Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[HapticSimian]

A new level of crazy has just emerge. EVERYTHING is open to outside influence. Only the universe is assumingly a truly closed system. Next we'll hear that metal doesn't rust.

No. When you run a simulation on a computer, that simulation does not take the fact that the computer is powered into account. It will operate within its scripted parameters, and will continue to do so as long as the hardware on which it runs continues operating. The state of said hardware does not factor into the simulation.

What you keep missing here is that it's not about open or closed systems. It's clearly not a closed system with electricity (energy) being added but as we know that is not enough to keep it from deteriorating much less being able to grow more complex. Simply adding heat to a planet similarly is not enough to create life.

What you keep missing is that nobody is arguing that. "We don't quite know yet" is a perfectly reasonable and honest response to the question of how life emerged, which is still not the same question as how life diversified.

Are you suggesting that merely fitting is enough to confirm evolution? Strikingly enough it all fits within the context of creation as well. That's the point you keep overlooking. It's not conclusive but circumstantial. Start with the article on circumstantial evidence. The mistake you make is in jumping straight to the evidence confirming the conclusion. In some cases this would be correct if there was no other plausible explanation. Example is a crime scene where the defendant's fingerprints are found. That would place them at the scene of crime but if it can be explained that there's a good reason for fingerprints to be there, e.g. they visited there regularly in the past, then the fingerprints are useless as evidence.

Stop grasping at straws, bud. When you're dealing with a picture painted over the course of 3 and some-odd billion years of course much of your evidence will be circumstantial. However when all the evidence from all viable routes of inquiry points uniformly to a single course of events, you can form a pretty clear picture. This goes far beyond having a set of fingerprints; this is having shoe prints in the mud outside, with matching muddy boots found in the suspect's possession. And having the suspect's blood on a broken window pane. And having CCTV footage of someone matching the suspect's description parking a car matching the suspect's outside the crime scene. And a collection of people hearing what sounded like the suspect's voice emanating from where the crime took place. And ballistics matching the bullet that killed the victim to a gun registered in the suspect's name. And finding said gun disposed of in a dumpster down the street, with the suspect's prints on it. And finding gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, along with blood spatter from the victim. Guess what the suspect's gonna get? Life, bud... life.

There are two possibilities here: evolution or magick. Evolution's been observed, and its mechanisms are understood - some broadly, many intimately. Nothing has ever been observed being magicked into existence, so evolution wins.

If we really look at the actual evidence we find that it's really weak as actual evidence as well. The fossil record shows species as largely static.

'course it does; rocks tend to be rather static . But seriously what we have are thousands upon thousands of incredibly narrow-angle snapshots left over aeons. However, when many people much smarter than you or I spend successive lifetimes arranging those individually trivial snapshots into a congruent model it might be worth looking at. When that model, without exception, explains both their individual locations in time (in the geologic column) and their apparent progression, it becomes daft to not accept the model as broadly true. When that broad truth gets narrowed down by every subsequent line of inquiry we end up with a scientific theory of what transpired.

As Steven Schafersman writes: "These scientific theories--such as the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, evolution, genetics, plate tectonics, and big bang cosmology--are the most reliable, most rigorous, and most comprehensive form of knowledge that humans possess. Thus, it is important for every educated person to understand where scientific knowledge comes from, and how to emulate this method of gaining knowledge. Scientific knowledge comes from the practice of scientific thinking--using the scientific method--and this mode of discovering and validating knowledge can be duplicated and achieved by anyone who practices critical thinking."

Think more critically, dude.

It's a better confirmation of creation in the past.

It isn't. Asserting something does not make it so.

Different lines of evidence shows different lines of descent. Seen as a creation where different combinations of parts were used it makes perfect sense however that you'll see this contradiction from the viewpoint of common descent.

There is a difference between refinement and contradiction. Refinement is finding evidence that necessitates the reevaluation of ancestral lines. Contradiction is finding a rabbit fossil in a pre-Cambrian stratum of rock. Find one of those, or its equivalent, and we can talk.

As an aside: I saw you earlier making reference to earlier models, of geocentrism and such, which have been discarded. You seem to hope that the theory of evolution might run the same course. Seeing that you like Isaac Asimov so much, I'd suggest you give this a read: The Relativity of Wrong.

 

[CoolBug]

Please explain then what evidence you want. I just gave you 3 sources for evidence.

The first basically states the conclusion of a study published in Nature. Genetic evidence is used to show that cud-chewing mammals are more closely related to whales than other even toed mammals. This contradicts studies based on morphology that puts them more closely related to other even toed mammals than to whales.

Even if you want to reject the morphological evidence the second one is an example of ERV evidence contradicting the genetic evidence. The authors suggest the only reasonable conclusion is that humans branched of earlier than what the genetic evidence shows.

The third is microRNA that contradicts the genetic and morphological lines of descent.


So you will only consider some contradictions as valid? ERVs showing chimps more closely related to bonobos and gorillas than to humans IS in contradiction to genetics showing chimps more closely related to humans. It's your attempts at selectively accepting contradictions here that are in vein.


And you ARE seeking the truth? LMFAO troll


Consensus does not determine truth.


I'm not the one confused here. There is nothing but logical fallacies that attempts to prove evolution.


ID is theistic evolution in disguise. There's nothing in ID that prevents evolution, only evolution through natural blind processes. Evolution shouldn't in any case make claims of natural or unnatural causes so the incompatibility is between ID and atheistic Darwinism and not ID and evolution.

If you want to use the courts as your evidence though: http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or151/mr93tran.htm
Ruse recanted the testimony that the judge relied on in making his verdict and also practically endorses perjury here.


