You mean natural selection has been shown to be false? Or are you advocating young earth creationism?



NS has been shown to be false and/or wanting as to all it's put up to be.


Earth is even older than you think!:idea:


Alun wrote: Unfortunately, fossilization is not so simple. We do not expect that every species that ever lived would leave a fossil--in fact most do not. However, the number of transitional fossils that do exist is not less than expected.



You can't get off of Darwin's hook so easily!:)
How about living transitionals!?:) Living 'fossils'?:)


Alun wrote:
ape wrote:"He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. ... The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong."
NILES ELIDRIDGE

Again, you're taking this out of context.



No, the whole context is the evidence on Earth and in that context there has to be living fossils of transnationals, er, ah, of transitionals!:) Or else---that not-completely ruled out idea applies!:idea:


ape wrote:"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the "official" position of most Western evolutionists." -Stephen J. Gould

Ok and now this quote is explicitly talking about 'gradualism' versus punctuated equilibrium. Both of these theories are facets of natural selection.
[/quote]


But there are no transitionals!:idea:



Alun wrote:This is not about what you think it's about. He's discussing systematics--how things are named--not whether or not evolution actually happened. His point is that viewing things from the standpoint of evolution blinds people to make other observations--i.e. we should look as deeply as we can at the similarities and differences between known species, not fall back on a proposed evolutionary lineage.



"So that's my first theme. That evolution and creationism seem to be showing remarkable parallels. They are increasingly hard to tell apart. And the second theme is that evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics."
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist; British Museaum of Natural History, London, Discussion at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981. underlines by ape


Alun wrote:Which is exactly what I'm saying. Fossils do not occur all the time; there are massive gaps.



Which means that, along with no living transitionals, evolution is a fairy-tale for grownups!:)


"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has done nothing to the progress of science. It is useless."
Louis Bounoure, president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg, director of the Zoological Museum and director of research at the Natural Center of Scientific Research in France.


Alun wrote:
ape wrote:"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?"
S. Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth.

Again, there's a big difference between Darwin's ideas and what modern scientists think about natural selection. We've got a whole new school of data now.



"It now [in 2005] seems to me that the finding of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.
Indeed, this new design argument is so powerful that Flew,
‘an icon and champion for unbelievers for decades’,
a man who has been called ‘the world’s most influential philosophical atheist’, has changed his mind because of it, letting it be widely known in December 2004 that he is now a theist because:
‘the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now[in 2005] much stronger than it ever was before.’[24]
Anthony Flew in ‘My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism.' 2005.

Hmmmm :)


Alun wrote: Lovtrup is espousing "Process Structuralism" (see wiki on it), which does not even contradict the basic outline of natural selection I presented in the OP. In fact it's another way to think about how evolution by natural selection is more feasible, since relatively small changes in genetic code often lead to a systematic changes in an entire organism.

In contrast, Darwin seemed to deal with organisms piece-meal, thinking that the beaks of his bird species changed independently of the rest of the bird.



But still, Anthony Flew saw thru CD's and modern evolutionists's now-you-see it now-you-don't idea!:)

**********


Alun wrote:I've got to say, this dramatically undermines my interest in your presentation. You likely copied all of these quotes from a creationist website or even a book without looking into the context of any of them. How about you look at the arguments people make, instead of trying to interpret their conclusions without any background? None of these scientists you've quote-mined disagree with me.



Hmmmmm is it getting all of a sudden dramatically hot in here? I hadn't noticed!:)


Come on, Alun!:) You were doing so well--considering how tough it is!:idea:


I am also a miner of the mind, mine, your's and others'!:) As you quote the quotes I quoted as if they were mine, consider them mine in reality just like you are using the letters and sounds of the alphabet as if they were yours!:)


I am simply presenting you with the ideas of the very evolutionists you claim to be a part of! So I am still most dramatically intersted in you as them--even more now is my interest heightened, if that's possible!;)


If none of the scientists quoted --that's as good as you quoting their quotes as mine!--- disagrees with you, then are you not protesting too much?:) Aren't you secretly welcoming my mining the gold from the mine of their minds---and your's?:)


