Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[Swa]

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Okay, I understand the importance of putting scientific discoveries under scrutiny however I'm pretty sure there have been many many long nights spent trying to do just this with evolution. Guess what? It's still valid and with more and more discoveries being made every day the evidence just gets even stronger.

What I can suggest is why don't you lay out your alternate hypotheses to these flaws in evolutionary theory. Maybe this would be a better way of going about it.

 

[CoolBug]

Evolution doesn't explain abiogensis in the same way gravity doesn't explain germ theory.

But I have a feeling that you might have been satirical.

There will be no agreeing with swak.

Like I was saying here:

http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&so...mp31Bw&usg=AFQjCNHq4xZwjqgo4kAEOp3LiepE-eVj4g

It's not about truth.

Some people can't handle the truth.

Are the way too arrogant to accept that they are animals? Or that we probably never stopped being monkeys? Or that God is a monkey?

 

[HapticSimian]

As I said before there's no such thing as "quote-mining." The spell-checker comment was obviously meant in jest. Can't believe you took it seriously. But the correct fallacy is "quoting out of context" when that is the case. Quote-mining is an evolutionist invention for when someone's words are used against their argument. Even Conservapedia gets this one right.

So there's no such thing as quote-mining, except that there is, but it's not called quote-mining because... Wait, what?

Exactly what I said, a mechanism is needed. Contrary to what you and Isaac think just adding energy doesn't result in complexity. Mindlessly adding energy to a system just speeds up naturally processes. The most common process is decay that reduces complexity. You simply see life NOW and assume energydidit™. That's not a mechanism, it's a cop-out.

I don't simply see life now. I see nested hierarchies, evidence in genetics, the brazillions of fossils cataloguing life's gradual development in response to its environment, the geographical distribution of related organisms, and a host of other bits of information which leaves me in no doubt of evolution's truth.

Techne's link didn't tell me much. I am simply giving my interpretation as requested. There seems to be no standard definition of complexity so we require the individual use of logic and reasoning.

Well, your individual interpretation of the concept doesn't make for an at all convincing argument. Best we stop harping on about it then...

It's not solved for a reason. Every experiment so far has shown how unlikely if not impossible it is to happen. Here's an experiment for you. If you are ever if a room full of scientists (random selected and not some atheist convention) ask how many don't believe in evolution. Then ask how many believe life was Divinely created instead of just springing up by accident.

Been done, to varying degrees of seriousness. Project Steve springs to mind...

Here's the thing: that it has not been experimentally verified shouldn't come as a surprise. We don't yet know the exact conditions prevalent on the young(ish) Earth and, assuming that the emergence of life is a rare event, we might never get there. This limitation does however not change one bit the direction that all the evidence we do have points to.

Everyone keeps claiming that evolution has nothing to do with the emergence of life but then conveniently NEVER defines what the first life is supposed to be. You can then claim evolution is true even if everything was separately created and allowed to evolved. That's a cop-out.

They are two different questions - how is recognising this simple truth a cop-out?

Then Isaac Asimov and many others are misapplying it as well. I don't think they are and Isaac gives us examples of complexity just after defining the second law.

No, what he does is propose in the very bit you omitted that life does not operate within these boundaries. And yes, strictly speaking he is misapplying it by essentially conflating the concepts of disorder and entropy. Entropy again applies in its strictest sense to thermodynamics and is not simply transferable to discussions on interpretations of complexity.

Yes it's been pretty much established evolutionists don't want their own words and ideas used against them. Even had an evilutionist tell me I'm evil for doing it. Apparently he never watched an episode of Law & Order to realise this is how the real world works. I didn't ignore the rest, I said it was bogus and used clear and obvious logic to show it. Your ad hominems against me aren't working.

Whilst you might view your deductions as stemming from 'clear and obvious' logic, the simple truth is that you have not a single shred of evidence in support of your position. This leaves you at a bit of an impasse, as the only reasonable conclusion is that your 'clear and obvious' logic is faulty.

