They actually use the same kind of logic that has caused new fields of science to spring up. 'Nothing we know can explain this; clearly there is something we don't know.' I have never heard anyone make the claim that it is true because you can't disprove it - the claim is simply that it seems most likely of the options we now know of.

This has to be more clearly defined. Micro-evolution has a good deal of experimental and observational evidence behind it. Macro-evolution does not work in quite the same way. Non-evolutionists look at gaps in the scientific record as well as other evidence in the record which evolution cannot explain (for example, as I mentioned, the Cambrian Explosion) and propose a different explanation, on the understanding that the current explanation no longer works. In that regard, it is perfectly in-line with scientific practices.



I could take this entire paragraph and replace the words 'intelligent design/er' with 'macro-evolution' and make the opposing case. That is what makes the question difficult - science can't completely answer it.




You and I know this, but apparently many people posting here (and many famous scientists) do not seem to understand it. My point isn't that you must 'prove' evolution, it is that you should be apply evolution to explain the records we have. Natural Evolution (regardless of the flavor) cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion. That suggests to me that the theory itself cannot be correct, because it does not explain reality. It's not a question of proving, it is a question of defending.



Okay, I can agree with this then. If a person accepts the natural explanation of evolution, they have no reason to appeal to God as the guide. Typically the guided evolutionists I have met accept evolution in theory, and use God to fill in the gaps that natural evolution doesn't seem to explain well. It seems to be an attempt to make everyone happy.



Macro-evolution can never be tested. It is testable in the sense that observation of certain facts can support or debunk the larger-scale, untestable claim. Sounds a lot like religion, don't you think?

What you seem to be doing is stacking the deck. It's like you're applying a 'true until proven false' logic to evolution, which is generally outside the bounds of science. Evolution is only acceptable so long as it is the best explanation for what we observe. When it no longer explains what we observe, it should be rejected outright and another, more likely explanation sought. The problem is that evolution has been granted a religion-like status in which it is the status quo, regardless of its actual validity.

As for irreducible complexity, it has not been debunked so thoroughly as you think. The explanation that all of the parts were originally parts of other systems doesn't quite cut it. Even if we accept that, we still have to assume that, all in one mutation, the components ceased to function in their previous system and began to function correctly together in a new system. That is simply to large of a change all at once for an iterative definition like natural selection.



I am only working one case at a time. This goes back to the original problem I see in your logic - you will stick with evolution until it is disproven, as will most people. The goal, then, is not to propose something else which can be proven (ID and Creationism cannot). The main case I am trying to make is that there are reasons to doubt the typical scientific explanation which is accepted by the mainstream. If we start by doubting the typical explanation, then we are ready to explore other explanations. However, each time I've tried to begin by teaching logic for Biblical Creationism (without evolution), the conversation derails into people who want to talk about the truism of evolution. So, I've learned to simply address that issue first.



You fell directly into the trap and missed my point. You say that they clearly don't come from the same designer, but they must have a common ancestor. That, my friend, is a useless case - which was my point. You can posit a common ancestor, I can posit a common designer. Neither of us is more right than the other; we're just making up evidence for what we already believe. From what I have seen and read, the vast majority of 'evidence' for evolution falls into this same category.

As for reading without the voice in my head...apparently what you are truly suggesting is that I read while listening to the evolutionist voice in my head. A truly unbiased reading would find both suggestions of evidence to be ridiculous and useless.



I have a degree in Psychology (applicable for research), a minor in Computer Science (applicable because of logic training), and a minor in science (a mix of physics, chemistry, and biology with a focus on elementary physics).

The Cambrian Explosion has been massively exaggerated by creationists to look as though scientists don't have an "explanation" for it... except scientists do. It's true, a whole mess of new fossils shows up during the Cambrian, but many types of life evolve later or earlier, and there are reasons for the sudden diversification at the end of the Permian - We know that the early evolution of Hox genes, which control developmental processes in segmented animals, happened during the Cambrian and probably enabled diversification. We know it was the end of an ice age, which would cause populations to go up and, animals to evolve larger bodies, and and new niches for them to diversify into.

The fossil record is naturally spotty; not everything leaves a fossil. Out of the thirty-two known metazoan phyla, only twenty-one have a fossil record. Of those twenty-one, eleven appear during the Cambrian, two before it, and eight after it. Note that this doesn't mean they evolved during the Cambrian - only that they most likely became large and hard-bodied enough to leave a fossil record. Molecular evidence places six metazoan phyla in the pre-Cambrian, in fact.

Secondly, there are "transitional" body plans in the Cambrian fossil record that show all those new species didn't show up out of nowhere.

Reference: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html


It seems mighty silly. From "evolution cannot satisfactorily explain everything," it does not follow that "God must exist." It's clear that their god-belief comes from elsewhere and is shoehorned into the "gaps" in our understanding of the evolutionary history of Earth.