If you want, you can quote the Bible back at me---and I won't claim that you "likely copied all of these [VERSES OF] quotes from a [BIBLICAL] website or even a book without looking into the context of any of them." I can promise you!:) I wd congratualte you for taking an interest--no matter how fleeting in appearances! We all know that looks are deceiving! :idea: Please take me up on that---can I use the imperative on you on that?:) -- and you can quote from Genesis to Revelation and you wd be without a whimper nor squeal of protest from me!:)


In fact, I wd so encourage you to quote all you want---especially what you did NOT understand!:idea:--- and I wd revel and marinate in the opportunity to explain your Biblical quotes to you---which I thought you were doing your level best to do with my Evolutionicals--by the way! :) It's just that--I know--it is so hard when you are just dealing with facts without the right attitude of Love at all times -- like using the eye without the ear and the nose!:dea:


So please follow my example and your own example so far, :) and stick and stay in that Love and Respect you do have!:)


And I was hoping to get to your other Premises! Next!:)


So please just make a cursory post such as : 'Ok, Ape, let's move on!:)' so I can get to the next set of the prems. :)


By the way, Merry Xmas or Happy Holidays or whatever is relevant to you! Maybe Happy Election with a hint of Selection! :)
ape
 
Posts: 3323 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Post Number:#26  Postby Alun » December 25th, 2009, 12:33 am

Sorry to keep going on and on; you do not need to respond to everything either. You might want to keep this first part in mind as you consider the rest of the OP:
ape wrote:
Alun wrote:That the fossils are a trick?
underline by ape

Ok, so do you believe that dinosaurs existed? Do you believe that dinosaurs died out before any humans lived on the Earth?

I think you're getting some of the terms confused here. (I don't really blame you, although I tried to clear this up in the opening post--I'll go back and see if I can improve.)

Evolution, by itself, is just any sort of change. The evolution of life is the apparent change of the life that lived on earth from the time of the earth's creation up until now. Natural selection is one aspect of the modern theory trying to understand how evolution happened.

Now, there is very little reason to talk about natural selection if you do not believe, roughly:
1) There was, quite awhile ago, only bacteria living on the earth.
2) Some time later, there were simple multicelled animals (think coral reefs and sponges) living alongside the single-celled.
3) Even later than that, there were more complicated things living too, such as worms.
etc., until at some point humans appeared.

Now, this is without any explanation as to how or even why life occurred in this order. In Darwin's time, it seemed plausible that new species which appeared were only slightly different than than those which preceded them; this is gradualism. However, the evidence has accumulated since then in favor of punctuated equilibrium; when new species appeared, at least on a geological time scale, they tended to be substantially different than those that precede them.
ape wrote:
Alun wrote:Natural selection did not create life; natural selection only directs changes.
underline by ape... Sorry to make you admit it: there it is!
But glad you did admit it!
So that's the end of story!;)

Sorry, I've never intentionally implied that natural selection created life. I am only explaining the evolution of life in this thread, not the initiation of life. Maybe some other time I'll talk about abiogenesis, but theories about abiogenesis are not nearly as important to explaining biology as natural selection.

Ok, now you may want to stop reading; the rest is only about quoting scientists and the limits of the topic at hand.
ape wrote:And since you made that statement, you'll be interested in this:

No, I do not want to talk about biogenesis here. However, while I guess there's no point, I am again compelled to point out those that quotes don't undermine theories of abiogenesis; theories of abiogenesis are theories of spontaneous generation, and most biologists who have questioned spontaneous generation have been questioning whether large, complex life can be formed spontaneously, and whether it can happen in our current environment. In contrast, theories of abiogenesis are focused on whether the early Earth could have initially spontaneously formed almost unimaginably simple life forms.
ape wrote:
Alun wrote:You mean natural selection has been shown to be false? Or are you advocating young earth creationism?

NS has been shown to be false and/or wanting as to all it's put up to be.