I'm not a proponent of the DI but as for the scientific community stating that there's no controversy:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/science_law_and_economics_come046871.html
No controversy indeed. LMFAO

As for the "undefined quality" of observable intelligence, well holy smoke there's no proper definition for what a species is and the role of natural selection is undefined. More or that double standard being applied it seems.


And there you go. There is no demarcation criteria for separating science from non-science that's accepted by the majority of science philosophers. The article then goes on to list such a demarcation criteria just like Ruse did in the Scopes trial after which he got tremendous flack from science philosophers.

Your subjective criteria of popularism is not a valid measure of the truth. It fails the Daubert Standard in any case which states "The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community." Evolutionists are therefor not the relevant scientific community for evaluating ID.

You conveniently ignored the criteria for something to constitute as a science:


-Consistent
-Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
-Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
-Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
-Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
-Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
-Progressive (refines previous theories)
-Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

Conveniently

 

[Swa]

No. When you run a simulation on a computer, that simulation does not take the fact that the computer is powered into account. It will operate within its scripted parameters, and will continue to do so as long as the hardware on which it runs continues operating. The state of said hardware does not factor into the simulation.

What simulation? Nobody mentioned any simulation.

What you keep missing is that nobody is arguing that. "We don't quite know yet" is a perfectly reasonable and honest response to the question of how life emerged, which is still not the same question as how life diversified.

You ARE arguing it by keeping on insisting that life is an open system. There are lots of things we don't know for sure yet. That does not keep us from applying current laws to reasonably determine if something may or may not be possible. In this case we know it's unlikely that life emerged.

Stop grasping at straws, bud. When you're dealing with a picture painted over the course of 3 and some-odd billion years of course much of your evidence will be circumstantial. However when all the evidence from all viable routes of inquiry points uniformly to a single course of events, you can form a pretty clear picture. This goes far beyond having a set of fingerprints; this is having shoe prints in the mud outside, with matching muddy boots found in the suspect's possession. And having the suspect's blood on a broken window pane. And having CCTV footage of someone matching the suspect's description parking a car matching the suspect's outside the crime scene. And a collection of people hearing what sounded like the suspect's voice emanating from where the crime took place. And ballistics matching the bullet that killed the victim to a gun registered in the suspect's name. And finding said gun disposed of in a dumpster down the street, with the suspect's prints on it. And finding gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, along with blood spatter from the victim. Guess what the suspect's gonna get? Life, bud... life.

There are two possibilities here: evolution or magick. Evolution's been observed, and its mechanisms are understood - some broadly, many intimately. Nothing has ever been observed being magicked into existence, so evolution wins.

There is circumstantial evidence and then there's circumstantial evidence. Evidence from which only one reasonable conclusion can be drawn is largely not treated as circumstantial. Evidence from which more than one conclusion can be drawn is often pointed out as circumstantial.

Unfortunately for you all the evidence doesn't point to a single course of events and some of it even points to another event. You are overstating the case for evolution. You have a witness testifying that he heard gunshots and saw a dark figure but couldn't make out who it was. The police arrived to see the suspect standing over the body with what's confirmed to be the murder weapon. The pathologist called to testify admits to bruising and marks on the body consistent with somebody trying to perform CPR explaining the blood on his hands. A gun club owner testifies that the suspect regularly visits a shooting range explaining the gunshot residue. The CCTV footage shows someone similar to the suspect but a forensics expert calculated the subject's height as shorter than that of the suspect. Guess what the defense is going to claim?

Don't know why you keep on insisting that it must either be evolution or magic. The only thing you observe is adaptation after the fact and then assume this must have been true in the past all the way back. Each of those were specifically chosen as they relate to evolution. The most damning evidence against your case, the CCTV footage, actually show it likely didn't happen that way. Interesting that you will choose to just dismiss it.

'course it does; rocks tend to be rather static . But seriously what we have are thousands upon thousands of incredibly narrow-angle snapshots left over aeons. However, when many people much smarter than you or I spend successive lifetimes arranging those individually trivial snapshots into a congruent model it might be worth looking at. When that model, without exception, explains both their individual locations in time (in the geologic column) and their apparent progression, it becomes daft to not accept the model as broadly true. When that broad truth gets narrowed down by every subsequent line of inquiry we end up with a scientific theory of what transpired.

As Steven Schafersman writes: "These scientific theories--such as the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, evolution, genetics, plate tectonics, and big bang cosmology--are the most reliable, most rigorous, and most comprehensive form of knowledge that humans possess. Thus, it is important for every educated person to understand where scientific knowledge comes from, and how to emulate this method of gaining knowledge. Scientific knowledge comes from the practice of scientific thinking--using the scientific method--and this mode of discovering and validating knowledge can be duplicated and achieved by anyone who practices critical thinking."

Think more critically, dude.

Explain then how billions of snapshots will not show any of the most important parts. And don't come with the cop-out that fossilisation is a rare event. There are multiple fossils of single species and in some cases even thousands. Fossilisation is clearly not so rare and all of those show how species are rather static. The transitions between phyla and all major taxonomic groups that would take millions of years of gradual changes is undocumented. Heck for evolution to be true that would take MAGIC!

I'll see your Steven Schafersman and raise you a Ronald R. West: "Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

It's clear as day here. If you force those snapshots to fit into a presupposed framework of evolution you will get what appears to be changes linking species. What Kathleen Hunt and you would like to be able to claim is that there's some united front. Clearly if you do some actual digging almost all the examples of "transitional" forms she uses are disputed among the major evolutionary authorities. If smarts have anything to do with it then who's smarts are right? Or is it that they are all right on some of their claims? In that case it's all guesswork.