Pietie built a watermill. When asked by Koos how it's going to work without a stream Pietie told him not to worry because he's using a tank and as the wheel turns it's also pumping water back up into the tank. When Koos tells him these things don't work Pietie tells him "Aye but mine is an exception."
If Isaac's claim is true it's an extraordinary one. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Ima just ignore your peculiar analogy and respond thusly: we have no grounds on which to claim it extraordinary. We've barely scratched the surface of our own little blue dot; for all we know the universe might be positively teeming with life. Unless we can positively identify it as extraordinary we can only go where the evidence points, and you know where that is...

Was talking mainly about the surface... but in any case where are the terminators then? See above, the point of diversification is never defined but assuming that it requires some level of simplicity leading to complexity, Isaac states "Life on earth has steadily grown more complex." That's the problem you keep missing. Complexity doesn't just increase it requires a mechanism. Even then complexity decreases. Things deteriorate. They stop working. They fall apart. Death and extinction happen - deal with THAT!

Descent with modification. There's your mechanism. Besides - and again - the second law deals with heat flow in a closed system; an increase in local complexity is not a decrease in entropy. It won't ever equate, no matter how many times you assert that it should.

So you believe in an intelligent influence then? Because that's the only influence that increases overall order.

As above.

They're more complex than their initial states because of natural laws. You're seeing rudimentary complexity and jumping straight to the level of complexity in something like a computer. This jumping inclination seems like a pattern in evolutionist thinking. That level of complexity doesn't happen from the mindless addition of energy. Maybe somebody will know who I'm talking about here as I can't remember but the idea is that any machine with a complex interworking of parts has such a higher chance of one of them failing in a critical way that it shouldn't even be working so it's inevitable that everything breaks down. The more complex and less redundant it is the quicker it breaks down. Life is the most complex machine in existence.

...whilst you're seeing only high levels of 'complexity' and displaying utter incredulity at the proposition that this state can be reached gradually and mindlessly. Here's the problem you have to overcome: EVERYTHING that has ever been comprehensively explained has been shown to be the result of mindless forces acting on inanimate objects. Every time, without exception. You are the one proposing exceptions here...

https://www.google.co.za/search?q=c...MGoaYhQfik62LCA&ved=0CE8QsAQ&biw=1276&bih=913
See a pattern there? Exactly. There is no complexity because any pattern will substitute.

The increased complexity becomes apparent when considering the mud's state before and after drying, not comparing one patch to another.

As for your snowflake example, it's the natural inclination of everything to take on the lowest energy state possible.

...in a closed system, when talking about heat flow. Are we done with this yet?

The arrangement causing the pattern is exactly as a result of that. The saying no two snowflakes are alike is because there isn't a lot of order involved.

I think you'll find it's a little more complicated than that...

Your premise is that if complex things fall apart no biological system should be able to duplicate itself. That is simply bogus. We can design a machine or computer virus that does exactly that. Without continual maintenance however the process will gradually break down and come to a halt at some point but it does not happen immediately like you seem to think it should. It also requires an intelligent cause to initiate so the invariable consequence this has does nothing to my position here but it does a lot to yours.

Again, your analogies of computer viruses and machines fail because they represent closed systems.

Dude, seriously... without wanting to sound patronising you are spewing utter, utter rubbish. Rubbish that either isn't applicable (but sounds like it should be to you) or rubbish that has been refuted years if not decades ago. If you are as open-minded as you purport to be, here's a challenge for you: Set aside your preconceived notions for a bit, go here, and start at the top. Check up what's said to your heart's content, but do so with honesty and integrity. Follow the citations. Read the papers. Just... take on a bit of information not tainted by fundagelical nonsense. You might just come out a little less incredulous on the other side.

 

[alloytoo]

You are making the same mistake that Mark Isaak makes here when he says "Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder." Isaac Asimov then does exactly that and describes it as such.

Asimov also, inconclusion to the complete quote, pointed out that the earth is NOT a closed system and that we have this thing called a star.

The confusion here is not mine. For some reason Asimov is right on this one because many others view it like this as well AND we can plainly see it in action.

