[_ Old Earth _] A Summary of This Year's Defeats of Evolution Theory

[lordkalvan]

I didn't see the required evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor. Is that about it?

If you don't get it, I suggest you read Post 15 very carefully and ask me if you have any difficulty understanding what I am saying there. I will do my best to help you.

 

[Barbarian]

What benefit is it, to get yet another thread locked?

 

[zeke]

If you don't get it, I suggest you read Post 15 very carefully and ask me if you have any difficulty understanding what I am saying there. I will do my best to help you.

There was no science offered. In the absence of any we will understand you have none.

 

[lordkalvan]

What benefit is it, to get yet another thread locked?

A question that I have asked myself. In the absence of any other answer, I have concluded that either that is indeed the objective or else the intent is to draw comments that will violate board rules and result in the suspension/banning of the person making them. I must confess that I have come precious close to such comments already, if not actually having made them in some eyes.

 

[pHghost]

Both of you guys probably know very well that this constant, there-and-back :fight is leading nowhere.

zeke, while evolution may not have been completely, 100% proven (it is, after all, called the theory of evolution), it hasn't been disproven either.

I understand your frustration over lordkalvan's inability to provide you with scientific proof of the theory, but maybe you could lay the matter to rest by providing the scientific evidence of its invalidity.

 

[lordkalvan]

Both of you guys probably know very well that this constant, there-and-back :fight is leading nowhere.

zeke, while evolution may not have been completely, 100% proven (it is, after all, called the theory of evolution), it hasn't been disproven either.

You make some reasonable points, but on a technicality you seem to be using 'theory' in the more popular sense of a conjecture or speculation, whereas in the scientific context it is used in respect of evolutionary theory it means a set of principles that explain a range of phenomena and make falsifiable predictions about them. if I have misunderstood your usage, I apologise, but if not you may find the Wiki article informative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

I understand your frustration over lordkalvan's inability to provide you with scientific proof of the theory, but maybe you could lay the matter to rest by providing the scientific evidence of its invalidity.

If you have been following these discussions, you will see that I have offered to discuss various aspects of evidence for evolutionary theory, but have been trying to clarify terms and assumptions that have been used to prejudge what such evidence will be regarded as acceptable. Absent this clarification, it seems futile to embark on a lengthy presentation that may simply be dismissed as pseudoscience or Darwinian mythology without any explanation offered as to why this is the case. You may want to review the responses to Barbarian's evidential posts to see what I mean.

I should also point out that both I and Barbarian have asked that relevant falsifying evidence and argument be presented for discussion, but none has been forthcoming.

 

[Free]

I've already locked one thread because of condescending statements and personal attacks, please don't make me lock another. 2

 

[Sparkey]

I should also point out that both I and Barbarian have asked that relevant falsifying evidence and argument be presented for discussion, but none has been forthcoming.

Can the absence of evidence be considered as evidence? If nobody has ever witnessed one "kind" reproducing another, can we consider this as "evidence"? No. We can't. The only thing that would be conclusive evidence would be found on youtube, where one "kind" reproduced another under scientific scrutiny. Frankly, that's not about to happen. Is there any serious attempt currently going on to document such a possibility? Or do all rational thinkers believe the chances of one biblical "kind" reproducing another "kind" are so small as to believe it will simply never happen?

Looking at "evidence" -- be it fish, amphibians, land animals and birds and then putting them in logical order generally from simple to complex is not considered by creationists conclusive evidence that all life came from a single, common ancestor. Maybe this is the case, but maybe, on the other hand God created each kind and their seed as it seems to be stated in the bible, through multiple creative acts. Maybe God commanded the sea and the land to bring forth life and evolution was the response to that command. If we look at the Genesis account critically there are many assumptions that can be made. But, for those who consider the word of God to be a source worthy of consideration, the Book of Job (and other verses) need also be considered. God takes personal responsibility for His creative acts.

 

[Barbarian]

Can the absence of evidence be considered as evidence?

Sometimes, but it's provisional. For example, in spite of numerous predicted transitionals being found, no one has ever found one between groups where the theory has indicated there should be none.

If nobody has ever witnessed one "kind" reproducing another, can we consider this as "evidence"? No. We can't. The only thing that would be conclusive evidence would be found on youtube, where one "kind" reproduced another under scientific scrutiny. Frankly, that's not about to happen. Is there any serious attempt currently going on to document such a possibility? Or do all rational thinkers believe the chances of one biblical "kind" reproducing another "kind" are so small as to believe it will simply never happen?

