Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[Swa]

Lots of scientists admit the importance of epigenetics in evolutionary biology. Check out sciencedaily.com for interesting articles/

Yes I know many are jumping on the epigenetic bandwagon and how it might affect evolution. Nobody has however been able to put it forth as a definite mechanism for evolution. Genetics are still being found to have an active role in disease so there's not much to suggest that epigenetic changes are not governed by genetic changes or that epigenetic changes don't reverse themselves. They are not enthusiastic because they know much about it but because they don't know much.

Change happens when genetic as well as epigenetic changes occur.

You're the only one here harping on with epigenetics and how it's going to "rewrite" the theory of evolution.

Of course it is evolution, no matter how far back it goes. It appears your major problem with evolution is that humans share a common ancestor with non-humans. I suspect this skepticism is mainly driven by theological concerns. Once you realize that the idea that humans have a common ancestor with non-humans poses no logical or evidential problems for religion, creation, original sin, theism etc. then I suspect it won't much of an issue for you, i.e. you won't have much reason to argue against the idea.

No it's not. For evolution to happen change has to happen (let's not even bring the degree of change into this). Ancestry and common ancestry between two individuals is not evolution. That humans share a common ancestor with non-humans is mere speculation.

Sure, even if true, even if we can never fill all the holes, this simply does not imply that those holes should be plugged with alien intelligent designers or some other kind of weird deistic intelligent designers. This is probably the worst argument for theism and creation.

It also doesn't mean the holes should be plugged with evolution. More than that it's not simply a few missing pieces of a large puzzle. It's gaping chasms in all the important places. That suggests evolution is actually the least likely explanation whether you want to admit it or not.

 

[Swa]

You put the cart before the horse. "Species" is a human word that is used in relation to things that are observed - go do the observing before letting language get in the way. Techne says there are 20 or so scientific definitions of the term "species" - no doubt there are many more in common language. Language is like clothing - often not fitting quite perfectly. Study the body, not the clothing.

Iow just accept that evolution has no boundaries. Nope it doesn't work that way.

For life there is just wet genetic goo - some combines, some doesn't: some combinations produce viable offspring, some don't. If you have European blood in you, you most likely have some Neanderthal goo in your genes. Tigers can mate with lions and make ligers, but no offspring IIRC. Like a mule. It has also been said that in the Australian Outback you can find shumans - produced by crossing a human male with a female sheep, but I wouldn't know.

Funny you should mention it. Neanderthals have been diagnosed with rickets. It's not uncommon for people with diseases to be herded into groups living outside society. Lepers come to mind. It's also possible that a group of people were exposed to the same conditions that cause rickets.

That makes (slightly more sense).

Evolution is fact.

Gene flow is an explanation of why certain populations may or may not speciate.

To wit, if barriers to reproduction exist, gene flow is inhibited and speciation may occur. If not, speciation is inhibited.

Gene flow <> evidence
Gene flow = explanation.

And this little canard is why you can't see it. Evolution: assume the big picture and speculate the smaller details accordingly.

 

[Nick333]

Ok never mind the scientific and logical objections to evolution, what about the scientific and logical alternative theories. 'cos let's face it, all we've got otherwise is fccking magic.

 

[Elimentals]

Ok never mind the scientific and logical objections to evolution, what about the scientific and logical alternative theories. 'cos let's face it, all we've got otherwise is fccking magic.

But that is exactly Swa's explanation for it and why evolution is a lie. Everything exist because of magic.

 

[Nick333]

But that is exactly Swa's explanation for it and why evolution is a lie. Everything exist because of magic.

Well, just think then if I'd seen this thread 9 pages ago you guys would have saved a lot of time.

Can't prove God. Create enough doubt in ignorant minds about science to pass retarded laws forcing religion into science classrooms. Creationism 101. You guys know this. Why argue? There aren't enough dumb white people in SA to pass any laws. Its an American problem.

 

[alloytoo]

Funny you should mention it. Neanderthals have been diagnosed with rickets. It's not uncommon for people with diseases to be herded into groups living outside society. Lepers come to mind. It's also possible that a group of people were exposed to the same conditions that cause rickets.

Response:1.The signs of rickets differ from Neanderthal fossils in several respects, including the following:
a.People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor; their bones are weak. Neanderthal bones are fifty percent thicker than the average human's. b.Evidence of rickets is easily detectable, especially on the ends of the long bones of the body. This evidence is not found in Neanderthals.
c.Rickets causes a sideways curvature of the femur. Neanderthal femurs bend backward.

And this little canard is why you can't see it. Evolution: [-]assume[/-] observe the big picture and [-]speculate[/-] investigate the smaller details accordingly.