He also pointed out (in response to being misquoted) that kindergarden explanations are best suited for kindergarden.

You lot are the ones confused here by thinking the 2nd law is being applied to "information theory" when it's actually the principle of the 2nd law that applies.

The second law applies to usable energy in a closed system. Complexity (a relative measure, especially in your usage) does not apply as the earth is not a closed system.

And I told you before contextomy didn't take place. I am not required to state a person's every position on every matter nor would this be a reasonable expectation.

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.

You are a liar.

Goals can be subjective, ends happen whether you deny the facts or not.

Ends happen irrespective, and sometimes in opposition to any subjective goal.

It IS science, or do you want to deny photosynthesis? LOL

Photosynthesis is a consequence of evolution.

It's an open system for energy, not for complexity. Asimov isn't being misrepresented, he's just plainly wrong. Complexity doesn't transfer from one part of the universe to another. Energy is transfered. Energy needs a mechanism to create complexity.

a) Complexity is a relative evaluation. (especially in your case)
b) Asimov was providing a kindergarden explanation for entropy.
c) Ilya Prigogine won the 1977 Nobel prize in chemistry for proving you wrong.

If intelligent design is "so flawed" why do you trust science to get it right on evolution?

Intelligent design isn't science.

Just because we reject pseudoscience doesn't mean we have to reject science. People that know me know I'm very passionate about real science. Evolution ain't it, m'kay.

Theory of Evolution isn't supported by a single discipline, it's supported by a cross section of sciences.

 

[porchrat]

He has responded. And to summarise:

There is no such thing as quote-mining. People who believe in evolution created that word. No such thing.
Terminators documentary.
Law and Order documentary.
Isaac Asimov was wrong because...just because.
Evolution still doesn't address abiogenesis. Apparently the two are linked somehow.
Redefining words.
Pietie, Koos and a water...er...mill...
He was talking about the surface of the earth being a closed system. Wait...hang on. Ah screw it. Yip, just the surface. Or something like that.
Erected a few strawmen with the intelligent influence thing.
Complexity is not complexity unless you redefine it and agree with swa. Otherwise you're just stupid, apparently.
Then on the one hand we have intelligent design and then on the other we don't. But both confirm his position. Apparently.
And then so much baloney and contradiction about embryos.

So, porchrat - that is how. And he was using logic and reason. Naturally...

LOL sounds like rza level lunacy.

Could someone quote the section in which Swa actually addresses the embryo - human thing directly. I really can't wait to see how that is allowed for by his twisted logic but evolution isn't. Should be good for some laughs.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

LOL sounds like rza level lunacy.

Could someone quote the section in which Swa actually addresses the embryo - human thing directly. I really can't wait to see how that is allowed for by his twisted logic but evolution isn't. Should be good for some laughs.

This...

And that has what to do with the fact that your misapplication of principles of thermodynamics would make the development of an embryo from a fertilised egg impossible? It's not my embryo example; it's the invariable consequence of what you're suggesting.

Your premise is that if complex things fall apart no biological system should be able to duplicate itself. That is simply bogus. We can design a machine or computer virus that does exactly that. Without continual maintenance however the process will gradually break down and come to a halt at some point but it does not happen immediately like you seem to think it should. It also requires an intelligent cause to initiate so the invariable consequence this has does nothing to my position here but it does a lot to yours.

and...

I can't wait to see how Swa explains how an embryo develops into a fully developed human being without violating his exceptionally twisted understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Talk about an increase in complexity!

I still can't get over it. This is something on an intellectual level that I would expect from rza.

You hanging on to this canard as well? As already said no explanations are needed for your misconceptions. And increase in complexity? LMFAO

Btw. is it a flawless process?

...this.

 

[porchrat]

This...





and...





...this.

Oh I see his argument comes from ignorance of biochemical processes involved. I can't say I am surprised.

