Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial (the Kitzmiller vs Dover Trial)

[blü 2]

You mean to tell me your scientists can't tell you so that you have to ask me?John 14:6

John 14:6 has a human character claim that he controls access to a supernatural ie imaginary character.

How is that relevant to what's true in reality?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Zombies are not mentioned because they weren't zombies. You just threw that in to be insensitive and you got called out on it. And you can't defend it.

Zombies are dead people that have been raised from the dead. That passage sure sounds like zombies to me. (I think zombies are awesome, by the way). I certainly did defend it though, didn't I.

Now, instead of trying to create a diversion, could you address my questions about the dead people rising up from their graves and roaming around town?

How do you actually know anything you believe? You haven't seen your own brain, do you doubt it exists?

I have seen my own brain, actually. It's pretty cool. Nice try at an insult, I guess. A for effort, at least!

Could you please address my questions about the reanimated dead people now or would you rather continue trying to brush them off? How about my questions about the 500 witnesses? Not even going to try it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wrong. He said that because Matthew didn't say "I was there and I was with Jesus" means he wasn't there with Jesus. That's where my argument came from.

So which ones do you think are the eyewitness accounts?

The eyewitness accounts are totally 100% reliable. Your theories may or may not be. That's the difference. If you don't accept the eyewitness accounts, then that's fine, but they still are there and still are valid, no matter what you say about them.

On what basis do you make the claim that the accounts in the Bible are 100% reliable?

 

[Sapiens]

So which ones do you think are the eyewitness accounts?

On what basis do you make the claim that the accounts in the Bible are 100% reliable?

Easy, the bible is true because the bible says that it is true, duh!

 

[blü 2]

You mean to tell me your scientists can't tell you so that you have to ask me?
John 14:6

An eyewitness account is a first-person account of a particular occasion and what the eyewitness personally saw, heard and said.

Considerable value is added if the eyewitness identifies himself or herself by name, states the time and place and those present, and reports what was said in direct speech that he or she personally heard or spoke.

So, for example:

'A week after Sukkot I was in the town square around midday, talking to my brother Yakob, and I noticed Yeshua Yosephson come in the north gate. He looked around, saw us, and hurried up. He said to me, "Yoh, can you lend me two shekels till payday?" I said, "Sorry, dude, I'm tapped right out." '

(sgd) Yohanan McZebedee
​

An eyewitness account takes second place to a video.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Easy, the bible is true because the bible says that it is true, duh!

Silly me.

 

[Riders]

Christians always claim evidence through tons of eyewitnesses that saw Jesus arise from the tomb die on the across etc. There's only the one written account outside of the bible Josephus and it's very unreliable.

 

[stevevw]

There is nothing there that suggests that any other than the most overly simplistic view of Natural Selection is placed into question. There is, most assuredly no argument made for any form on unnatural selection.

The problem is that many take that simplistic view of natural selection being the all powerful creator of just about everything and this fuels the belief about materialistic natural auses to how complex life came about when there are other processes involved that put things in better perspective ie that there are processes that are able to evolve complexity that dont rely on blind chance and have set mechanisms that will produce exacctly whats needed. I am not what you mean by unnatural selection. I am not saying there is some unnatural process whatever that means exactly. All processes are natural but it is the guiding processes that can create complex life similar to laws of nature as stated in one of the papers. Those laws or guiding codes have ben around from the beginning and needed to be becuase life cannot produce itself from no codes or laws. Thise codes and laws are very precise and processes like natural selection cannot create those in a multitude of possibilitilties that often need to have existing structures that also require precise additions.

 

[Sapiens]

The problem is that many take that simplistic view of natural selection being the all powerful creator of just about everything and this fuels the belief about materialistic natural auses to how complex life came about when there are other processes involved that put things in better perspective ie that there are processes that are able to evolve complexity that dont rely on blind chance and have set mechanisms that will produce exacctly whats needed. I am not what you mean by unnatural selection. I am not saying there is some unnatural process whatever that means exactly. All processes are natural but it is the guiding processes that can create complex life similar to laws of nature as stated in one of the papers. Those laws or guiding codes have ben around from the beginning and needed to be becuase life cannot produce itself from no codes or laws. Thise codes and laws are very precise and processes like natural selection cannot create those in a multitude of possibilitilties that often need to have existing structures that also require precise additions.

Natural Selection is a concept that is robust enough and unifying enough to cover all of adaptation, all of speciation, and all of evolution back to the original Common Ancestor(s), nothing more need be invoked or hypothesised.

Natural Selection does not rely on blind chance, but rather invokes the common sense conclusion that the more fit to the current environment that a genome is, the greater will be it's reproductive advantage over less fit genomes and the more dominant it will become. Instabilities in the environment and other phenomena such as founder effect and genetic drift make fitness a moving target and increase the diversity within the genome. So it is not a question of, "mechanisms that will produce exactly what's needed." Rather it is a matter of phenomena such as "Hierarchic Transitions," (the duplication of something that already exists genetically) which is clearly not, "exactly what's needed," because it already exists. This but frees the duplicated genetic region to, "go for a walk," (mutationally) that explores those changes that enhance the genome's fitness, whilst bypassing the statistical limitations that some out of date pundits would invoke to theoretically limit the potential of mutation and Natural Selection. This process is fully within the fold of Darwinian Evolution and does not partake of anything but materialistic natural causes, no unnatural/supernatural processes need be invoked.

 

[stevevw]

Natural Selection is a concept that is robust enough and unifying enough to cover all of adaptation, all of speciation, and all of evolution back to the original Common Ancestor(s), nothing more need be invoked or hypothesised.

Natural Selection does not rely on blind chance, but rather invokes the common sense conclusion that the more fit to the current environment that a genome is, the greater will be it's reproductive advantage over less fit genomes and the more dominant it will become. Instabilities in the environment and other phenomena such as founder effect and genetic drift make fitness a moving target and increase the diversity within the genome. So it is not a question of, "mechanisms that will produce exactly what's needed." Rather it is a matter of phenomena such as "Hierarchic Transitions," (the duplication of something that already exists genetically) which is clearly not, "exactly what's needed," because it already exists. This but frees the duplicated genetic region to, "go for a walk," (mutationally) that explores those changes that enhance the genome's fitness, whilst bypassing the statistical limitations that some out of date pundits would invoke to theoretically limit the potential of mutation and Natural Selection. This process is fully within the fold of Darwinian Evolution and does not partake of anything but materialistic natural causes, no unnatural/supernatural processes need be invoked.

There is a massive assumption that natural selection is the reason and is capable of being responsible for evolving complex life right back to the original common ancestor. As Lynch stated in his paper

Jacob (46) argues that “it is natural selection that gives direction to changes, orients chance, and slowly, progressively produces more complex structures, new organs, and new species.” The vast majority of biologists almost certainly agree with such statements. But where is the direct supportive evidence for the assumption that complexity is rooted in adaptive processes? No existing observations support such a claim
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

 

[Skwim]

There is a massive assumption that natural selection is the reason and is capable of being responsible for evolving complex life right back to the original common ancestor. As Lynch stated in his paper

Jacob (46) argues that “it is natural selection that gives direction to changes, orients chance, and slowly, progressively produces more complex structures, new organs, and new species.” The vast majority of biologists almost certainly agree with such statements. But where is the direct supportive evidence for the assumption that complexity is rooted in adaptive processes? No existing observations support such a claim
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

Aside from the fact that your source is 10 years old, Jacob's argument is 40 years old, having come out in the 10 June 1977, Volume 196, Number 4295 issue of Science. It would be far more impressive if Michael Lynch addressed more current thinking rather than reaching back into the archives of science to come up with an example to criticize in order to make his case.

This also speaks to your desperation to make yours. Amusing, but that's all it is.

.

 

[metis]

The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

Natural selection doesn't do that as the generator of diversity are mutations. Then, from there, both natural selection and genetic drift take over.

 

[stevevw]

Natural selection doesn't do that as the generator of diversity are mutations. Then, from there, both natural selection and genetic drift take over.

Regardless of the source of variation Lynch is saying that the vast majority of biologists and certainly lay people think that Natural selection can give direction to changes, orient chance, and slowly, progressively produce more complex structures, new organs, and new species.”
Lynch atates there is no direct evidence for this and his paper is designed to dispel these myths. He is not saying that Natural selection is not involved in how life can change and adapt but that it is not as powerful as some think and that other forces including drift but there are others as well as I have mentions.

These other forces are not subject to adaptations as a means of fitness and are more directive and designed to help life gain what is needed to live in their habitats without having to rely on a blind process of random mutations prducing a multitude of possible variation where only a minute amount is beneficial for which selection has to find. from my understanding most of the hard work is already done and is sourced from pre-existing material and natural slection only comes in at the end to refine things. Life already has the ability to tap into a vast amount of genetic material whuch can be switched on when needed and onnections between other creatures is more like a forest rather than a trunk where all life has stemmed from just one common ancestor. Creatures can gain genetic material from other organisms as well. Life can also change the enviroment to suit rather than always being subject to adpat to enviroments to suvive and the co-existence of organisms within an enviroment can transfer what may be needed to neigbouring creatures as well. its not just all about adaptations and survival of the fittest. Life was designed to work together as well.

 

[sayak83]

Regardless of the source of variation Lynch is saying that the vast majority of biologists and certainly lay people think that Natural selection can give direction to changes, orient chance, and slowly, progressively produce more complex structures, new organs, and new species.”
Lynch atates there is no direct evidence for this and his paper is designed to dispel these myths. He is not saying that Natural selection is not involved in how life can change and adapt but that it is not as powerful as some think and that other forces including drift but there are others as well as I have mentions.