What most forget is that evolution never predicted the fossil record. It adapted to it. It's therefor nonsensical to claim that the model "without exception, explains both their individual locations in time (in the geologic column) and their apparent progression." Of course it would. The model was composed from their locations in time and APPARENT "progression" so it can't NOT "explain" it!!!

Please DO think more critically here dude. The broad "truth" only seems to you to being narrowed down. It's not being narrowed down but being contradicted by fossil evidence, DNA, ERVs and microRNAs so there's your exceptions wherever it does make actual predictions. CoolBug asked for a source and several were given. There are even more of these contradictions. Now you say "no these are not contradictions because you didn't show this and this and this." May I direct you here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#As_logical_fallacy?

Asserting something does not make it so.

Indeed

There is a difference between refinement and contradiction. Refinement is finding evidence that necessitates the reevaluation of ancestral lines. Contradiction is finding a rabbit fossil in a pre-Cambrian stratum of rock. Find one of those, or its equivalent, and we can talk.

Contradiction is when one type of evidence shows a different line of descent than another. Contradictions were given.

As an aside: I saw you earlier making reference to earlier models, of geocentrism and such, which have been discarded. You seem to hope that the theory of evolution might run the same course. Seeing that you like Isaac Asimov so much, I'd suggest you give this a read: The Relativity of Wrong.

Are you suggesting that because evolution is a newer idea it must be more correct? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty

 

[Swa]

You conveniently ignored the criteria for something to constitute as a science:


-Consistent
-Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
-Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
-Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
-Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
-Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
-Progressive (refines previous theories)
-Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

Conveniently

Conveniently you ignored that there is no criteria (known as the demarcation criteria problem) to apply to all sciences that will be accepted by the majority of science philosophers.

 

[HapticSimian]

What simulation? Nobody mentioned any simulation.

Virus, simulation, any computer programme...

You ARE arguing it by keeping on insisting that life is an open system. There are lots of things we don't know for sure yet. That does not keep us from applying current laws to reasonably determine if something may or may not be possible. In this case we know it's unlikely that life emerged.

We have NO grounds to say that - why do you struggle with this? Life might exist on every rocky planet throughout the galaxy which happens be in the habitable zone of its star, of which there would be millions.

There is circumstantial evidence and then there's circumstantial evidence. Evidence from which only one reasonable conclusion can be drawn is largely not treated as circumstantial. Evidence from which more than one conclusion can be drawn is often pointed out as circumstantial.

Unfortunately for you all the evidence doesn't point to a single course of events and some of it even points to another event. You are overstating the case for evolution. You have a witness testifying that he heard gunshots and saw a dark figure but couldn't make out who it was. The police arrived to see the suspect standing over the body with what's confirmed to be the murder weapon. The pathologist called to testify admits to bruising and marks on the body consistent with somebody trying to perform CPR explaining the blood on his hands. A gun club owner testifies that the suspect regularly visits a shooting range explaining the gunshot residue. The CCTV footage shows someone similar to the suspect but a forensics expert calculated the subject's height as shorter than that of the suspect. Guess what the defense is going to claim?

Defensce can claim whatever they want. When subsequent investigation shows that every bit of 'evidence' in defence of the suspect was either taken out of context or flat-out fabricated, defence and defendant are going to crash and burn.

Don't know why you keep on insisting that it must either be evolution or magic. The only thing you observe is adaptation after the fact and then assume this must have been true in the past all the way back. Each of those were specifically chosen as they relate to evolution. The most damning evidence against your case, the CCTV footage, actually show it likely didn't happen that way. Interesting that you will choose to just dismiss it.

I haven't had my morning coffee yet, but excuse me if I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Explain then how billions of snapshots will not show any of the most important parts. And don't come with the cop-out that fossilisation is a rare event. There are multiple fossils of single species and in some cases even thousands. Fossilisation is clearly not so rare and all of those show how species are rather static. The transitions between phyla and all major taxonomic groups that would take millions of years of gradual changes is undocumented. Heck for evolution to be true that would take MAGIC!

What are these 'most important parts'? Care to have a look at the evolution of cetaceans?

I'll see your Steven Schafersman and raise you a Ronald R. West: "Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

The geologic column was outlined by creationist geologists. For example, Adam Sedgwick, who described and named the Cambrian era, referred to the theory of evolution as "no better than a phrensied dream" (Ritland 1982). The geologic column is based on the observation of faunal succession, the fact that organisms vary across strata, and that they do so in a consistent order from place to place. William "Strata" Smith (1769-1839) recognized faunal succession years before Darwin published his ideas on biological evolution.

It's clear as day here. If you force those snapshots to fit into a presupposed framework of evolution you will get what appears to be changes linking species. What Kathleen Hunt and you would like to be able to claim is that there's some united front. Clearly if you do some actual digging almost all the examples of "transitional" forms she uses are disputed among the major evolutionary authorities. If smarts have anything to do with it then who's smarts are right? Or is it that they are all right on some of their claims? In that case it's all guesswork.

There is a distinction between various experts within differing on where within a framework something fits in, and on the validity of the framework itself being legitimately questioned. I keep getting the impression that you are seeking to extrapolate the latter from the former.

What most forget is that evolution never predicted the fossil record. It adapted to it. It's therefor nonsensical to claim that the model "without exception, explains both their individual locations in time (in the geologic column) and their apparent progression." Of course it would. The model was composed from their locations in time and APPARENT "progression" so it can't NOT "explain" it!!!

What you seem to disregard is that the fossil record is but one avenue of confirming the theory. Indeed, even without a single fossil there would still be ample evidence to see to it that evolution is the only reasonable conclusion to draw. The model was constructed from far, far more than the mere distribution of fossils; the fact that they fit is just another nail in your coffin.