For shame Swa go do some research and stop simplifying what is an incredibly complex process with claims that it is merely "[duplicating] itself". Don't be fooled, at the biochemical level the development of a human being from a bunch of cells requires massive differentiation and specialisation from a bunch of pretty generic looking stem cells. Forget the physiological level, looking deeper the biochemical changes going on are incredible. This is not a case of simply "[duplicating] itself" and those who suggest it is are woefully ignorant of the processes involved. All sorts of energy barriers must be overcome to create proteins, glycoproteins etc. that were not present in the original embryo. If your interpretation of thermodynamics were valid this would simply not be possible.

 

[Swa]

Okay, I understand the importance of putting scientific discoveries under scrutiny however I'm pretty sure there have been many many long nights spent trying to do just this with evolution. Guess what? It's still valid and with more and more discoveries being made every day the evidence just gets even stronger.

What I can suggest is why don't you lay out your alternate hypotheses to these flaws in evolutionary theory. Maybe this would be a better way of going about it.

Valid is a subjective concept. A few hundred years ago it was valid that if you sailed far enough you'll fall off the side of the earth. The only thing that's true is the truth but nobody knows what that is.

The problem is that putting the details of something under scrutiny is not a sufficient requirement for correctness. If it was then geocentric, phlogiston and miasma theory would be correct too because their details were scrutinised in the same manner but also in the same manner the premise or bigger picture wasn't. We now know that these were in fact false.

Richard Feynman said "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that." This is something that's gone amiss. Critical examination where it matters has never actually played a part in science.

In all three these cases there was also the claim that all the evidence fits. They would even have claimed that there was mountains of evidence to support it. Sound familiar? In reality the evidence also fitted another scenario and it didn't quite fit the way they would have liked it to so they introduced other "science" into it. Extra planetary dynamics to account for geocentrism. Negative weight of phlogiston to account for combustion of metals resulting in an increased weight.

The whole point is that all the evidence fits another scenario. So as much as some would wish it to point to their conclusion it's actually circumstantial. We prefer convicting people on a single piece of solid evidence rather than circumstantial evidence for a reason.

The alternative hypothesis has been laid out. DNA similarity is because of common function rather than common descent. Fossil, DNA and ERV lines of descent contradict each other but fits perfectly with a hotchpotch of creation. Gradualistic evolution isn't happening fast enough so one proposes punctuated equilibrium. The fossil evidence doesn't show the expected clear transitions between species and embarrassingly fits better with creation so someone else proposes that fossilisation is too rare to have happened where it matters. History has shown us that when extra conjecture and excuses are introduced its often because the theory is flawed.

When people want to believe something their scrutiny is used to gather evidence that supports it, interpret evidence to support their conclusion and ignore any evidence that doesn't fit. Even though they are not actually fallacies I'm assuming CoolBug means well with his link but it should be remembered that it works both ways.

I don't care if someone wants to believe their version of the events. As long as they don't claim it as the most likely scenario because of some preconceived ideas when all the evidence doesn't fit it and where it could likely fit another because that's just an insult to basic intelligence.

 

[Unhappy1]

Here you go Swa, a website for you right up your alley.... http://timecube.com/

 

[CoolBug]

Fossils, DNA, ERV lines contradict each other?

Amazing!

Wow this is news to me, please can you provide a source?

 

[Swa]

I don't simply see life now. I see nested hierarchies, evidence in genetics, the brazillions of fossils cataloguing life's gradual development in response to its environment, the geographical distribution of related organisms, and a host of other bits of information which leaves me in no doubt of evolution's truth.

Where the fossil record and genetics and ERVs all show different hierarchies. The "brazilions" of fossils catalog a history of sudden appearances and extinctions of species and not evolution leading to diversification. The major phyla appear already fully formed. The ancestry of fish, birds, insects, reptiles and mammals and all major taxonomic groups is undocumented in much the same manner. Geographic distribution? Genetics show the cow is more related to the dolphin than the horse. If you have no doubt of evolution's "truth" the blinders are fitting really tight.

Been done, to varying degrees of seriousness. Project Steve springs to mind...

