Successful Predictions Made by Evolution

[WinAce]

Socratism posted this in another thread:

My point, in case you missed it, is that evolutionary theory, makes no predictions either.

In keeping with the rest of this forum, let's see if he's correct.


Is Evolution Science? (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html)

The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:


Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.
There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.
Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.
Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.
In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. [b]After Evolution was invented, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear.A whole series of such fossils has since been found - the cynodont therapsids.
It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.
From my junk DNA example I predict that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome.
In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.
Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off [AND in the same exact way that ape GLO pseudogenes are crippled, too!].


Also see this as-yet unaddressed thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3444) on identical endogenous retroviral insertions in independently originating "kinds" of ape, and the 29+ Evidences FAQ (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) on TalkOrigins that lists dozens of additional ways to falsify evolution.

Now, let's have an explanation of which of these empirical predictions are invalid simply because they support evolution in lieu of a literal Genesis.

[ecori]

i've encountered threads similar to this one before, so i dug out an old post of mine where i made a prediction using my understanding of evolutionary biology. i realize, however, that the topic of this thread is successful predictions. to my knowledge, the prediction i made over a year ago has not yet been confirmed or refuted. of course, if the prediction was confirmed some might say it was a post-diction, made only because i already knew the answer. anyway, here it is, from january 2002:

alright, i'll give this one a shot.
the other day i was learning how to use the program "clustalX". this is a sequence alignment program, which basically takes related sequences and tries to "align" them and calculate their degree of relatedness. it can be used to generate phylogenies when you have several sequences available (like 3 or more). i randomly chose a gene family called CTL (i don't know what it stands for or what it does), which has 3 genes in humans and mice, CTL1, CTL2, and CTL4. i obtained protein sequences for them, as well as for a CTL gene in manta ray (a cartilaginous fish), and a CTL-like gene in yeast. i entered all the sequences, performed an alignment, and then viewed the results using a program called "treeview". this program can generate trees, with or without roots, and using the yeast CTL-like gene as an outgroup, i generated a rooted tree for CTL.

here were the results: human CTL2 and 4 (or hCTL2 and hCTL4) were more closely related to each other than to hCTL1 (the mouse sequences were nearly identical to humans for all CTLs, so i'm omitting further discussion of them). the manta ray CTL (i'll call it "mrCTL") was more closely related to hCTL1 than it was to hCTL2 and hCTL4. more interestingly, it was more related to hCTL1 than hCTL2 and 4 were related to hCTL1.

from this information, we can conclude (or "predict")the following: the ancestral CTL gene split (via gene duplication) into a CTL1-like gene, and a CTL2/4-like gene. this occured before humans/mice diverged from the manta ray.

here are some testable predictions:
a. there exists (or at least existed) an organism that only has one CTL gene, and is "lower" or the evolutionary tree than the manta ray. more ancestral versions of CTL should be looked for in other cartilaginous fish, jawless vertebrates, and possibly enchinoderms

b. the manta ray has at least one additional CTL gene. if this gene is discovered, it will be more similar to hCTL2/4 than to hCTL1.

c. nearly all organisms "between" the manta ray and humans/mice will have at least 2 CTLs (the reason i say "nearly all" is because they could be lost)

the results, conclusions, and predictions all depend on the assumption of common descent and that sequences change in a continuous fashion. i'm no expert on this kind of stuff, so i'm not sure if i made any errors.
i made have made an error or two in my analysis. if anyone would care to comment, feel free to do so. my main point is that this method flows logically from an understanding of evolutionary biology, what i consider to be a "sound analytical foundation".

what kind of a prediction would a baraminologist make with this data?

[QED]

Just a note. In this thread, proponents of evolution are making positive predictions that follow from the theory. In the other thread, creationists are telling us "evolution doesn't make predictions, either." In the other thread, no one is making positive predictions from creationism.

It is quite clear that, regardless of their mistaken indictment of evolution on the same grounds, creationism is not science, and has nothing to do with science. It's good that we have that out in the open.

[Socratism]

None of the "predictions" claimed above for evolutionary theory come out of evolutionary theory itself, since there is no such thing as evolutionary theory.

There are a number of items above which talk about" transitional features". One must understand that when evolutionists talk about "transitional" they do not mean what might be commonly understood by that term. All it really means is that there are certain characteristics shared by creatures. Instead of calling it "shared" characteristics or "common" characteristics they name this phenomenon "transitional" which implies there was once a transition. When questioned closely on this point many admit that they do not believe the "transitional" was the ancestor of any modern form, only a relative of some sort.

The reason they do this is that, for example in the case of the theropods, the "ancestor" which would emerge from such logic would depend on which characteristic (of dozens if not hundreds) would be used for such an analysis.

In the real world there are trends in one direction and trends in the opposite direction (if you accept the "trend" idea) in the same specimen.

This is why the search for a common "ancestor" is a fool's errand and why the examples of "transitional" features are so misleading to the uninitiated. The fact is that developmental biology is the least understood of perhaps all of biological studies and trying to make sense by simply looking at morphological features is a guessing game at best.

Currently there is very little real "prediction" going on in biology, because prediction in the sense of a theory means that one can determine what will happen from the theory itself, not from best guesses based on patterns already known to exist.

I wonder how many "guesses" never materialized? It is small wonder many people believe in modern day prophets who only report their successful predictions in the grocery store scandal sheets!!!

With regard to hierarchical patterns, this was never a prediction of evolutionary theory. It was known prior to Darwin and he developed his theory as a reasonable idea that would be compatible with the patterns. What is never mentioned are the exceptions that must be explained away with vague ideas such as "convergence" or "gene transfer".

I could go on and on, but this much should illustrate why I do not accept all this "prediction" hogwash.

[Minnesota]

Socratism


From your post (#53) in: Living Fossils, A disproof of evolution.


"I would argue that evolutionary theory never specifically claims that human skulls could never be found in lower sediments."

From your post (#6) in:Report: Humans, chimps should be in same genus


"I am way ahead of you, for I already have read about the first one many, many years ago in John Maynard Smith's 1958 classic book, 'The Theory of Evolution'."


From your post (#51) in Living Fossils, a disproof of evolution.


"The theory of evolution "predicts" nothing, except possibly that no matter what is found an explanation can be devised that "predicts" the finding."

AND

From your post (#4) above.


"None of the "predictions" claimed above for evolutionary theory come out of evolutionary theory itself, since there is no such thing as evolutionary theory."

CARE TO EXPLAIN ITEMS 1,2, AND 3, IN LIGHT OF #4?:rofl:

[James]

I think, in essence, that Socratism is unsatisfied with the vast complexity needed in a robust theory of evolution. Unlike some areas of science that can be described with a few fundamental laws, evolutionary theory attemps to describe how thousands of interacting network forces create a complete picture.

It includes the immense complexity inherent in DNA and all the chemical/physical forces acting on its duplication, makeup, and copying fidelity, the way changes in DNA interact with the manufacture of proteins within the cell to produce trait changes in the organism, the makeup of the genome itself and the behavior of different gene types (protein coding, regulatory, etc.), and that's just to describe how changes can come about. It then attempts to build models of organism interaction and selection pressure that account for the observed changes in allele frequency and organism homology/morphology, including clues from the geological sciences as to the effects of natural disasters and biogeography.

If a financial theory were this robust, it would need to describe the principles of currency usage and production, the societal changes that the introduction of currency has produced, the psychology of the individuals making currency exchanges and the nature of those exchanges, the societal interaction that frames the exchage of currency and how this interaction changes with respect to culture and geography, and all the microeconomic/macroeconomic network forces and effects that are inherent in the system of exchange.

To my knowledge, evolutionary theory has been much more successful than economic theory in this regard.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 10:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103755#post103755)
Socratism:

None of the "predictions" claimed above for evolutionary theory come out of evolutionary theory itself, since there is no such thing as evolutionary theory.

:hrm: You can't be serious can you?

You go from the vain attept to argue that ToE doesn't make predictions to claiming that it doesn't exist. Perhaps you should review the history of you're comments and make sure you really want to stake your reputation behind them.

[Joe_Sixpack]

The sticking your finger in your ears and yelling "nananananana" approach to argument.

Any one know if there is a nice latin term to describe this type of flawed argumentation?

[Joe_Sixpack]

Socratism,

One at a time so we can understand your "logic" please.

"Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found. "

How is this not a prediction of the ToE? Why is this not a novel prediction, i.e. not something that would have been assumed under previous models (e.g. creationism)?

"Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them."

How is this not a prediction of the ToE? Why is this not a novel prediction, i.e. not something that would have been assumed under previous models (e.g. creationism)?

"There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found. "

How is this not a prediction of the ToE? Why is this not a novel prediction, i.e. not something that would have been assumed under previous models (e.g. creationism)? Now remember, even if you disagree with the very definition of a "transitional" that doesn't stop this from being a successful prediction of the ToE because the ToE requires the existence of transitional species between various traits and this is simply and example of finding a logical candidate.

"Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship."

How is this not a prediction of the ToE? Why is this not a novel prediction, i.e. not something that would have been assumed under previous models (e.g. creationism)?

To not get too redundant, we will start with just those. Please explain why each are not examples of succesful predictions. You have made a lot of specious claims in this thread and others about the predictive ability and validity of the ToE. Now put up or shut up.

Cheers

[garthoverman]

Oh man, oh man! This is some funny stuff.... :lol:

I disagree pretty vehemently with creationist theory, and I think has less-than-zero scientific validity, but I wouldn't go so far as to deny its existence entirely! :dufus:

I will never cease to be amazed....

Yours,
Garth

[Marc Schindler]

Soc:

None of the "predictions" claimed above for evolutionary theory come out of evolutionary theory itself, since there is no such thing as evolutionary theory.

:lol: Well, I guess that's one way to deal with it: stick your fingers in your ears.

[Joe_Sixpack]

Bump

[Joe Meert]

Yesterday @ 01:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103872#post103872)
Joe_Sixpack:

The sticking your finger in your ears and yelling "nananananana" approach to argument.

Any one know if there is a nice latin term to describe this type of flawed argumentation?

Argumentum ad silencio typanum

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Joe Meert]

Evolution also makes, and has made a number of successful retrodictions.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Duvenoy]

Argumentum ad silencio typanum

Thanks, Joe. that gave me my chuckle for the day.

:lol:

doov

[Socratism]

The problem with the so-called "predictions" of evolutionary theory is that when they do not materialize they are ignored or explained away by "other factors". Since there are millions of specific cases to choose from, this selection is not science. It is similar to the "predictions" reported in the supermarket tabloids.

In general evolution seems to be satisfied with criteria for success which are far less stringent than the experimental or physical sciences.

BTW, determining trends from current lifeforms (migration patterns etc.) is far more logical than extreme extrapolation for reasons I have already mentioned in regard to paternity and human migration patterns.

In other words it is quite possible to take something that is reasonable for minor extrapolation and run it into the ground by excessive or extreme extrapolation.

This is what happens when people extrapolate all the way back to some hypothetical primitive protocell.

