Gman wrote:No… You misunderstand… Are you saying that ID can't be falsifiable?
No
. You said they (classical mechanics and spontaneous generation) weren't refuted, and I was explaining to you that, in fact, they were.
Gman wrote:
But let's turn that around, how do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced life?
I think you're mixing your words. Natural selection is the phenomenon whereby organisms whose inheritable mutations better suit them to their environment than their kin have a greater chance of procreation, and thus have a greater chance of seeding the next generation with their better-suited progeny. In other words, nature selects some organisms over others. This has nothing to do with the origin of life, since it clearly requires life to already exist for it to occur.
The theory by which we explain the origin of life is called abiogenesis, and it is falsifiable.
Gman wrote:Can evolution be falsifiable also?
If by that you mean the theory of common descent, then yes: any number of potential experiments or discoveries could overturn it.
Gman wrote:
DD_8630 wrote:Perhaps, but that doesn't answer my question. You said: "It is currently illegal to view any other theory accept naturalism based on chance...". Neither the First Amendment to the United State's Constitution ("Separation of Church and State"), nor Edwards v. Aguillard, nor Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, nor any other court ruling that I am aware of, have anything to do with one's viewing of "naturalism based on chance".
Perhaps??? Cut the bull… It does answer your question…. You know very well that it is illegal to teach Intelligent Design in “any” public U.S. classroom. There is ONLY one view taught in schools today.. Anything else is considered a religious viewpoint.. A breach between the separation of church and state.
I think we are, again, misunderstanding each other. You said "It is currently illegal to view any other theory accept naturalism based on chance...". By that I thought you meant it is illegal to
view any other explanation as true; this would be a gross infringement on your most fundamental Freedom of Thought.
However, I think that you instead meant "It is illegal to teach any form of Creationism in the science classroom in any public school in the USA". This would make more sense: several court rulings have established that Creationism is inextricably linked to religion, and as such it would be unconstitutional to teach in public schools (it would, in effect, be the government promoting one particular religion). However, this only applies to public science classrooms. Other classrooms (RE, for example) could quite easily teach it, as can parents or other non-government employees.
Oh, and when I say, "Perhaps, ...", that's just my way of saying "What you just said may or may not be true, but that's a topic for another time". I use it when I don't want to comment just yet.
Gman wrote:
DD_8630 wrote:More importantly, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ensures your freedom of thought. You can hold whatever beliefs you want. Indeed, even Jesus noted the futility of any attempt to control another person's thoughts (Matthew 11:16-17).
You are confused.. This has absolutely nothing to do with teaching Intelligent Design in schools…
Correct. As I explained above, I think this was just a misunderstanding on my part.
Gman wrote:
DD_8630 wrote:I never said it doesn't matter. I said that we don't expect it to occur within 150 years.
That is simply not true… You clearly stated they have nothing to do with your beliefs. It doesn't matter if it were 150 years or 2 million years… Now you are saying it does matter and even quote a time frame.
DD_8630 wrote:I call it a fact because the evidence is sufficiently convincing. I say it takes thousands of years because that is what the evidence shows. You're letting your presumptions get in the way.
You can't call it a fact… You already stated that Darwinian evolution can't reveal new body designs, speciation or the appearance of a new biological phyla. You have to accept it on faith..
Guh.
1) You asked me to "show us where your science has recently revealed new body designs, speciation or the appearance of a new biological phyla of animals". I pointed out that no one has seen the evolution of new body designs or phyla over the past 150 years, nor do we expect them to: it takes many thousands of years.
2) You then concluded that my beliefs must therefore be based on faith alone. This is demonstrably preposterous: I, nor anyone else, claims that the evolution of new phyla can occur over 150 years. Instead, we claim that it takes many
thousands of years. Why ask for something if no one claims to have it? It has nothing to do with my beliefs, since I do not believe that new phyla have evolved (or even can evolve) over 150 years.