Here's the thing: that it has not been experimentally verified shouldn't come as a surprise. We don't yet know the exact conditions prevalent on the young(ish) Earth and, assuming that the emergence of life is a rare event, we might never get there. This limitation does however not change one bit the direction that all the evidence we do have points to.

It has? Project Steve shows what?

The experiments can't verify it in the same way they can't verify cold fusion. They show it to likely be a myth. An evolutionist at the time, Dean Kenyon thought that it would eventually prove it but all his research showed him otherwise. The direction "all the evidence" points to exists only in your mind.

They are two different questions - how is recognising this simple truth a cop-out?

And it's never defined where evolution is supposed to start. How is that NOT a cop-out?

Strictly speaking they are not different questions. Evolution doesn't address it because it can't. The simple truth is that many consider it a part of evolution but one without a current explanation. See here how biology textbooks DO include it as part of evolution. The problem for you is that life simply does not pop up and without a natural explanation you can't make the claim that it just naturally evolved.

No, what he does is propose in the very bit you omitted that life does not operate within these boundaries. And yes, strictly speaking he is misapplying it by essentially conflating the concepts of disorder and entropy. Entropy again applies in its strictest sense to thermodynamics and is not simply transferable to discussions on interpretations of complexity.

He's not misapplying it. You are under the impression that because it was invented to apply to thermodynamics that the principle can't apply to complexity. It's widely regarded that it does because it's held universally true. You just dismiss it because it conflicts with your preconceived beliefs. Where he's conflating it is by claiming adding massive amounts of blind energy to a system can increase order and complexity. It doesn't by itself so it's an unproven claim that life doesn't operate within those boundaries.

Whilst you might view your deductions as stemming from 'clear and obvious' logic, the simple truth is that you have not a single shred of evidence in support of your position. This leaves you at a bit of an impasse, as the only reasonable conclusion is that your 'clear and obvious' logic is faulty.

Not a shred of evidence? Well holy smoke neither have you. It's all suppositions and convoluted logic to twist evidence that can fit a variety of scenarios and then claiming it supports only your position. The reasonable conclusion here exists only in your fantasies.

Ima just ignore your peculiar analogy and respond thusly: we have no grounds on which to claim it extraordinary. We've barely scratched the surface of our own little blue dot; for all we know the universe might be positively teeming with life. Unless we can positively identify it as extraordinary we can only go where the evidence points, and you know where that is...

There are plenty of grounds to claim it's extraordinary. Things universally decay, they deteriorate, they fall apart. Even with machines we make. Complexity doesn't just increase locally without a mechanism. Natural causes are not sufficient for highly ordered systems. The universe might... it might have a 3rd charge particle, it might have protons orbiting electrons, it might have atoms traveling faster than light. It might have a lot of things that contradict existing laws of physics but until we know we don't accept that there are exceptions. That is where the evidence points. The only thing pointing towards it being an exception is your belief.

Descent with modification. There's your mechanism. Besides - and again - the second law deals with heat flow in a closed system; an increase in local complexity is not a decrease in entropy. It won't ever equate, no matter how many times you assert that it should.

Active force or a passive description. Random processes do not result in complexity. For an increase in complexity there has to be an active force guiding it in a direction. In this case it must actively cause the correct mutations as random events only decrease complexity.

...whilst you're seeing only high levels of 'complexity' and displaying utter incredulity at the proposition that this state can be reached gradually and mindlessly. Here's the problem you have to overcome: EVERYTHING that has ever been comprehensively explained has been shown to be the result of mindless forces acting on inanimate objects. Every time, without exception. You are the one proposing exceptions here...

Here's the problem for you to overcome: everything that has ever been comprehensively explained does not exhibit high levels of complexity. The certain exceptions are only explained as man made structures. For life to be the result of mindless forces it has to be proposed as an exception.

The increased complexity becomes apparent when considering the mud's state before and after drying, not comparing one patch to another.

Rudimentary complexity. It's apparent there's no intricacy involved when comparing one patch to another.

Again, your analogies of computer viruses and machines fail because they represent closed systems.

