Consider the Probabilities (Creation vs Evolution)

Websites ^ | 9/6/2013 | Dennis Richter

[DennisR]

ConsiderTheProbabilities.com is an attempt to objectively, honestly, and logically discuss the much-debated subject of creation versus evolution.

[tacticalogic]

Then if your agenda is to find the truth, you’ve just painted yourself into a corner.

[MrB]

Nope. Scripture is self-proving as divinely inspired.
There has to be some basic assumption, and the assumption of the veracity and truth of Scripture is that assumption.

[tacticalogic]

And validating it is an agenda.

[MrB]

No need to validate it. That’s the point. It IS the truth.
Seeking an “alternate”, man-derived “truth” is a perversion.

[tacticalogic]

Considering probabilities is an exercise in logic. Dogma is immune to logic.

[BroJoeK]

MrB: "More apropos is this definition: I've already assumed the consequent (a logical fallacy), and trying to come up with an "hypothesis" to fit the evidence to it."

I'm sure you think that's clever, but really, it's just how science works: first look at the physical evidence and try to imagine a natural explanation which fits it -- that's your hypothesis = S.W.A.G.
Now use your hypothesis to make falsifiable predictions, and then test the predictions to see if they work.

If your tests are accepted as confirming your hypothesis, then it is promoted from hypothesis to theory.

Evolution (descent with modifications plus natural selection) is a confirmed theory, while various proposals for origins of life are mere hypothetical SWAGs.

[MrB]

Really? The theory of evolution as an explanation of origins is repeatable and falsifiable?

[BroJoeK]

MrB: "Really? The theory of evolution as an explanation of origins is repeatable and falsifiable?"

Oh, dear...
Let's begin here: the word "evolution" is used loosely today to refer to most anything -- hair styles are said to "evolve", cars "evolve", even the Universe itself is described as "evolving".
In politics we are said to favor "evolution not revolution", etc., etc.
None of these uses refer to the basic scientific theory of evolution, which has two factual components: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.

Confirmed evolution theory begins when "life" begins and describes how species first acclimate and adapt, then modify and eventually evolve to fill various environmental niches.

But there are no confirmed theories of how life first began, there are only several different unconfirmed hypotheses, ranging from abiogenesis to panspermia.

For a more detailed discussion of all these ideas, I could again refer you to Young Sun, Early Earth and the Origins of Life -- see post #77 above.

[MrB]

Ah, and there’s the rub -

when defending “evolution”, the evos point to observable change and avoid the man behind the curtain that they conflate and extend the theory to include - origins. Common Descent from “simple” lifeforms - exclusion of the Creator.

The whole point of Evolution is to exclude the Creator.
Evos will deny it when you pin them down, but that IS the purpose of the apologia of the theory.

Creationists believe in “change” as well - adaptation to environmental pressure (natural selection). But the difference is the recognition that this change is possible due to abilities inherent in the created creatures, not added through a (more often than not) destructive mutation.

[DennisR]

Is it not really clear that the second sentence is a continuation of the first one? I believe most people would understand that. However, in order to make sure there is no question, I added “human” to the second sentence.

So, my question still stands: How exactly did (assumedly human) asexual reproduction turn into human (male and female) sexual reproduction? Do you really believe that at some point a man and a woman magically appeared through evolution, having the correct sexual characteristics to procreate? Please - use your imagination and give me a credible, believable scenario of how that could have happened.

[DennisR]

Wow...where to begin. How about here...

“In the eukaryotic fossil record, sexual reproduction first appeared by [1.2 billion] years ago in the Proterozoic Eon.[49]K”

How does one really know this to be true? Do you? It is my opinion that this is only someone’s opinion, because it can neither be proved or disproved, can it? It is no different than someone stating that 1.2 billion years ago there was a dog living in what is now Seattle. No one in their right mind would state with certitude that that was the case, because it cannot be proved. Opinion? Sure. Conjecture? Why not? But certitude?

The problem with evolutionist hypotheses is that an evolutionist tries to come up with said hypotheses in order to explain how we got here. Hypotheses like the one above are, in my opinion, silly and specious at best. This is why I am challenging evolutionists to answer the questions on considertheprobabilities.com. (By the way, no one has been able to answer any of the questions so far.)

[John Valentine]

How exactly did (assumedly human) asexual reproduction turn into human (male and female) sexual reproduction?

Do you seriously expect me to believe that you think that humans once reproduced asexually? No adult human is that stupid, not even you.

Do you really believe that at some point a man and a woman magically appeared through evolution, having the correct sexual characteristics to procreate?

Your questions devolve from asinine to whatever is worse than that. No adult human would ever propose that there is a scenario of any kind wherein a non-reproducing species (whatever that might consist of in your imagination) could evolve. The question is beyond belief, whether magic is invoked or not. Adults are not supposed to continue to believe in magic, and if your view of life and reproduction depends on magic, as it seems to, I cannot be expected to waste my time further with you.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

It is my opinion that this is only someone’s opinion, because it can neither be proved or disproved, can it?

If I find a rock at the bottom of the hill, with crushed grass in a trail behind it, I might conclude that it rolled down the hill. But that would just be my opinion, of course, because no one saw it roll and I can't "prove" it. Maybe it was ejected from a volcano in Italy, orbited twice around the Earth, and fell in the spot I now see it. By your standard, there would be no difference between the two conjectures.

The problem with evolutionist hypotheses is that an evolutionist tries to come up with said hypotheses in order to explain how we got here.