Most of the definitions I have seen in evolution texts and articles say very little or are actually trivial.

[xixax]

Today @ 07:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105800#post105800)
Socratism:

The problem with the so-called "predictions" of evolutionary theory is that when they do not materialize they are ignored or explained away by "other factors". Since there are millions of specific cases to choose from, this selection is not science. It is similar to the "predictions" reported in the supermarket tabloids.

In general evolution seems to be satisfied with criteria for success which are far less stringent than the experimental or physical sciences.

BTW, determining trends from current lifeforms (migration patterns etc.) is far more logical than extreme extrapolation for reasons I have already mentioned in regard to paternity and human migration patterns.

In other words it is quite possible to take something that is reasonable for minor extrapolation and run it into the ground by excessive or extreme extrapolation.

This is what happens when people extrapolate all the way back to some hypothetical primitive protocell.

Most of the definitions I have seen in evolution texts and articles say very little or are actually trivial.

What exactly do you think is "extreme extrapolation"? How far back in the past can we go before crossing the line from "minor extrapolation" to "extreme"? Are there middle levels of extrapolation?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm just trying to determine which predictions the theory of evolution would make that fit into your definition of "minor extrapolation".

I get the feeling these boundaries are not defined by time, but defined by the moment they cross from the laughable distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution.

[Warcraft3]

I get the feeling these boundaries are not defined by time, but defined by the moment they cross from the laughable distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution.

Ive heard different definitions from different people for these two terms. So what definitions are you using for micro and macro evolution?


Russ

[xixax]

Today @ 08:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105841#post105841)
steadele:



Ive heard different definitions from different people for these two terms. So what definitions are you using for micro and macro evolution?


Russ

I don't regularly use the terms, as I feel they are misleading. The way I was thinking of the terms in this case is the definition a creationist would use:

Micro) Change within a "species" or "kind"
Macro) Speciation

I find the terms harmful to the understanding of evolution for many, as it implies ( to them ) there is some major difference in the underlying mechanism between the two.

[Duvenoy]

Yesterday @ 09:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105886#post105886)
xixax:



I don't regularly use the terms, as I feel they are misleading. The way I was thinking of the terms in this case is the definition a creationist would use:

Micro) Change within a "species" or "kind"
Macro) Speciation

I find the terms harmful to the understanding of evolution for many, as it implies ( to them ) there is some major difference in the underlying mechanism between the two.

Agree and agree.

I look at it as all the same thing: evolution. I fail to see how assigning a rather arbitrary (if fuzzy) dividing line between micro and macro makes any difference at all.

Have a pearl, on me.

doov

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 04:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105886#post105886)
xixax:



I don't regularly use the terms, as I feel they are misleading. The way I was thinking of the terms in this case is the definition a creationist would use:

Micro) Change within a "species" or "kind"
Macro) Speciation

I find the terms harmful to the understanding of evolution for many, as it implies ( to them ) there is some major difference in the underlying mechanism between the two.

As I understand it these terms were first used by evolutionists, but of course quickly adopted by some creationists due to the "word picture" they generate.

I prefer to use the term extrapolation for it is commonly understood that extrapolation yields larger error bounds and hence greater uncertainty the farther one extrapolates from known data.

As far as "underlying mechanism" is concerned there is only one true source of unlimited variation that has been postulated and that is mutation. Since that is the case it is clear to me that the entire evolutionary edifice of "hypothetical primitive protocell to all living things" is inadequately supported by the stated mechanism.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Have a pearl, on me.

doov

Glad to see people using the pearl system :thumb:

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 11:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=106391#post106391)
Socratism:
As far as "underlying mechanism" is concerned there is only one true source of unlimited variation that has been postulated and that is mutation. Since that is the case it is clear to me that the entire evolutionary edifice of "hypothetical primitive protocell to all living things" is inadequately supported by the stated mechanism.

And the justification for this opinion of yours is?

[John Boy]

Socratism:
One must understand that when evolutionists talk about "transitional" they do not mean what might be commonly understood by that term. All it really means is that there are certain characteristics shared by creatures. Instead of calling it "shared" characteristics or "common" characteristics they name this phenomenon "transitional" which implies there was once a transition.
Well, the idea of all those "'shared' characteristics" just developing by chance without any sort genetic antecedents seems a little far-fetched.

Unless, of course, you want to argue that God(s) just happened to create all those "transitional forms" in the exact manner that one would expect to follow if Evolutionary Theory was correct. But that explanation strikes me as more than a little ad hoc and arbitrary.


When questioned closely on this point many admit that they do not believe the "transitional" was the ancestor of any modern form, only a relative of some sort.
I'll agree. Finding DIRECT ancestors of lifeforms is a tricky business and very, very tentitive. Tentitive to the point that most don't even bother making such pronouncements.


The reason they do this is that, for example in the case of the theropods, the "ancestor" which would emerge from such logic would depend on which characteristic (of dozens if not hundreds) would be used for such an analysis.
Here's were you go off the track. The reason they don't make arguments of DIRECT lineage is that there are so MANY pathways and deadends. Imagine trying to reconstruct a family tree that goes back for 20 generations without birth certificates or any sort of written documentation. If all you have to go on is skeletal remains (and any other inferential evidence--no cheating with DNA, though), you could construct some relationships between people by looking at various "shared" characteristics. However, the odds of constructing a family tree of DIRECT ancestors seems a little difficult, IMHO.

The reason is simple: Too much work with too many variables and too many things that could go wrong for too little glory.


In the real world there are trends in one direction and trends in the opposite direction (if you accept the "trend" idea) in the same specimen.
And this is surprising to evolutionists for what reason?


This is why the search for a common "ancestor" is a fool's errand and why the examples of "transitional" features are so misleading to the uninitiated. The fact is that developmental biology is the least understood of perhaps all of biological studies and trying to make sense by simply looking at morphological features is a guessing game at best.
A "guessing game"? Well, perhaps, but those guesses have a lot of evidence to back them up. Taxonomy/Cladistics seems to work astonishingly well at predicting genetic relationships. Why is that?

Speaking of games, Jim goes down to the local pool hall to play poker. Every day he loses and goes home broke. At the end of the week, his friend, Roger, pulls him aside and tells him "Jim, you gotta know by now that the game you're playin' is fixed. You'll NEVER win!" Jim looks back at his friend and says "Yeah, I know." Roger is shocked and sputters "You know? Then why do you keep playing?" Jim looks sadly at his friend and says "It's the ONLY game in town!"

In science/biology, Evolution is the ONLY game in town. It works so well, though, that it doesn't have to be "fixed". Modified a little here and there, sure, as new information comes in; but that is the way science ideally works.

Now, a question for you: if there is no such thing as a transitional, it should be easy for you to tell us whether or not Diarthrognathus is a reptile or a mammal and how you came to that conclusion. Good luck!

And, from just above:


As far as "underlying mechanism" is concerned there is only one true source of unlimited variation that has been postulated and that is mutation. Since that is the case it is clear to me that the entire evolutionary edifice of "hypothetical primitive protocell to all living things" is inadequately supported by the stated mechanism.
Instead of taking the giant leap from protocells to humans, let's focus on a smaller, more specific example; after all, one must learn to walk before you can run, grasshopper.

Let's take a look at the evolution of the mammalian inner-ear from the bones of the reptilian jaw. What, specifically, would prevent that transformation in your mind? It surely constitutes a case of "macro-evolution", to use the lingo YECists, from one family to another (reptiles to mammals) by ANY stretch of the imagination. It also shows a major change in form and function of given structures by small, incrimental changes; no "new information" is required (to use the current YECist buzz-word de jure) as everything a but a modification of a previous structure.

Here are some links to help you along:
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

And here's Gish's failed attempt to refute it:
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_08.htm

I've seen some of these fossils, myself, at the Field Museum in Chicago. Interesting stuff.

Take care. :smile:

[Bob Jenkins]

From Joe_Sixpack


The sticking your finger in your ears and yelling "nananananana" approach to argument.

Any one know if there is a nice latin term to describe this type of flawed argumentation?


Joining the band, Nequam........ hominen et levem

[John Boy]

Here's something a little quirky that evolution explains rather well: xenotransplants.

Xenotransplants are transplants from one species to another: baboon's heart to a human, pig's liver to a human, etc. Evolution explains why these work, not to mention why some candidates are better than others (a properly-sized chimp or baboon will work better than a pig, as far as compatibility).

But, Evolution also explains why some good genetic candidates are better off not being used and something a little less related might be better for everyone else (transgenic virus or diseases may "jump" to humans if given a host, which could spread to other humans after that--HIV and others as an example of that).

What is the YECist answer to this, I wonder? Aside from God(s) created 'em that way? Just curious.

Take care. :smile:

[TheFiveSolas]

John Boy,

From a YEC viewpoint I don't see why we wouldn't be able to predict the same thing. Similar design/protein makeup, etc. would mean more of a chance that the transplanted organ wouldn't be rejected by the host's immune system. (Note: Of course this is a VERY simplistic way of looking at xenotransplants since they require immune system repression for there to be even a chance that the transplanted organ will take).

In addition, I'm not convinced that evolutionary theory made such a prediction PRIOR to any attempts. Nor am I convinced that such predictions were made on the basis of an evolutionary framework. Rather, xenotransplants were made after knowing the functional nature of the immune system.

In other words, from the vantage point of evolutionary theory and its predictions I consider such a "prediction" as being purely post hoc.

[John Boy]

John Boy,

From a YEC viewpoint I don't see why we wouldn't be able to predict the same thing. Similar design/protein makeup, etc. would mean more of a chance that the transplanted organ wouldn't be rejected by the host's immune system. (Note: Of course this is a VERY simplistic way of looking at xenotransplants since they require immune system repression for there to be even a chance that the transplanted organ will take).
Hello TheFiveSolas. :smile:

Well, here's where it gets a little tricky. You see, a Common Creator argument can be used, but the results of there being a linkage between compatability and genetic distance is necessary under the explanation provided by Evolutionary Theory, but totally arbitrary under Creationism: God(s) could have made each group genetically distinct from one another just as easily as He/She/It/They made them genetically compatible. Particularly if the God(s) in question are supposed to be omnipotent. In effect, the Common Creator argument occupies BOTH sides of the same argument.

Unless you want to make some sort of telelogical argument that God(s) created the animals to be genetically spliced (which I believe is currently being done with pigs--inserting human DNA for a "better" donor) and used as transplant patients by future humans, there seems no reason to expect animals to be genetically related enough for xenotransplants to occur. But, that seems a rather peculiar notion, IMHO, and more than a little creepy.

You are quite right about immunosurpression. Even with human-to-human transplants it is almost always needed; even moreso with xenotransplants (but, then again, that is what we would expect if evolution is correct).


In addition, I'm not convinced that evolutionary theory made such a prediction PRIOR to any attempts. Nor am I convinced that such predictions were made on the basis of an evolutionary framework. Rather, xenotransplants were made after knowing the functional nature of the immune system.
In which case it would be a postdiction. Scientific theories use those, too.

