Evidence for God from Science

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:I've refuted Naturalism? Where?

You have stated numerous times that you CANNOT produce life nor reproduce the evolution of new phyla in a lab.

Correct. But how is this a refutation of Naturalism? Indeed, how is this a refutation of the theory of common descent? Neither predict such rapid and artificial production of life, nor evolution of new phyla. If anything, if someone did demonstrate the evolution of new phyla over, say, a decade, that would hurt evolutionary theory

Gman wrote:Again…. There is no testable evidence for Darwin's theory.. As you said it takes millions of years to reproduce it.. You cannot say that it is factual… It is simply a belief system based upon a set of presuppositions...

First, as I have stated before, it is only the evolution of new phyla which takes many thousands of years. Speciation, on the other hand, can occur well within a human lifetime.
Second, being unable to reproduce the the underlying claim of the theory ("All life is descended from a common ancestor") does not preclude the citation of evidence. The whole point is that organisms (both the extant and the remains of the extinct) provide evidence of the claim.

No theory can be proven, only evidenced by observation and experimentation.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:That's where the theory of abiogenesis comes in. Simple self-replicating molecules in rudimentary phospholipid membranes. This video is a brilliant summary of abiogenesis.

This video is a horrible summary of abiogenesis…

1. First off it contradicts what you stated earlier.. You stated earlier that spontaneous generation, etc., has nothing to do with the existence of God. This video, however, states that there is NO NEED for God to produce life or in this case amino acids.. It's clearly anti-God…

They are the same thing. "No need for God" doesn't mean "God doesn't exist"; I really don't know how you got that one. The theory of abiogenesis has no need for the theory of gravity or the Magna Carta. So what?

Gman wrote:Also In the absence of enzymes, there is no chemical reaction that produces the sugar ribose (1), the "backbone" of RNA and DNA.

On the contrary, montmorillonite has been shown to catalyse RNA synthesis in aqueous solution.

Gman wrote: 5. The narrator CLEARLY states that they still have a lot to learn about this process. There are many steps that they haven't discovered yet. In fact he states that scientists probably never will understand how life got stated… This is HARDLY factual information. Guess work at best.. A belief system.. Your religion..

You sure do like your strawmen. We have a lot to learn about everything, be it abiogenesis or quantum mechanics. This doesn't mean they are unevidenced, that they are pure guesswork, nor that they are a religion (Good grief...).

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:And the fact remains that the theory of common descent is falsifiable. The discovery of fossil bunnies in the Pre-Cambrian, for instance, would deal a heavy blow to it.

Many evolutionists are now suggesting that gene transfers were so common in the past (a convenient non-provable hypothesis) that a tree of life for microbial species can never be discerned from existing species. Such proposals remove evolutionary theory from being tested, and remove it from scientific criticism.

It does nothing of the sort: we know lateral gene transfer occurs in 'primitive' organisms, so it is no surprise that the tradition 'tree of life' blurs at the very beginnings (along with the very definition of 'species'). Nevertheless, this is simply a refinement of the theory. It does not remove it from criticism, but rather presents another angle from which evolutionary theory could potentially be falsified.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:You thought wrong. What I thought you were talking about appears to be wrong: when you said "It is currently illegal to view any other theory accept naturalism based on chance..." if appears you in fact meant "It is illegal to teach any form of Creationism in the science classroom in any public school in the USA". The latter claim I agree with: it is indeed illegal to teach Creationism as science in public classrooms.

Reread what I stated before.. I said “public” science… I never said private..

Neither did I, so what's your point?

Gman wrote:It's against the law to teach anything but Darwin's theory of evolution in public schools..

Yes, because it's unconstitutional: there are no alternatives in science to the origin of modern biodiversity. Biology doesn't make sense without it, and it is an exemplary example of the scientific process. More to the point, science classrooms are to teach children about science. Since Creationism (in any guise) isn't science, it has no more place there than PE.

Gman wrote:Science was meant to be debated and when the debate is taken away from it, people may learn about evolutionary theory but in the end they don't always believe in it because they were never allowed to debate it..

No one has taken the debate away. We teach children science in the science classroom. This says nothing about what goes on outside: children are free to accept or reject the theory, to believe whatever they want.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:Correct. But neither I nor any scientist on Earth claims to be able to do so. The theories which you so vhemently oppose are quite explicit in their time dependancy: it took 4.5 billion years to get the biodiversity we have today, and you're demanding we replicate that in a lab?

Ok then why are scientists trying to replicate life in a lab?? Why did you present a video on abiogenesis??

Because that's what we're talking about . Just because it takes a long time doesn't mean there is no evidence for it, or that there are no experiments which we can run to test it.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:No: no one claims "that [E.coli] can evolve into something else…".

Then it's hardly evidence for Darwin's theory..

How so? Neither Darwin's theory nor the modern theory of common descent posit that E. coli can evolve into something else. The whole point is that everything is related by a single common ancestor: the descendants of vertebrates will always be vertebrates. The descendants of giraffes will never evolve into rhinoceroses.