Please DO think more critically here dude. The broad "truth" only seems to you to being narrowed down. It's not being narrowed down but being contradicted by fossil evidence, DNA, ERVs and microRNAs so there's your exceptions wherever it does make actual predictions. CoolBug asked for a source and several were given. There are even more of these contradictions. Now you say "no these are not contradictions because you didn't show this and this and this." May I direct you here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#As_logical_fallacy?

Pointing out that your examples do no meet the requirement to be regarded as contradictions does not constitute to moving the goalposts.

Contradiction is when one type of evidence shows a different line of descent than another. Contradictions were given.

They weren't.

Are you suggesting that because evolution is a newer idea it must be more correct? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty

Ya know, this is the point that serves to confirm that you are honestly not worth engaging on the issue. You clearly will not afford others the common courtesy of even looking at the links you're being provided, because that'd an absurd conclusion to draw from what Asimov wrote... even for you.

 

[Elimentals]

I know its kinda OT but just saw this joke, and it made me think of poor old Swa keeping this thread strong for 12 pages and still no end in sight

http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/ffecd1306367012ee3c300163e41dd5b

 

[alloytoo]

I don't know why this continually has to be pointed out. Simply adding energy isn't a sufficient condition. If you truly believe it is then put a broken computer in the sun, it should repair itself by your account.

I don't know why this continually has to be pointed out, but the second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy . The entropy of the sun increases, even as the entropy of the earth decreases.

Because once you go above kindergarten explanations you realise energy does not create complexity and his conjecture that complexity can increase somewhere as long as it decrease somewhere else is proven false.

This is patently untrue, we see the complexity arising from the sun's energy every day. Complex systems rely are driven by the sun's energy. This of course comes at a cost, the entropy of the sun increases, even as the entropy of the earth decreases.

Can we say that the complexity of the sun decreases (inversely to the increase in entropy) as well?

Can we even say that the sun is (many many times) more complex than the earth? It's certainly less entropic, without a doubt, but more complex?

Does entropy ∝ 1/complexity?

Problem is you're throwing complexity around with vague subjective usage.

If you want to prove that the second law of thermodynamics is a problem for evolution then you simply have to prove that the change in entropy on earth is more than it should have been. More than the increase in entropy the sun suffers from the energy reaching earth.

Simply put, has evolution used more energy than the earth receives from the sun?

If the answer is no, then your argument is no longer one of thermodynamics.

This has been pointed out numerous times that it's not necessary to state all a person's views.

Your argument is one from authority, you are using Asimov as said authority. It is a reasonable expectation that Asimov's view's approximate yours, or failing that, that the quotation is complete enough to unquivocably establish his view (and context of his statement).

Failing to do so misrepresents Dr. Asimov. It is false witness. It is lying.

The point is that the principle of entropy applies to complexity so his bogus explanation of how it doesn't apply to life is irrelevant.

Again you misrepresent him.

Your ad hominems have been duly noted and also your personal attacks and insults. Fan of ghoti much?

You misrepresent Dr. Asimov. Your honesty, or it's lack is no longer in question.

Photosynthesis is a mechanism of energy conversion. As explained to Haptic here the basis of evolution doesn't even exist so to claim it as a consequence is just another presupposition.

ah but's very existance disproves your silly argument that a) thermodynamics prohibits complexity and b) energy cannot be converted into complexity.

a) Yet it doesn't stop it from being recognised.

You haven't even adequately defined it yet. How can you recognize it, and distinguish it from false positives?

b) One he then misapplies when claiming the sun is sufficient to create complexity.

I think you're one misapplying "complexity" to thermodynamics.

c) Ilya's work mainly infers that the complexity results from gaining entropy. E.g. ice crystals take on an orderly arrangement because the entropy lost this way is offset by an even greater entropy increase through heat dissipation.
That's why systems far from equilibrium actually favors it. It doesn't show how adding energy to a system increases complexity as it actually shows the exact opposite.

Because decreasing entropy keeps systems far from equilibrium.

And you're an authority on what constitutes science? You sound almost like Ruse in the Scopes trial after which he was ridiculed by science philosophers.
[/quotes]

Show me the designer in ID. In the absence said designer ID is indistinguishable from myth and fairy tale, indeed religion.

or as Judge Jones (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) put it:

"We conclude that the religious nature of intelligent design would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child,"

"The writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity."

None of them support evolution exclusively.

All of these disparate disciplines converge in supporting evolution.

 

[Swa]

Virus, simulation, any computer programme...

Lol it was an example of a different process repeating in a complex manner that is possible because it was designed to do so. A simulation would approximate an identical process in the real world. But I see you also ignored the example of a physical machine that replicates itself. Some amazing advances in this field

We have NO grounds to say that - why do you struggle with this? Life might exist on every rocky planet throughout the galaxy which happens be in the habitable zone of its star, of which there would be millions.

Because we HAVE grounds to say that. It's called observation. Of course we don't know with absolute certainty just like we don't know with absolute certainty that the earth isn't hollow with midgets powering a giant magnet. We don't jump straight to that unlikelihood just because there's no irrefutable proof that it isn't the case.

It's really ironic the same pattern where evolutionists will claim one event infinitely more likely than another when they in fact have no cookin' clue but when faced with a difficult problem jump straight to the unlikely scenario being the case. I have to restate it here that it's clearly not creationists that have a problem with critical thinking. But moving on from this.

Defensce can claim whatever they want. When subsequent investigation shows that every bit of 'evidence' in defence of the suspect was either taken out of context or flat-out fabricated, defence and defendant are going to crash and burn.