Not entirely accurate, but good enough.

 

[alloytoo]

Ok never mind the scientific and logical objections to evolution, what about the scientific and logical alternative theories. 'cos let's face it, all we've got otherwise is fccking magic.

My favourite kind......totally useless, but fun none the less.

 

[Swa]

Ok never mind the scientific and logical objections to evolution, what about the scientific and logical alternative theories. 'cos let's face it, all we've got otherwise is fccking magic.

I don't know why the constant insistence on alternative theories. If a theory is wrong it's wrong. There's no rule that an incorrect theory must be replaced. It's insistence on compelling alternatives that keeps incorrect theories alive and hampers progress.

The "bad air" theory. It was easy to see that living conditions and not air were the predominant factors in infectious diseases. It wasn't abandoned however until the germ cause was demonstrated and even after that it wasn't universally accepted for some time causing more needless deaths.

The constant hammering that there's no alternative but "magic" is very telling of the ulterior motives involved. Stop misusing "science" as an excuse to justify your disbelief in something.

But that is exactly Swa's explanation for it and why evolution is a lie. Everything exist because of magic.

Stop lying. and...

pass retarded laws forcing religion into science classrooms.

You too

 

[rwenzori]

Iow just accept that evolution has no boundaries. Nope it doesn't work that way.


Funny you should mention it. Neanderthals have been diagnosed with rickets. It's not uncommon for people with diseases to be herded into groups living outside society. Lepers come to mind. It's also possible that a group of people were exposed to the same conditions that cause rickets.

Seldom has it been my misfortune to get so ignorant and stupid a response to a post. Why don't you go off and post in one of the many ignorant and stupid christian forums instead of plaguing us here.

 

[Swa]

Response:1.The signs of rickets differ from Neanderthal fossils in several respects, including the following:
a.People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor; their bones are weak. Neanderthal bones are fifty percent thicker than the average human's. b.Evidence of rickets is easily detectable, especially on the ends of the long bones of the body. This evidence is not found in Neanderthals.
c.Rickets causes a sideways curvature of the femur. Neanderthal femurs bend backward.

If all else fails call up the "trusted" talkorigins with their prophets of "science"

http://creationwiki.org/Neandertals_were_humans_with_rickets_(Talk.Origins)
First of all, the wording of the claim misrepresents what Lubenow actually said. Yes, he suggests rickets as a possible cause of Neanderthal and Homo erectus morphology, but at least for Neanderthals it was limited to childhood where most bone development occurs. However he also points to the extensive evidence of common severe childhood rickets as evidence of the ice age being a post-Flood event.

1. The signs of rickets differ from Neanderthal fossils in several respects, including the following:
a. People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor; their bones are weak. Neanderthal bones are fifty percent thicker than the average human's.
b. Evidence of rickets is easily detectable, especially on the ends of the long bones of the body.
c. This evidence is not found in Neanderthals. Rickets causes a sideways curvature of the femur. Neanderthal femurs bend backward.

Once again (according to Lubenow) the rickets occurred in childhood, thus adult fossils have to some degree recovered from them.

Virchow, who first reported the possibility of rickets in a Neanderthal, did not cite it alone. He said the fossil had rickets in early childhood, head injuries in middle age, and arthritis in old age. It is doubtful that an entire population suffered these same afflictions.

True, and Lubenow refers to Virchow's work including the fact that rickets occurred in childhood. Lubenow also cites evidence that rickets was common and possibly universal in Neanderthal kids. The most likely explanation was that some nutritional sources were reserved for adults.

2. Lubenow attributes rickets to a post-Flood ice age, with heavy cloud cover, shelter, and clothing, and a lack of vitamin D. But the greatest differences from modern humans, seen in Homo erectus, are found mostly in tropical areas.

During the post-Flood ice age, Lubenow would have the heavy cloud cover extended to tropical areas so the fact that Homo erectus was mainly in the tropics would not have protected them.

 

[Swa]

Seldom has it been my misfortune to get so ignorant and stupid a response to a post. Why don't you go off and post in one of the many ignorant and stupid christian forums instead of plaguing us here.

Coming from the person who thinks philosophical questions can be empirically tested and determined. Sorry if I don't put much confidence in you (in)ability to judge ignorant and stupid responses...

 

[rwenzori]

Coming from the person who thinks philosophical questions can be empirically tested and determined. Sorry if I don't put much confidence in you (in)ability to judge ignorant and stupid responses...

Get it right, paw-paw. I say metaphysics is bunk, not philosophy.