DD_8630 wrote:Correct. But how is this a refutation of Naturalism? Indeed, how is this a refutation of the theory of common descent? Neither predict such rapid and artificial production of life, nor evolution of new phyla. If anything, if someone did demonstrate the evolution of new phyla over, say, a decade, that would hurt evolutionary theory.

Again… Don't get mad at me. You were the one that claimed that naturalism, explained in terms of natural causes and laws, CANNOT be proven in a lab… It's like a house built out of a deck of cards. You pull one card out and the house falls… Common descent hinges on the laws of naturalism… Correct? Again, all you have here are presuppositions... A guess at best..

You then display a video where the narrator states that scientists probably never will understand how life got stated… Again, this is damage to your beliefs, not mine…

DD_8630 wrote:First, as I have stated before, it is only the evolution of new phyla which takes many thousands of years.

Again that is not a fact… It is your belief… You cannot prove it as stated by the narrator. It is assumed...

DD_8630 wrote:Speciation, on the other hand, can occur well within a human lifetime.

Ok fine… Show us where Darwinian evolution has produced a new species of animals then…

DD_8630 wrote:Second, being unable to reproduce the the underlying claim of the theory ("All life is descended from a common ancestor") does not preclude the citation of evidence. The whole point is that organisms (both the extant and the remains of the extinct) provide evidence of the claim.

No theory can be proven, only evidenced by observation and experimentation.

No theory can be proven?? Ok, well this again just proves to me that your theory can't be proven then. Thanks.. But if you are referring to the fossil record, that too is a problem for the common ancestor claim..

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html

DD_8630 wrote:They are the same thing. "No need for God" doesn't mean "God doesn't exist"; I really don't know how you got that one. The theory of abiogenesis has no need for the theory of gravity or the Magna Carta. So what?

Don't lie.. You knew very well that the video was vehemently opposed to the existence of God. What did you think God was doing in the process of life? Cheerleading? You know that Darwin's theory goes against the existence of God. God claims that He created all things.. Perhaps you seek to destroy that foundation. Don't deny that fact..

DD_8630 wrote:On the contrary, montmorillonite has been shown to catalyse RNA synthesis in aqueous solution.

Not exactly… RNA production on catalytic surfaces (montmorillonite clay) does not happen spontaneously without the use of activated RNA nucleotides (a synthetic, non-naturally occurring product). Furthermore, both 2'-5' and 3'-5' linkages are formed. In the case of pyrimidines, most of the linkages are 2'-5'. This will not support the synthesis, selection and amplification of catalytic ribozymes needed to produce the required range of metabolic reactions to lead to life.

DD_8630 wrote:You sure do like your strawmen. We have a lot to learn about everything, be it abiogenesis or quantum mechanics. This doesn't mean they are unevidenced, that they are pure guesswork, nor that they are a religion (Good grief...).

Strawmen?? Your video stated that scientists probably never will understand how life got stated.. Even Richard Dawkins stated the same… It's simply a belief much like a religious belief…

DD_8630 wrote:It does nothing of the sort: we know lateral gene transfer occurs in 'primitive' organisms, so it is no surprise that the tradition 'tree of life' blurs at the very beginnings (along with the very definition of 'species'). Nevertheless, this is simply a refinement of the theory. It does not remove it from criticism, but rather presents another angle from which evolutionary theory could potentially be falsified.

Could potentially be falsified? It is either falsified or not… Again, speculation at best..

DD_8630 wrote:Neither did I, so what's your point?

My point is from the very beginning you got it wrong.. After about 6 other posts you finally understood what I was saying… Again. I don't know if this is sincere. It seems to me that you think I was shifting my words… I don't like that.. Fine, let's move on..

DD_8630 wrote:Yes, because it's unconstitutional: there are no alternatives in science to the origin of modern biodiversity. Biology doesn't make sense without it, and it is an exemplary example of the scientific process. More to the point, science classrooms are to teach children about science. Since Creationism (in any guise) isn't science, it has no more place there than PE.

Finally we are getting somewhere.. Science should remain as science regardless of the presuppositions or conclusions of the investigator. Science should also be debatable and not be held accountable to one view if there is lacking evidence. Moreover, ID does not seek to identify the designer. It is only concerned with finding any evidence of design whether it be supernatural or life coming from another planet. Also ID is not another form of creationism. ID takes no position on religious texts and makes its arguments using purely scientific and observational data.

DD_8630 wrote:No one has taken the debate away. We teach children science in the science classroom. This says nothing about what goes on outside: children are free to accept or reject the theory, to believe whatever they want.

No.. The debate has been taken away in public science classrooms. As you stated “there are no alternatives in science to the origin of modern biodiversity.” Again, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that Intelligent Design is another form of creationism (which it is not) and that it violates the Establishment Clause. Therefore it CANNOT be presented nor debated....