Dude, seriously... without wanting to sound patronising you are spewing utter, utter rubbish. Rubbish that either isn't applicable (but sounds like it should be to you) or rubbish that has been refuted years if not decades ago. If you are as open-minded as you purport to be, here's a challenge for you: Set aside your preconceived notions for a bit, go here, and start at the top. Check up what's said to your heart's content, but do so with honesty and integrity. Follow the citations. Read the papers. Just... take on a bit of information not tainted by fundagelical nonsense. You might just come out a little less incredulous on the other side.

That's utterly ridiculous. They are in fact not closed systems but require a power source. They clearly show your idea that living creatures wouldn't be able to reproduce themselves if complexity is decreasing as false.

Here's a challenge for you. Set aside all your preconceived notions and examine which of those claims are true and which ones aren't. Don't just continue parroting them religiously but do your own research. I know creationists that were once evolutionists that did exactly that and saw how fundamentalist some of those "refutations" are.

 

[Swa]

Asimov also, inconclusion to the complete quote, pointed out that the earth is NOT a closed system and that we have this thing called a star.

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.

He also pointed out (in response to being misquoted) that kindergarden explanations are best suited for kindergarden.

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.

The second law applies to usable energy in a closed system. Complexity (a relative measure, especially in your usage) does not apply as the earth is not a closed system.

See above

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.

You are a liar.

This has been pointed out numerous times that it's not necessary to state all a person's views. 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. Your ad hominems have been duly noted and also your personal attacks and insults. Fan of ghoti much?

Photosynthesis is a consequence of evolution.

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.

a) Complexity is a relative evaluation. (especially in your case)
b) Asimov was providing a kindergarden explanation for entropy.
c) Ilya Prigogine won the 1977 Nobel prize in chemistry for proving you wrong.

a) Yet it doesn't stop it from being recognised.
b) One he then misapplies when claiming the sun is sufficient to create complexity.
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. He even states that it doesn't explain the formation of biological structures.

Intelligent design isn't science.

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.

Theory of Evolution isn't supported by a single discipline, it's supported by a cross section of sciences.

None of them support evolution exclusively.

 

[Swa]

Fossils, DNA, ERV lines contradict each other?

Amazing!

Wow this is news to me, please can you provide a source?

Sure: http://articles.latimes.com/1997/aug/31/news/mn-27505
Contradicts the previous ideas based on fossils.

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...impanzees_bonobos_and_gorillas_but_not_humans
The researchers suggest that chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than to humans. Contradicts the genetic evidence that humans and chimps are more closely related.

http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885
Kevin Peterson uses microRNAs that contradict all other evolutionary trees.

 

[Swa]

Oh I see his argument comes from ignorance of biochemical processes involved. I can't say I am surprised.

For shame Swa go do some research and stop simplifying what is an incredibly complex process with claims that it is merely "[duplicating] itself". Don't be fooled, at the biochemical level the development of a human being from a bunch of cells requires massive differentiation and specialisation from a bunch of pretty generic looking stem cells. Forget the physiological level, looking deeper the biochemical changes going on are incredible. This is not a case of simply "[duplicating] itself" and those who suggest it is are woefully ignorant of the processes involved. All sorts of energy barriers must be overcome to create proteins, glycoproteins etc. that were not present in the original embryo. If your interpretation of thermodynamics were valid this would simply not be possible.

Your and Haptic's argument is one from ignorance. Cellular differentiation takes place from generic cells that already contains all the information needed to build a whole organism. That's why when your brain cells die it should be possible to replace them using stem cells. It's even possible this information is all contained in every other cell as techniques are being developed to turn them into stem cells. Proteins and glycoproteins are already present as DNA templates in the zygote and the forming gametes. Bodies arise because body plans are recursively passed on in every stage of the reproductive cycle. Anybody suggesting that this is just some cells that willy nilly decide to form the same complexity every time conception takes place is woefully ignorant of the processes involved. Complexity is already present, it's built in. Get it? Good.

I see you haven't answered if the process happens perfectly though. Oh wait I see you stated that you have the truth on ignore. Guess you'll just have to stay ignorant then. What a wonderful statement of your conviction.