Macro-evolution can and has been tested. There are several predictions made by the concept of common descent and speciation, such as parahomology - structures with different functions having similar shapes due to a shared genetic ancestry. We expect that to happen for the reason that new organs don't spring up out of nowhere; thus, newly evolved complex adaptations are expected to come out of exaptations or out of changes in previously evolved adaptations. Parahomology happens at all levels, from the molecular to the anatomical. The next time you choke on a pretzel, remember that no competent designer would have crossed your respiratory and digestive tracts; but as evolution had co-opt the latter into developing the former, you can't breathe and swallow at the same time.

Reference: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html

What I'm saying is that evolution is acceptable as long as it is the best explanation. There are no explanations which are more acceptable, hence evolution is our best approximation to truth. Of course, it's also an incredibly valid theory, but even if it was a lot spottier, it's better than nothing or than hypotheses that have zero evidence going for them. Saying "evolution can't explain X, Y and Z" is not an argument for creationist; to a biologist it's essentially the same as saying "your job is not done yet," and they know that.


Irreducible complexity, again, is not an argument for design, so it doesn't even help prop up your case. But your initial assumptions are wrong, of course. You think that to evolve an irreducibly complex system you need a single mutation that puts everything in concord. You don't. What you need is just that a part be added, and then made indispensable. This is absolutely trivial, and examples of "irreducible" systems have been shown to have evolved. The simple truth is that evolution doesn't work just by adding more parts; it can remove prior parts, cause things to lose function, and so on. You can easily imagine a system that goes from having redundant parts to having none, and thus becoming irreducibly complex.

A number of detailed examples at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html


But of course we doubt. Science is founded on doubt. But your attacks on evolution are there to hide the fact that you don't have a case. You have no points to make. You have no evidence, no arguments, no testable propositions. You can't demonstrate that ID is true, and several variants of creationism are simply obviously untrue (Unless you want to say that God hid the fossils to mislead us.). You can't argue against evolution because you have nothing to displace it; even if evolution had a lot more gaps than it has, you are arguing outside of the scientific process - you aren't proposing testable hypothesis, you are trying to punch holes in theories because they make you uncomfortable. This is why we don't argue with creationists - they neither understand the scientific process nor are able to participate in it, thus any argument coming out of them is pure silliness. Biologists work to prod and tweak the theory to see where it breaks; you seem to be under the impression that the uninformed opinions of amateurs like Behe (Yes, I know he has a degree, just not in biology) and others are enough to falsify a theory. They aren't; if you want to cause "doubt," then you're redundant, as the scientific process provides that by itself. Our understanding of biology has changed in the last hundred and fifty years; we know now things about hybridization, for example, which completely falsify our understanding of macroevolution as it was fifty years ago. However, by having failed to read any scientific literature, you seem to be under the impression that the theory is "set in stone" and taken as a dogma when it really is not.

I don't see you attacking neurosciences, even though they make a much weaker target (Neuroscientists don't know jack about what's going on at various regions and levels of the brain) and are similarly finding evidence which seems to obsolete metaphysical origins for consciousness.

You see, that's the thing. Evolution has plenty of evidence, surely more than Creationism (which has next to none), you're just (apparently) too blinded by the righteous luminescence of Jesus's halo to understand.

Let me try to simplify it for you. Evidence for evolution is roughly as follows:

-The fossil record of change in earlier species (Undeniable with modern evidence. No, I'm not lying to you)
-The chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms (Life on earth is fundamentally similar)
-The geographic distribution of related species (You can guess this one)
-The recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations (Observable in microbes, insects, dogs, humans, etc)

Also, you're completely wrong on the assumption that I'm "making up evidence for what already believe." You might be making up evidence, but I'm not, and I'm certainly not arguing because my beliefs are set in stone. I was formerly a Protestant of sorts, then kind of realized how full of your cookie-cutter Christianity is once I, you know, started paying attention in science class.

QUOTE(mitbulls @ Jan 14 2008, 07:45 AM) 476905

As for reading without the voice in my head...apparently what you are truly suggesting is that I read while listening to the evolutionist voice in my head. A truly unbiased reading would find both suggestions of evidence to be ridiculous and useless.

A truly unbiased reading would find that evolution has far more supporting, testable, credible, logical, etc. evidence - it's the best explanation available. But, I'm not going to bother continuing the conversation with you,

Also, to make a semi-related point: What you seem to be doing is stacking the deck. It's like you're applying a 'true until proven false' logic to Creationism, which is generally outside the bounds of science. (Not entirely accurate on the 'outside' part, but I bet it sounds familiar.)

That isn't evidence for evolution. That is evidence for a single interconnected system which does not make unrelated or completely random new life forms.

That evidence supports some theories of evolution, godly creation, computer simulation programs, and scientific experiment of scientists from another planet.

The problem is that you think one explanation (whichever is in vogue today) is correct and all other explanations must be wrong.


edit: It still amazes me that people are incapable of promoting an understanding of purely random evolution without insulting other people or demonizing them.

Uh...

That is evolution.



This thread is Creationism vs. Evolution. It does not support Creationism, it does support evolution, among the occasional other idea (e.g. "scientific experiment of scientists from another planet".) I'm following the most likely explanation, evolution, until a more plausible one is presented.

So... what evidence is there for the intelligent design?