DD_8630 wrote:Because that's what we're talking about . Just because it takes a long time doesn't mean there is no evidence for it, or that there are no experiments which we can run to test it. Because that's what we're talking about . Just because it takes a long time doesn't mean there is no evidence for it, or that there are no experiments which we can run to test it.

That isn't exactly what we were talking about before…

Me: The fact is you CANNOT produce life nor reproduce the evolution of new phyla in a lab…
You: Correct. But neither I nor any scientist on Earth claims to be able to do so.
Me: Ok then why are scientists trying to replicate life in a lab?? Why did you present a video on abiogenesis??

Again, you stated, “But neither I nor any scientist on Earth claims to be able to do so,” however, they are trying to come up with a few scenarios. They are trying to PROVE it… And even though they can't reproduce life, they make the outrageous claim that it is factual. Again, it is NOT.. Even the experiments reveal it and even the video stated it. It is simply a belief based on chance.. And even if you say it was smaller chances that make up the bigger ones, it is still solely a belief based on chance…

DD_8630 wrote:How so? Neither Darwin's theory nor the modern theory of common descent posit that E. coli can evolve into something else. The whole point is that everything is related by a single common ancestor: the descendants of vertebrates will always be vertebrates. The descendants of giraffes will never evolve into rhinoceroses.

Again it is solely based upon your presuppositions. Perhaps instead they had a common designer.. Ever thought of that?

DD_8630 wrote:

K wrote:Let's forget the words of Darwin shall we: "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

Indeed, let's: Darwin is not the final authority. His original theory, while ground breaking, has been greatly refined since then. The reason science is so good at what it does is because it gladly rejects old theories in favour of better ones, refining what was once held to accommodate new data. Darwin's explanation for why there is not constant and gradual change in species' morphology was the imperfection of the geological record (an imperfection we freely acknowledge today). However, subsequent investigation have yielded a more plausable explanation: punctuated equilibrium.

With regards to the above evolutionary phenomenon, Darwin was wrong. His proposed explanation has been superseded by a better one in the intervening 150 years.

Careful there, you might get labeled a "creationist" or "anti-evolutionist". Many persist to defend Darwin despite disputes over the mechanisms. Interestingly Darwin's theory is often taught uncritically in mainstream science classes over 150 years later. This is bad science being taught.

PE itself gets criticised, but Darwin's theory is often left on hallowed ground. Just take a look at how Eugenie Scott (Executive Director of National Center for Science) reacts. You are living with an idealistic and romantic view of the way science is conducted in society today if you think otherwise. I would like to see good and open science taught. Instead such requests get drowned out due to a "witch hunt" against so-called creationists who oppose Darwin's theories.

K wrote:Regarding the theory of common descent, show me agreed mechanism/s amongst scientists for macroevolution and you will have something.

DD_8630 wrote:Reproduction with variation in environmental niches leads to evolution by natural selection. Split a population into two, and such reproductive variation in one half cannot spread to the other: the groups are genetically isolated. These novel variations accumulate over time, causing the two groups to become more and more genetically diverse. Eventually, they're so different that their gametes no long recognise one another: they cannot interbreed. Once this has occurred, the initial species is said to have speciated into two species.

That is the basic mechanism behind speciation. It is how the descendants of an initial population can, over billions of years, evolve into an extraordinarily diverse ecosystem.

There is even controversy over what counts as species. Yours is your own definition. Other scientists would disagree.

Now evolution may have happened, however until we know how it happened, then "evolution" seems a bit vacuous to me. Evolution carries no meaning. By "evolution" I mean like the speciation you describe above. The mechanism for such evolution needs to account for encyclopedias of new meaningful genetic information coming into existence. I accept natural selection. I accept changes under environmental pressures. I accept mutations happen. These may form part of the mechanisms required for the speciation, however until there is agreement, or at least one completed theory of evolution which adequately describes how it could have happened, then such will always just remain merely a nice story of origins for those who want to believe it.

Darwin may have said, "A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone." The problem is all scientific men, including Darwin, do have affections. Even a heart of stone is still a heart. Darwin's quote highlights for me a problem. Can anyone ever be truly scientific if this is the case?

DD_8630 wrote:Not if I was omnipotent . But anyway... what makes you think this world is a test by God? A behaviourologist would experiment on mice because his knowledge about the is incomplete: he doesn't know what they'll do next. A computer programmer, however, has 'complete' knowledge of his program, and thus knows exactly what it will do (barring catastrophic failure, of course).

Obviously you don't program.

harth1026 wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:Not if I was omnipotent . But anyway... what makes you think this world is a test by God? A behaviourologist would experiment on mice because his knowledge about the is incomplete: he doesn't know what they'll do next. A computer programmer, however, has 'complete' knowledge of his program, and thus knows exactly what it will do (barring catastrophic failure, of course).

Obviously you don't program.