That line of evidence would be like arguing that giant redwoods can't grow from seeds, because no one has ever seen it happen.

Looking at "evidence" -- be it fish, amphibians, land animals and birds and then putting them in logical order generally from simple to complex is not considered by creationists conclusive evidence that all life came from a single, common ancestor.

By itself, it's not compelling. But genetic, fossil, and biochemical evidence, along with anatomical and embyrological data make it compelling.

Maybe this is the case, but maybe, on the other hand God created each kind and their seed as it seems to be stated in the bible, through multiple creative acts.

If creation happens to be through the agency of nature, why can't that be a creative act?

Maybe God commanded the sea and the land to bring forth life and evolution was the response to that command. If we look at the Genesis account critically there are many assumptions that can be made. But, for those who consider the word of God to be a source worthy of consideration, the Book of Job (and other verses) need also be considered. God takes personal responsibility for His creative acts.

Suppose He takes personal responsibility for evolution. Nature is the way He does almost everything in this world, after all.

 

[Sparkey]

Sometimes, but it's provisional. For example, in spite of numerous predicted transitionals being found, no one has ever found one between groups where the theory has indicated there should be none.



That line of evidence would be like arguing that giant redwoods can't grow from seeds, because no one has ever seen it happen.

When we examine my position, that various "kinds" were created with their seed, and that includes different kinds of trees being created "with their seed," your reply does not apply.

I still would like examples of what is considered "relevant falsifying evidence," and what would qualify as such.

 

[zeke]

.
zeke, while evolution may not have been completely, 100% proven (it is, after all, called the theory of evolution), it hasn't been disproven either.

I appreciate you comments and for the record biological evolution has been demonstrated but Darwinism's blind commitment to naturalism is metaphysical and hasn't been proven. It is based on weak conjecture, assumptions and circumstantial evidence.

“Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing, it may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different...There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.” ~ Sherlock Holmes​

You can easily see the humorous dilemma our learned Darwinian friends are having here when pressed to actually provide science to support myth - they can't do it. This is nothing new.

 

[Barbarian]

I still would like examples of what is considered "relevant falsifying evidence," and what would qualify as such.

The fossil of a rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian rocks, for example. (Haldane) The finding that any feature in any organism appeared for the exclusive benefit of a different organism. (Darwin)

The two most commonly cited. I think you could think of many more, if you gave it some thought.

 

[Sparkey]

The fossil of a rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian rocks, for example. (Haldane) The finding that any feature in any organism appeared for the exclusive benefit of a different organism. (Darwin)

The two most commonly cited. I think you could think of many more, if you gave it some thought.

Okay, thanks. As far as the location of a critter in specific (out of place) strata goes, I'm left out of the discussion because other than what I hear I have no knowledge of the subject. Trying to find a feature in one organism (like gills on birds) that would benefit a different organism seems to go contrary to God creating things in a sensible manner.

Do I understand the basic idea though?

 

[lordkalvan]

Can the absence of evidence be considered as evidence? If nobody has ever witnessed one "kind" reproducing another, can we consider this as "evidence"? No. We can't. The only thing that would be conclusive evidence would be found on youtube, where one "kind" reproduced another under scientific scrutiny. Frankly, that's not about to happen. Is there any serious attempt currently going on to document such a possibility? Or do all rational thinkers believe the chances of one biblical "kind" reproducing another "kind" are so small as to believe it will simply never happen?
*
Looking at "evidence" -- be it fish, amphibians, land animals and birds and then putting them in logical order generally from simple to complex is not considered by creationists conclusive evidence that all life came from a single, common ancestor. Maybe this is the case, but maybe, on the other hand God created each kind and their seed as it seems to be stated in the bible, through multiple creative acts. Maybe God commanded the sea and the land to bring forth life and evolution was the response to that command. If we look at the Genesis account critically there are many assumptions that can be made. But, for those who consider the word of God to be a source worthy of consideration, the Book of Job (and other verses) need also be considered. God takes personal responsibility for His creative acts.

You introduce some interesting ideas to the conversation. From my point of view, I was not asking for an absence of evidence to be presented when speaking about falsifying evidence, but rather evidence that demonstrates evolutionary theory to be false - or at least a reasoned argument that explains why evolutionary theory is false. However, as 'biological evolution' appears to be true - although we are not told what it is or why it is true - I am not altogether clear as to what evidence supports this (or would potentially falsify it) - and why this evidence does not also support (or potentially falsify) 'Darwinian myth' - which, again, we are not told how and why it differs from 'biological evolution'.