Now, instead of blathering, why don't you try to respond to what I have said to you, simply and in some detail. ( I am still waiting for you to list those a priori assumptions you posted about - probably a bridge to far for you, intellectually speaking, I guess ). Get out there, look at the physical events you see, do some basic scientific inquiries, kick a rock ( a big one, not a stone like Techne ), instead of culling and posting crap from creationist websites.

 

[Nick333]

I don't know why the constant insistence on alternative theories. If a theory is wrong it's wrong. There's no rule that an incorrect theory must be replaced. It's insistence on compelling alternatives that keeps incorrect theories alive and hampers progress.

The "bad air" theory. It was easy to see that living conditions and not air were the predominant factors in infectious diseases. It wasn't abandoned however until the germ cause was demonstrated and even after that it wasn't universally accepted for some time causing more needless deaths.

The constant hammering that there's no alternative but "magic" is very telling of the ulterior motives involved. Stop misusing "science" as an excuse to justify your disbelief in something.


Stop lying. and...

You too

Ja right. So you don't hold the firm belief that God created the Universe, the Earth and all the species on it as is? You're not a creationist? Let see who's the liar.

 

[Swa]

Get it right, paw-paw. I say metaphysics is bunk, not philosophy.

Get your facts first. Metaphysics is a form of philosophy. You say it is bunk but you make a metaphysical claim and claim it can be tested empirically. Who's really the paw-paw here?

Now, instead of blathering, why don't you try to respond to what I have said to you, simply and in some detail. ( I am still waiting for you to list those a priori assumptions you posted about - probably a bridge to far for you, intellectually speaking, I guess ). Get out there, look at the physical events you see, do some basic scientific inquiries, kick a rock ( a big one, not a stone like Techne ), instead of culling and posting crap from creationist websites.

Respond to what? All you did was blab about goo and stuff. If you have evidence or clear logical arguments then put them forth. So far Techne (the christian) has been the biggest challenge here.

Ja right. So you don't hold the firm belief that God created the Universe, the Earth and all the species on it as is? You're not a creationist? Let see who's the liar.

Stop twisting the argument. It's not about what I believe it's about the fact that evolution is not a fact but a mere theory. I wouldn't even call it a theory as it's more a philosophical hypothesis that fails on its own evidence. What I believe or don't believe is irrelevant. In case you still don't get it start arguing the ****ing subject and not the person.

 

[rwenzori]

Get your facts first. Metaphysics is a form of philosophy. You say it is bunk but you make a metaphysical claim and claim it can be tested empirically. Who's really the paw-paw here?

No, I make a philosophical claim. You should do some set theory. The set metaphysics and the set philosophy are not the same - metaphysics is generally considered a subset of philosophy. For the rest, go read what I quoted from Carnap.

Respond to what?

Let us start with your quote from Ruse in post #49 ( "evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically" ).

I asked you in ... tadaa... post #50 to articulate these assumptions so we could have a looky-see and make up our own minds. But you ducked that. Let's see if you can redeem yourself. Bebeh Jesus is The Great Redeemer, maybe he can help.

 

[Nick333]

And I bet the same sort of people just can't figure out why noone likes them except the people at church who probably don't really like them.

 

[Techne]

Yes I know many are jumping on the epigenetic bandwagon and how it might affect evolution. Nobody has however been able to put it forth as a definite mechanism for evolution. Genetics are still being found to have an active role in disease so there's not much to suggest that epigenetic changes are not governed by genetic changes or that epigenetic changes don't reverse themselves. They are not enthusiastic because they know much about it but because they don't know much.

There is actually substantial evidence that epigentic changes are governed by a variety of factors that are not genetic. Sure, there is still lot to be learned about epigenetics and its role in evolution. Fact is, it has an effect, we just need to do more research.

You're the only one here harping on with epigenetics and how it's going to "rewrite" the theory of evolution.

To be fair, it won't "rewrite" the theory of evolution, it will add new knowledge, it will add another dimension... e.g. acquired inheritance.

No it's not. For evolution to happen change has to happen (let's not even bring the degree of change into this). Ancestry and common ancestry between two individuals is not evolution. That humans share a common ancestor with non-humans is mere speculation.

Change of alleles over time is evolution. It happens. Ancestry and common ancestry between two individuals is evolution. Also, please read about ERVs and why it is very good evidence that humans share a common ancestor with non-humans.

It also doesn't mean the holes should be plugged with evolution. More than that it's not simply a few missing pieces of a large puzzle. It's gaping chasms in all the important places. That suggests evolution is actually the least likely explanation whether you want to admit it or not.