Obviously you do harth

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:Correct. But how is this a refutation of Naturalism? Indeed, how is this a refutation of the theory of common descent? Neither predict such rapid and artificial production of life, nor evolution of new phyla. If anything, if someone did demonstrate the evolution of new phyla over, say, a decade, that would hurt evolutionary theory.

Again… Don't get mad at me. You were the one that claimed that naturalism, explained in terms of natural causes and laws, CANNOT be proven in a lab… It's like a house built out of a deck of cards. You pull one card out and the house falls… Common descent hinges on the laws of naturalism… Correct? Again, all you have here are presuppositions... A guess at best..

You then display a video where the narrator states that scientists probably never will understand how life got stated… Again, this is damage to your beliefs, not mine…

It is merely an acknowledgement of the inherent epistemological limitations of any human endeavour: we only know the laws of logic (and everything derived thereof), and our own existences (I know I exist, you know you exist, but I don't know you exist). No proposed hypothesis can ever be proven, merely evidenced. This is not a flaw of Naturalism; this is just the way things are.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:First, as I have stated before, it is only the evolution of new phyla which takes many thousands of years.

Again that is not a fact… It is your belief… You cannot prove it as stated by the narrator. It is assumed...

1) It's not a fact insofar as a 'fact' is a direct observation.
2) It is a belief insofar as a 'belief' is something which you think is true (I think that the statement "I am male" is true: I believe it).
3) It cannot be proven for the reasons I outlined above: nothing can be proven outside of pure logic.
4) It is not an assumption insofar as we conclude it from the evidence (just as it is not an assumption to conclude that someone is dead if they have no pulse or brain activity).

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:Speciation, on the other hand, can occur well within a human lifetime.

Ok fine… Show us where Darwinian evolution has produced a new species of animals then…

Gladly. TalkOrigins has lists here and here. Wikipedia has examples of observed instances of various types of speciation (allopatric, parapatric, etc). And I'm sure you're aware of the speciation of fruit-flies.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:Second, being unable to reproduce the the underlying claim of the theory ("All life is descended from a common ancestor") does not preclude the citation of evidence. The whole point is that organisms (both the extant and the remains of the extinct) provide evidence of the claim.

No theory can be proven, only evidenced by observation and experimentation.

No theory can be proven?? Ok, well this again just proves to me that your theory can't be proven then. Thanks.. But if you are referring to the fossil record, that too is a problem for the common ancestor claim..

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html

To which I respond: http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/FLockeResponse.htm

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:They are the same thing. "No need for God" doesn't mean "God doesn't exist"; I really don't know how you got that one. The theory of abiogenesis has no need for the theory of gravity or the Magna Carta. So what?

Don't lie.. You knew very well that the video was vehemently opposed to the existence of God. What did you think God was doing in the process of life? Cheerleading? You know that Darwin's theory goes against the existence of God. God claims that He created all things.. Perhaps you seek to destroy that foundation. Don't deny that fact..

I will deny it to my dying breath. Do not accuse me of lying simply because I dare contradict your stereotype of evolutionists. Do not put words into my mouth. Do not presuppose my beliefs.

How can we have a civil, rational debate, if you accuse me of lying at every turn, if you see covert agendas where none exist?

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:You sure do like your strawmen. We have a lot to learn about everything, be it abiogenesis or quantum mechanics. This doesn't mean they are unevidenced, that they are pure guesswork, nor that they are a religion (Good grief...).

Strawmen?? Your video stated that scientists probably never will understand how life got stated.. Even Richard Dawkins stated the same… It's simply a belief much like a religious belief…

It is nothing like religious belief. We acknowledge the inherent epistemological limitations of human endeavour, nothing more.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:It does nothing of the sort: we know lateral gene transfer occurs in 'primitive' organisms, so it is no surprise that the tradition 'tree of life' blurs at the very beginnings (along with the very definition of 'species'). Nevertheless, this is simply a refinement of the theory. It does not remove it from criticism, but rather presents another angle from which evolutionary theory could potentially be falsified.

Could potentially be falsified? It is either falsified or not… Again, speculation at best..

A hypothesis or theory is falsified if it fails to predict a relevant experimental result. A falsification test is such an experiment. Thus, the theory of common descent is potentially falsifiable, since there exists the possibility that it will fail a falsification test. However, it has yet to fail one: its predictions have always been vindicated.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:Yes, because it's unconstitutional: there are no alternatives in science to the origin of modern biodiversity. Biology doesn't make sense without it, and it is an exemplary example of the scientific process. More to the point, science classrooms are to teach children about science. Since Creationism (in any guise) isn't science, it has no more place there than PE.

Finally we are getting somewhere.. Science should remain as science regardless of the presuppositions or conclusions of the investigator. Science should also be debatable and not be held accountable to one view if there is lacking evidence. Moreover, ID does not seek to identify the designer. It is only concerned with finding any evidence of design whether it be supernatural or life coming from another planet. Also ID is not another form of creationism. ID takes no position on religious texts and makes its arguments using purely scientific and observational data.