I'm not sure about the sequential order of xenotransplant experimentation vs. evolutionary protocols, but it would be interesting to find out. I may look into this further. I do recall reading an article or two about xenotransplants and the evolutionary underpinning of it.

Evolutionary theory SCIENTIFICALLY explains why xenotransplants work in the manner that they do, and also explains they transgenic dangers of such transplants, too. Saying "God(s) created 'em that way", while it could be true, fails as a scientific explanation, to put it mildly; after all, one supernatural explanation is as good as another.


In other words, from the vantage point of evolutionary theory and its predictions I consider such a "prediction" as being purely post hoc.
Ergo it is improper hoc? (Sigh, really, really bad pun. Sorry, but I couldn't help it...) :no:

Take care. :smile:

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 04:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107078#post107078)
John Boy:

Unless, of course, you want to argue that God(s) just happened to create all those "transitional forms" in the exact manner that one would expect to follow if Evolutionary Theory was correct. But that explanation strikes me as more than a little ad hoc and arbitrary.

More likely, the above is simply elephant-hurling. Paleontology textbooks have family trees, and all the branches are preceded by dotted lines, indicating that no fossils are found with those characteristics.

Merely finding a few transitions within a kind will not do.


In science/biology, Evolution is the ONLY game in town.

Of course, because the only alternative would be creation, which is simply not acceptable -- otherwise John Boy FAITH of atheism would have to be abandoned!


Instead of taking the giant leap from protocells to humans, let's focus on a smaller, more specific example; after all, one must learn to walk before you can run, grasshopper.

OK, so hop along and find some between non-living chemicals and the first living cell, or single-celled to multi-celled creatures.

It's also interesting that xenotransplantation of heart valves use pigs rather than apes. Doesn't seem like an evolutionary prediction at all, but they happen to work best.

And no, one divine explanation is NOT as good as another. TheFiveSolas and I don't just believe in any creator, but in the God of the Bible who created as He said He did, and has the attributes revealed in the Bible.

[Socrates]

Socratism:


None of the "predictions" claimed above for evolutionary theory come out of evolutionary theory itself, since there is no such thing as evolutionary theory.

Rufus, arguing from his materialistic faith, replied: You can't be serious can you?

You go from the vain attept to argue that ToE doesn't make predictions to claiming that it doesn't exist. Perhaps you should review the history of you're comments and make sure you really want to stake your reputation behind them.Oh, but evolution simply means "change of gene frequency over time", so by that definition, it didn't make any of the alleged predictions WinAce touted. After all, creationists also believe in "change of gene frequency over time" :whack:

[John Boy]

John Boy:

Unless, of course, you want to argue that God(s) just happened to create all those "transitional forms" in the exact manner that one would expect to follow if Evolutionary Theory was correct. But that explanation strikes me as more than a little ad hoc and arbitrary.

Socrates:
More likely, the above is simply elephant-hurling. Paleontology textbooks have family trees, and all the branches are preceded by dotted lines, indicating that no fossils are found with those characteristics.

Merely finding a few transitions within a kind will not do.
"Finding a few"? Why should we find **ANY** if YECism is correct? Hmmm...

Let's take a look at the Therapsid Series. Why are there critters that are: all reptilian, mostly reptilian with some mammal, half-reptile and half-mammal, some reptile and mostly mammal, and all mammal. Now, here's the weird thing: they are also in expected geological order if evolution were correct.

Lemme give you a little challenge, Socrates. Is Diarthrognathus a reptile or a mammal? How did you arrive at that conclusion? If there is no such thing as a transitional, this should be one of the most simple things in biology. Heck, even **I** can do it, and I'm just an average Joe, er, make that John, who cracks open the ocassional science book. I'd be highly interested in hearing the YECist "interpretation" of this little fact.

We can also talk about Archaeopteryx, if you wish, and its transitional nature. Or the whale series. Or... well, all those other transitionals that YECists attempt to explain away (unsucessfully).


John Boy:
In science/biology, Evolution is the ONLY game in town.

Socrates:
Of course, because the only alternative would be creation, which is simply not acceptable
Notice that I was careful to include the qualifier "In science/biology". There was a reason for that. Can you guess why that was and the REAL reason YECism doesn't qualify as science, nor ever will?


Socrates:
-- otherwise John Boy FAITH of atheism would have to be abandoned!
Well, I'm not really an atheist. In fact, to coin a term, I am an apatheist (as in "apathy" and "theism"): I just don't care if there is a God(s) or not.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say I was an atheist. What difference would someone's religious beliefs that make on Evolutionary Theory/Biology? Or Chemistry? Or Physics? Or Plumbing and Small Engine Repair? Oh, that's right, science works differently under YECism depending upon your religious affiliation, or political party, or economic system, or moral character, or whatever. After all, gravity functions differently to YECists at AiG, because stars (and I assume planets) aren't forming today. Genetics works differently because genetic bottlenecks of 2 or 4 animals of "each kind" is plenty for advanced mammals to avoid extinction. And... well, you get the picture.

Gosh, it must really sting that a MAJORITY of Christians world-wide accept Evolutionary Theory without any trouble in their faith, and that a good many of the discoveries about evolution were made by, and continue to be made by, Christians. Kinda makes that whole linking of atheism and Evolutionary Theory look utterly ridiculous. Which it is.


John Boy:
Instead of taking the giant leap from protocells to humans, let's focus on a smaller, more specific example; after all, one must learn to walk before you can run, grasshopper.

Socrates:
OK, so hop along and find some between non-living chemicals and the first living cell, or single-celled to multi-celled creatures.
Gee, you dilibrately changed the subject from Evolutionary Biology to Abiotic Chemistry. Why is that, I wonder? After all, surely you know Abiogensis (as in "Answers in Abiogenesis"?) is a separate issue from Evolution. But, then again, a lot of YECists seem to think that Evolutionary Biology includes such diverse fields as: Abiogenesis, Geology, Astronomy/Astrophysics, Physics, etc.

Let's save Abiogenesis for another thread and stick with the criteria I was working with for now.

BTW, you're a chemist. Surely you could pick up some journals on the subject of Abiotic Chemistry (and no, I won't stop callin' you "Shirely". Har!) and check out some of the advances going on in the field. I believe La Jolla, CA has a thriving Abiotic Chemistry lab going. Or would that be a sinful act of some sort and forbidden by AiG? :teeth: :nc: :teeth:


It's also interesting that xenotransplantation of heart valves use pigs rather than apes. Doesn't seem like an evolutionary prediction at all, but they happen to work best.
The reason they don't use apes has nothing to do with compatibility. It has more to do with the ethical considerations of using higher primates and fears of transgenic disease. But you knew that, right?


And no, one divine explanation is NOT as good as another. TheFiveSolas and I don't just believe in any creator, but in the God of the Bible who created as He said He did, and has the attributes revealed in the Bible.
I'm sure all the proponents of differing "divine explanations" have reasons just as earnest as yours as to why they support the supernatural beliefs they do.

Of course one supernatural explanation is as good as another. It's magic, after all, and what naturalistic or logical rules can apply to magic/supernatural? Oops, I answered my question for you above as to why YECism is not now, nor ever will be, considered science.

Take care. :smile:

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 03:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107908#post107908)
Socrates:

Oh, but evolution simply means "change of gene frequency over time", so by that definition, it didn't make any of the alleged predictions WinAce touted. After all, creationists also believe in "change of gene frequency over time"

Once again, Socrates makes the mistake of confusing evolution with the theory of evolution. Thus his comments are misplaced and erroneous.

[Lobstrosity]

Today @ 12:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107908#post107908)
Socrates:

Oh, but evolution simply means "change of gene frequency over time", so by that definition, it didn't make any of the alleged predictions WinAce touted. After all, creationists also believe in "change of gene frequency over time" :whack:
Strawmen are fun to build, aren't they? I want to play, too...tell me how I'm doing:

Oh, but gravity simply means things fall, so by that definition it doesn't make any predictions about the motions of the heavenly bodies.

[xixax]

05-24-2003 @ 04:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=106363#post106363)
Duvenoy:



Agree and agree.

I look at it as all the same thing: evolution. I fail to see how assigning a rather arbitrary (if fuzzy) dividing line between micro and macro makes any difference at all.

Have a pearl, on me.

doov

Thank you.

[xixax]

05-24-2003 @ 04:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=106391#post106391)
Socratism:



As I understand it these terms were first used by evolutionists, but of course quickly adopted by some creationists due to the "word picture" they generate.

I prefer to use the term extrapolation for it is commonly understood that extrapolation yields larger error bounds and hence greater uncertainty the farther one extrapolates from known data.

As far as "underlying mechanism" is concerned there is only one true source of unlimited variation that has been postulated and that is mutation. Since that is the case it is clear to me that the entire evolutionary edifice of "hypothetical primitive protocell to all living things" is inadequately supported by the stated mechanism.

That's interesting. Based on the evidence I've seen, I have come to the opposite conclusion. I find evolution entirely capable of generating the diversity of life on this planet. As a matter of fact, I see evolution as the -only- reasonable explanation behind the diversity.

I am also still curious where you wish to have the extrapolation stop. Is wolves to toy poodles too much extrapolation? Land mammals to marine mammals? Reptiles to mammals? If I may impose on you a bit, provide three examples. One of acceptable extrapolation, one of unacceptable extrapolation, and another that fits right on the border of your acceptance. I would like to know when you feel mutation and natural selection stop working to change the gene pool of a population and must suddenly give over to supernatural explanations.

[Socratism]

Today @ 12:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108628#post108628)
Lobstrosity:


Strawmen are fun to build, aren't they? I want to play, too...tell me how I'm doing:

Oh, but gravity simply means things fall, so by that definition it doesn't make any predictions about the motions of the heavenly bodies.

There is no "theory of gravity" (what causes the force) but there was the discovery that one could develop a formula by which predictions could be made, and it worked.

Evolution has a theory of what causes change (mutation plus natural selection), but no one has ever developed a formula by which predictions of what change would occur could be made. Thus, evolutionists are continually "surprised" by some new finding, and scramble around to find rationalizations which could explain what might have caused it to happen.

[Duvenoy]

Today @ 06:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=109091#post109091)
Socratism:



There is no "theory of gravity" (what causes the force) but there was the discovery that one could develop a formula by which predictions could be made, and it worked.

Evolution has a theory of what causes change (mutation plus natural selection), but no one has ever developed a formula by which predictions of what change would occur could be made. Thus, evolutionists are continually "surprised" by some new finding, and scramble around to find rationalizations which could explain what might have caused it to happen.


And that is the beauty of the ToE. It must ever be scrutinized and adapted to be sure it fits all of the evidence; unlike Creationism, which must cram the evidence into a ridged, unchanging dogma.

It is the suprises that bolster the theory because they advance the research, and therefore, science.

doov

[Socratism]

And that is the beauty of the ToE. It must ever be scrutinized and adapted to be sure it fits all of the evidence;

A perfect definition of pseudo-science (like alchemy or soothsaying).