 

[HapticSimian]

Ima just gonna pick out two points here:

Here's the problem for you to overcome: everything that has ever been comprehensively explained does not exhibit high levels of complexity. The certain exceptions are only explained as man made structures. For life to be the result of mindless forces it has to be proposed as an exception.

That's utterly ridiculous. They are in fact not closed systems but require a power source. They clearly show your idea that living creatures wouldn't be able to reproduce themselves if complexity is decreasing as false.

Of course they're closed systems. :wtf: They might require external power to function, but their routines are not open to outside influence. The fact that the hardware supporting the closed software systems would break down does not change this.

Here's a challenge for you. Set aside all your preconceived notions and examine which of those claims are true and which ones aren't. Don't just continue parroting them religiously but do your own research. I know creationists that were once evolutionists that did exactly that and saw how fundamentalist some of those "refutations" are.

I propose we change tack here, all in the quest of extricating you from your ignorance. Why don't you start with the wiki article on the Evidence of Common Descent - right at the top - and start formulating a hypothesis which better fits every single thing mentioned. Don't neglect to check each reference. I'll do the same with the article on Evidence for Creationism... hell, I'll take on the article on the Evidence against Evolution too. I think you'll agree that both are quite unbiased and complete in their current forms, and well worth a read.

 

[CoolBug]

No Swa, you must have "misinterpreted" what I was asking for.

Please provide a source where Evidence contradicts Evidence in terms of ERV, Fossils & DNA.

Sometimes a scientist will think that for example a cow is more closely related to a whale than to a horse. This is not an evidence based conclusion, this is an assumption.

Science is humble enough to make these assumptions and then do research to back up these claims even though they are often proved wrong when the evidence comes to light.

Like a priest studying archaeology, paleontology and the age of the earth and then scratching out genesis and rewriting the claims in genesis to conform with the evidence. Good luck with that one.

What you will not find is a modern day horse fossil that dates 65 Million years, THAT would be a contradiction. You won't find that DNA sequencing proves that we are closer to chickens than Chimpanzees, THAT would be a contradiction.

You won't find a fossil of a poodle in the cambrian explosion period, THAT would be a contradiction.

Your attempts at coming across as someone that is educated are in vein if I had to spell this out for you.

Don't know why I'm arguing with this guy, I know he's not seeking truth. He's trolling, be it ignorantly or arrogantly or possibly both, he's trolling.

 

[CoolBug]

Intelligent design isn't science.

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.

Wow...

Hmmm what constitutes as a science... hmmmm....

What if all the notable scientific organisations reject Intelligent Design? would it then still be a science?

If you are confused about what is a science and profess that ID is a science, you really shouldn't be arguing about such things.

ID is not a science because, well unfortunately, science is based on evidence and there is literally nothing but logical fallacies that attempts to prove ID.

ID is Creationism trying another angle at fighting the ToE, in the courts of course they came short because, courts also use evidence to give verdicts :,(

A quote from wiki (Intelligent design and science):

The relationship between Intelligent design and science has been a contentious one. Intelligent design is presented by its proponents as science and claims to offer an alternative to evolution. The Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank and the leading proponents of intelligent design, launched a campaign entitled "Teach the Controversy" which claims that a controversy exists within the scientific community over evolution. The scientific community, however, states that there is no controversy and rejects intelligent design as creationism due to ID proponents' lack of peer-reviewed research and the scientifically undefined quality of observable intelligence.