I disagree. It is inextricably linked to its religious, Creationist roots. It does not draw its conclusions from scientific data and objective analysis, but rather from specious logic and religious agenda (Wedge Document, anyone?). The US courts agree with me on this: it is a religious, not scientific, endeavour.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:No one has taken the debate away. We teach children science in the science classroom. This says nothing about what goes on outside: children are free to accept or reject the theory, to believe whatever they want.

No.. The debate has been taken away in public science classrooms.

The debate was never in the science classroom. Children are not experts in niche scientific fields, so it is absurd to expect them to make an informed decision at such a young age. That is why we have experts in the first place: no one can know everything about everything, but people can devote their lives to know as much as possible about one particular thing. It is to them we turn for answers. I am not a biologist, so I defer to their expertise when it comes to biological matters. I am not a doctor, so I defer to their expertise when it comes to medicine. I am, however, a physicist, so I am educated enough to debate the issue.

This is not to say that the uneducated or untrained are forbidden from asking questions, requesting justification, debating, etc. It's just that, in the classroom, there is a limited amount of time to teach students a broad overview of the subject at hand (be it history, RE, science, mathematics, etc). It is logistically impossible to cite every shred of evidence, to discuss every possible hypothesis, to go into the nuances and subtleties of every theory. As with every other subject, the teacher gives an overview of the consensus of the experts. Moreover, we agree that science is to be taught in the science classroom, history in the history classroom, religion in RE, etc.

What place, then, does ID have in the science classroom, public or otherwise?

Gman wrote: As you stated “there are no alternatives in science to the origin of modern biodiversity.” Again, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that Intelligent Design is another form of creationism (which it is not) and that it violates the Establishment Clause. Therefore it CANNOT be presented nor debated....

In the public science classroom, yes. Outside, they can discuss whatever they want. Their parents can spoon-feed them whatever nonsense they like.

Gman wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:Because that's what we're talking about . Just because it takes a long time doesn't mean there is no evidence for it, or that there are no experiments which we can run to test it.

That isn't exactly what we were talking about before…

Me: The fact is you CANNOT produce life nor reproduce the evolution of new phyla in a lab…
You: Correct. But neither I nor any scientist on Earth claims to be able to do so.
Me: Ok then why are scientists trying to replicate life in a lab?? Why did you present a video on abiogenesis??

Again, you stated, “But neither I nor any scientist on Earth claims to be able to do so,” however, they are trying to come up with a few scenarios. They are trying to PROVE it… And even though they can't reproduce life, they make the outrageous claim that it is factual. Again, it is NOT.. Even the experiments reveal it and even the video stated it. It is simply a belief based on chance.. And even if you say it was smaller chances that make up the bigger ones, it is still solely a belief based on chance…

You are conflating technical vocabulary with that of the layman. No scientist claims to be able to prove anything. No scientist claims that a theory can become fact.

Gman wrote:Again it is solely based upon your presuppositions. Perhaps instead they had a common designer.. Ever thought of that?

Of course. Just because I believe one explanation over the others doesn't mean I reject them outright. I would be a fool to ignore the possibility of being wrong, or to reject other possible explanations out of hand (however implausible they may be).

Kurieuo wrote:

DD_8630 wrote: Indeed, let's: Darwin is not the final authority. His original theory, while ground breaking, has been greatly refined since then. The reason science is so good at what it does is because it gladly rejects old theories in favour of better ones, refining what was once held to accommodate new data. Darwin's explanation for why there is not constant and gradual change in species' morphology was the imperfection of the geological record (an imperfection we freely acknowledge today). However, subsequent investigation have yielded a more plausable explanation: punctuated equilibrium.

With regards to the above evolutionary phenomenon, Darwin was wrong. His proposed explanation has been superseded by a better one in the intervening 150 years.

Careful there, you might get labeled a "creationist" or "anti-evolutionist". Many persist to defend Darwin despite disputes over the mechanisms. Interestingly Darwin's theory is often taught uncritically in mainstream science classes over 150 years later. This is bad science being taught.

I am not aware of any school which teaches Darwin's original theory, insofar as it is distinct from its modern refinement. Indeed, it is often we Evolutionists who have to correct misinformed Creationists that Darwin's original publications are quite outdated. I'm still surprised that people still use the "Darwin was a racist!" card.

Kurieuo wrote: PE itself gets criticised, but Darwin's theory is often left on hallowed ground. Just take a look at how Eugenie Scott (Executive Director of National Center for Science) reacts. You are living with an idealistic and romantic view of the way science is conducted in society today if you think otherwise. I would like to see good and open science taught. Instead such requests get drowned out due to a "witch hunt" against so-called creationists who oppose Darwin's theories.

And you live in a world of persecution complexes and conspiracy theories.