That's just it. Proper investigation shows that the evidence was taken out of context or fabricated by the prosecution. You keep on assuming that you can make up your mind about the conclusion and then "search" for evidence to support it. It's actually a bad way of doing science and a good way to put innocent people in jail.

I haven't had my morning coffee yet, but excuse me if I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Let me spell it out. I specifically chose those as they relate to evolution. The suspect (evolution) was at the scene (life) trying to keep the victim alive (adaptation to a changing environment) explaining the blood (interpretation of evolution happening) on his hands. Gunpowder residue was found on his hands because he regularly fires a gun (mutations happen). The suspect was performing a necessity to keep the victim alive (without adaptation to a changing environment species eventually become extinct). The gunpowder residue confirms he fired a gun (mutations happen) but because he regularly fires a gun (mutations have to happen to allow adaptation) it's impossible to determine he fired the gun to commit the crime (diversification of life through mutation). The suspect never takes the stand but the CCTV footage (fossil record) shows a shorter figure (creation) at the scene where the suspect (evolution) is expected to show up as taller.

What are these 'most important parts'? Care to have a look at the evolution of cetaceans?

A good example. If there's a gradual evolution from a wolf-like animal towards a whale then the fossils don't show it. Such a process would have taken millions of years yet few if any examples can be found. Of the ones that do exist they are either whales or land mammals.

The geologic column was outlined by creationist geologists. For example, Adam Sedgwick, who described and named the Cambrian era, referred to the theory of evolution as "no better than a phrensied dream" (Ritland 1982). The geologic column is based on the observation of faunal succession, the fact that organisms vary across strata, and that they do so in a consistent order from place to place. William "Strata" Smith (1769-1839) recognized faunal succession years before Darwin published his ideas on biological evolution.

Darwin's prediction was that the missing links would eventually be found. As time went by more specimens of known fossils together with some new entirely different species were found it became clear that this prediction failed. By inference evolutionary hierarchies were then constructed. Creationism predicts that species remain largely static. One species is unlikely to change into other remarkably different ones and as we move up to the level of kingdoms this changes become next to impossible. The fossil record will therefor reflect this. Remarkably it does. Evolution:0 - Creation:1

There is a distinction between various experts within differing on where within a framework something fits in, and on the validity of the framework itself being legitimately questioned. I keep getting the impression that you are seeking to extrapolate the latter from the former.

That is a downplay along the lines of we have A and it either fits between B,C or B,D. In reality the dispute is whether it fits between B,C or D,E. Then it goes towards others bringing in F,G and H,I and eventually there is even statements that something is actually an extinct species. If the roles were reversed you would be first to claim that such glaring contradictions with, I'll hazard a guess, every supposed transitional fossil (of which there are actually only a few) DOES legitimately cast the framework in doubt.

What you seem to disregard is that the fossil record is but one avenue of confirming the theory. Indeed, even without a single fossil there would still be ample evidence to see to it that evolution is the only reasonable conclusion to draw. The model was constructed from far, far more than the mere distribution of fossils; the fact that they fit is just another nail in your coffin.

"Ample" evidence like DNA and ERVs that show different lines of descent. Sorry but there's no evidence to draw any reasonable conclusion of evolution from. There's only contradicting evidence. You keep missing the point however. The models are inferred from it and didn't predict it. It would fit because the models (there's actually a few different ones) were constructed for it to fit. You are using circular reasoning.

Pointing out that your examples do no meet the requirement to be regarded as contradictions does not constitute to moving the goalposts.

They weren't.

The models contradict each other. They are contradictions by definition. You can claim that Kilimanjaro isn't a mountain because it's not as high as Everest but the fact still remains.

Ya know, this is the point that serves to confirm that you are honestly not worth engaging on the issue. You clearly will not afford others the common courtesy of even looking at the links you're being provided, because that'd an absurd conclusion to draw from what Asimov wrote... even for you.

FYI I actually read the whole thing. Not the first time I've seen it either. I asked if YOU were suggesting that newer ideas must be more correct. Interestingly you avoided it by attacking me instead.

 

[HapticSimian]

/snip

I'm done with this. The record of our discussion will remain for others to draw their own conclusions from. The bottom-line can be found here.

Hit me up when you find that pre-Cambrian rabbit...

 

[porchrat]

Seriously Swa go do some more research on this you are embarrassing yourself. Especially how chemical reactions operate with respect to entropy. Forget just the development of a human being from an embryo just look at the biochemical basis for your own physiology or even simple chemistry from high school.

I will give you a hint, in chemical reactions the change in entropy can be either positive or negative.

As far as I can see your erroneous interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics would not just make evolution impossible, it would make all life impossible as life itself relies on being able to facilitate chemical reactions that lead to a reduction in entropy. Did you not take chemistry in high school? I am fairly certain they covered this in sufficient detail to demonstrate why your interpretation is incorrect.

 

[DJ...]

I can't believe you lot put up with that for as long as you did...

 

[cyghost]

People think other people are rational or at least have the ability to be rational every now and then. Can't argue against bat**** crazy though...

But I am happy to see in your thread of 24 pages and 352 posts not a *single* scientific and or valid logical argument has been made against evolution. Which is gratifying seeing as evolution is an observable fact and the ToE the best model for explaining this fact. QED.

 

[Swa]

I know its kinda OT but just saw this joke, and it made me think of poor old Swa keeping this thread strong for 12 pages and still no end in sight

http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/ffecd1306367012ee3c300163e41dd5b

I'll just employ a ghoti here. Stop lying.

I don't know why this continually has to be pointed out, but the second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy . The entropy of the sun increases, even as the entropy of the earth decreases.