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 02:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=109169#post109169)
Socratism:
A perfect definition of pseudo-science (like alchemy or soothsaying). Are you saying that evolutionist scientists are also alchemists?

[Socratism]

Today @ 03:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=109213#post109213)
Jimmy Higgins:

Are you saying that evolutionist scientists are also alchemists?


You seem to have problems understanding the meaning of simple sentences.

Why not try again. I am sure you can do better if you set your mind to it and concentrate.

[AtheistArchon]

“ And that is the beauty of the ToE. It must ever be scrutinized and adapted to be sure it fits all of the evidence; ”

A perfect definition of pseudo-science (like alchemy or soothsaying).

- Actually no. The definition of pseudoscience is a set of ideas put forth as being scientific when they are not. You know, like ID.

- Fitting the theory to the evidence IS science. Fitting the evidence to your conclusion... that's pseudoscience. It's also exactly what every YEC creationist does.

- But don't fret... I really don't see what all the fuss is over. You don't need science, you have the bible. I fail to see why creationists are so enamored with science that they must destroy it and reshape it to fit their religious beliefs.

[xixax]

Today @ 06:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=109091#post109091)
Socratism:



There is no "theory of gravity" (what causes the force) but there was the discovery that one could develop a formula by which predictions could be made, and it worked.

Evolution has a theory of what causes change (mutation plus natural selection), but no one has ever developed a formula by which predictions of what change would occur could be made. Thus, evolutionists are continually "surprised" by some new finding, and scramble around to find rationalizations which could explain what might have caused it to happen.

I don't agree with you. There may not be precise mathematical formulas one can use to determine which traits will develop in a certain species at a given time, but evolution will definitely make predictions that are testable.

Honestly, the predictions and testing have probably happened within your body in the last two years. I'm sure you've been given some antibiotics in that period of time.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 03:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=109213#post109213)
Socratism:
You seem to have problems understanding the meaning of simple sentences.

Why not try again. I am sure you can do better if you set your mind to it and concentrate.You compared evolution with alchemy. Therefore you are saying that at the level of science, they are equal. Therefore, it shouldn't be too hard equate that if a person who believes evolution is a science, then they should also believe alchemy is a science.

And can you please answer my questions? I don't particularly care for your snide remarks. Thanks.

[Duvenoy]

Alchemy. Don't I wish!

I'm broke, my disability check is still several days away, and I have at least 20# of lead fishing sinkers.

Do you really believe that the ToE, a theory that has been relentlessly examined and critiqued since it's conception, by highly kinowledgable people in their various fields, is comparable to alchemy?

Alchemy is so much better! Alas, nobody can seem to make it work.

doov

[Socratism]

Today @ 05:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=109286#post109286)
Duvenoy:

Alchemy. Don't I wish!

I'm broke, my disability check is still several days away, and I have at least 20# of lead fishing sinkers.

Do you really believe that the ToE, a theory that has been relentlessly examined and critiqued since it's conception, by highly kinowledgable people in their various fields, is comparable to alchemy?

Alchemy is so much better! Alas, nobody can seem to make it work.

doov

You also seem to have a problem understanding simple sentences.

Actually the first place I heard the reference was from an evolutionist who was criticizing some of his fellow evolutionists for practices akin to "alchemy", namely that of confusing the understanding of why something happens with a mere description of the phenomenon followed by a "story" they make up.

I would agree that more time and effort by far has gone into evolution than ever was spent on alchemy. Pity.

[Socratism]

Today @ 03:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=109233#post109233)
xixax:



I don't agree with you. There may not be precise mathematical formulas one can use to determine which traits will develop in a certain species at a given time, but evolution will definitely make predictions that are testable.

Honestly, the predictions and testing have probably happened within your body in the last two years. I'm sure you've been given some antibiotics in that period of time.

Evolutionary theory never predicted antibiotic resistence. After the phenomenon was discovered people made up stories about why evolution would "predict" it. Of course the reasons were largely incorrect.

This held back knowledge regarding the real reasons that it was happening, which became very understandable once specific experiments were designed to uncover the truth.

[Duvenoy]

Today @ 10:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=109323#post109323)
Socratism:



You also seem to have a problem understanding simple sentences.

Actually the first place I heard the reference was from an evolutionist who was criticizing some of his fellow evolutionists for practices akin to "alchemy", namely that of confusing the understanding of why something happens with a mere description of the phenomenon followed by a "story" they make up.

I would agree that more time and effort by far has gone into evolution than ever was spent on alchemy. Pity.

I understand simple sentences quite well, thank you.


Today @ 02:52 PM post located here
Socratism:
A perfect definition of pseudo-science (like alchemy or soothsaying).

Seems pretty clear to me. Or am I quoting out of context, hmm?

doov

[John Boy]

Evolutionary theory never predicted antibiotic resistence. After the phenomenon was discovered people made up stories about why evolution would "predict" it. Of course the reasons were largely incorrect.

This held back knowledge regarding the real reasons that it was happening, which became very understandable once specific experiments were designed to uncover the truth.
Yeah, don't you all know that disease is the result of Divine retribution and demons? :lol:

Socratism, by the way you seem confused with the legitimate use of prediction AND postdiction, I don't think you understand the way theories are formulated, nor have much of a grasp on the scientific method, period. The concept of postdiction should not be THAT confusing. A theory has to incorporate evidence and phenomena that has already been discribed (ie. postdict). Why is that so startling? You realize that EVERY branch of science works that way, too, right?

You may want to take a little time to learn the difference between the "Science of Philosophy" and the "Philosophy of Science". They are quite different from each other, contrary to what YECists believe.

Take care. :smile:

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 01:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=109091#post109091)
Socratism:

Evolution has a theory of what causes change (mutation plus natural selection), but no one has ever developed a formula by which predictions of what change would occur could be made.

I doubt you realise that evolutionary biology is well characterized by mathematics, more so than any other branch of biology.


Thus, evolutionists are continually "surprised" by some new finding, and scramble around to find rationalizations which could explain what might have caused it to happen.

Yeah, knowledge would be so much better if they just accepted that "goddidit" explains anything and everything and thus nothing.

[Lobstrosity]

This isn't quite on topic, but...Rufus, is that cow in your avatar eating a bunny? Cursory glanses at your avatar led me to find it strangely humble and disarming. Upon closer inspection, however, that cow is eating a bunny!

[xixax]

Yesterday @ 11:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=109332#post109332)
Socratism:



Evolutionary theory never predicted antibiotic resistence. After the phenomenon was discovered people made up stories about why evolution would "predict" it. Of course the reasons were largely incorrect.

This held back knowledge regarding the real reasons that it was happening, which became very understandable once specific experiments were designed to uncover the truth.

If by "predicted" you mean, "made a statement this would occur before it was known to occur", then yes. However, if you mean that evolutionary theory does not provide scientific understanding of why it happens, you are wrong.

Would you care to provide examples of the "made up stories" evolutionary theory provided to explain bacterial resistance to antiobiotics, and also "real reasons" or "the truth"?

It's great that you feel confident in making bold assertions that would tear down pillars of medicinal science, but if you are going to be so bold as to do so, at least try and provide a smidgen of evidence to go along with it.

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 09:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=109901#post109901)
xixax:



If by "predicted" you mean, "made a statement this would occur before it was known to occur", then yes. However, if you mean that evolutionary theory does not provide scientific understanding of why it happens, you are wrong.

Would you care to provide examples of the "made up stories" evolutionary theory provided to explain bacterial resistance to antiobiotics, and also "real reasons" or "the truth"?

It's great that you feel confident in making bold assertions that would tear down pillars of medicinal science, but if you are going to be so bold as to do so, at least try and provide a smidgen of evidence to go along with it.

Try this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/337.asp

[John Boy]

Socratism:
Try this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/337.asp
:lol:

Several things passed through my mind while reading this (yes, Virgina, I do have a mind. How often I use it is another matter. Hm, "Mind", "Matter"... there's a joke about Decartes lurking in there, someplace, I'm sure...).

Let's just run through the headline; you all can read the article itself for the info.


NATURAL SELECTION, BUT NOT EVOLUTION
Yeah, right. What is their evidence that evolution isn't occuring? After a 100 years, bacteria are still giving rise to bacteria! And this is surprising to evolutionists because...? Gee, you'd think AiG would take a LITTLE time to learn what a theory says before criticizing it. Or not, given AiG's record.


1. Some germs already had the resistance.
Yup, some germs are born at the right place at the right time and have a built in resistence to some antibiotics.

I guess the YECist answer to this is that God(s) knew humans were buildin' those antibiotics in thousands of years and created drug-resistent TB at the beginning. Sure, why not?


2. Some germs directly transfer their resistance to others.
And this is surprising to Evolutionists, why? This doesn't surprise YECists, Why?


3. Some germs become resistant through mutation.
Gosh, isn't this EXACTLY what Evolutionary Theory says would happen? Oh, no, claims AiG. It turns out that they have a secret understanding of genetics in which changes to the genome are really "information" losses. Never mind that Evolutionary Theory doesn't have an "arrow" that points toward complexity and that Devolution is also evolutionary (check out the evolution of parasites, sometime; they are nothing more than a mouth, gut, and reproductive system and still examples of evolution).


SUPERWIMPS
You see, it turns out that since the "Super-Germs" are so specialized that they can no longer survive in any other conditions they aren't examples of evolution or "information" gain at all.

Yeah. Right. Wanna bet that if such a transformation weren't observed again and again in the lab and Evolutionary Theory predicted drug-resistance that if some extremophile bacterium existing in a concentrated solution of Penicillin, YECists would be crying out again and again to demand the transitional sequence from non-resistent bacterium to drug-resistent bacterium?

Hey, Socratism, why do drug-companies and health scientists use evolutionary protocols in predicting drug-resistence? AIDS, for instance, has a HIGH-mutation rate (1/400, IIRC). They can predict rather effectively how many virus generations it will take for a given drug to become useless. This is why they are using a multi-drug approach, btw.

If the YECist approach had ANYTHING to offer, I'm sure there are plenty of drug companies out there just waiting to save a butt-load of money and beating their competition to the market by doing it their way. However, I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you.

In short, the whole article is laughable and nothing more than an elaborate attempt at hand-waving the evidence supporting evolution away. And, with that... :hi: :hi: :hi:

Take care. :smile:

[Dee Dee Warren]

In short, the whole article is laughable

I am waiting for a certain member to report this. Oh wait, Soc didn't say it. Sorry, carry on.

[xixax]

Today @ 03:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112296#post112296)
Socratism:



Try this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/337.asp

Ok.

From the article:

Evolution is basically the belief that everything has made itself—........later time, 'lung information' arose and was added to the world, but no 'feather information' as yet—feathers evolved later.

No. This immediate lack of understanding makes me want to stop reading almost immediately. The fact you linked to this article is disheartening.