Kurieuo wrote:

DD_8630 wrote: Reproduction with variation in environmental niches leads to evolution by natural selection. Split a population into two, and such reproductive variation in one half cannot spread to the other: the groups are genetically isolated. These novel variations accumulate over time, causing the two groups to become more and more genetically diverse. Eventually, they're so different that their gametes no long recognise one another: they cannot interbreed. Once this has occurred, the initial species is said to have speciated into two species.

That is the basic mechanism behind speciation. It is how the descendants of an initial population can, over billions of years, evolve into an extraordinarily diverse ecosystem.

There is even controversy over what counts as species. Yours is your own definition. Other scientists would disagree.

Indeed. Nevertheless, your request has been answered. Without gene flow between two populations, they will become more and more distinct with time. This has occurred deliberately in the lab, accidentally (e.g., the Great Wall of China), and naturally (e.g., Madagascar, the Sierra Mountains, etc).

Kurieuo wrote: Now evolution may have happened, however until we know how it happened, then "evolution" seems a bit vacuous to me. Evolution carries no meaning. By "evolution" I mean like the speciation you describe above. The mechanism for such evolution needs to account for encyclopedias of new meaningful genetic information coming into existence. I accept natural selection. I accept changes under environmental pressures. I accept mutations happen. These may form part of the mechanisms required for the speciation, however until there is agreement, or at least one completed theory of evolution which adequately describes how it could have happened, then such will always just remain merely a nice story of origins for those who want to believe it.

We have had such a theory for 150 years: evolution by natural selection.

Kurieuo wrote: Darwin may have said, "A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone." The problem is all scientific men, including Darwin, do have affections. Even a heart of stone is still a heart. Darwin's quote highlights for me a problem. Can anyone ever be truly scientific if this is the case?

Yes. A scientific man does not let his wishes or affections cloud his judgement, bias his experiments, or skew his statistics. That's the beauty of logic: it is sublimely objective, not giving two hoots about your subjective desires and opinions. Your astute observation, Kurieuo, is precisely the reason we have bad scientists, but it does not mean that all scientists are bad.

harth1026 wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:Not if I was omnipotent . But anyway... what makes you think this world is a test by God? A behaviourologist would experiment on mice because his knowledge about the is incomplete: he doesn't know what they'll do next. A computer programmer, however, has 'complete' knowledge of his program, and thus knows exactly what it will do (barring catastrophic failure, of course).

Obviously you don't program.

I've spent many hours debugging this program or that. And they said Noughts-and-Crosses would be easy to code...

DD_8630 wrote:It is merely an acknowledgement of the inherent epistemological limitations of any human endeavour: we only know the laws of logic (and everything derived thereof), and our own existences (I know I exist, you know you exist, but I don't know you exist). No proposed hypothesis can ever be proven, merely evidenced. This is not a flaw of Naturalism; this is just the way things are.

Looks like we are going from a fact, to a theory, and now a hypothesis… If we examined the laws of logic, it clearly reveals that naturalism with chance cannot produce living material.. If you want to call Darwin's ideas a hypothesis that is fine by me…

DD_8630 wrote:1) It's not a fact insofar as a 'fact' is a direct observation.
2) It is a belief insofar as a 'belief' is something which you think is true (I think that the statement "I am male" is true: I believe it).
3) It cannot be proven for the reasons I outlined above: nothing can be proven outside of pure logic.
4) It is not an assumption insofar as we conclude it from the evidence (just as it is not an assumption to conclude that someone is dead if they have no pulse or brain activity).

Again this is a far cry from what you stated before…. You stated before “I call it a fact because the evidence is sufficiently convincing.” Now I'm confused…

DD_8630 wrote:Gladly. TalkOrigins has lists here and here. Wikipedia has examples of observed instances of various types of speciation (allopatric, parapatric, etc). And I'm sure you're aware of the speciation of fruit-flies.

The links don't work… As for allopatric, parapatric they are simply modes of speciation, not “new” species… I asked for you to show me where evolution has produced a new species of animals.. What about the fruit flys? Are you saying that evolution has produced a new species of fruit fly? Fruit flies have been mutated and bred in laboratories for generations, but they are still fruit flies… Sorry.

DD_8630 wrote:To which I respond: http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/FLockeResponse.htm

To which I respond: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

DD_8630 wrote:I will deny it to my dying breath. Do not accuse me of lying simply because I dare contradict your stereotype of evolutionists. Do not put words into my mouth. Do not presuppose my beliefs.

How can we have a civil, rational debate, if you accuse me of lying at every turn, if you see covert agendas where none exist?

I may not fully understand what you believe, but that video was extremely anti-God… I'm not accusing you of lying at every turn. I'm trying to get you to realize that “chance” cannot produce life… I would say however that the narrator of the video WAS vehemently opposed to the existence of God. Why you shared that would make anyone wonder…

DD_8630 wrote:It is nothing like religious belief. We acknowledge the inherent epistemological limitations of human endeavour, nothing more.