You keep missing that it's the principle that applies. You keep making the mistake of insisting that it originally applied to thermodynamics and so can't apply to anything else. I don't know why THAT continually has to be pointed out.

This is patently untrue, we see the complexity arising from the sun's energy every day. Complex systems rely are driven by the sun's energy. This of course comes at a cost, the entropy of the sun increases, even as the entropy of the earth decreases.

We see rudimentary complexity arising from the sun's energy through physical mechanisms. You keep leaving out that important requirement. Even then complexity also regularly decreases because just adding energy speeds up decay. It also requires a mechanism to keep said complexity in tact.

Can we say that the complexity of the sun decreases (inversely to the increase in entropy) as well?

Can we even say that the sun is (many many times) more complex than the earth? It's certainly less entropic, without a doubt, but more complex?

Does entropy ∝ 1/complexity?

Yes, but not really inversely. That would produce a logarithmic scale for complexity. If we regard a logarithmic scale as more informative it can of course be chosen but otherwise subtraction would be better.

No. It's becoming less complex and more entropic.

Typo?

Problem is you're throwing complexity around with vague subjective usage.

I am well aware of the problems with complexity. There is no current means to measure it like with heat, time, electricity etc. Of course there will be subjectivity but nonetheless different levels of complexity can be recognised. It can be seen that complexity increases (with a mechanism) as entropy is decreased. So just because there's no definitive measure it's clear there's a relation. A common objection is e.g. the formation of ice crystals. This however ignores that for a gram of water to form ice 80 calories is released. That is the same amount of heat required to raise it by 80 degrees. A larger increase in entropy had to be traded to make up for a lesser decrease in entropy. The universe is tending towards increased entropy and decreased complexity.

If you want to prove that the second law of thermodynamics is a problem for evolution then you simply have to prove that the change in entropy on earth is more than it should have been. More than the increase in entropy the sun suffers from the energy reaching earth.

Simply put, has evolution used more energy than the earth receives from the sun?

If the answer is no, then your argument is no longer one of thermodynamics.

Again it's not about thermodynamics (the relationship between usable energy and heat) but about the relationship between entropy/energy and complexity. All we have to show is that complex systems like life don't just spontaneously arise. Amazingly it's the case. Even evolutionists can't get around that so have to resort to a universal common ancestor to reduce the problem. Even complex systems not even near the level of life deteriorate if they are not maintained.

So firstly there is no known mechanism for life to arise. Natural selection is not a mechanism because it's only in effect once life is underway. Secondly even if you choose to ignore this without which there is no basis for evolution to even take effect there is the second major problem. A simple organism is insufficient because even with a mechanism highly complex systems still deteriorate. Life would need to be well underway for it not to become extinct itself in less than no time.

Again you misrepresent him.



You misrepresent Dr. Asimov. Your honesty, or it's lack is no longer in question.

Let's rewind here. The common objection is that entropy applies only to thermodynamics. He uses it to refer to complexity. He even then goes on to state examples so it's clear he's talking about complexity and not thermodynamics. That shows the principle applies to complexity contrary to the claim that it doesn't. There is nothing in the following statements that says it's not about complexity so the rest is irrelevant as relating to the claim.

That's comparable to somebody giving an explanation of the principles of mathematics but then leaves out a factor when solving an equation. You then jump up and say their explanation was used out of context when used to solve the correct equation because the wrong one wasn't mentioned. It's nothing but grasping at straws. It shows how weak your position actually is.

Now as you insist on using the rest let's look at what he really said: "You can argue, of course, that the phenomenon of life may be an exception. Life on earth has steadily grown more complex, more versatile, more elaborate, more orderly, over the billions of years of the planet's existence. From no life at all, living molecules were developed, then living cells, then living conglomerates of cells, worms, vertebrates, mammals, finally Man. And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. How could the human brain develop out of the primeval slime? How could that vast increase in order (and therefore that vast decrease of entropy) have taken place?"

Starting off "can argue, of course, that the phenomenon of life may be an exception" is far from "life is an exception." He then goes on to how the human brain could have developed: "The answer is it could not have taken place without a tremendous source of energy constantly bathing the earth, for it is on that energy that life subsists. Remove the sun, and the human brain would not have developed, or the primeval slime, either. And in the billions of years it took for the human brain to develop, the increase in entropy that took place in the sun was far greater than the decrease that is represented by the evolution required to develop the human brain."

He is talking about the human brain and relying on the happenstance of evolution to create it. He also states that life SUBSISTS on the energy from the sun. That's because even with a mechanism energy is still required. That does not equate to not requiring a mechanism. There is already a mechanism in place here called photosynthesis. He does not give a mechanism for life to arise and then photosynthesis to develop. Without that evolution doesn't even start. You are the one taking the quote out of context.

ah but's very existance disproves your silly argument that a) thermodynamics prohibits complexity and b) energy cannot be converted into complexity.

a) I never made the claim of thermodynamics prohibits complexity, it's about the relationship between entropy/energy and complexity and, b) energy can create complexity if there's a mechanism. Talk about misrepresentation and you using claims I never made.

Its existence only proves it exists. It does not disprove that energy doesn't create complexity without a mechanism.

You haven't even adequately defined it yet. How can you recognize it, and distinguish it from false positives?

Species haven't even been adequately defined yet. How can you then recognise it and distinguish it from false positives.

I think you're one misapplying "complexity" to thermodynamics.

Again it's not about thermodynamics.

Show me the designer in ID. In the absence said designer ID is indistinguishable from myth and fairy tale, indeed religion.

or as Judge Jones (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) put it:

"We conclude that the religious nature of intelligent design would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child,"

"The writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity."