I have gaping holes in my family tree from a few thousand years back. Large pieces of the puzzle. Should I plug in some cosmic machinist into the gaps? No, evolution is just fine and theistic creationism is perfectly compatible with this. You don't need to resort to gap arguments to defend theistic creationism.

 

[Swa]

No, I make a philosophical claim. You should do some set theory. The set metaphysics and the set philosophy are not the same - metaphysics is generally considered a subset of philosophy. For the rest, go read what I quoted from Carnap.

Doesn't really matter which it is. Both are non-empirical and you claim it to be empirical science. Then it spun into a bashing of heads of Aristotle against Carnap and definitions.

Let us start with your quote from Ruse in post #49 ( "evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically" ).

I asked you in ... tadaa... post #50 to articulate these assumptions so we could have a looky-see and make up our own minds. But you ducked that. Let's see if you can redeem yourself. Bebeh Jesus is The Great Redeemer, maybe he can help.

That's Ruse's statement so I wouldn't know what assumptions HE'S referring to. It should be clearer in some of his later books. Just fyi this is the same guy who held that evolution is pure science and ID is religion. Maybe they should ask for a retrial now that he has apparently changed his mind. I didn't "duck" your question but lost track of it during your exchange with Techne.

See here for some of the popular assumptions http://www.stevemcintosh.com/Evolut...Metaphysics-for-an-Evolutionary-Worldview.php

 

[Swa]

There is actually substantial evidence that epigentic changes are governed by a variety of factors that are not genetic. Sure, there is still lot to be learned about epigenetics and its role in evolution. Fact is, it has an effect, we just need to do more research.

You mean like this for instance: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120503194213.htm
3 generations is not a permanent change and so does not cause evolution. If epigenetics governs the expression of genes and does not change them then it's quite conceivable that any epigenetic changes may be undone in due time by the genome that ultimately overrules the epigenome. That's adaptation not evolution. There IS a difference between the two. It also sounds a lot like the concept of the sins of the fathers will be visited upon the sons. That also only lasts for 4 generations.

Change of alleles over time is evolution. It happens. Ancestry and common ancestry between two individuals is evolution. Also, please read about ERVs and why it is very good evidence that humans share a common ancestor with non-humans.

Change of alleles is evolution. That rules out epigenetics for the time being. Ancestry is simply ancestry. By itself it does not change anything and does not result in evolution. For evolution to happen alleles need to change and not simply be passed on between generations. ERVs are also not the smoking gun that proves evolution.

I have gaping holes in my family tree from a few thousand years back. Large pieces of the puzzle. Should I plug in some cosmic machinist into the gaps? No, evolution is just fine and theistic creationism is perfectly compatible with this. You don't need to resort to gap arguments to defend theistic creationism.

That's a strawman. The example I gave of plants, fish, insects, reptiles, birds and mammals appearing seemingly from nowhere are not just small undocumented parts of a puzzle. There isn't any documentation of them AT ALL. These are entire lines of descent for all the major kingdoms and phyla that are missing yet numerous fossils of them and even of single species exist. Face the simple fact here, if it was just a matter of an incomplete fossil record then it happened not to select the most important parts of the puzzle against all odds.

It case you still don't get it imagine buying a ticket for every combination of lotto numbers except for one and then still ending up losing. The chance of a fossil record appearing the way it does through chance fossilisation events if gradual evolution took place is even less than that. So against chance where the odds were enormously in favour of the theory this time it still managed to miss capturing the evidence...

 

[alloytoo]

If all else fails call up the "trusted" talkorigins with their prophets of "science"

http://creationwiki.org/Neandertals_were_humans_with_rickets_(Talk.Origins)
First of all, the wording of the claim misrepresents what Lubenow actually said. Yes, he suggests rickets as a possible cause of Neanderthal and Homo erectus morphology, but at least for Neanderthals it was limited to childhood where most bone development occurs. However he also points to the extensive evidence of common severe childhood rickets as evidence of the ice age being a post-Flood event.

Once again (according to Lubenow) the rickets occurred in childhood, thus adult fossils have to some degree recovered from them.

True, and Lubenow refers to Virchow's work including the fact that rickets occurred in childhood. Lubenow also cites evidence that rickets was common and possibly universal in Neanderthal kids. The most likely explanation was that some nutritional sources were reserved for adults.

During the post-Flood ice age, Lubenow would have the heavy cloud cover extended to tropical areas so the fact that Homo erectus was mainly in the tropics would not have protected them.

Post Flood event? Seriously?

Sorry guys this thread has just jumped the shark, the stupid is strong in this one.

NCSE takes the nonsense apart