However, it can be shown that in every situation where populations of living things change, they do so without increase (and often with a decrease) of information. Thus, it is completely illegitimate for anyone to claim that such changes show 'evolution happening'.

False assertion with no evidence to back it up, and vast amounts of information contradicting it readily available.

There is already a reply to the rest of the garbage in that article.

[Socratism]

Of course the critics again miss the point.

To them everything is evolution so they have multiple definitions to cover all the bases.

Once they show that one definition is satified they then claim that this proves all the definitions must then be true.

The replies above demonstrate this disingenuous process in action.

Man did not evolve from a hypothetical primitive protocell.

Get used to it.:teeth:

[Bald Ape]

From the AiG article:


It is precisely because the mutations which give rise to resistance are in some form or another defects, that so-called supergerms are not really super at all—they are actually rather 'wimpy' compared to their close cousins. When I was finally discharged from hospital, I still had a strain of supergerm colonizing my body. Nothing had been able to get rid of it, after months in hospital. However, I was told that all I had to do on going home was to 'get outdoors a lot, occasionally even roll in the dirt, and wait.' In less than two weeks of this advice, the supergerms were gone. Why? The reason is that supergerms are actually defective in other ways, as explained. Therefore, when they are forced to compete with the ordinary bacteria which normally thrive on our skin, they do not have a chance. They thrive in hospital because all the antibiotics and antiseptics being used there keep wiping out the ordinary bacteria which would normally out-compete, wipe out and otherwise keep in check these 'superwimps'.

Wow - talk about hitting rock bottom. Evolution predicts that the bacteria currently living in the "out-doors, antibiotic-free" ecological niche (Call this Niche A), will have a phenomological structure optimized for this niche (Call this Structure A). Structure A is sub-optimal (in fact, it is pitifully weak) in the "sanitized hospital, antibiotic-laden" ecological niche (Call this Niche B). So, populations of bacteria with Structure A, placed in Niche B, evolve into Structure B, an optimized conformation for Niche B. This is entirely within the predictions of evolution: populations adapting to new ecological niches.

The article then makes the ASTONISHING discovery: this really ISN'T evolution, because, lo and behold, Structure B bacteria are NOT as well suited to Niche A as Structure A bacteria - thus, they contain less information.

This is the EXACT equivalent of saying that the theorized hooved-acestor -> blue whale evolution is a loss in information, because if you put a blue whale in the middle of a desert, it would fare far worse than the hooved ancestor.

Most humorously, this is the EXACT equivalent of saying that the theorized "goo" -> "you" evolution is a loss in information (after all, you wouldn't survive 2 minutes in the pre-oxygen-rich atmosphere 4 billion years ago in which the "goo" thrived).

This article clearly demonstrates that the only way AiG could get around the obvious information increase associated with bacteria resistance is by (again) re-defining information, this time in such a way that primordial "goo" has more info than "you". :lol:

[Socratism]

Apparently Dee Dee wants someone to reply to a posting that contained no informational content. Oh well, here goes.

“ NATURAL SELECTION, BUT NOT EVOLUTION ”


Yeah, right. What is their evidence that evolution isn't occuring? After a 100 years, bacteria are still giving rise to bacteria! And this is surprising to evolutionists because...? Gee, you'd think AiG would take a LITTLE time to learn what a theory says before criticizing it. Or not, given AiG's record.

Nothing here except silly rhetorical questions.

“ 1. Some germs already had the resistance. ”



Yup, some germs are born at the right place at the right time and have a built in resistence to some antibiotics.

This is known and reported by scientists who dug up the frozen remains of Artic explorers and discovered that their bodies contained bacteria that were resistent to antibiotics that hadn’t been discovered or used at the time of the burials.

“ 2. Some germs directly transfer their resistance to others. ”


And this is surprising to Evolutionists, why? This doesn't surprise YECists, Why?

Passing around information doesn’t generate anything new.

“ 3. Some germs become resistant through mutation. ”



Gosh, isn't this EXACTLY what Evolutionary Theory says would happen?

No, evolution says anything can happen so they have all the bases covered, but since anything can happen we have to look at what actually did happen to find out how our “prediction” worked perfectly.


Oh, no, claims AiG. It turns out that they have a secret understanding of genetics in which changes to the genome are really "information" losses. Never mind that Evolutionary Theory doesn't have an "arrow" that points toward complexity and that Devolution is also evolutionary (check out the evolution of parasites, sometime; they are nothing more than a mouth, gut, and reproductive system and still examples of evolution).

So evolution here again predicts that anything can happen and this prediction is always verified no matter what is actually observed. However, it is hard to see how one can get from a hypothetical primitive protocell to a human being unless there is some sort of a trend toward increasing complexity and gain in information. On the other hand, if anything can happen that is covered too I guess.

“ SUPERWIMPS ”


You see, it turns out that since the "Super-Germs" are so specialized that they can no longer survive in any other conditions they aren't examples of evolution or "information" gain at all.

It seems to me that if a function is lost then this implies an information loss, but I’m not an evolutionist so my opinion is probably considered invalid.


Yeah. Right. Wanna bet that if such a transformation weren't observed again and again in the lab

Evolutionists themselves marvel that a process that is supposed to be “random” is repeatable.


Hey, Socratism, why do drug-companies and health scientists use evolutionary protocols in predicting drug-resistence?

They don’t use evolutionary protocols.


AIDS, for instance, has a HIGH-mutation rate (1/400, IIRC). They can predict rather effectively how many virus generations it will take for a given drug to become useless. This is why they are using a multi-drug approach, btw.

Once data is available it frequently becomes possible to make predictions based on past experience. Obviously there is nothing in evolutionary theory which would allow such empirically derived formulas to be predicted in advance. Evolutionary theory only “predicts” that anything could happen.


In short, the whole article is laughable and nothing more than an elaborate attempt at hand-waving the evidence supporting evolution away. And, with that...

It would seem that the pot is attempting to call the kettle black here.

-----------------

DeeDee, Do you really think it was worth my effort to reply to JohnBoy, since he didn't say anything that made much sense?

[DunnySaze]

Today @ 02:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112594#post112594)
Socratism:

Of course the critics again miss the point.

To them so they have multiple definitions to cover all the bases.

Nope. There is only ONE definition. At least as far as biological evolution is concerned, which is the issue here. If you look up that definition in any evolution text it'll always be the same. Oh, the wording might change a bit from author to author, but the substance will remain constant.


Once they show that one definition is satified they then claim that this proves all the definitions must then be true.

Again, only one definition. But the theory does cover several sub-theories if I dare to use that term. It's a pretty complex theory after all, since it's the central guiding theory in all of biology. Common descent, the idea that all life descended from a common ancestor is one such sub-theory. Natural selection is another, a mechanism of change. Each sub-theory is complete, and consistent within the definition and with each other. They all are expanations based on evidence and make testable predictions, just like any other theory. Each has been found to be accurate based on their own merits, by people working in the actual fields. It's ludicrous slander to assume evolutionists are so incompetent that would believe them all just because they believe one. Can you provide evidence this is true?


The replies above demonstrate this disingenuous process in action.

Yes, but the only problem is your 'replies' are false. A valid conclusion cannot be obtained based on false premises.


Man did not evolve from a hypothetical primitive protocell.

Get used to it.:teeth:

You're certainly free to have your opinion. The evidence says we (you included) did evolve in just that way, best as we can tell. But maybe that's the way God wanted it to be for all we know. Certainly most faiths, including most Christian faiths, see no necessary conflict. I see no reason to think you're more qualified to speak for Christianity than they are. I kinda like the idea. That I am an integal part of the universe and not something separate.

No, I think you'd better get used to the mainstream theory to be the central paradigm for sometime yet. It certainly may undergo significant changes as new evidence emerges, but it'd take a lot more than what the creation scientists have offered so far to replace it. Especially when there doesn't seem to be a terribly useful theory to replace it with.

[John Boy]

Socratism:
Of course the critics again miss the point.

To them everything is evolution so they have multiple definitions to cover all the bases.

Once they show that one definition is satified they then claim that this proves all the definitions must then be true.

The replies above demonstrate this disingenuous process in action.
Sorry, but I think you are projecting a bit, here. It is the article that is trying desperately to change definitions and explain away obvious examples of lifeforms doing EXACTLY what Evolutionary Theory says they should be doing.

Take care. :smile:

[Socratism]

Today @ 11:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112656#post112656)
John Boy:


Sorry, but I think you are projecting a bit, here. It is the article that is trying desperately to change definitions and explain away obvious examples of lifeforms doing EXACTLY what Evolutionary Theory says they should be doing.

Take care. :smile:

Evolution says that anything can happen, so in that sense you are correct in saying that lifeforms are doing EXACTLY what evolutionary theory says they should be doing.

But this is a case where "in that sense" leads to nonsense.

[John Boy]

Socratism:
No, evolution says anything can happen so they have all the bases covered, but since anything can happen we have to look at what actually did happen to find out how our “prediction” worked perfectly.
Nope. Mammalian/bird transitionals would not be allowed. Advanced mammals found in pre-Cambrian shales would also be rather problematic (after all, how can you have advanced mammals before any vertebrates are there). There are many more. We can go through them, if you wish, in another thread.


It seems to me that if a function is lost then this implies an information loss, but I’m not an evolutionist so my opinion is probably considered invalid.
So, now you think you can get the YECist version of "Information Theory" working? How is having two different alelles in the genepool, with the new one giving an environmental advantage for survival, NOT on "increase"? From one you now have two. Last time I looked two was more than one. But, that New Math always leaves me a little confused...

Now that it is working, maybe you can apply it to my other thread, "Information Challenge"...


Evolutionists themselves marvel that a process that is supposed to be “random” is repeatable.
Rolling snake eyes with two dice is random. And repeatable, last time I checked. Sure Evolutionary biologists marvel at the mechanism, but they also are not surprised by it. Evolutionary Theory predicts it, after all.

BTW, while mutations are random (and lab tests seem to verify this), natural selection is not.


They don’t use evolutionary protocols.
Wanna bet?


Once data is available it frequently becomes possible to make predictions based on past experience. Obviously there is nothing in evolutionary theory which would allow such empirically derived formulas to be predicted in advance. Evolutionary theory only “predicts” that anything could happen.

There are numerous things that can falisfy Evolutionary Theory, just as any other field of science. Maybe if you took a little time to learn what the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution says, rather than the cartoon version you seem to accept, you would know this.

Take care. :smile:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Socratism:


DeeDee, Do you really think it was worth my effort to reply to JohnBoy, since he didn't say anything that made much sense?

Egad!! What are you talking about? I am completely lost... you said I wanted you to reply to something?? What am I missing here?


John Boy, to followup with your PM, I apologize if it seemed like I was rebuking you for the "laughable" comment. I was not. As I explained I was using it rhetorically - there was nothing at all in your post worthy of Moderator censure. I am sorry about the misunderstanding.