Yeah. That's what scientists do. They observe something (we are here; there's a rock at the bottom of this hill) and try to come up with hypotheses to explain it. If you don't like science, just say so.

Hypotheses like the one above are, in my opinion, silly and specious at best.

Fortunately, the advancement of science does not depend on your opinion of it.

[Texas Songwriter]

Thank you for posting Dr. Bishorpric's abstract. I read it with interest.

First, for full disclosure, I am not a comparative vertebrate anatomist, nor comparative vertebrate physiologist, not cell biologist, but I have taken about 8 college and graduate level courses in this very subject. The abstract, and it is only an abstract, evokes certain questions and considerations which you might be able to clear up for me. First, is his declaration that the overview of a path some 4 billion years in the making, to a mammalian heart (4 chambers).

Essential tools for cellular homeostasis and for extracting and burning energy are still in use and essentially unchanged since the appearance of eukaryotes (organisms with a true, nuclear membrane enclosed nucleus). So, the assumption here is homeostatic mechanisms of intracellular physiology has not evolved for those 4 billion years, as it relates to maintaining homeostasis of the myocardium, epicardium, endocardium, purkinje system including the A-V node, the S-A node, the Bundle of His, the development of the cross-striated fibarillae, the intercalated discs, as well as the autonomic innervation the heart. I assume you (and Bishopric) include, since there has been no change, would include chemical receptor sites including the dopamine adrenergic, alpha and beta recptors, as well as a plethora of other chemical/drug receptor sites, have remained unchanged all of those years. My questions are two.

1. How do you know this?

2. Do you know it is true that homeostatic mechanism have not changed for 4 billion years?

The primitive coelom characteristic ofearly multicellular organism (approximately 800 million years ago), is line by endoderm and is a passive receptacle for gas exchange, feeding, and sexual reproduction. This sentence is merely a statement of observation and has no inherent value to epistemically explain origin of the cardia.

The cells around this structure express genes homologous to NKX2.5/tinman, and gradual specialization of this "gastroderm" results in the appearnce of mesoderm in the phylum Bilateria, which will produce the first primitive cardiac myocytes. Investment of the coelom by these mesodermal cells forms a "gastrovascular" structure. Here again we see simply an embryological description and assumption without explication of any epistemology. So, the same questions I put to you before....."Do you know it is true that the above statement is true epistemically?

The remainder of the copy you posted seems to be an embryological and comparative anatomical descriptions, salted with a few references to genera, and an ad hoc reference to the fact that the hollow viscera and heart are both innervated by the Vagus nerve (in mammals), but not necessarily found as the tenth cranial nerve in non mammalian species, and especially in those in which you assert represent the beginning of the homeostatic cytological physiology which you claim to be 4 billion years old and present as unassailable fact.

I particularly like your assertions of "a later innovation....?", or....."further evolution of this structure culminated....".

So, if you will answer truthfully this one question. Do you know it is true that the infomation in this abstract represents warranted true belief? If so, epistemically, HOW do you know.

Please remember that knowledge is "warranted true belief".

[DennisR]

“Do you seriously expect me to believe that you think that humans once reproduced asexually? No adult human is that stupid, not even you.”

Hm...did you not say in #69 that asexual reproduction preceded sexual reproduction? Maybe I misunderstood what you were positing.

[DennisR]

Well there is a big difference between a rock (an inanimate object) rolling down a hill a few days ago and the assertion that sexual reproduction began 1200 billion years ago, isn’t there?

I have two degrees: a BSEE and an AAS in chemical technology. I make my living based on science. Evolution is not science, because it cannot be verified in a laboratory. I have not problem with physics, calculus, chemistry, mathematics, and so forth. That is true science, and only someone with mental problems would argue that 1+1 does not equal two. So there is science and there is lack of science. Evolution falls into the latter.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “Fortunately, the advancement of science does not depend on your opinion of it.” <<

.
Unfortunately, the advancement of science does not match your opinion of it.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “It never seemed to occur to them that that was a strong indicator that they might be transitional species” <<

.
That is due to the strong evidence that they are not.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Full disclosure here: I am not a scientist, merely a science fan and occasional popular science writer. I only got the general gist of that abstract--that there was an organ that pumped fluid in animals a long long time ago--and I'm not likely to be able to clear up any questions.

Similarly, they're not my assertions. My point was not to claim this was the way it happened. My point was that if the original poster really wanted to know about the evolution of the human heart, there are lots of people out there trying to answer that question, and he might better spend his time reading some of that material than posing a bunch of gotcha questions.

So, if you will answer truthfully this one question. Do you know it is true that the infomation in this abstract represents warranted true belief?

I don't think I even understand that question! What is "warranted true belief"? And does "do you know it is true that the infomation..." mean something different than "do you know that the infomation..."?

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Well there is a big difference between a rock (an inanimate object) rolling down a hill a few days ago and the assertion that sexual reproduction began 1200 billion years ago, isn’t there?

What is the difference, scientifically speaking?

Evolution is not science, because it cannot be verified in a laboratory

Boy, you're throwing an awful lot of science out with that bathwater. I guess any theories of star formation aren't science, or of gravity, or continental drift, or any of that--not only are they wrong, they're not even science, is that it? You understand that such a claim makes it hard to take you seriously, right?

I make my living based on science.

Does your job involve figuring out why something happens? Or do you just manipulate well-understood processes?