Evolution is a lot more specific than that. If you're going to have the debate, you need to do it without obscuring points. If you don't know the response, say so.

Okay. Once we make a few assumptions as to what Daganev meant, that is evolution.

I meant what I wrote.

I'll make up a random theory here, and show how the evidence you provided proves my theory.

Theory: Physical life is the creation of and the results of disembodied Human psychic activity.

-The fossil record of change in earlier species (The early stages, where we weren't sure what the best body to inhabit would be.)
-The chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms (We used the same basic tools from day one)
-The geographic distribution of related species (We liked some ideas, but relized the limited mobility, but didn't want to see our creations lost)
-The recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations (We built off the creations of earlier generations untill we finally found a body we could inhabit nicely)






-The fossil record of change in earlier species
-The chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
-The geographic distribution of related species
-The recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

In addition to those you have philosophical principles related to:

Entropy.
Watchmaker theory.
Principles of thermodynamics.
History.
Human experience.
Human expressions/desires of art and creation.

Intelligent design is a theory based on Philosophy and likely some other non-scientific areas of reasoning.
The physical sciences are not the end all and be all of human acquisition of knowledge.

edit: Intelligent design is an interpretation of the data, not a new set of, or competing data. (Which is one of the many reasons I don't support teaching it as an "opposing theory". Personally I came to the conclusion of "intelligent design" on my own, years before I ever heard the term.)

Maybe God created the world and just planted all of those fossils and is having a big laugh at us as we try to figure it out.

Define "disembodied Human psychic activity". For the sake of the argument (guess we're ignoring Occam's razor?), though, I'll assume you meant "humans had unlimited control over life".



Possibly.



You obviously have no idea what I was talking about, there.



Then why wouldn't we have distributed the creations somewhere else, or make other environments suitable, assuming you included plants, etc in your "theory" ( which it isn't)?



No, that meant we've been seeing evolution ourselves. Humans would have no reason to make new forms once we found this one, according to your explanation of the evidence (you said we found the best, nicest, etc body).

So, one out of four pieces of evidence for your "theory" was acceptable. Jolly good show.



Intelligent Design is not a theory because is cannot be tested by experiment, does not generate any predictions, and proposes no new hypotheses of its own (thanks, U.S. National Academy of Sciences!). It is merely a modernized representation of Creationism.

My fanicful theory was that "human beings" started off as creatures of pure "mind" with no bodies. However, we realized that it would be best to have a body so we could enjoy "physical" pleasures as well as mental ones. As well as being able to die and give birth to give our minds new and (back then) unfathomable experiences. (I'm starting to think there was a startrek episode like this once)

Macro evolution appears to have stopped since "modern man", and that cessation of macro evolution is because we don't need a new body anymore. I'm not saying we had unlimited control over the entire planet, just animal life forms.


I assumed you meant that vertebrates all have the same basic skeleton, share the same basic organs. cells, weather in a human or an amoeba basically work the same way.

Ah. I really should start pointing you to Occam's Razor, or perhaps cease discussion. This just gets more and more unnecessarily complicated, and neither of us are likely to change our minds.



Uh, no, it hasn't: apple maggot, stick bug, etc.



I meant that, yes, which is why "(We used the same basic tools from day one)" as an explanation for that doesn't make sense to me.

Best you just cease discussion. You are A. not understanding my hypothetical point. and B. overusing Occam's razor.

I was more referring to the fact that you've always been a complete and utter failure at forming any sort of strong and logical argument and change/delete your posts the second you realize someone else is right (and I will admit, these occasions are few and far between, due to a lack of good judgment), but ok.

Damn, run-on.

I have been searching up and down for what you are referring to here, and I can't find anything that describes the creation of a new species.

Haven't been following this part of the conversation, but if you want artificially-induced speciation, try fruit flies.

They are both, possibly, becoming new species. Rhagoletis pomonella (to which the apple maggot belongs) has developed distinct "races", and there is a region in South America, I believe, where a species of stick insect (although there's already thousands) has been observed, over generations, turning into two variations.

I could find my sources again, if necessary, but I'm sure you could as well. :| And these, of course, are just two obvious examples that come to mind.

I tend to edit my posts when I realize after I hit the submit button, that I need to clarify what I am saying.

When I recognize I am wrong, I say I am wrong. (*point whining thread*)

Lets try this again.

The evidence which you pointed to, and say that this is proof for evolution is in fact, NOT proof for evolution. It is proof for a theory which suggests an interconnected system which does not make large random and arbitrary changes.

Many theories are covered by this description. Evolution is but one of them. As is Creationism. As is Raelism. As is *insert random scifi story here*

Logically, I am open to many theories. (And given the small amount of data we are comparing our theories based on, such as those 5 points, I find the possibilities numerous) But at the end of the day I will reject many theories on gut instinct. (such as Raelism and random evolution) Because I am a human being, and that is what human beings do.

The reason why I reject random evolution, is because random generation doesn't produce anything constructive. (save for random data samples to play with)

Darn the website is down so I have to resort to second hand information (the actual website was really quite funny)

they either mated back with the original species (making them still the same species) or were sterile and died off.