3) After I pointed out that speciation is a well documented phenomenon, you then asked for an instance of new
phyla evolving. I repeated myself, pointing out that no one has seen this, nor do we expect anyone to: it takes many thousands of years, and we have only been looking for 150.
Everything thereafter is, I think, a misunderstanding on your part: you claimed that I said it didn't matter, when in fact I said nothing of the sort. You said I was defending the evolution of new phyla, which, while true, has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You claimed that "adding thousands of years" is an
ad hoc adjustment, when in fact it is not.
What's amusing is the latest exchange:
Me: I never said it doesn't matter. I said that we don't expect it to occur within 150 years.
You: That is simply not true…
You clearly stated they have nothing to do with your beliefs. It doesn't matter if it were 150 years or 2 million years…
Now you are saying it does matter and even quote a time frame.
Neither I nor anyone else claims that the evolution of new phyla can occur over 150 years. Such a claim has nothing to do with my beliefs since I do not believe it. What I
do believe, however, is that just evolution can occur over many
thousands of years: that
does have something to do with my beliefs.
When I said "I never said it doesn't matter", I meant just that: I never stated "It doesn't matter". I was pointing out that you were putting words in my mouth, since I said nothing about whether it 'matters' or not (I'm not even sure what that
means).
I hope that clears things up.
Gman wrote:
DD_8630 wrote:Have a closer look at that website. They "provide increased access to data and information on the [USA]'s biological resources." There is no mention of 'biological information' in the sense that you were using the phrase.
Have a closer look at that website… The website clearly states that it is “Your Home for
Biological Information on the Web.”
Correct. And as I said, they are not using the phrase 'biological information' in the same way as you. To them, 'biological information' is simply information pertaining to biology (textbooks, etc).
You, however, stated: "It seems that the evidence has revealed the subtraction of information but no "new" information given."
This is something else altogether, and does not exist within biology.
Gman wrote:
DD_8630 wrote:1) An isolated strain of E. coli evolved the ability to ingest and metabolise the citrus in its environment. Its kin in other, identical environments did no such thing. E. coli didn't evolve into anything: it simply evolved a new ability.
No one here denies that organisms can adapt to its environment. Just the outrageous claim that it can evolve into something else…
Indeed. Fortunately, no one claims
that either. The descendants of
E. coli will always be
E. coli. The descendants of fruit flies will always be fruit flies. The descendants of the original mammalian species will always be mammals. The descendants of the original vertebrates will always be vertebrates.
What
does happen, however, if that the single population of mammals splits into two distinct species: both are mammals, but they can no long interbreed. The
E. coli in the experiment are all descended from a single
E. coli bacterium: the population was bred, then split into several isolated environments. One of these strains evolved the ability to ingest and metabolise citrus.
The point of this experiment was to show that complex and specified traits can indeed evolve, much to the chagrin of ID proponents.
Gman wrote:
DD_8630 wrote:2) I said that the evolution of a new phylum takes a long time to occur. Phyla are groups like chrodates, molluscs, etc. The E. coli strain has not evolved nearly enough to have its own phylum.
And your point is??
You are asking for new phyla. I am pointing out, yet again, that this is an absurd request: it takes many thousands of years, and we have only been looking for 150.
Gman wrote:
DD_8630 wrote:Because while Darwin's initial ideas are indeed the roots of modern evolutionary theory, the fact remains that the theory we have today is much, much better than anything Darwin could have imagined. He had no idea about cellular anatomy, DNA, ERVs, etc.
You may as well say that Harry Potter is an example of Victorian literature, simply because modern literature has its roots in the latter.
What??? Earlier you stated there is no such thing as Dawinism, any more than there is Einsteinism, Newtonism, Aristotleism, etc... Now you are saying it's the roots of modern evolutionary theory. Go figure...
No. Notice that, in my previous post, I never once mentioned 'Darwinism'. I mentioned Darwin's initial ideas, but not 'Darwinism'.
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone. - Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
"There's real poetry in the real world. Science is the poetry of reality." - Prof. Dawkins