[John Boy]

Socratism:
Evolution says that anything can happen, so in that sense you are correct in saying that lifeforms are doing EXACTLY what evolutionary theory says they should be doing.
Once more, you have it backwards. Evolution is falsifiable as a scientific theory and can be SCIENTIFICALLY disproven (as explained, above). YECism says God(s) created it that way, so EVERYTHING is allowed (after all, it was "created that way") and is NOT scientifically falsifiable.

See the difference?


Dee Dee:
John Boy, to followup with your PM, I apologize if it seemed like I was rebuking you for the "laughable" comment. I was not. As I explained I was using it rhetorically - there was nothing at all in your post worthy of Moderator censure. I am sorry about the misunderstanding.
Thanks for clearing that up. I was a little confused about that (I couldn't think of anything TOO inflamatory about the comment), but thought a PM was the best way to deal with the question.

Take care. :smile:

[Socratism]

Today @ 11:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112710#post112710)
John Boy:
Once more, you have it backwards. Evolution is falsifiable as a scientific theory and can be SCIENTIFICALLY disproven (as explained, above). YECism says God(s) created it that way, so EVERYTHING is allowed (after all, it was "created that way") and is NOT scientifically falsifiable.See the difference?

Creation does not say that everything was created that way. It simply says that there was multicellar life at the beginning, whereas evolutionists say that there was a single hypothetical protocell. There is nothing in evolutionary theory itself that would require anything in particular to happen, for example a progression from simple [so-called] to complex, but it is an obvious inference from observation of the results of sexual reproduction that sexual organisms reproduce after their own kind. Since the earliest layers contain so-called "simple marine organisms the inference is made that they are very ancient.

DeeDee,

I am waiting for a certain member to report this. Oh wait, Soc didn't say it.

I took this to mean you had confused me with Socrates and wanted me to reply to JohnBoy's posting. I was apparently wrong.

John Boy,
I am awaiting your comment on my explanation of why extrapolation inevitably leads to increased error bounds the further one extrapolates from actual data.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 05:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112446#post112446)
John Boy:

Several things passed through my mind while reading this (yes, Virgina, I do have a mind.

Prove it.


How often I use it is another matter.

According to atheistic evolution, mind is just an epiphenomenon of matter anyway. TheFiveSolas has convincingly demonstrated how evolution can provide no justification for rational thought.


Yeah, right. What is their evidence that evolution isn't occuring? After a 100 years, bacteria are still giving rise to bacteria! And this is surprising to evolutionists because...? Gee, you'd think AiG would take a LITTLE time to learn what a theory says before criticizing it. Or not, given AiG's record.

Rather, it would be nice if an evolutionist bothered to argue against what the AiG article was saying. I.e. this is supposed to be one of the best examples of evolution in action. Yet after millions of generations, bacteria remain bacteria, and haven't even begun to transform into any sort of multicellular creature, as goo-to-you evolution claims has happened. So the real question, what is the evidence that evolution IS occurring, except to define evolution trivially as "change", which no creationist doubts.


Yup, some germs are born at the right place at the right time and have a built in resistence to some antibiotics.

Right, so there is no EVOLUTION happening.


I guess the YECist answer to this is that God(s) knew humans were buildin' those antibiotics in thousands of years and created drug-resistent TB at the beginning. Sure, why not?

What is there to answer? Evolutionists invoke antibiotic resistant bacteria as proof of evolution and against biblical creation. Yet if the resistance is already there, there is no case to answer.


Gosh, isn't this EXACTLY what Evolutionary Theory says would happen? Oh, no, claims AiG. It turns out that they have a secret understanding of genetics in which changes to the genome are really "information" losses. Never mind that Evolutionary Theory doesn't have an "arrow" that points toward complexity

Nonsense -- to explain life's complexity without God, the real motivation of evolutionists from Darwin on, there MUST be a mechanism for generating literally encyclopedic amounts of information. The mechanisms for antibiotic resistance don't demonstrate this at all.


... and that Devolution is also evolutionary (check out the evolution of parasites, sometime; they are nothing more than a mouth, gut, and reproductive system and still examples of evolution).

No one dispute that downhill CHANGES occur, but they will not in the slightest explain how bacteria became biologists.


You see, it turns out that since the "Super-Germs" are so specialized that they can no longer survive in any other conditions they aren't examples of evolution or "information" gain at all.

This happens to be true.


Yeah. Right. Wanna bet that if such a transformation weren't observed again and again in the lab and Evolutionary Theory predicted drug-resistance that if some extremophile bacterium existing in a concentrated solution of Penicillin, YECists would be crying out again and again to demand the transitional sequence from non-resistent bacterium to drug-resistent bacterium?

Wanna bet that this is more elephant hurling?


Hey, Socratism, why do drug-companies and health scientists use evolutionary protocols in predicting drug-resistence?

They may be using a mutation/selection approach, but this is also part of the Creation/Fall model.


AIDS, for instance, has a HIGH-mutation rate (1/400, IIRC). They can predict rather effectively how many virus generations it will take for a given drug to become useless. This is why they are using a multi-drug approach, btw.

<Yawn, stretch> Same principles apply -- www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1333.asp


In short, the whole article is laughable ...

As if you'd know.


... and nothing more than an elaborate attempt at hand-waving the evidence supporting evolution away.

And your post is just an elaborate attempt at a deceitful bait'n'switch tactic, equivocating between "evolution = change in gene frequency over time" and "evolution and creation are opposites".

[Roy]

Today @ 06:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112770#post112770)
Socrates:
Rather, it would be nice if an evolutionist bothered to argue against what the AiG article was saying. I.e. this is supposed to be one of the best examples of evolution in action. Yet after millions of generations, bacteria remain bacteria, and haven't even begun to transform into any sort of multicellular creature, as goo-to-you evolution claims has happened.

Of course evolution claims it originally took over a billion years in an environment devoid of multi-cellular life, so expecting it to happen in under a hundred years of observation by humans is like complaining that you can't grow a crop of potatoes in under 1.5 seconds.

Roy

[John Boy]

Socratism:
John Boy,
I am awaiting your comment on my explanation of why extrapolation inevitably leads to increased error bounds the further one extrapolates from actual data.
Sorry, but what, specifically, are you talking about? You have yet to show why any such extrapolations are unwarranted and why.

Perhaps you could begin a new thread on this. I believe several others want to take a crack at this claim of yours.


John Boy:
Several things passed through my mind while reading this (yes, Virgina, I do have a mind.

Socrates:
Prove it.
Easy: Cogito, ergo sue me! :lol:


John Boy:
How often I use it is another matter.

Socrates:
According to atheistic evolution, mind is just an epiphenomenon of matter anyway. TheFiveSolas has convincingly demonstrated how evolution can provide no justification for rational thought.
I'm sure that Daniel Dennet would disagree with TheFiveSolas opinion. Not to mention nuerologists seem to have generally understood naturalistic mechanism for explaining thought and conciousness. Unless you want to advocate a literal "Ghost in the Machine".

Socrates:
Rather, it would be nice if an evolutionist bothered to argue against what the AiG article was saying. I.e. this is supposed to be one of the best examples of evolution in action. Yet after millions of generations, bacteria remain bacteria, and haven't even begun to transform into any sort of multicellular creature, as goo-to-you evolution claims has happened. So the real question, what is the evidence that evolution IS occurring, except to define evolution trivially as "change", which no creationist doubts.
No, it is a case of AiG having to explain away an obvious evidence of what Evolutionary Theory says EXACTLY would happen by declaring "We beleive it too!"

What makes you think that Evolutionists are puzzled that bacteria aren't transforming into multi-cellular lifeforms? Give that strawman a good, solid whack for me, too, would ya?

BTW, IIRC, single-celled lifeforms have been observed collecting into multicellular grouping and begin functioning symbiotically.


John Boy:
Yup, some germs are born at the right place at the right time and have a built in resistence to some antibiotics.

Socrates:
Right, so there is no EVOLUTION happening.
So, the germs in question were Created with resistence to Penicillian from Eden? Do they qualify as a different "kind", by chance? :poke:


What is there to answer? Evolutionists invoke antibiotic resistant bacteria as proof of evolution and against biblical creation. Yet if the resistance is already there, there is no case to answer.
If that were the ONLY bit of the evidence Evolutionists had, you may have a point. Except when when the trait definitely wasn't there before and now it is. Oh, but YECists say that is a "loss" of information, even though the trait is novel/new, it gives them an environmental advantage, AND is beneficial. Hmmm...


Socrates:
Nonsense -- to explain life's complexity without God, the real motivation of evolutionists from Darwin on, there MUST be a mechanism for generating literally encyclopedic amounts of information. The mechanisms for antibiotic resistance don't demonstrate this at all.
Hey, great, now that you have YECist version of "Information Theory" working again, please tell us if a reptilian jaw has more information or less information than the mammalian inner-ear and how you came to that conclusion. I look forward to your response. Better, yet, post it to the "Information Challenge" thread of mine. For bonus points, maybe you can even point to some of the "new information" that YECists insist prevents that particular macroevolutionary change (and it surely would qualify as a macromutational change by ANY stretch of the imaginination).


Socrates:
No one dispute that downhill CHANGES occur, but they will not in the slightest explain how bacteria became biologists.
Will it explain how reptilian jaws became mammalian inner-ears? If not, how did you reach that conclusion? This would more than qualify as a macromutational change that YECists insist cannot occur.

If that is the case, why is the extrapolation that other macromutational changes happened in the past so unwarranted? Particularly in light of the proponderence of genetic, geological, paleontological, embryological, biological evidence, ALL of which seem to point to Common Descent ala evolution.


John Boy:
You see, it turns out that since the "Super-Germs" are so specialized that they can no longer survive in any other conditions they aren't examples of evolution or "information" gain at all.

Socrates:
This happens to be true.
Based upon AiG and YECist definitions, only. Nice try to explain the obvious, evolutionary explanation, away.


John Boy:
Yeah. Right. Wanna bet that if such a transformation weren't observed again and again in the lab and Evolutionary Theory predicted drug-resistance that if some extremophile bacterium existing in a concentrated solution of Penicillin, YECists would be crying out again and again to demand the transitional sequence from non-resistent bacterium to drug-resistent bacterium?

Socrates:
Wanna bet that this is more elephant hurling?
Sure. YECists always want hypothetical transitionals between two extremes that Evolutionary Theory must explain.

Take the transitionals between reptiles and mamamls for example. Gish used to make hay out of it for quite some time. Now there is Diarthrognathus and YECists suddenly can't tell a reptile from a mammal or know of any way to tell one from the other. (Check out the "Simple Challenge" thread of mine, for example.)

This one concerning bacteria happened to be directly observed and cannot be questioned without looking rather silly.


Socrates:
They may be using a mutation/selection approach, but this is also part of the Creation/Fall model.
Yeah, sure it is. :ahem:


John Boy:
AIDS, for instance, has a HIGH-mutation rate (1/400, IIRC). They can predict rather effectively how many virus generations it will take for a given drug to become useless. This is why they are using a multi-drug approach, btw.

