Different Opinions....Who is right?

[tas8831]

"A clade is a fancy term for all of and only the modern species descended via evolution from a specific common ancestor."

OK so here we have "cladists" who support the "scientific classification system of species based on clades"....so who invented the the classification system? Not evolutionists surely???? Is that a red flag?

All these years of "study", and you still exhibit ZERO understanding of the things you are brainwashed into rejecting and attacking.

Cladist - a taxonomist/systematist that employs cladistics

Cladistics was "invented" by entomologist Willi Hennig. Quite simple, really - his basic premise was that evolution proceeds as a series of bifurcating populations, and that species derived from a common ancestral population is a clade. Clade is a relative term - all apes form a clade. But so do all Primates. And all mammals. And all vertebrates. Etc.

Why is it a red flag that evolutionists will employ a classification system "invented" by another evolutionist?

The most amazing thing about your entire post was that you had convinced yourself that you had made some sort of big unassailable argument. You do this very often, and it is almost always premised on your inflated view of your own 'scientific' acumen. And that is a pretty typical exhibition of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Oh, sorry, too much "jargon", right?

 

[tas8831]

I came across this today....its a Flower Mantis.....beautifully designed to be camouflaged on the flowers it lives on.

Begging the question.

Science would describe how this just evolved with no intelligent direction at all.

Believers would see an exquisitely crafted creature designed by an intelligent Creator to be invisible to predators but facilitating catching prey of its own.

That is because scientists rely on evidence, and believers rely on feelings.

This creature is as beautiful as the flowers that it walks on.....so what makes the most sense....deliberate and thoughtful creation....or just an accident of nature?

Cool strawman.

Did nature just fluke these? Or was this camouflage clever and deliberate creation?

Or do creationist religious fanatics with no science background totally rely on emotionally-laden strawman fallacies?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I agree, but I would not say that you have to jettison belief in order to do science. Individual belief can be retained by that scientist, just not used in the process of science.

You see what I'm saying? IANS believes that God can be 'jettisoned.' That is what teaching the concept of CD evolution does....by providing an alternate explanation of how organisms developed , it tries to take God out of the picture. It has, for many. IANS just supports my statement.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Apparently harder than you did. Of the two of us, only I found a source that agreed with you, likely your original source. Not surprisingly, you brought a paper from science rather that a creationist source, but also not surprisingly, it doesn't support your contention. The fact of flagella and the secretory system having evolved naturalistically is assumed, as there is evidence it did and none that it was intelligently designed.

The creationist apologetics I linked you to was entitled, "Why the Type III Secretory System Can’t Be a Precursor to the Bacteria Flagellum" your claim. About itself, this site says, "Evolution News & Science Today (EN) provides original reporting and analysis about evolution, neuroscience, bioethics, intelligent design and other science-related issues" and "The articles published at Evolution News are copyright by Discovery Institute"

Sorry, but intelligent design isn't a science-related issue. It's religion.

The article says, "Now under normal evolutionary reasoning, one would take this kind of phylogenetic evidence to indicate that the flagellum long predates the T3SS, and that the T3SS is in no way a precursor (or closely related to a precursor) of the flagellum. But don’t expect evolutionists to use their normal reasoning when trying to oppose potent arguments for intelligent design."

I'm pretty sure that this or some similar creationists site was your source.

Recall that I also posted the following, something you chose not to comment on, so I will:



And this panned out this time as well. It's been a 100% effective rule to just reject all creationist sources and insist that the apologist provide documentation from mutually acceptable sources, which on the matters of science, will be sites dedicated to disseminating scientific information rather than promoting creationism.

Incidentally, you're not alone. All creationists ignore the truth of that comment - that there is nothing known only to creationists, and that if only creationists are saying it, it is incorrect. It's perfectly reasonable to request that you use a science source like the one you posted, and as usual, this exchange confirms my claim that creationist sources are appropriately rejected out of hand, and if you go to bona fide science sites and sources as you did, you find nothing supporting creationism.



You'll have to speak for yourself there. I told you how I separate correct ideas from incorrect ones, at least how I do it as a secular humanist. It's worked out very well for me. Sorry I couldn't share any of that with you. You'll just have to keep your bad beliefs if you are unwilling or unable to test them empirically to determine which work and which don't.



Science is not just another tool. It is the only tool capable of accurately describing how physical reality will behave under various circumstances. Watch what happens in the world this year as millions or billions of people reject science. Nothing can substitute for science in developing an optimal response to this disaster. Without it, you might listen to antiscientific yahoos and kill yourself with hydroxychloroquine and a bleach chaser.



Religion, by which I mean faith-based thought about the existence of unseen gods and what derives from it, can tell us nothing of value. Just contrast evolutionary theory with creationism, or astrology with astronomy. In each case, the former, an evidence based program, has generated useful ideas that can predict outcomes accurately, whereas the others, both faith-based systems of thought, are also both sterile. Neither idea can be used to make life longer, safer, healthier, less laborious, etc.. So, I culled them from my mental map to my benefit.

Anyway, I guess we're done. That's what I do and it has helped me navigate life more successfully. I tried to share it with you, but was unsuccessful. No problem.

You were wrong. You moved the goalposts.
The video stated, quite specifically, that the T3SS evolved first. Then the bacterial flagellum arose from the secretory system.
You supported that, and then accusing me of only quoting from creationist sites.

I proved that was wrong, on both counts.

But you didn't acknowledge that.

Have a good day.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Interesting that you turn to the science you reject to support the science you reject.

The point that sort of fell out of your response is that the there exists functional structures that are reductions of the so called irreducible. Whether the more elaborate is the ancestor of the less is interesting, but is evidence against irreducible complexity, regardless.

If the flagellar motor is ancestral to the injectisome, then it also illustrates against the often misinformed claims about complexity as a condition of evolution. Clearly, this evidence reveals that complexity is a consequence of evolution and not a condition demanded by the theory of evolution. Sometimes evolution produces a reduction in complexity. Parasites, blind fish and other troglobitic organisms are excellent examples of the loss of complexity as a consequence of evolution.

When are you going to realize, that I have no problem of evolution occurring within family taxa? And loss of function, does nothing to alter my understanding of reality.

 

[dad]

I accept this argument that science is not a religion or a belief system. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. For finally admitting the truth.

No problem, I like to point out the severe limitations of science. Next time you hear them piping up about origins, or the future of the world or universe, etc remember they don't cover that.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Exactly! Were some creationist -- any creationist -- to show me that intelligent design could "out-predict", so to speak, evolutionary theory, I would be compelled to consider intelligent design the superior model, and in all likelihood, closer to the truth.

There can be other means or grounds for deciding between competing notions of what the case might be, but a notion's usefulness in making accurate predictions is more or less the queen of them all.

Would Darwinian evolution predict the abrupt appearance of organisms, without obvious precursors? That is exactly what ID would predict. And **that** is what is seen in the Cambrian Explosion—well-defined life forms arising suddenly, suited to their environments!

 

[Sunstone]

Would Darwinian evolution...

As I understand it, the term "Darwinian evolution" is obsolete, and has been obsolete since at least the synthesis of the 1930s, so I am not sure what you mean by it. Could you elaborate, please?

...the abrupt appearance of organisms, without obvious precursors? That is exactly what ID would predict. And **that** is what is seen in the Cambrian Explosion—well-defined life forms, suited to their environments!

That's an interesting argument. I don't know whether Intelligent Design actually predicts the Cambrian Explosion in any meaningful way because it seems at most only open to the possibility of such an event. Well, that's like being open to the possibility of WW III. Being open to it says nothing about how or when it might happen.

ID says nothing along the lines of "these are the conditions that must be present for an 'explosion' to become possible (or 'likely', or whatever). Evolutionary Theory, on the other hand, predicts that life will branch out to fill all available niches, which is what happened during the Explosion. I'm no evolutionary biologist, though, and don't know many of the details -- which is by no means to imply those details fail to exist. I don't know the details of how heavy elements are formed in the explosion of stars, but that does not change the fact they are.

I hope that helps.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

As I understand it, the term "Darwinian evolution" is obsolete, and has been obsolete since at least the synthesis of the 1930s, so I am not sure what you mean by it. Could you elaborate, please?

Obsolete?
Sept., 2018:
“It’s not rewriting the idea of natural selection. Rather, it’s rewriting our understanding of evolution, of which natural selection is still a very important part. There are two phases in classic Darwinian evolution. First, there is the arising of variations from one creature to another or one individual population to another. “

From Was Darwin Wrong About Evolution? New Discoveries Suggest He May Have Been.

Someone should tell NatGeo.

Whatever.... Darwin’s theory does not predict what has been discovered in the Cambrian.
I do however believe in evolution as the means to form new species within family taxa (probably no broader level of organisms.)

Have a great evening, Sunstone!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are

No problem, I like to point out the severe limitations of science. Next time you hear them piping up about origins, or the future of the world or universe, etc remember they don't cover that.

Interesting. Now you are acknowledging that all your claims about science have been false. I agree. They are false. Glad to see you are embracing the values you have previously only been giving lip service to.

There you go again. Back to your false, baseless and irrational claims about science.

Well, I do appreciate you demonstrating that it is indeed a tangled web. Perhaps you should give up weaving and put your efforts to self help.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When are you going to realize, that I have no problem of evolution occurring within family taxa? And loss of function, does nothing to alter my understanding of reality.

The evolution of species, genera, tribes and subfamilies all occur within a family and are all examples of macro-evolution by the same mechanisms as the evolution of orders, classes, etc. Establishing a cutoff at the family level is arbitrary and based on reasons outside the evidence. There is nothing from the Bible that indicates what is meant by kind and no reason to conclude that biblical kind means family.

I am curious why you abstain from commenting about the fact that the existence of the injectisome is another fact refuting irreducible complexity regardless of it is ancestral to or derived from the flagellar motor.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You see what I'm saying? IANS believes that God can be 'jettisoned.' That is what teaching the concept of CD evolution does....by providing an alternate explanation of how organisms developed , it tries to take God out of the picture. It has, for many. IANS just supports my statement.

I understand what IANS is saying even if I do not agree with the exact wording he used. Science cannot put God into the picture, because there is no evidence of God to be used in science. To include belief would mean including any and all belief without exception. This would render science useless. Including only one form or type of belief would be sufficient to render it useless. Science does not tell people what religious view to follow or not. It only deals with evidence and claims surrounding that evidence.

What your sect, and many others demand, is that scientists stop relying on evidence, alone or in total, to draw conclusions and provide explanations. In effect, like the person that believes the laws of nature were different in the past, the demand is for science to make things up and pretend those things are real. You want science to be religion and make it useless. Even though I consider my beliefs to be in a God that exists, I recognize that I have no evidence to support that belief. There is no means for me to incorporate that belief into science objectively.

All that is being said in science is that, since there is no means to demonstrate or test what is believed, let us stick to what we can test and demonstrate. It is that simple.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am aware of all of them. I have read several of Axe's papers and dozens of Meyer's articles (he doesn't actually do science, so I won't call them papers). I have read 2 of Wells' books and his laughable paper on centrosomes being turbines. It was a hoot. I read Behe's first book and a few of his papers and the transcript of his Dover testimony (very damaging to him).
I have also met Werner Gitt (asked him a question that he could not answer). I also had some correspondences with Paul Nelson many years ago, had even set up a tentative meet but it fell through.
Not until today. Another of the "Expelled" crew...

Have you heard of Dr. Jerry Coyne? Dr. Sean Carroll? Dr. Sean B. Carroll? Dr. William Atchley? Dr. Todd Disotell? Dr. John Flynn? Name dropping is cool.


How can you claim to refute their science-based arguments, when you've never bothered to read them?

Ans so "unsolved" = "designed"?

On what scientific grounds?

Funny thing - if "the" bacterial flagellum was designed, all that does is bring up another questions - designed by what?

Surely not the thing that 'designed' the hyena pseudopenis!

Good to see you back. I have missed your posts and been wondering when you might return. Hope all has been well.

I have read some of those religious writings too.

Doesn't it always boil down to a gap argument. It seems that way to me.

We do not know something so fill in the gap with your favorite belief. Don't forget to set this as the default.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Establishing a cutoff at the family level is arbitrary and based on reasons outside the evidence. There is nothing from the Bible that indicates what is meant by kind and no reason to conclude that biblical kind means family.

No, it isn’t “outside the evidence.”

It is from the evidence that evolution, despite what you’ve been led to believe, has never shown any ability to create de novo anatomical features increasing fitness. Experiments that sped up evolution, like those w/ D. melanogaster etc., revealed the ineffectiveness of the Theory to do so.