Again, I would say that some people I know would see it as their religion… Their alpha and omega..

DD_8630 wrote:A hypothesis or theory is falsified if it fails to predict a relevant experimental result. A falsification test is such an experiment. Thus, the theory of common descent is potentially falsifiable, since there exists the possibility that it will fail a falsification test. However, it has yet to fail one: its predictions have always been vindicated.

So you think again that ID can't be tested? ID is actually quite open to falsification. If we use evolution to falsify ID, all a scientist needs to do is take a bacterium without a flagellum, delete ALL the genes that encode the bacterial flagellum (within the bacterium flagellum), then go to a lab and try to grow the bug for a long time to see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If it produces a flagellum, then ID would be proven false on the general grounds that the scientist didn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes would suffice.

DD_8630 wrote:I disagree. It is inextricably linked to its religious, Creationist roots. It does not draw its conclusions from scientific data and objective analysis, but rather from specious logic and religious agenda (Wedge Document, anyone?). The US courts agree with me on this: it is a religious, not scientific, endeavour.

Again I disagree… Design does not necessarily require that the designer be a supernatural God. A number of scientists have already accepted that the existence of intelligent life could exist elsewhere in the universe and that life could be the result of “seeding” by aliens known as the “panspermia” hypothesis.

DD_8630 wrote:The debate was never in the science classroom. Children are not experts in niche scientific fields, so it is absurd to expect them to make an informed decision at such a young age. That is why we have experts in the first place: no one can know everything about everything, but people can devote their lives to know as much as possible about one particular thing. It is to them we turn for answers. I am not a biologist, so I defer to their expertise when it comes to biological matters. I am not a doctor, so I defer to their expertise when it comes to medicine. I am, however, a physicist, so I am educated enough to debate the issue.

This is not to say that the uneducated or untrained are forbidden from asking questions, requesting justification, debating, etc. It's just that, in the classroom, there is a limited amount of time to teach students a broad overview of the subject at hand (be it history, RE, science, mathematics, etc). It is logistically impossible to cite every shred of evidence, to discuss every possible hypothesis, to go into the nuances and subtleties of every theory. As with every other subject, the teacher gives an overview of the consensus of the experts. Moreover, we agree that science is to be taught in the science classroom, history in the history classroom, religion in RE, etc.

What place, then, does ID have in the science classroom, public or otherwise?

It may not be ready for primetime, but should we think that ID is a science stopper? Inferring but not dictating design would not stop science from achieving its goal to understand our natural world. ID does not seek to thwart evolution from the classrooms but only stir up the controversies surrounding it.

ID probably should be given the same spotlight as evolution has, but it probably doesn't need to be forced into the classrooms. We all know that scientific disputes can actually enliven and stimulate the scientific thought process. On top of that, issues raised by ID may naturally arise in biology classrooms whether design is mandated or not since the evolutionary theory was born in the theological cradle as it did with Darwin. And if we performed the same rigorous tests that we could with ID on evolution, evolution probably wouldn't pass the test to be classified as science either. Perhaps the question of origins is more philosophical in nature and should only be allowed in philosophy classes rather than our biology classes..

DD_8630 wrote:In the public science classroom, yes. Outside, they can discuss whatever they want. Their parents can spoon-feed them whatever nonsense they like.

Like I said before, it's against the law to discuss anything BUT Darwinian evolution.. Nonsense like what? Dawinian evolution?

DD_8630 wrote:You are conflating technical vocabulary with that of the layman. No scientist claims to be able to prove anything. No scientist claims that a theory can become fact.

Oh, you are SO wrong here… What do you call this list of scientists?? As they state in bold letters... “EVOLUTION IS A FACT, IT IS ONE OF THE MOST WELL ESTABLISHED FACTS IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE.”

DD_8630 wrote:Of course. Just because I believe one explanation over the others doesn't mean I reject them outright. I would be a fool to ignore the possibility of being wrong, or to reject other possible explanations out of hand (however implausible they may be).

Implausible? Implausible as Darwin's ideas?? According to Darwin...

To think that the eye had evolved by natural selection, "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." - Charles Darwin

DD_8630 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Now evolution may have happened, however until we know how it happened, then "evolution" seems a bit vacuous to me. Evolution carries no meaning. By "evolution" I mean like the speciation you describe above. The mechanism for such evolution needs to account for encyclopedias of new meaningful genetic information coming into existence. I accept natural selection. I accept changes under environmental pressures. I accept mutations happen. These may form part of the mechanisms required for the speciation, however until there is agreement, or at least one completed theory of evolution which adequately describes how it could have happened, then such will always just remain merely a nice story of origins for those who want to believe it.

We have had such a theory for 150 years: evolution by natural selection.

There is no such thing as "evolution by natural selection." Natural selection is not a theory of evolution. It is a theory that the fittest survive as they are best adapted to their environments. As for the theory of "150 years" you have already admitted it is inadequate and wrong.

Cheers.