What is "all it's put up to be"? Have I put it up as more than it is here?
ape wrote:Earth is even older than you think!:idea:

I guess that depends on how you define "Earth"--and on how you define boats.
ape wrote:You can't get off of Darwin's hook so easily!:) How about living transitionals!?:) Living 'fossils'?:)

None of our ancestors are alive today--at least past great-great-grandparents, which I think for most of us are pretty human ;) Current thinking is that chimpanzees are our closest relatives, in that we share an ancestor with them which lived earlier than our shared ancestors with any other organism. It is possible, though, that the shared ancestor with chimps was very similar to a chimpanzee, because it lived in the ecological niche that chimps inhabit--whereas humans conquered a previously unoccupied niche.
ape wrote:
Alun wrote:
ape wrote:"He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. ... The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." -NILES ELIDRIDGE
Again, you're taking this out of context.

No, the whole context is the evidence on Earth and in that context there has to be living fossils of transnationals, er, ah, of transitionals!:) Or else---that not-completely ruled out idea applies!:idea:

No, he's still talking about evolution. He's advocating a different theory of what evolution was/is.
ape wrote:
Alun wrote:Ok and now this quote is explicitly talking about 'gradualism' versus punctuated equilibrium. Both of these theories are facets of natural selection.
But there are no transitionals!:idea:

Stephen's point is that when evolution was going full speed, it would not leave obvious intermediates across a geological timescale. Evolution was very fast for short periods, and then reached equilibrium (punctuated equilibrium). This, however, can still be explained by natural selection, because genes are always changing, even if they aren't always being expressed.

ID, to go on a tangent, seems to suggest that God started directing evolution occasionally, and those are the times when evolution proceeds. But as I stated in the OP, we have recreated evolution, and watched it depend upon the variables natural selection that predicts it would depend on. So the trickery must go further than just leaving fossils lying around; it also must appear that things are evolving naturally, when in fact they aren't. E.g. God comes down to the experiment, and makes stuff evolve just like we think it would if natural selection were happening.
ape wrote:"So that's my first theme. That evolution and creationism seem to be showing remarkable parallels. They are increasingly hard to tell apart. And the second theme is that evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics."-Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist; British Museaum of Natural History, London, Discussion at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981. underlines by ape

He's actually attacking the prejudices that either position can lead to. He's saying that once people get an evolutionary lineage in their head, it screws with the way they see the evidence--just like when someone thinks it must've been done by God, it blinds them to the evidence. He's saying we should organize things by their traits alone, so we don't get sidetracked by our prejudices of what order we think they evolved in. Read the quote from the letter that Colin himself wrote, which I have in my last post.
ape wrote:"It now [in 2005] seems to me that the finding of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design...
‘the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now[in 2005] much stronger than it ever was before.’[24]
Anthony Flew in ‘My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism.' 2005.

I don't understand what Flew has to do with Lovtrup, but anyway, I disagree with him.
ape wrote:I am also a miner of the mind, mine, your's and others'!:) As you quote the quotes I quoted as if they were mine, consider them mine in reality just like you are using the letters and sounds of the alphabet as if they were yours!:)

Ok, then you're just making assertions. The quotes are next to meaningless out of context, and certainly do not amount to an argument. In a discussion, you do more than simply say, "You're wrong;" you give reasons. Even the quote from Flew can be paraphrased as: "There is more evidence for intelligence than for natural selection." To which I say, "Well, what is this evidence?"
ape wrote:Aren't you secretly welcoming my mining the gold from the mine of their minds---and your's?:)

No, because you only posted their positions and their names, not their reasoning (and you misrepresented their positions too). I could just post the names of scientists who agree with me, but that would not be conducive to reasoning (it would also probably make Scott angry, as the list would have hundreds of thousands of names).
ape wrote:and you can quote from Genesis to Revelation and you wd be without a whimper nor squeal of protest from me!:)

We can leave this aspect of the debate to the more religiously geared discussions on the topic.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi
User avatar
Alun
 
Posts: 1118 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm

Post Number:#27  Postby athena » December 25th, 2009, 12:22 pm

I am withdrawing from this discussion
Last edited by athena on December 26th, 2009, 2:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
athena
Contributor
 
Posts: 944 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: June 11th, 2009, 10:18 am

Post Number:#28  Postby ape » December 25th, 2009, 4:18 pm

Alun wrote:Sorry to keep going on and on; you do not need to respond to everything either. ...



