Posted on 02/03/2002 9:07:58 AM PST by Sabertooth
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Here's where I see the crux of the Creation vs. Evolution debate, and most appear to miss it: |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Forget possible transitional forms, stratigraphy, and radiological clocks... at some level, both Creationists and Evolutionists wander back to singularities and have to cope with the issue of spontaneous cause. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Creationists say "God."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation."
|
|||
Actually, I've got some examples about the vagaries of "species" myself. The ABC scenario you mentioned is something I've run across. I'll post some of the others I know of tomorrow.
No. You've done much more than that. And although I've treated your questions as if you were serious, you have ducked every response to your questions that I've posted. I've seen the technique before.
January 20, 1998
Web posted at: 6:37 p.m. EST (2337 GMT)DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) -- It's been a bumpy ride, but Rama the Cama -- the offspring of a camel and its Andean cousin, the llama -- has brought together what 30 million years of evolution and continental drift rent asunder.
Scientists in the Emirates said Tuesday that it took two years to perfect the artificial insemination technique necessary to breed Rama's llama mom, a petite 165 pounds, with his overwhelming dad, who weighs in at 990 pounds.
Despite the article's careless use of the word, note that the animals were not "bred" to create the hybrid, and apparently even the artificial insemination involved went far beyond a simple turkey baster. There are effective barriers to interbreeding between the creatures involved, and they are perfectly good and seperate species.
The claim by evolutionists that geographical separation by itself produces new species, that the environment changes "the nature of the beast" has been conclusively proven to be false.
That would be good, as neither evolutionists or biologists in general believe either of those claims. The later would be Lamarkian evolution. As to the former, biologists do not recognize geographically seperated populations as being distinct species unless there is some reason to believe there are isolating mechanisms that would effectively prevent interbreeding even if the populations were brought together. Additionally biologists recognize many cases of sympatric speciation (where speciation occured even without populations being geographically isolated).
Oh, and it was tens of MILLIONS of years that these creatures have been seperated, not thousands. Par for the course for you to get almost everything wrong.
1) You're using 'proof' in a nonstandard way; the atom bomb is not a proof of nuclear physics in the same sense that Pythagoras proved his theorem.
2) The fact of identical point mutations found in people and chimps constitutes a true prediction made by evolution science. What are the predictions made by the other theories and how have they stood up to tests?
A nonfunctioning gene that is nonfunctional for the exact same reason in several species sure looks a lot more like the result of imperfect copying than design.
You've used it all thread.
The famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).
01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massive mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.
The foregoing was just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review: The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 14].
161 posted on 2/4/02 4:05 AM Pacific by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
"Where is the observation or evidence of random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?" Is that not a fair scientific question?
No. It's a loaded question. You want to see an example of random speciation, when all we will ever see, in a human lifespan, is random mutation. The cumulative effects of the sometimes-successful mutations will, over time, generate a new species. If you are looking to see evidence of a goldfish spontaneously producing a dog, so am I. That would be a miracle, and I haven't seen any sign of that.
196 posted on 2/4/02 9:31 AM Pacific by PatrickHenry
Confirmation or "proof" of scientific hypotheses depends on the repetition of experimental results.
Well, that's a partial truth. It certainly holds if you ask me to prove that water is made of 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. I can demonstrate that, all day long. However, that kind of demonstration isn't possible, nor is it expected, in areas of science that require discovery of past events. Examples are geology (we can't re-create the Grand Canyon); and evolution (we can't re-create man from an amoeba). A more everyday example is criminal detection, as we can't re-create OJ killing Nicole. But in these historical matters, we are not helpless. We have the capacity to look at presently discoverable evidence (or clues, if you will). And we can frame perfectly rational hypotheses regarding how such clues came to be created. A good example is in examining a corpse to see the cause of death. We can't kill the person all over again, but it can be very scientifically demonstrated as to how the wounds (or whatever) happened. This is indeed science, even if some people claim it is not.