These other forces are not subject to adaptations as a means of fitness and are more directive and designed to help life gain what is needed to live in their habitats without having to rely on a blind process of random mutations prducing a multitude of possible variation where only a minute amount is beneficial for which selection has to find. from my understanding most of the hard work is already done and is sourced from pre-existing material and natural slection only comes in at the end to refine things. Life already has the ability to tap into a vast amount of genetic material whuch can be switched on when needed and onnections between other creatures is more like a forest rather than a trunk where all life has stemmed from just one common ancestor. Creatures can gain genetic material from other organisms as well. Life can also change the enviroment to suit rather than always being subject to adpat to enviroments to suvive and the co-existence of organisms within an enviroment can transfer what may be needed to neigbouring creatures as well. its not just all about adaptations and survival of the fittest. Life was designed to work together as well.

Variation occurs via new gene formation, point Mutation, gene duplication, hybridization etc. Variants achieve fixation by drift, natural selection, sexual selection or (possibly) group selection. This entire mechanism, as a whole, is the considered the mechanism for evolution.

Now what is the paper objecting to?

 

[stevevw]

Aside from the fact that your source is 10 years old, Jacob's argument is 40 years old, having come out in the 10 June 1977, Volume 196, Number 4295 issue of Science. It would be far more impressive if Michael Lynch addressed more current thinking rather than reaching back into the archives of science to come up with an example to criticize in order to make his case.

This also speaks to your desperation to make yours. Amusing, but that's all it is.

.

If you go back you will find many sources I supplied along with Lynches paper that all more or less support each other. Lnychehas more modern papers and other scientists support what Lynche is saying. But it is no sense attacking the quality of sources when you are not addressing the content. Some sources that are 50 years old still hold there ground. Dont may still hold Darwins book up as the ultimate source of support for evolution. What about Einsteins work, there are 100s of sources that go way back that still stand up as good support. Ten years is only a short time and most academic writing will accept papers of this age as support. In some ways having a period of time go by to allow for checking and critismis good and as far as I know Lyches work has been well recieves and accepted.

Heres Sandwalk commenting on Lynches paper only a couple of years ago and he seems to support what he is saying.
Sandwalk: Michael Lynch on modern evolutionary theory

here is an article with Koonin who I also linked who is in support fo Lynches work.
Eugene Koonin: "The New Evolutionary Biology" | HuffPost

 

[metis]

Regardless of the source of variation Lynch is saying that the vast majority of biologists and certainly lay people think that Natural selection can give direction to changes, orient chance, and slowly, progressively produce more complex structures, new organs, and new species.”

Then they would be wrong on some of these items as natural selection only works with what's already available within the gene pool.

These other forces are not subject to adaptations as a means of fitness and are more directive and designed to help life gain what is needed to live in their habitats without having to rely on a blind process of random mutations prducing a multitude of possible variation where only a minute amount is beneficial for which selection has to find.

Mutations are not entirely blind because of the structure links within a d.n.a. molecule.

Secondly, we now know that many organisms that secrete hormones and enzymes may have more variability with what becomes their phenotype.

Life was designed to work together as well.

"Designed" by what?

 

[metis]

Dont may still hold Darwins book up as the ultimate source of support for evolution.

Not any more than psychologists would hold Freud's works up as being the "ultimate source of support for psychology". We know tons more about evolution and psychology than when those two lived.

 

[stevevw]

Not any more than psychologists would hold Freud's works up as being the "ultimate source of support for psychology". We know tons more about evolution and psychology than when those two lived.

I should have clarified that they still hold up Darwins core belief that Natural selection is more or less the only force responsible for all changes in living things. IE

The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms.

For the average person, evolution is equivalent to natural selection, and because the concept of selection is easy to grasp, a reasonable understanding of comparative biology is often taken to be a license for evolutionary speculation.

For example, Dawkins' (7⇓–9) agenda to spread the word on the awesome power of natural selection has been quite successful, but it has come at the expense of reference to any other mechanisms, a view that is in some ways profoundly misleading. There is, of course, a substantial difference between the popular literature and the knowledge base that has grown from a century of evolutionary research, but this distinction is often missed by nonevolutionary biologists.

The literature is permeated with dogmatic statements that natural selection is the only guiding force of evolution

The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

 

[metis]

I should have clarified that they still hold up Darwins core belief that Natural selection is more or less the only force responsible for all changes in living things. IE

The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms.

For the average person, evolution is equivalent to natural selection, and because the concept of selection is easy to grasp, a reasonable understanding of comparative biology is often taken to be a license for evolutionary speculation.

For example, Dawkins' (7⇓–9) agenda to spread the word on the awesome power of natural selection has been quite successful, but it has come at the expense of reference to any other mechanisms, a view that is in some ways profoundly misleading. There is, of course, a substantial difference between the popular literature and the knowledge base that has grown from a century of evolutionary research, but this distinction is often missed by nonevolutionary biologists.

The literature is permeated with dogmatic statements that natural selection is the only guiding force of evolution

The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

The three-legged stool that drives evolution is mutation, (random) genetic drift, and natural selection. The only one of those that wouldn't have to exist for evolution of species to occur is genetic drift. Mutation provides genetic variation, which is absolutely essential for evolutionary change that would go beyond an original gene pool.