Excellent! :)


Plus, I don't mind waiting on you nor mind you going on and on since I do wait on me and do also love to go on and on!:)


But also, brevity is the soul of wit!:)
So quid we have scripsi, we have scripsi, and so let the script or the word of our attitudes in our words be the judge between you and me!:)


Alun wrote:P1-1) Fossils are remnants of organisms [1].



True.


Alun wrote:P2-1) Fossils formed across the last 3.8 billion years [2] as determined by our ability to date them within a substantial degree of accuracy [3].
C1-1) Organisms have been on earth for at least 3.8 billion years and we know roughly when many types of them lived.



And how we accurately date them?
By the strata they are in? :idea:


And how do we accurately date the strata?
By the fossils in them? :idea:


What is the criteria or the Operating System or is there any system for dating the fossils and the strata independently?


[I am highly resisting my tendency to quote a Biblical, er, ah, an Evolutionary Authority/EA, and have succeeded so far!:) Do I hear an Amen or a Right-on? :) I must admit that not quoting EAs makes me seem so much wiser when I am also such a fool--which fool I love me as much as!:) It also does seem so much wiser when a fool quotes wise men than when a wise quotes himself as wise, don't you think?:) You know, 'self-praise is no recommendation' sorta sentiment! :idea: So please supply the necessary GOS': Grains of Salt!:) Altho GOS' do represent eternity as per Blake. Hummm There is now way out but to love it all!


But I am reserving the right to Bible-mine, er, ah, verse-mine Evolutionary authorities and supply them at any time, as accurately mined by me, if necessary by you and if wanted by me --- just as you have that right to not do so or to do so!:) Please feel free to Bible-mine or Creationist-mine from any Evolutionary site at any time and to quote freely!:) ]


Alun wrote:P3-1) Fossils show specific groups living at specific times; with no fossils of humans, e.g., forming 3.8 billion years ago, and fossils of e.g. dinosaurs which are no longer extant today [2].



Except for me, of course, ;) why no ape-human intermediate-species nor transitional links found? They don't exist? Or what?


Alun wrote:C2-1) Evolution, the changing and growing complexity of the form of life on earth, as well as vast extinction of life, has occurred over the last 3.8 billion years.
* Note that at this point I have made no conclusions about how evolution has happened.



Do we have any evidence of the opposite: growing simplicity of the forms of life on earth?


Was not the first living cell already of the most complex complexity or just plain complex beyond complexity?


Are you saying that the cell has grown even more complex since the first one?


What was the criteria for talking about 'the growing complexity of the form of life on Earth.'?


Do things usually only work from simple to complex or do they also usually work from complex to simple or do they usually work both ways?


If they work both ways, which evolutionist or 'nists determined that the simple form of life came first as the usual suspect?;)


Isn't dealing with the evolution of life while making no conclusions about how evolution happened nor about where the life that evolution evolves comes from


analogous to, similar to, comparable to


talking about the rain-bow while not discusing where rain comes from,


or talking about words without talking about where letters came from,


or talking about the natural selection in life without talking about where life came from nor where NS came from or how NS happened?


Over to you!


Hope you had and/or is still having a nice Xmas or holiday!:)
ape
 
Posts: 3323 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Post Number:#29  Postby athena » December 25th, 2009, 9:05 pm

I am withdrawing from this discussion
Last edited by athena on December 26th, 2009, 2:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
athena
Contributor
 
Posts: 944 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: June 11th, 2009, 10:18 am

Post Number:#30  Postby Alun » December 25th, 2009, 10:19 pm

ape wrote:
Alun wrote:P2-1) Fossils formed across the last 3.8 billion years [2] as determined by our ability to date them within a substantial degree of accuracy [3].
C1-1) Organisms have been on earth for at least 3.8 billion years and we know roughly when many types of them lived.