Funny that NASA is looking for intelligent design among the stars. You better go tell them then that in the absence of a designer their efforts are indistinguishable from myth, fairy tale and religion. You are clearly applying a double standard here and quite nicely demonstrating your bias.

Judge Jones only considered ID. The writings of leading evolution proponents like Dawkins clearly reveal the religious nature of evolution then. What Jones did was to confuse personal philosophical conclusions with the actual science. ID doesn't make any statements about the identity or nature of the designer.

All of these disparate disciplines converge in supporting evolution.

They don't converge in supporting it. You make them fit. Linking together parts of different science to support other different conclusions is a bad way of doing science.

 

[Swa]

Seriously Swa go do some more research on this you are embarrassing yourself. Especially how chemical reactions operate with respect to entropy. Forget just the development of a human being from an embryo just look at the biochemical basis for your own physiology or even simple chemistry from high school.

I will give you a hint, in chemical reactions the change in entropy can be either positive or negative.

As far as I can see your erroneous interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics would not just make evolution impossible, it would make all life impossible as life itself relies on being able to facilitate chemical reactions that lead to a reduction in entropy. Did you not take chemistry in high school? I am fairly certain they covered this in sufficient detail to demonstrate why your interpretation is incorrect.

Lol if that is your big refutation it's severely lacking. I never claimed that these do not occur because as I stated there are mechanisms involved. Where mechanisms are lacking complexity simply decreases while entropy increases. No mechanism is provided for the complexity of life to arise. The sun is not a mechanism. I don't know why you insist that if that is true life must be impossible. Well reality check, it IS true and life is possible. It's only a problem for natural development of life.

People think other people are rational or at least have the ability to be rational every now and then. Can't argue against bat**** crazy though...

It's common for biased people to think that other people must be irrational to come to their conclusions. It never hits them that their conclusions are from their own biased preconceptions. Why is it so hard to admit that you don't know? Are you that insecure in your belief that you require using (misusing) science to validate it?

But I am happy to see in your thread of 24 pages and 352 posts not a *single* scientific and or valid logical argument has been made against evolution. Which is gratifying seeing as evolution is an observable fact and the ToE the best model for explaining this fact. QED.

Just because you choose to close your eyes and ears to what people are telling doesn't mean that no scientific and logical arguments were provided. A lot were. What you want is irrefutable proof to disprove an unproven assumption. Do you realise how bat**** crazy THAT is?

 

[Elimentals]

I'll just employ a ghoti here. Stop lying.

WTF!!!! How did I lie?

1 You been at it for 12 pages (Well according to my browser/theme)
2 It made me think of you, I did not say "it is you", just that the comic made me think of you and this thread so I posted it.

Please tell me how I am lying?

 

[alloytoo]

You keep missing that it's the principle that applies. You keep making the mistake of insisting that it originally applied to thermodynamics and so can't apply to anything else. I don't know why THAT continually has to be pointed out.

What principle? The second law does not apply.

We see rudimentary complexity arising from the sun's energy through physical mechanisms. You keep leaving out that important requirement. Even then complexity also regularly decreases because just adding energy speeds up decay. It also requires a mechanism to keep said complexity in tact.

Decay is complex. A corroded piece of metal is far more complex than a pure alloy. (It will however have more entropy)

Yes, but not really inversely. That would produce a logarithmic scale for complexity. If we regard a logarithmic scale as more informative it can of course be chosen but otherwise subtraction would be better.
No. It's becoming less complex and more entropic.

It's levels of usable energy are diminishing, but that is hardly a measure of how 'complex' a sun is

I am well aware of the problems with complexity. There is no current means to measure it like with heat, time, electricity etc. Of course there will be subjectivity but nonetheless different levels of complexity can be recognised. It can be seen that complexity increases (with a mechanism) as entropy is decreased. So just because there's no definitive measure it's clear there's a relation. A common objection is e.g. the formation of ice crystals. This however ignores that for a gram of water to form ice 80 calories is released. That is the same amount of heat required to raise it by 80 degrees. A larger increase in entropy had to be traded to make up for a lesser decrease in entropy. The universe is tending towards increased entropy and decreased complexity.

If there's no definitive measure then any link to the second law of thermodynamics is thumbsucking on your part.

Again it's not about thermodynamics (the relationship between usable energy and heat) but about the relationship between entropy/energy and complexity.

Baarp! Fail.

The second law of thermidynamics is ALL about entropy.

All we have to show is that complex systems like life don't just spontaneously arise.

Why not, what mechanism inhibits them?

Amazingly it's the case. Even evolutionists can't get around that so have to resort to a universal common ancestor to reduce the problem. Even complex systems not even near the level of life deteriorate if they are not maintained.

DUH! it's called the sun.
Heat light, gravity.

So firstly there is no known mechanism for life to arise.

Natural selection is not a mechanism because it's only in effect once life is underway. Secondly even if you choose to ignore this without which there is no basis for evolution to even take effect there is the second major problem. A simple organism is insufficient because even with a mechanism highly complex systems still deteriorate. Life would need to be well underway for it not to become extinct itself in less than no time.

I fail to see how this is any more than an argument from incredulity.

Let's rewind here. The common objection is that entropy applies only to thermodynamics. He uses it to refer to complexity. He even then goes on to state examples so it's clear he's talking about complexity and not thermodynamics. That shows the principle applies to complexity contrary to the claim that it doesn't. There is nothing in the following statements that says it's not about complexity so the rest is irrelevant as relating to the claim.

Go back to kindergarten.

Asimov is using complexity, and order to explain the second law of thermodynamics.