More from the same article:

Defining Science

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.[38][39][40][41] The boundaries between what is and what is not to be considered science, known as the demarcation problem, continues to be debated among philosophers of science and scientists in various fields.[42]

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[43] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[n 7][44][n 8] Others in the scientific community have concurred,[n 9] and some have called it junk science.[n 10][45] For a theory to qualify as scientific,[n 11][46][n 12] it is expected to be:

-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)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[47] violates the principle of parsimony,[n 13] is not scientifically useful,[n 14] is not falsifiable,[n 15] is not empirically testable,[n 16] and is not correctable, dynamic, provisional or progressive.[n 17][n 18][n 19]
Critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the Daubert Standard,[48] the criteria for scientific evidence mandated by the US Supreme Court. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. Its four criteria are:
The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.
The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, using these criteria and others mentioned above, Judge Jones ruled that "... we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
At the Kitzmiller trial, philosopher Robert T. Pennock described a common approach to distinguishing science from non-science as examining a theory's compliance with methodological naturalism, the basic method in science of seeking natural explanations without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural.[49] Intelligent design proponents criticize this method and argue that science, if its goal is to discover truth, must be able to accept evidentially supported, supernatural explanations.[50] Additionally, philosopher of science Larry Laudan and cosmologist Sean Carroll argue against any a priori criteria for distinguishing science from pseudoscience.[51][52] Laudan, as well as philosopher Barbara Forrest, state that the content of the hypothesis must first be examined to determine its ability to solve empirical problems.[53][54] Methodological naturalism is therefore an a posteriori criterion due to its ability to yield consistent results.[53][54]

 

[Swa]

Of course they're closed systems. :wtf: They might require external power to function, but their routines are not open to outside influence. The fact that the hardware supporting the closed software systems would break down does not change this.

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.

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.

I propose we change tack here, all in the quest of extricating you from your ignorance. Why don't you start with the wiki article on the Evidence of Common Descent - right at the top - and start formulating a hypothesis which better fits every single thing mentioned. Don't neglect to check each reference. I'll do the same with the article on Evidence for Creationism... hell, I'll take on the article on the Evidence against Evolution too. I think you'll agree that both are quite unbiased and complete in their current forms, and well worth a read.

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.

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

 

[Swa]

No Swa, you must have "misinterpreted" what I was asking for.

Please provide a source where Evidence contradicts Evidence in terms of ERV, Fossils & DNA.

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.

What you will not find is a modern day horse fossil that dates 65 Million years, THAT would be a contradiction. You won't find that DNA sequencing proves that we are closer to chickens than Chimpanzees, THAT would be a contradiction.

You won't find a fossil of a poodle in the cambrian explosion period, THAT would be a contradiction.

Your attempts at coming across as someone that is educated are in vein if I had to spell this out for you.

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.

Don't know why I'm arguing with this guy, I know he's not seeking truth. He's trolling, be it ignorantly or arrogantly or possibly both, he's trolling.

And you ARE seeking the truth? LMFAO troll

Wow...

Hmmm what constitutes as a science... hmmmm....

What if all the notable scientific organisations reject Intelligent Design? would it then still be a science?

Consensus does not determine truth.

If you are confused about what is a science and profess that ID is a science, you really shouldn't be arguing about such things.

ID is not a science because, well unfortunately, science is based on evidence and there is literally nothing but logical fallacies that attempts to prove ID.

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

ID is Creationism trying another angle at fighting the ToE, in the courts of course they came short because, courts also use evidence to give verdicts :,(

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.

A quote from wiki (Intelligent design and science):

The relationship between Intelligent design and science has been a contentious one. Intelligent design is presented by its proponents as science and claims to offer an alternative to evolution. The Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank and the leading proponents of intelligent design, launched a campaign entitled "Teach the Controversy" which claims that a controversy exists within the scientific community over evolution. The scientific community, however, states that there is no controversy and rejects intelligent design as creationism due to ID proponents' lack of peer-reviewed research and the scientifically undefined quality of observable intelligence.

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

After watching their pro-LSEA scientific peers testify about scientific problems with evolution, one anti-LSEA LSU biologist still had the audacity to testify before the House Education Committee that "there is no controversy among professional biologists about fact of evolution". When one representative asked him, "Did you hear the testimony of the other professors we had here that were speaking before this committee?," he fumbled in response.

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.

More from the same article:

Defining Science

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.[38][39][40][41] The boundaries between what is and what is not to be considered science, known as the demarcation problem, continues to be debated among philosophers of science and scientists in various fields.[42]

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.