Socrates:
<YAWN, STRETCH> Same principles apply -- www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1333.asp
Gosh, if YECists are so on top of the game, making these predictions, where are all the YECists out there at the forefront of biological research? Instead we just get the constant reactions to actual advances within science with little more than "We knew that all along!" Hmmm...

All AiG did in this link was rewrite the work that Evolutionary Biologists/Virologists did, themselves. What did ANY YECist contribute to our understanding of AIDS. I mean, aside that it was a punishment from God(s)! :ahem:


John Boy:
In short, the whole article is laughable ...

Socrates:
As if you'd know.
I may not know science, but I do know funny. And that article is hilarious!

I always go to AiG if I need a laugh. I just think about how Ken Ham actually thinks the platypus has actual, "bird-like" characteristics that would taxonomically confuse biologists; I just think about how gravity works differently under YECism that doesn't allow stars to form; I think about the explanation that feathered dinos don't necessarily support the dino-to-bird transition and aren't surprising to YECists by the logic of "We never said they WOULDN'T have feathers!"; I think about why they are confused about why they aren't taken seriously within science (believing it is all a conspiracy against them and their diety-of-choice) and I just laugh, and laugh, and laugh.


Socrates:
And your post is just an elaborate attempt at a deceitful bait'n'switch tactic, equivocating between "evolution = change in gene frequency over time" and "evolution and creation are opposites".
More "ME, TOO! ME, TOO! We knew it all along!"

If YECism were so good at science, I wonder why it has yet to make a blip on the radar for over a century? Oh, yeah, a global conspiracy.

I wonder how much further YECists will have to keep accepting the Evolutionary paradigm as evidence continues to be more and more convincing? If you're lucky, you can get "kinds" down to Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, Mammals, and a couple Plant Kinds, to give Noah a little more breathin' room. :poke:

Take care. :smile:

[John Boy]

Socrates:
Prove it.

John Boy:
Easy: Cogito, ergo sue me!
Oh, and don't say I didn't warn you that there was a Decartes joke in there, somewhere! Heh heh heh...

Take care. :smile:

[Dee Dee Warren]

I took this to mean you had confused me with Socrates and wanted me to reply to JohnBoy's posting. I was apparently wrong.


Sorry Socratism... man that one post of mine was the source of great confusion!!! I messed that one up huh??

[Zeus]

05-23-2003 @ 07:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105800#post105800)
Socratism:

In general evolution seems to be satisfied with criteria for success which are far less stringent than the experimental or physical sciences.


Quite the contrary. This is a popular perception, even among professional biologists, yet it is based upon ignorance of the relevant mathematics. Evolutionary predictions have been born out with much greater precision than that found in the physical sciences - this is unquestionable. The apparent "discrepancy" you have mentioned is explained by the vast complexity and multi-dimensionality that biological patterns display, unlike what is found in the relatively simple scalar quantities that describe physical constants. For a concrete example of what I mean here - phylogenetic trees are unfathomably complex mathematical objects. What can appear as a large discrepancy between two different trees of the same taxa can in reality be an extremely miniscule difference when actually quantitated. When the theory of universal gravity is tested and a 0.5% difference is found between multiple independent measurements, most people aren't so concerned. In contrast, when a 0.5% difference between two independently determined phylogenies is found, critics of evolution raise cain (in reality such large differences are extremely rare in evolutionary research). For much more detailed information and technical references, see the discussion found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence

[Zeus]

05-22-2003 @ 03:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103755#post103755)
Socratism:

With regard to hierarchical patterns, this was never a prediction of evolutionary theory. It was known prior to Darwin and he developed his theory as a reasonable idea that would be compatible with the patterns.

This statement illustrates a common misunderstanding of scientific practice. Just because a pattern was known before a theory was postulated does not mean that pattern is not a prediction of the theory. For instance, the elliptical orbits of the planets was known before Newton (think Kepler here), yet elliptical orbits are undeniably a prediction of Newtonian theory. The anomalous motion of Mercury was of course known before Einstein, yet his prediction from relativity of Mercury's perhelion was considered one of relativity's greatest confirmations. We could go on and on with all major modern scientific theories. Before Darwin, the hierarhcy was noted, but no theory predicted it. In contrast, common descent by gradual modification (gradual in the true sense of the word, not to be confused with paleontological phyletic gradualism) predicts a pattern of nested hierarchies. It is inconsistent with the pattern predicted by other theories, such as the Lamarckian continuum.



What is never mentioned are the exceptions that must be explained away with vague ideas such as &quot;convergence&quot; or &quot;gene transfer&quot;.


In fact, those "exceptions" are discussed heavily in the scientific literature. They are far from "vague ideas". That is a very odd characterization of processes that are expected from genetics and have been observed, countless times, both in the lab and in the wild.

All scientific theories have apparent exceptions. The real question here is whether these "exceptions" are large enough to be a problem for the theory, or whether they are simply normal processes that must be explained. The evidence overwhelmingly favors the former. Any answer to that question must be based in statistics, if it is to have any scientific weight.

For a recount from the primary scientific literature of the statisical analyses of these issues, see:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#chronology

Z

[Zeus]

Yesterday @ 06:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112770#post112770)
Socrates:

Nonsense -- to explain life's complexity without God, the real motivation of evolutionists from Darwin on,

An odd claim given the large fraction of evolutionary biologists who are theists and Christians (including me). Could you please cite a scientific reference where it is claimed that God is excluded? For theists, evolution is simply how God created complexity, it does not exclude him.



there MUST be a mechanism for generating literally encyclopedic amounts of information. The mechanisms for antibiotic resistance don't demonstrate this at all.

Any acquisition of a new function necessarily means that information has increased. If you believe otherwise than your view of information is irrelevant to biology, since you would be claiming that new functions can evolve even if information decreases. Since mutation with natural selection can create new functions, it can also create information. This is plainly obvious in the multiple examples of antibiotic and pesticide resistance where new proteins, with new functions, and new genes encoding them, have been created by mutation and selection.



They may be using a mutation/selection approach, but this is also part of the Creation/Fall model.


Do you have a peer-reviewed scientific reference for the "Creation/Fall" model that I could see? From the many anti-evolutionist YEC books I have read (non peer-reviewed and all written for the layman, not scientists), they have consistently denied that selection is even a real phenomenon - for example, the old "selection is a meaningless tautology" tact. Have they now changed their tune to become evolutionists?

Z

[TheFiveSolas]

Zeus:
they have consistently denied that selection is even a real phenomenon - for example, the old "selection is a meaningless tautology"

I think you are confusing the assertion that, "survival of the fittest is a tautology" with what you stated above. I know of creationists that have argued the first, but not the second. I know of not one single creationist that argues that selection isn't a real phenomena.

[Zeus]

Today @ 04:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113377#post113377)
TheFiveSolas:

I think you are confusing the assertion that, &quot;survival of the fittest is a tautology&quot; with what you stated above. I know of creationists that have argued the first, but not the second. I know of not one single creationist that argues that selection isn't a real phenomena.

Actually there are many. For instance, Walter ReMine writes on page 470 of The Biotic Message in his "Appendix to Survival of the Fittest":



The chapter on Survival of the Fittest contains the analysis of interest to most readers. It explains what natural selection is, and precisely why it is not science. ... The appendix examines the diverse formulations of natural seleciton offered by leading evolutionists. These formulations all fail as science essentially for the reasons discussed in the chapter. These are variations on the themes of tautologies, special definitions, metaphysics, and lame formulations.


His appendix is 28 pages long, and continuously conflates natural selection with its pithy euphemism of "survival of the fittest" (which in fact I do not do).

In his chapter on "Survival of the Fittest", ReMine states on page 98:



Natural selection is often formulated as a tautology. Natural selection is survival of the fittest, and the tautology hinges on the word fittest.


His criticisms of natural selection culminate on page 115:



Natural selection is the only major evolutionary mechanism that is not now falsified - and natural selection is unfalsifiable.

And on page 117, in the introduction to his chapter "Inventive Natural Selection":


Survival of the fittest is not the main objection to evolutionary theory, it is only the most fundamental.

AiG's Don Batten has this to say about The Biotic Message in his long review of the book (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/484.asp):



The evolutionary literature is thoroughly reviewed and critiqued. ReMine understands evolutionary theory better than most evolutionists. The book will inspire those who read it that biology only makes sense in the light of creation.

...

There are two helpful and extensive appendices dealing with natural selection and Haldane's dilemma in more detail. The volume is beautifully produced with good quality paper and binding.

This is a book that should be read by anyone interested in the big picture, and especially biology. It is a landmark volume with many original insights ? only some of which have been touched upon in this review.


Although Batten finds the section on natural selection is "a bit tedious", he has nothing but praise for the conclusions:


[ReMine] shows that efforts to define it [natural selection] in a testable/falsifiable way result in either metaphysical or lame formulations which may sound testable/falsifiable but in practice are not, or have no explanatory value.


Certainly you have heard of the creationist Duane Gish? He wrote in an essay called "CRACK IN THE NEO-DARWINIAN JERICHO Part I" (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-042.htm):


Creationists have long maintained that the Darwinian concept of natural selection (and now the neo-Darwinian concept) as a force which enables chance variations or mutations of the genetic material to produce an increase in complexity and to change one basic kind of organism into another, is not only a tautology (that is, a product of circular reasoning and vacuous in explanatory content), but that it is also incapable of either test or proof. The classical Darwinian concept of natural selection was tautological because those that survived were said to be fittest, while the fittest were defined as those that survived. In neo-Darwinian terms it is said that those that reproduce in larger numbers are the fittest, while the fittest are defined as those that reproduce in larger numbers.


These ideas are propogated en masse on the web by creationists:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/09nsel06.htm

http://www.douknow.net/ev_Darwins_Evolution_Theory_Dissected.htm

I could go on and on, but this is getting tedious.

[Zeus]

Yesterday @ 05:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112728#post112728)
Socratism:
Creation does not say that everything was created that way.


You are missing the point altogether. The point is that there are observations that could be made, in principle, that would be inconsistent with evolutionary theory. For instance, the theory of universal common descent could not be true if we found mammals in undisturbed Silurian deposits (or pre-Cambrian, or Cambrian, or Ordovician, or Devonian). There are many more such as this, and this is precisely why evolution is scientific. It is testable. Observing things like a Cambrian mammal would force us to abandon universal common descent as true.

Now, what observations would be inconsistent with your view of creation? How can we test it? What possible observations could be made that would compel us to conclude that creation is false? If you can't answer this question, then you don't have a scientific hypothesis.

[Socratism]

Today @ 03:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113463#post113463)
Zeus:
You are missing the point altogether. The point is that there are observations that could be made, in principle, that would be inconsistent with evolutionary theory. For instance, the theory of universal common descent could not be true if we found mammals in undisturbed Silurian deposits (or pre-Cambrian, or Cambrian, or Ordovician, or Devonian). There are many more such as this, and this is precisely why evolution is scientific. It is testable. Observing things like a Cambrian mammal would force us to abandon universal common descent as true.