Now as you insist on using the rest let's look at what he really said: "You can argue, of course, that the phenomenon of life may be an exception. Life on earth has steadily grown more complex, more versatile, more elaborate, more orderly, over the billions of years of the planet's existence. From no life at all, living molecules were developed, then living cells, then living conglomerates of cells, worms, vertebrates, mammals, finally Man. And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. How could the human brain develop out of the primeval slime? How could that vast increase in order (and therefore that vast decrease of entropy) have taken place?"

Starting off "can argue, of course, that the phenomenon of life may be an exception" is far from "life is an exception." He then goes on to how the human brain could have developed: "The answer is it could not have taken place without a tremendous source of energy constantly bathing the earth, for it is on that energy that life subsists. Remove the sun, and the human brain would not have developed, or the primeval slime, either. And in the billions of years it took for the human brain to develop, the increase in entropy that took place in the sun was far greater than the decrease that is represented by the evolution required to develop the human brain."

He is talking about the human brain and relying on the happenstance of evolution to create it. He also states that life SUBSISTS on the energy from the sun. That's because even with a mechanism energy is still required. That does not equate to not requiring a mechanism. There is already a mechanism in place here called photosynthesis. He does not give a mechanism for life to arise and then photosynthesis to develop. Without that evolution doesn't even start. You are the one taking the quote out of context.

That's because he's not seeking to explain biological evolution, or even abiogenesis, he's seeking to explain entropy.

a) I never made the claim of thermodynamics prohibits complexity, it's about the relationship between entropy/energy and complexity and, b) energy can create complexity if there's a mechanism. Talk about misrepresentation and you using claims I never made.

Maybe we should have a poll, see what everyone else thought you meant.

Its existence only proves it exists. It does not disprove that energy doesn't create complexity without a mechanism.

"Mechanisms" don't require a designer.

Species haven't even been adequately defined yet. How can you then recognise it and distinguish it from false positives.

I recognize life and label it as is most useful.

Again it's not about thermodynamics.

Then stop talking about the 2nd law.

Funny that NASA is looking for intelligent design among the stars. You better go tell them then that in the absence of a designer their efforts are indistinguishable from myth, fairy tale and religion. You are clearly applying a double standard here and quite nicely demonstrating your bias.

The SETI project, a search for intelligent life is presupposed on detecting signals or patterns within the realm of human comprehension. IE life that shares our logic at a basic level. A noble endeavor, but intrinsically limited.

Judge Jones only considered ID. The writings of leading evolution proponents like Dawkins clearly reveal the religious nature of evolution then. What Jones did was to confuse personal philosophical conclusions with the actual science.

Jones considered ID to be creationism. Despite being a conservative right winger Jurist he was honest.

ID doesn't make any statements about the identity or nature of the designer.

ID doesn't make any meaningful statements at all.

They don't converge in supporting it. You make them fit. Linking together parts of different science to support other different conclusions is a bad way of doing science.

Luckily that's a your strawman.

 

[Techne]

I wonder what the author of this thread thinks would count as scientific evidence or objection to evolution? Change/evolution happens. Even if an argument succeeds that some finite and contingent agent was responsible for some parts of evolution for some organisms (and this is not difficult to find, look at Craig Venter's work), it is still an example of change or evolution.

The only logical objections for evolution can come from philosophy and the view that change is an illusion, i.e. that there is no such thing as change or things do not undergo change.

An understanding of what it means to change is a fascinating subject and there are various ways to approach the concept. Sadly, discussions surrounding evolution are stuck in a rut. What is striking is that in most of these discussion, both sides of this debate somehow think that evolution threatens the concept of creation and both sides appear to confuse empirical science for natural philosophy. This is of course silly. Evolutionary science or any other empirical science for that matter does not deal with the concept of creation, simple as that.

Those that argue that evolution negates creation or think evolution somehow is an argument against theism are as confused as those who think young earth creationism or ID are good arguments for theism.

 

[cyghost]

It's common for biased people to think that other people must be irrational to come to their conclusions. It never hits them that their conclusions are from their own biased preconceptions. Why is it so hard to admit that you don't know? Are you that insecure in your belief that you require using (misusing) science to validate it?

I don't know quite a lot of things. What is it that you want me to admit I don't know? My belief in what exactly? I haven't used science in any way or form so I have no idea wtf you are on about here.

Just because you choose to close your eyes and ears to what people are telling doesn't mean that no scientific and logical arguments were provided.

None were provided.

A lot were.

Nope. None. Zero. Zilch. I'll admit you have been trying. It is just that you fail so spectacularly...

What you want is irrefutable proof to disprove an unproven assumption. Do you realise how bat**** crazy THAT is?

What is the unproven assumption you speak of?? What I want is what the OP asked for. Scientific and or valid logical arguments or objections to evolution and the ToE. Evolution is something we observe. There can be no "objections" to it unless you chose as techne says to argue for change as an illusion or some form of solipsism. And the ToE simply explains the change we see. You haven't refuted this, you haven't provided us with an alternative. You have been striking down windmills, thinking they are dragons. Well done. *golfclap*

Sadly, discussions surrounding evolution are stuck in a rut. What is striking is that in most of these discussion, both sides of this debate somehow think that evolution threatens the concept of creation and both sides appear to confuse empirical science for natural philosophy.

Are you sure about this? Can you for instance point me to one person arguing here having ever said evolution, therefore no creator?

 

[Swa]

WTF!!!! How did I lie?

1 You been at it for 12 pages (Well according to my browser/theme)
2 It made me think of you, I did not say "it is you", just that the comic made me think of you and this thread so I posted it.

Please tell me how I am lying?

Why post something that you know is a misrepresentation of someone's position?

 

[CoolBug]

Glad that's all settled.

So the only remaining question is, are trolls intelligently designed?