DD_8630 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Darwin may have said, "A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone." The problem is all scientific men, including Darwin, do have affections. Even a heart of stone is still a heart. Darwin's quote highlights for me a problem. Can anyone ever be truly scientific if this is the case?

Yes. A scientific man does not let his wishes or affections cloud his judgement, bias his experiments, or skew his statistics. That's the beauty of logic: it is sublimely objective, not giving two hoots about your subjective desires and opinions. Your astute observation, Kurieuo, is precisely the reason we have bad scientists, but it does not mean that all scientists are bad.

Even logic is accepted a priori is it not? That is, "logic" is knowledge we just intuit or see is true. If so, then our understanding of what "logic" consists of is very subjective. It could be that A and not A is valid and contradictions are quite acceptable. Yes, no? On what logical basis do we have for saying no? We can't have such a logical basis, for to prove logic we naturally set out using the logic we are trying to prove which is quite circular.

Have you never come into contact with the dilemmas posed by post-modernity on knowledge? The beauty of logic, is not that it is sublimely objective (for it only appears sublimely objective to those blinded to their own subjectiveness), but rather that it provides practical boundaries to work within which can be universally applied. What you point out as my "astute observation" of everyone having affections and a heart, is not the reason we have bad scientists, but it is the reason why it is there can never be a through-going "scientific man" as Darwin understood such a man. Such is a romantic scientific myth. Those who pursue objectivity instead of paying heed to their own subjectiveness are chasing after the wind. Those blinded to their own subjectivity is when bad science creeps in.

I'm going to Kent for a week, so I'll respond to your posts after then

Merry Christmas!

DD_8630 wrote:I'm going to Kent for a week, so I'll respond to your posts after then

Merry Christmas!

May God bless and keep you safe over Christmas DD

DD_8630 wrote:I'm going to Kent for a week, so I'll respond to your posts after then

Merry Christmas!

Thanks. Merry Christmas to you too DD... I'm actually off to Boston for a week as well....

Take care.

G -

I was away for longer than expected, so without further ado...

Kurieuo wrote: There is no such thing as "evolution by natural selection." Natural selection is not a theory of evolution. It is a theory that the fittest survive as they are best adapted to their environments.

Exactly.

"Natural selection" is the theory that those organisms better able to survive than their kith will indeed survive. The natural environment in which organisms find themselves determines which are 'selected' for breeding (so to speak).
"Evolution" is the biological phenomenon whereby a population of interbreeding organisms experiences a change in allele frequencies over time. That is, the frequencies of the alleles of the genes held by the members of the population changes. For example, the number of blue-eyed humans on Earth has changed over the millenia; thus, the human species is said to have 'evolved'.

"Evolution by natural selection", then, is the combination of the two: natural selection determines how populations evolve.

Kurieuo wrote: As for the theory of "150 years" you have already admitted it is inadequate and wrong.

The original incarnation of the theory has been refined over the past 150 years. Nothing more, nothing less.

Kurieuo wrote:

DD_8630 wrote:A scientific man does not let his wishes or affections cloud his judgement, bias his experiments, or skew his statistics. That's the beauty of logic: it is sublimely objective, not giving two hoots about your subjective desires and opinions. Your astute observation, Kurieuo, is precisely the reason we have bad scientists, but it does not mean that all scientists are bad.

Even logic is accepted a priori is it not? That is, "logic" is knowledge we just intuit or see is true. If so, then our understanding of what "logic" consists of is very subjective. It could be that A and not A is valid and contradictions are quite acceptable. Yes, no?

No.

Kurieuo wrote:On what logical basis do we have for saying no?

The law of excluded middle.

Kurieuo wrote:We can't have such a logical basis, for to prove logic we naturally set out using the logic we are trying to prove which is quite circular.

Indeed, which is why no logician worth his salt attempts to prove logic using logic.

Kurieuo wrote: Have you never come into contact with the dilemmas posed by post-modernity on knowledge?

I've come across dilemmas in epistemology, but nothing specifically post-modern.

Kurieuo wrote:The beauty of logic, is not that it is sublimely objective (for it only appears sublimely objective to those blinded to their own subjectiveness), but rather that it provides practical boundaries to work within which can be universally applied.

Which would be a sublimely objective application.

Kurieuo wrote:What you point out as my "astute observation" of everyone having affections and a heart, is not the reason we have bad scientists, but it is the reason why it is there can never be a through-going "scientific man" as Darwin understood such a man. Such is a romantic scientific myth. Those who pursue objectivity instead of paying heed to their own subjectiveness are chasing after the wind. Those blinded to their own subjectivity is when bad science creeps in.

Just because everyone has affections doesn't mean they act on them. My affections tell me to do one thing, but my overarching rationality is always on check to see if that's such a good idea. When I am performing an experiment in the lab, I do not let my expectations taint my statistical analysis. When I am writing a report, I do not use weasel-words to distort my results.

Kurieuo, are you a scientist?