And how we accurately date them?
By the strata they are in? :idea:

Good question. I actually left most of the evidence for this argument out, as I had anticipated debate with ID advocates, not creationists. I have as of now added more information in the way of proof to this premise.

In fact the best way of dating fossils and geological strata is a technique called radioisotope dating. Radioisotope dating works because specific, unstable isotopes of elements are formed constantly in the Earth's atmosphere by cosmic radiation. E.g. there is always the same small proportion of Carbon-14 (with 2 extra neutrons) in carbon dioxide compared to 'normal' carbon (C-12).

When plants take up carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, the carbon is no longer exposed to the strongest radiation, and so the concentration will be reduced at the rate of the half-life of Carbon-14. When the plant dies, if it becomes fossilized, any carbon left from the original organism will start out with the above proportion of C-14--but after e.g. 6000 years, that proportion will be cut in half. So if a scientist finds the plant remains, s/he can calculate the time of the plant's death based on the proportion of C-14. (Not all types of fossils allow this; some original organic material has to be left over.)

Similarly, other radioisotopes--with longer half-lives (potassium-40's half-life is 1.3 billion years)--can be used to date things going back much further. Potassium-40 is especially useful in dating igneous rock formations, since when it degrades, it becomes Argon. When volcanic rock 'first' formed, it was molten; this means that all of the degraded potassium-40, argon, would simply be able to evaporate, so the potassium-40 'counter' is set to zero when volcanic rock solidifies.
ape wrote:
Alun wrote:P3-1) Fossils show specific groups living at specific times; with no fossils of humans, e.g., forming 3.8 billion years ago, and fossils of e.g. dinosaurs which are no longer extant today [2].

Except for me, of course, ;) why no ape-human intermediate-species nor transitional links found? They don't exist? Or what?

You don't think this looks like an intermediate?
Image
Lucy is important because it walked upright, but did not have the brain capacity of a human.

And later came species like homo ergaster, which had clear resemblance to humans; e.g. language capacity.
Image
ape wrote:Are you saying that the cell has grown even more complex since the first one?

Most definitely. Even today, bacterial cells are next to nothing compared to eukaryotic cells. E.g.
ImageImage
as opposed to the below, which is a single-celled eukaryote:
Image
And here's a labeled cartoon which can roughly be applied to any animal cell:
Image
The distinction is that we have 'organelles' which are tiny chambers within every cell that perform specialized functions. (I'm sure you've heard, e.g., of mitochondria and chloroplasts? These are organelles within many eukaryotic cells; bacteria do not have them.) These include what look a lot like structural support beams; a 'cytoskeleton,' which means animal cells are generally much larger than most bacterial cells.
ape wrote:What was the criteria for talking about 'the growing complexity of the form of life on Earth.'?

Pretty much just what it sounds like; more specialization, more order, and usually the mobilization of more resources.
ape wrote:Do things usually only work from simple to complex or do they also usually work from complex to simple or do they usually work both ways?

Both ways, I guess. I am not really using complexity versus simplicity to say anything definitive, just describe what evolution looks like to me.
ape wrote:If they work both ways, which evolutionist or 'nists determined that the simple form of life came first as the usual suspect?;)

Paleontologists. The first fossils are of bacteria.
ape wrote:Isn't dealing with the evolution of life while making no conclusions about how evolution happened nor about where the life that evolution evolves comes from... analogous to, similar to, comparable to... talking about the rain-bow while not discusing where rain comes from, ... or talking about words without talking about where letters came from,

Yes. The idea is that if we observe things without any distractions, we'll be getting less biased data to work with.
ape wrote:or talking about the natural selection in life without talking about where life came from nor where NS came from or how NS happened?

Well natural selection is in part an explanation of where natural selection came from and how natural selection happens, but I do think it's a very separate issue from the genesis of life in the beginning. Perhaps this will make more sense to you once we get to the natural selection part of the argument; there are many things that occasionally are said of natural selection, but it is a fairly limited idea.
ape wrote:Hope you had and/or is still having a nice Xmas or holiday!:)

Thanks; you too.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi
User avatar
Alun
 
Posts: 1118 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST