Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

If there was no environmental reason for mammals to develop feathers, why would they have developed anything like feathers?

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make.





ETA: Oops. Just saw DanFromSmithville's post # 1996 saying the same thing.

Part of the problem was that @leroy kept changing how he posed the point, moving back and forth, between predicted and possible. As well as what he meant by feathers and evolved.

 

[Jose Fly]

This has come up before and already been shot to pieces. I wonder he was the one that brought it up before.

Yeah, I believe so. Standard creationist tactic....when things get uncomfortable, leave, wait a bit, then come back and start all over like nothing had ever happened.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah, I believe so. Standard creationist tactic....when things get uncomfortable, leave, wait a bit, then come back and start all over like nothing had ever happened.

It is like having your car stuck in the mud 20 miles from home. Keep spinning the wheels until you get tired and walk home. In a few weeks come back and spin the wheels some more. Go home when you tire of it and then just keep repeating this at intervals.

Those science guys in the Jeep had a rope too. Except it couldn't have been real since it wasn't mentioned in the owner's manual.

 

[tas8831]

Ok so how many mutations do you think are needed to explain the differences between chimps and humans?

I have no idea, but I DO know, as I have justified on this forum (in response to you) more than once, it does not at all have to be ALL of the DNA sequence difference between us today (half of that, of course, since roughly half the difference is in the chimps) - and not even all of that since the bulk of the differences lie in noncoding and non-regulatory sequence anyway, nor those huge numbers of mutations that creationists conjure up for no good reason but to make it sound insurmountable to themselves and those that know even less than they do.

I have never even given an estimate, since it would be mere speculation at this point - it is the deniers that merely throw out their ignorance-based numbers as facts and declare whatever 'number of the day' they want to use is just, darn it, too many!

I have a ballpark figure as to how many total DNA differences there are, but how many of these are of the 'fixed beneficial' sort I have no idea. We will probably have a good estimate at some point, and then the creationists will have to come up with more empty assertions to fall back on.

And I note that the ReMine paper that you referred to a few months ago is comical in its irrelevance - ReMine likes to make irrelevant and unwarranted extrapolations and declare victory.

 

[leroy]

@leroy , here is a simple challenge:

What reasonable test could show your version of ID to be wrong? And it is not reasonable to make your test rely upon others to prove themselves right. You need to test ID on its own merits. If you cannot do that you only have an ad hoc explanation, and those are worthless in the sciences. If you cannot think of a test then you do not have a scientific hypothesis or theory and therefore do not have any evidence for it by definition.

In the context of the FT tuning argument for example there are many things that one could theoretically do, to show that ID is probably wrong (ie more likely to be wrong tan correct)

1 You could show that the alleged initial conditions and constants are not really FT, for example it is said that if the force of gravity would have been a little bit stronger or weaker stars and planets, (and therefore life) would have not formed, you could show that stars and planets would form anyway regardless of the strength of the force of gravity. …..(the you would have to do the same with all the other constants and initial conditions that are said to be FT)

2 You could show that life could exist even without stars and planets (maybe something equivalent would have formed if the force of gravity would have been different)……..( …..(the you would have to do the same with all the other constants and initial conditions that are said to be FT)

3 You could show that there is some sort of naturalistic bias in favor of a FT universe (this is sometimes called cosmical natural selection)

4 you could show that a FT universe is logically necessary

5 Or you can simply provide a better explanation than design for the FT or the universe.

 

[leroy]

leroy said: ↑
I disagree, but I would also rather to keep things simple and grant your assertion for the purpose of this conversation.

But even if all that were true, you should still be capable of providing an explanation for the FT of the universe and explain why is that a better explanation than ID.

Take for example Nested Hierachies,(NH) even though an inteligent designer could have had made organisms and organize their genomes in a NH pattern, common ancestry is still demonstrably a better explanation than intelligent design for such a pattern, it is very easy to demonstrate that common ancestry is more parsimonious, more elegant, less ad hoc, has more explanatory power, more predictive power, and a wider explanatory scope….so even if you cant entirely disprove ID, you can still prove that common ancestry is a better explanation than ID

So in theory you should be capable of providing an explanation for the FT of the universe, and show that the explanation is better than ID, even if you don’t fully disprove ID.

the you said

Concepts like nested hierarchies can and have been repeatedly tested. They are falsifiable on their own merits. That is why they are evidence for evolution.

Those are very interesting points, but why do you have this annoying tendency of quoting form my comments and then make a comment that has nothing to do with the comment that you are quoting? (Yes I agree with your comment)

The point that I made is that even if NH doesn’t entirely and absolutely falsifies ID, common ancestry is a much better explanation for NH than ID, which is why one should accept universal common ancestry at least until someone provides a better explanation for NH.

I am pretty sure that we both agree on this point, so why are you making such a big deal?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the context of the FT tuning argument for example there are many things that one could theoretically do, to show that ID is probably wrong (ie more likely to be wrong tan correct)

1 You could show that the alleged initial conditions and constants are not really FT, for example it is said that if the force of gravity would have been a little bit stronger or weaker stars and planets, (and therefore life) would have not formed, you could show that stars and planets would form anyway regardless of the strength of the force of gravity. …..(the you would have to do the same with all the other constants and initial conditions that are said to be FT)

2 You could show that life could exist even without stars and planets (maybe something equivalent would have formed if the force of gravity would have been different)……..( …..(the you would have to do the same with all the other constants and initial conditions that are said to be FT)

3 You could show that there is some sort of naturalistic bias in favor of a FT universe (this is sometimes called cosmical natural selection)

4 you could show that a FT universe is logically necessary

5 Or you can simply provide a better explanation than design for the FT or the universe.

Those all fail. You forgot that the test had to rely on ID' s own merits. Worse yet you are assuming facts not in evidence. You are assuming that the universe is finely tuned.

 

[Subduction Zone]

the you said



Those are very interesting points, but why do you have this annoying tendency of quoting form my comments and then make a comment that has nothing to do with the comment that you are quoting? (Yes I agree with your comment)

The point that I made is that even if NH doesn’t entirely and absolutely falsifies ID, common ancestry is a much better explanation for NH than ID, which is why one should accept universal common ancestry at least until someone provides a better explanation for NH.

I am pretty sure that we both agree on this point, so why are you making such a big deal?

The "big deal" is that there is scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. There is no scientific evidence for ID.

 

[Jose Fly]

It seems @leroy has walked away from a number of issues, leaving them unaddressed. It looks a lot like the standard creationist tactic of "ignore a post, wait until it gets buried a few pages in the thread, and then come back and act like it never happened".

Typical.

 

[leroy]

Those all fail. You forgot that the test had to rely on ID' s own merits. .

Well I don’t really understand what you are talking about, but I did provided examples of possible scenarios that would show that ID is probably wrong.

Under your own terms, what would falsify the heliocentric model? Perhaps with an example I would be capable of understanding what you mean.

Worse yet you are assuming facts not in evidence. You are assuming that the universe is finely tuned

Yes the FT argument is based on the assumption that some constants and initial conditions are Finely Tuned. But this assumption is testable and falsifiable , I don’t see your problem.

Yes the theist has to show that those values are finely tuned, and those who disagree with the assumption would have to provide evidence that shows that the assumptions are wrong.

 

[leroy]

The "big deal" is that there is scientific evidence for the theory of evolution.

Given the definition for evolution that you provided earlier, I completely agree there is strong evidence for evolution.

There is no scientific evidence for ID.

This is just a cheap attempt to change the topic and start and endless conversation on semantics.

The point that I made is that it is at least theoretically possible to show that a naturalistic explanation for the FT of the universe is better than ID (in the same way it was shown that Common Ancestry is a better explanation for NH, than ID)

So do you agree with this statement, yes or no, if yes we can move on to another topic, if not, why not?

 

[leroy]

It seems @leroy has walked away from a number of issues, leaving them unaddressed. It looks a lot like the standard creationist tactic of "ignore a post, wait until it gets buried a few pages in the thread, and then come back and act like it never happened".

Typical.

The reason why I ignored that comment is because you dishonestly misquoted me, and quite frankly I decided that answering to that straw man was not worth my time.

This is what I said (in red the relevant part)

The ID explanation is just the claim that that an intelligent designer is the cause of the FT that we observe in the universe, just like you would say that an inteligent designer is the cause of artwork, tools, pottery, buildings etc. if astronauts ever find that stuff in other planets.

This is your missquote

just like you would say that an inteligent designer is the cause of artwork, tools, pottery, buildings etc

.

and your answer

All those things are made by humans. Are you saying humans were the cause of FT in the universe?

Obviously I was talking about a hypothetical a scenario where humans would not be the intelligent designers, as I said before, my claim is that ID is the best explanation for the FT of the universe, if you what to have a conversation with me all you have to do is provide your favorite naturalistic explanation for the FT and explain why is that explanation better than ID.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Given the definition for evolution that you provided earlier, I completely agree there is strong evidence for evolution.





This is just a cheap attempt to change the topic and start and endless conversation on semantics.

The point that I made is that it is at least theoretically possible to show that a naturalistic explanation for the FT of the universe is better than ID (in the same way it was shown that Common Ancestry is a better explanation for NH, than ID)

So do you agree with this statement, yes or no, if yes we can move on to another topic, if not, why not?

You tend to ask silly questions. The naturalistic explanation has already been shown to be superior. There is after all evidence for it. There is no evidence for ID, so why would any rational person believe it?

 

[leroy]

You tend to ask silly questions. The naturalistic explanation has already been shown to be superior. There is after all evidence for it. There is no evidence for ID, so why would any rational person believe it?

Ok so what is that naturalistic explanation for the FT of the universe, and why is it superior to ID?

 

[Jose Fly]

The reason why I ignored that comment is because you dishonestly misquoted me

I did not.

and quite frankly I decided that answering to that straw man was not worth my time.

How convenient. So you feel no obligation to state ID creationism's explanation for FT, while at the same time asking others to show how their explanation is superior to ID creationism's? Again, how can anyone do that, if you refuse to say what ID creationism's explanation is?

This is what I said (in red the relevant part)

This is your missquote

and your answer

You did state "The ID explanation is just the claim that that an intelligent designer is the cause of the FT that we observe in the universe, just like you would say that an inteligent designer is the cause of artwork, tools, pottery, buildings etc.", did you not? The part about "if astronauts ever find that stuff in other planets" is meaningless until such a thing occurs.

Obviously I was talking about a hypothetical a scenario where humans would not be the intelligent designers

So what is the "designer" you're positing for FT?

as I said before, my claim is that ID is the best explanation for the FT of the universe, if you what to have a conversation with me all you have to do is provide your favorite naturalistic explanation for the FT and explain why is that explanation better than ID.

Again, impossible to do until you state what ID creationism's explanation is.

 

[leroy]

So what is the "designer" you're positing for FT?

[/QUOTE]
I would suggest that God is the designer. So what naturalistic explanation do you propose?

A

gain, impossible to do until you state what ID creationism's explanation is.

And again, I don’t understand your requirement, should I explain the teleological arguemnt? Should I provide a source that represents my view?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so what is that naturalistic explanation for the FT of the universe, and why is it superior to ID?

The whole fine tuning argument is merely an argument from ignorance. Do you not understand that?

 

[Wandering Monk]

The FT argument is all bass akwards. You could as easily say, 'because these condtions existed here, life was probable. Because it happened we are alive to assign some kind of purpose to the origin of life (whether such a thing is true or not.)

 

[Jose Fly]

I would suggest that God is the designer. So what naturalistic explanation do you propose?

There can be no alternative to "God did it". "God" by definition, can do absolutely everything imaginable so any potential alternative that's proposed would still fall within the category of "God can do that".

And again, I don’t understand your requirement, should I explain the teleological arguemnt? Should I provide a source that represents my view?

It no longer matters. Once you invoke a supernatural, all-powerful being, there cannot be any "alternative" (since that being can do everything).

Do you understand? How can there be an "alternative to everything"?

 

[leroy]

The whole fine tuning argument is merely an argument from ignorance. Do you not understand that?

Again, why do you have the annoying habit of answering something unrelated to the comment that you are quoting?

Is there any naturalistic explanation for the FT of the universe that you would consider better than design? Yes or no?

you forgot to answer this question

The point that I made is that it is at least theoretically possible to show that a naturalistic explanation for the FT of the universe is better than ID (in the same way it was shown that Common Ancestry is a better explanation for NH, than ID)

So do you agree with this statement, yes or no, if yes we can move on to another topic, if not, why not?