Unfortuately for your argument there are hundreds of cases of findings that falsify common descent. They are merely ignored or rationalized away.

If mammal bones were found in a "Cambrian" layer then the layer would be redefined, probably as being "reworked". There are many evolutionary explanations that have been used to explain away contrary evidence.

Actually it would be highly unusual to find a mammal in a Cambrian layer since this layer consists of marine forms, which is logical since marine layers are below sea level and the vast majority of mammals don't live below sea level.


Now, what observations would be inconsistent with your view of creation? How can we test it? What possible observations could be made that would compel us to conclude that creation is false? If you can't answer this question, then you don't have a scientific hypothesis.

It is hard to have a valid scientific hypothesis for past events that inherently cannot be tested by normal scientific methods. Evolutionists delude themselves that their fairy tale inventions are real science.

[Zeus]

Today @ 03:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113604#post113604)
Socratism:
Unfortuately for your argument there are hundreds of cases of findings that falsify common descent. They are merely ignored or rationalized away.

Easily said but hard to support scientifically. Examples of solid predictions from common descent of what should not be found and that clearly have been contradicted by empirical observations would help your case here.



If mammal bones were found in a &quot;Cambrian&quot; layer then the layer would be redefined, probably as being &quot;reworked&quot;. There are many evolutionary explanations that have been used to explain away contrary evidence.
Explaining away a Cambrian mammal would take throwing out all we know of geology. It could not be done. You can't just "redefine" a layer - that's absurd.



Actually it would be highly unusual to find a mammal in a Cambrian layer since this layer consists of marine forms, which is logical since marine layers are below sea level and the vast majority of mammals don't live below sea level.


There are plenty of marine mammals like dugongs, whales, dolphins, manatees, seals. There are also plenty of Cambrian layers above sea level, such as the ones a mile from my house at 8000 feet. Your logic has no explanatory value, it is simply a flawed characterization of what has been found. OTOH, Common descent is a hypothesis, a unifying, testable, explanatory inference based upon what had been found 150 years ago. We have yet to find a Cambrian mammal, even though in the absence of common descent there is no reason not to.



It is hard to have a valid scientific hypothesis for past events that inherently cannot be tested by normal scientific methods.

An absurd claim. Why exactly are past events untestable by normal scientific methods? What is it about "past events" that is so different? In fact, since the present is an infinitismal moment always changing into the past, all of science concerns examination and explanation of past events.

[Socratism]

Today @ 11:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113614#post113614)
Zeus:
Examples of solid predictions from common descent of what should not be found and that clearly have been contradicted by empirical observations would help your case here.

They are available in the creationist literature. Where else would one expect to find them. Mainline journals are peer reviewed by people who think like you do.


Explaining away a Cambrian mammal would take throwing out all we know of geology. It could not be done. You can't just &quot;redefine&quot; a layer - that's absurd.

You don't redefine the layer, you simply redefine the particular deposit as belonging to a different era.


There are plenty of marine mammals like dugongs, whales, dolphins, manatees, seals.

They don't live in the deep ocean.


There are also plenty of Cambrian layers above sea level, such as the ones a mile from my house at 8000 feet.

That is because the layer is defined by the fossils it contains, not by anything known absolutely.


Your logic has no explanatory value, it is simply a flawed characterization of what has been found. OTOH, Common descent is a hypothesis, a unifying, testable, explanatory inference based upon what had been found 150 years ago.

Common descent is obvious. Who postulates that children don't have parents?


We have yet to find a Cambrian mammal, even though in the absence of common descent there is no reason not to.

People have investigated the fossil layers for hundreds of years (as you pointed out) and have never found a mammal bone associated with Cambrian fossils. But on the very slim chance that one would ever accidently show up, it should be obvious to anyone that a single example would do nothing to persuade people that evolution wasn't true. They would probably just chalk it up to "convergence" or some other of the silly evolutionary rationalizations we see all the time.

BTW, did you know that when an "index fossil" is found in a layer where it shouldn't be that it is simply tossed out as an index fossil?

Do you know that remains of fish have been found in so-called Cambrian layers?

Was evolution falsified? Not in the minds of "true believers".


An absurd claim. Why exactly are past events untestable by normal scientific methods? What is it about &quot;past events&quot; that is so different?

They are in the past not the present.


In fact, since the present is an infinitismal moment always changing into the past, all of science concerns examination and explanation of past events.

Well I guess that settles it then. :shocked:

[Zeus]

Today @ 07:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113734#post113734)
Socratism:
They are available in the creationist literature. Where else would one expect to find them.

The creationist literature is not scientific literature. I would expect to find valid scientific criticisms of common descent where I find all valid scientific criticisms in my work: in the scientific literature. Anyway, I have read extensively in the creationist literature (much more than most people I know who claim to be creationists). I've yet to find any valid examples of observations that are in contradiction to common descent.

As I said, your claim is very easily spoken, but much more difficult to back up rationally. Your failure/refusal to provide any examples in an effort to defend your claim is noted.



Mainline journals are peer reviewed by people who think like you do.


Quite. We expect scientific criticisms to be logical, testable, and based upon evidence, not upon purely religious and metaphysical presuppositions.



You don't redefine the layer, you simply redefine the particular deposit as belonging to a different era.


That is quite difficult when the geological evidence requires a particular deposit to be assigned to a specific era. You don't get to pick and choose such things - the geologists don't take orders from us biologists. I'm beginning to realize that you likely have no experience in any experimental science, true?



Actually it would be highly unusual to find a mammal in a Cambrian layer since this layer consists of marine forms, which is logical since marine layers are below sea level and the vast majority of mammals don't live below sea level.



Zeus wrote:
There are plenty of marine mammals like dugongs, whales, dolphins, manatees, seals.




They don't live in the deep ocean.


Most Cambrian fossils are not from the deep ocean, and anyway, whales and dolphins certainly do live in the deep ocean.


Zeus wrote:
There are also plenty of Cambrian layers above sea level, such as the ones a mile from my house at 8000 feet.




That is because the layer is defined by the fossils it contains, not by anything known absolutely.


Sometimes, yes, when there is no other evidence. But most of the time there is the direct, absolute radiometric evidence, or other indications such as laying between undisturbed strata of known ages. And the Cambrian and pre-Cambrian strata above my home were not dated by any fossils (the pre-Cambrian strata here in the Front Range does not contain fossils), it has been dated by multiple independent radiometric methods, which means it is known absolutely.



Common descent is obvious. Who postulates that children don't have parents?


Let me clarify. I thought it was obvious, but in biology by "common descent" we mean universal common descent by gradual modification from a common ancestor. The theory applies to much more than simply saying children have parents.



People have investigated the fossil layers for hundreds of years (as you pointed out) and have never found a mammal bone associated with Cambrian fossils. But on the very slim chance that one would ever accidently show up, it should be obvious to anyone that a single example would do nothing to persuade people that evolution wasn't true. They would probably just chalk it up to &quot;convergence&quot; or some other of the silly evolutionary rationalizations we see all the time.


Well, if you really believe that you will probably believe anything. I don't know anyone that is an active research biologist who could rationalize a genuine Cambrian mammal. Convergence on that scale is universally regarded as impossible. Any protestation to the contrary simply indicates your lack of familiarity with both the theory in question and the realities of science in general.



BTW, did you know that when an &quot;index fossil&quot; is found in a layer where it shouldn't be that it is simply tossed out as an index fossil?


Whatever. Any evidence to support that accusation? Or is this just speculative conspiracy theory?



Do you know that remains of fish have been found in so-called Cambrian layers?


Depends on how you define fish. Teleosts (like trout or tuna), absolutely not. I'm aware of several fish-like, transitional chordates that have been found in the Cambrian (which BTW are very fine confirmations of evolutionary theory). They lack bones, jaws, and even fins (except for a perhaps a dorsal fin).



Was evolution falsified? Not in the minds of &quot;true believers&quot;.


And why should it be, exactly, for finding primitive fish-like chordates in the Cambrian? Didn't Darwin and others predict they should be found if common descent were true?


Zeus wrote:
An absurd claim. Why exactly are past events untestable by normal scientific methods? What is it about "past events" that is so different?




They are in the past not the present.


The question was why are past events untestable by scientific methods. I note that you are unable to answer the question except by restating your conclusion.

Past events have effects in the present and future that can be tested. Just because they are past does not mean we can't tell that they happened. Most people would find that rather obvious, I think.


Zeus wrote:
In fact, since the present is an infinitismal moment always changing into the past, all of science concerns examination and explanation of past events.




Well I guess that settles it then. :shocked:

I see. You believe all of science is untestable. Is there anything, then, in what most people consider to be reality, that you believe is true? Or are you really a true nihilist?

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Bumped in memory of WinAce, whose young life tragically ended yesterday morning. He died from complications of cystic fibrosis. He was 20 years old. I am bumping a pair of his posts so that people may be reminded what a brilliant young man he was.

FK

[Viktor Scott]

A sad, tragic loss.

:sad:

[OfficialPro]

Socratism,

One at a time so we can understand your "logic" please.

"Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found. "

How is this not a prediction of the ToE? Why is this not a novel prediction, i.e. not something that would have been assumed under previous models (e.g. creationism)?

Here, I'll take a crack at this. Such a finding would not be inconsistent with a Flood. Precursor to Trilobites? How about just a different kind of Trilobite?



"Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them."

How is this not a prediction of the ToE? Why is this not a novel prediction, i.e. not something that would have been assumed under previous models (e.g. creationism)?

There's nothing that says there can't be fossils in Precambrian rock under Creationism.



"There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found. "

How is this not a prediction of the ToE? Why is this not a novel prediction, i.e. not something that would have been assumed under previous models (e.g. creationism)? Now remember, even if you disagree with the very definition of a "transitional" that doesn't stop this from being a successful prediction of the ToE because the ToE requires the existence of transitional species between various traits and this is simply and example of finding a logical candidate.

ROFLMAO. The true question is how is this an EXCLUSIVE prediction of TOE? I'd love to see this fossil and how many pieces it is in (and whether or not it's actually two different animals lol) but even if it's legit, you don't need evolution to explain it. As an alternative to the "evolutionist" explanation, the beast could be a hybrid between baleen whales and toothed whales. And if you think that's improbable, go google wholpins.



"Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship."

How is this not a prediction of the ToE? Why is this not a novel prediction, i.e. not something that would have been assumed under previous models (e.g. creationism)?

Again, not an exclusive domain issue. You don't need "evolution" to tell you that.



To not get too redundant, we will start with just those. Please explain why each are not examples of succesful predictions. You have made a lot of specious claims in this thread and others about the predictive ability and validity of the ToE. Now put up or shut up.

Cheers

Got anything better?

[rach12]

Here, I'll take a crack at this. Such a finding would not be inconsistent with a Flood. Precursor to Trilobites? How about just a different kind of Trilobite?



There's nothing that says there can't be fossils in Precambrian rock under Creationism.
When was life created? In other words, which rocks represent the creation of life?