It cracks me up, you talk about ‘belief has no place in science’; but you forget, the disputation between scientists themselves re: how certain organisms evolved, like the BAND paleontologists. They don’t agree with the mainstream view of bird evolution. Is it arbitrary, or is it based on different interpretations of the evidence? Same evidence, different view.
Both sides are based on faith! One is wrong...maybe both are wrong.

In Genesis, does the Bible simply say, ‘God created the animals,’ or does it say He created the animals “according to their kinds”?

That’s meaningful, to add those words. It allows differing species to be categorized....I say it seems logical to make the demarcation, probably most within each family-level taxon, where the species share the most similarities, which natural selection could viably alter.

 

[rational experiences]

No, it isn’t “outside the evidence.”

It is from the evidence that evolution, despite what you’ve been led to believe, has never shown any ability to create de novo anatomical features increasing fitness. Experiments that sped up evolution, like those w/ D. melanogaster etc., revealed the ineffectiveness of the Theory to do so.

It cracks me up, you talk about ‘belief has no place in science’; but you forget, the disputation between scientists themselves re: how certain organisms evolved, like the BAND paleontologists. They don’t agree with the mainstream view of bird evolution. Is it arbitrary, or is it based on different interpretations of the evidence? Same evidence, different view.
Both sides are based on faith! One is wrong...maybe both are wrong.

In Genesis, does the Bible simply say, ‘God created the animals,’ or does it say He created the animals “according to their kinds”?

That’s meaningful, to add those words. It allows differing species to be categorized....I say it seems logical to make the demarcation, probably most within each family-level taxon, where the species share the most similarities, which natural selection could viably alter.

If you were a healer, medical scientist doing a thesis upon life sacrificed and attack, knowing that records already said it occurred before.

And then compiled a DATA referenced of studies involving old information, you would spiritually make real statements, as you were living observing as a scientist, wouldn't you?

I wonder at how a human owning knowingly their consciousness as a human wants to portray their own consciousness elsewhere....as some higher consciousness, when they claim in creation that they are a higher consciousness.

Unless they realize that a higher state in reality, not in creation existed...as the statements of word use. Not science, for words never owned science, science is applied by MATH and formulas and Numbers.

O God he says as a formula theist is energy, MASS, the stone.

Ohhhhh he says, I keep thinking in an abstract ideal that I am the Creator.

Therefore if a human says O the circular light sound of gases burning as mass...natural light. What supports our life. Then balances/even, night time cold gases, the other 12, cooling support and ICE cooling as even colder support...then you would say to self...…..radiation in light, being gases that get burnt out....in the centre, middle.

O circular rotating sound as gas mass itself, cooling is O rotation by a G spiral function...a thinking contemplating aware mind/self.

O . dot in the middle - to the side then forming swirling, the G value moving cooling back from O to G back to O.

Gets life attacked and has to claim GOD did it....then you would explain why.

O G swirling into O....then science causes illuminated gas mass burning...so makes the natural cooling soul atmospheric function CHANGE.

O into G into O back into G, then O splits in 2. The D value for the heavens remains and flows back cooled by water evaporation interaction into an O...the D value that owns falling illuminated gas mass burning falls to the ground, and ground water evaporates again and forms O the protection.

But life the o constant cellular body cannot maintain itself in that radiation attack, so a Healer talks about human Genetics and then explains why God in the Heavens owned the health of every nature body and a lying brother Satanic occult UFO scientist changed it.....is exactly what they said.

 

[cladking]

I told you how I separate correct ideas from incorrect ones, at least how I do it as a secular humanist.

What is your belief about how gravity works?

You'll just have to keep your bad beliefs if you are unwilling or unable to test them empirically to determine which work and which don't.

I try to excise all beliefs. The difficulty is that they must first be identified. The bigger problem is you must first find a new formatting for perception.

Science is not just another tool.

It is a tool. Just like math, reason, observation, and ancient science it is a tool to understand. Just like experience it can lead to understanding.

 

[dad]

There are

Interesting. Now you are acknowledging that all your claims about science have been false.

My claim about science is that it is wrong on origins because it uses belief, and not science. Glad you agree.

I agree. They are false. Glad to see you are embracing the values you have previously only been giving lip service to.

Not sure you get it. Well, I guess I am pretty sure, you don't.
On the topic of the thread, at least you have an opinion on who is right. I have the opposite opinion, I think God was right all along, despite your idea that it is rational to trust the baseless beliefs of so-called science first and foremost.
The simple remedy would be to learn to differentiate between real knowledge and actual science, and the steaming pile of belief based fables that you cherish and hold to be science also.
I only say this because you hold up the flag of being a Christian, and should know the difference.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My claim about science is that it is wrong on origins because it uses belief, and not science. Glad you agree.


Not sure you get it. Well, I guess I am pretty sure, you don't.
On the topic of the thread, at least you have an opinion on who is right. I have the opposite opinion, I think God was right all along, despite your idea that it is rational to trust the baseless beliefs of so-called science first and foremost.
The simple remedy would be to learn to differentiate between real knowledge and actual science, and the steaming pile of belief based fables that you cherish and hold to be science also.
I only say this because you hold up the flag of being a Christian, and should know the difference.

You have already acknowledged that you do not consider science to be or use belief.

I know you do not get it. You do not or are not capable of distinguishing the fantastic nonsense you concoct in your head from actual facts.

I do know the difference between what I believe and what is known. I base evaluation of science on the facts and not some ridiculous nonsense about the laws of nature being different when there is no evidence to suggest that.

You have decided on a means to interpret belief and it is that means that is at odds with science. Rather than recognize the limitations of your means, you come up with fantasy. You re-brand your fantasy as fact. All to make your particular view of belief hold up. Your entire presence ends up being like that of a troll that is not here to discuss, learn or gain insight. You are just here to re-enforce you fantasy views.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, it isn’t “outside the evidence.”

Are you claiming that you have objective evidence for God and the actions of God?

It is from the evidence that evolution, despite what you’ve been led to believe, has never shown any ability to create de novo anatomical features increasing fitness. Experiments that sped up evolution, like those w/ D. melanogaster etc., revealed the ineffectiveness of the Theory to do so.

Where have you been?

There are thousands of research reports that reveal the evidence for biological fitness. Lenski, whom you chose to omit, is one of the more famous examples.

It cracks me up, you talk about ‘belief has no place in science’; but you forget, the disputation between scientists themselves re: how certain organisms evolved, like the BAND paleontologists. They don’t agree with the mainstream view of bird evolution. Is it arbitrary, or is it based on different interpretations of the evidence? Same evidence, different view.
Both sides are based on faith! One is wrong...maybe both are wrong.

The differences are over how the evidence is weighed by different scientists and differences in understanding. No. Bias cannot be completely eliminated in people and beliefs have impacts. But science recognizes this. You just use the existence of bias as a wedge to force your views into science so that you can marginalize science that threatens your doctrine.

This is just creationists taking the arguments over details and blowing that out of proportion to mean something it does not mean.

In Genesis, does the Bible simply say, ‘God created the animals,’ or does it say He created the animals “according to their kinds”?

That’s meaningful, to add those words. It allows differing species to be categorized....I say it seems logical to make the demarcation, probably most within each family-level taxon, where the species share the most similarities, which natural selection could viably alter.

It is meaningless, since it does not indicate what is meant by kinds. It can be whatever a person wants it to be. Such ambiguity results in chaos rather than cohesion and leads to people of one belief claiming one meaning while those of another claiming yet another meaning. In the mean time, for those that base conclusions on evidence, recognize it has no value in science.

You want it to mean family, but that is based on what you want to believe and not for any facts in evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Would Darwinian evolution predict the abrupt appearance of organisms, without obvious precursors? That is exactly what ID would predict. And **that** is what is seen in the Cambrian Explosion—well-defined life forms arising suddenly, suited to their environments!

Does the lack of fossil evidence mean that something does not exist or that we just do not have the fossil evidence? There are many reasons that fossils of precursor organisms might not be found. Using the theory, it is predicted that these precursors should exist. Not finding evidence of them does not mean that they did not exist. That is just the gap that you put your hat in.

ID is religion pretending to be science. ID can be used as the explanation for any gap. Until it is filled in with evidence. Then ID has to retreat to the next gap.

Remember, ID predicts that we should have arisen fully formed from nothing, as we are, with no precursor organisms before us. But there is 200 years worth of evidence that demonstrates that is not how it happened.