As we do not have a robust and falsifiable hypothesis as to what constitutes a 'kind', determining whether or not reproduction takes place only after each and according to this 'kind' seems impossible, so your points in this respect appear moot.

The nested hierarchy of species does not simply organise organisms from simple to more complex, but rather in related association according to commonality of shared physical traits. This is regarded as one of the evidential components of evolutionary theory because the traits are assessed according to objective standards and result in a single organising principle producing a unique arrangement. So, for example, we do not find a single mammalian species showing itself to be more closely related to a reptilian species than to another mammalian species. If this turned out to be the case, this would be a falsifying evidence for evolutionary theory.

I would also largely agree with the answers Barbarian has given in response to your comments.

 

[zeke]

The nested hierarchy of species does not simply organise organisms from simple to more complex, but rather in related association according to commonality of shared physical traits. This is regarded as one of the evidential components of evolutionary theory because the traits are assessed according to objective standards and result in a single organising principle producing a unique arrangement. So, for example, we do not find a single mammalian species showing itself to be more closely related to a reptilian species than to another mammalian species. If this turned out to be the case, this would be a falsifying evidence for evolutionary theory.

But nested hierarchy (like homology) can accommodate common design as well as it can common ancestry - therefore, it is not evidence for or against either theory. Linnaeus understood nested hierarchy to be evidence for God's design in nature. Was he wrong? You are back to square-one.

It has been known since Aristotle that species tend to cluster in a hierarchical pattern, and in the eighteenth century Linnaeus saw it as a reflection of the Creator’s divine plan. Obviously this pattern does not force one to embrace evolution. Also, Darwin’s law of natural selection does not predict this pattern. He had to devise a special explanation—his principle of divergence—to fit this striking pattern into his overall theory. To be sure, evolution can accommodate this hierarchical pattern, but the pattern is not necessarily implied by evolution. (Hunter, 108.)...

It may be that the nested hierarchy of living things simply is a reflection of divine orderliness It also may be, as Walter ReMine suggests, that nested hierarchy is an integral part of a message woven by the Creator into the patterns of biology. (See, e.g., ReMine, 367-368, 465-467.) The point is that the hierarchical nature of life can be accommodated by creation theory as readily as by evolution. Accordingly, “t is not evidence for or against either theory.” (Brand, 155.)

~ Ashby Camp​

I ask you again - do you or do you not have the required evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor? If you do then please present it on this thread - if you do not just say you do not and we will understand you continuing dilemma.

 

[lordkalvan]

But nested hierarchy (like homology) can accommodate common design as well as it can common ancestry - therefore, it is not evidence for or against either theory. Linnaeus understood nested hierarchy to be evidence for God's design in nature. Was he wrong? You are back to square-one.

It has been known since Aristotle that species tend to cluster in a hierarchical pattern, and in the eighteenth century Linnaeus saw it as a reflection of the Creator’s divine plan. Obviously this pattern does not force one to embrace evolution. Also, Darwin’s law of natural selection does not predict this pattern. He had to devise a special explanation—his principle of divergence—to fit this striking pattern into his overall theory. To be sure, evolution can accommodate this hierarchical pattern, but the pattern is not necessarily implied by evolution. (Hunter, 108.)...

It may be that the nested hierarchy of living things simply is a reflection of divine orderliness It also may be, as Walter ReMine suggests, that nested hierarchy is an integral part of a message woven by the Creator into the patterns of biology. (See, e.g., ReMine, 367-368, 465-467.) The point is that the hierarchical nature of life can be accommodated by creation theory as readily as by evolution. Accordingly, “t is not evidence for or against either theory.” (Brand, 155.)

~ Ashby Camp​

I ask you again - do you or do you not have the required evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor? If you do then please present it on this thread - if you do not just say you do not and we will understand you continuing dilemma.

When you can offer reasoned argument to support your various assertions - such as that homology supports common design and that the nested hierarchy also supports common design - then you may have a point, but until then you appear to be just blowing smoke.

As to your repeated and tiresome demands that anyone 'prove' to your satisfaction that H sap and chimps have a common ancestor, when you get around to clarifying the exclusions you have made as to what evidence is acceptable to you in this case, I will be happy to discuss the question in terms of evidence that is acceptable to you. I think it is clear to everyone that you are avoiding offering such clarification, either because you cannot provide it or because you are afraid of the consequences.

Oh, and what are your sources for your various appeals to authority, and who are these alleged authorities anyway and why should their unsupported opinions be valued any more highly than yours?

 

[Sparkey]

I don't know why I pay attention to seemingly trivial data. Like for instance, the other day I was reading things about biblical perspectives and evolution and ran across something that indicated that certain "kinds" of animals, those that have been translated as ones that creep and crawl, may be better described as those who "swarm".

The verse prior spoke of animals who gave multiple birth (my sense was a litter, not single offspring and not a horde). This gives rise to a different criteria that could be considered while classifying animals. Of course, it's too late for any of this type of input to be given consideration or to be used to propose change to the existing system, but I do find it of interest.

 

[lordkalvan]

I don't know why I pay attention to seemingly trivial data. Like for instance, the other day I was reading things about biblical perspectives and evolution and ran across something that indicated that certain "kinds" of animals, those that have been translated as ones that creep and crawl, may be better described as those who "swarm".

The verse prior spoke of animals who gave multiple birth (my sense was a litter, not single offspring and not a horde). This gives rise to a different criteria that could be considered while classifying animals. Of course, it's too late for any of this type of input to be given consideration or to be used to propose change to the existing system, but I do find it of interest.

For my part, I think that looking to the Bible for insights into evolution - or pretty much any other scientific knowledge - seems to be self-defeating. Even if the Bible was inspired by God, it was written down by men from a pre-scientific, patriarchal society and is expressed in terms that would make sense to their frame of reference. Hence, while classifying bats with birds might make 'sense' to them as things that fly, it says nothing about the physical traits that show that flying an insignificant feature compared with the characteristics that separate them. Likewise, why would we expect the Bible to tell us anything about the existence of distant galaxies, when to the naked eye any that can be seen are indistinguishable from stars. Similarly, there is no reason to suppose that the culture that produced the Bible would understand that stars are suns like our own.

Having said all this, I remain uncertain how the system of classification you propose might work, even within the context of the existing methodology. It would be interesting, however, to see whether there is any pattern that emerges that either reinforces or undermines inferences drawn from the nested hierarchy: are closely 'nested' species more likely to produce multiple births than less closely related ones, for example. In the case of all the great apes, for example, (humans, chimps/bonobos, gorillas, orangutans) my understanding is that multiple births are the exception rather than the rule amongst them.

 

[Sparkey]

I'll agree with you about the purpose of the bible and that I am likely stretching things when I look there first while trying to classify creation especially when we consider the poetic aspects. You're right about the classification of birds and bats but left out the 'unclean' flying insects mentioned together while discussing all the unclean flying creatures in Leviticus when God told Israel what to eat and what not to eat. I do find it interesting though that you should mention stars though. Early astronomers have tried to count them. Claudius Ptolemy counted 1,056 (30 more than what had been previously counted). The total number of stars visible to the naked eye is estimated today to be around 4,000, counting all that are visible from every point on earth.

But the bible says "the host of the heavens cannot be numbered" (Jer 33:22) and speaks about their number being uncountable like the number of grains of sand upon the seashore. These same multitudes (numbers of uncountable magnitudes) are also the number of offspring promised to Abraham. So, I do agree with you again, any writing that compares the numbers of stars to the number of grains of sand on the seashore to the number of offspring of a man isn't making literal 'scientific' statements about mathematics but it does point to a then unknown truth; the stars are uncountable in number.

There is also some interesting language regarding the "heavens" used when the bible speaks of God "streaching" them out. Contrary to popular opinion, Isaiah speaks of the earth being round, and the book of Job mentions it being "hung upon nothing."

You make a good point about what we should expect the bible to say though, if it were nothing more than a product of 'pre-scientific, patriarchal society ... expressed in terms that would make sense [only] to their frame of reference'.

 

[pHghost]

if I have misunderstood your usage, I apologise

No worries. It was irony, to a large extent.

If you have been following these discussions, you will see that I have offered to discuss various aspects of evidence for evolutionary theory

I can imagine.
I personally find no radical contradiction between the Bible and modern evolutionary theories. Of course, were we still in the realm of Lamarckism, it would be a different discussion altogether, but we are not.
I believe God created nature and its processes, He instilled the laws of physics, all while knowing what it would ultimately lead to -- man.