Further, an hypothesis developed in an historical science can be tested, because it does indeed lead to predictions. To continue with the crime analogy, if the working hypothesis is that the butler did it, you can then predict that the butler will have been in town at the time of the crime, and will not have a reliable alibi (sp?). In evolution, it can be predicted that if all living species today evolved from earlier species, there will never be discovered a fossil of a "modern" species which existed prior to a time when its ancestral stock existed. In other words, no human fossils wlll be found in the age of dinosaurs. These predictions are borne out every time a new fossil is found, and thus evolution is being constantly tested every day.
211 posted on 2/4/02 11:44 AM Pacific by PatrickHenry
Report Abuse ] Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Sabertooth
Even if I accept this [Just because cause and effect happens in our experience is no reason to suppose there has to be an ultimate cause outside of our experience], there's also no reason to suppose otherwise. Do you agree?
You didn't address that post to me, but your question has gone unanswered so far. I don't agree with you at all. If you want to propose an "ultimate cause outside of our experience," you should have some reason for making such a proposal, other than "Hey, why not?".
276 posted on 2/4/02 5:02 PM Pacific by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Treating my question seriously would entail a serious attempt at answering it, something you've yet to demonstrate.
You complain that my question isn't fair, attempt to shift the burden of proof with counerquestions, and tend to project your techniques onto me (twice now, with the "Hey, why not?" post, and this most recent, accusing me of ducking questions).
I'm not asking for anything difficult, just an answer to this question:
Where is the observation or evidence of random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?
You act as if I have to suggest an alternative in order to warrant an answer to your question. Hardly a scientific position.
If you want to claim that 2 + A = 5, you may be correct or incorrect. I don't need to have an answer of my own to ask you to give evidence. I don't need to demonstrate that A = ~3. If you make the claim, the burden is upon you to support it, or concede that you can't.
If you want to see an example, take a look at my post at #185. There I gave my thoughts on a mechanism for evolutionary speciation, and conceded that I don't have evidence for it. I have no observational evidence for it and the fossil record is silent. You may think my speculations a complete crock and unworthy of consideration, I don't know and it doesn't matter. I may, in fact, be completely wrong on this. So?
That has no bearing on whether you have observational evidence for your position, and the fact that the fossil record is altogether silent on how species originate and evolve.
All we're talking about here is the question of randomness as a mechanism for evolutionary speciation. That's all that's on the table.
From the standpoint of scientific inquiry, I've asked you a legitimate question.
You won't answer.
Hang out with more scientists, and fewer scientasters and amateur idealogues, and you will more frequently feel so refreshed.
Actually, it was a question.
What the hell, I haven't reminded anyone in about 80 posts!
Actually, it was an argument cast as a question.
And I still don't understand why it needs an answer, since we don't presently contend that it's a necessary ingredient of the evolutionary story.
I don't think I offered this up. I think I suggested that, as with fossil gaps, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. The present lack of an adequate explanation for, say, the observed systemic discrepency in the DNA distance clock and the geological clock, is not an obvious demonstration that we should assume outside interference, rather than continue to look for natural explanations.
As I've stated before, much of what has come to light through the efforts of evolutionists is of great value. Dembski freely acknowledges this and is thankful for it. But when evolutionists, for instance, propose Darwinian algorithms to explain things like natural selection, and then sulk because those algorithms are shown mathematically to lack anthing near the informational, and therefore explanatory power
We are not sulking, we are patiently looking for explanations, while hoping that the entire enterprise of disciplined science is not replaced in schools with astrology, naturopathy, and creationism, by those too impatient with us to wait for further news.
And I still don't understand why it needs an answer, since we don't presently contend that it's a necessary ingredient of the evolutionary story.
Your own intellectual honesty in this has been impeccable. However, others still cling to "random." You've seen that on this thread a-plenty.
I'm not inclined toward the theory of random causes, but I absolutely allow that it's a plausible explanation. I can certainly offer no compelling evidence otherwise. I just have a hard time understanding the difficulty some are having in saying "we really don't know."
Their intransigence strikes me as something other than scientific.
Indeed. I know no modern working scientist who would make such an assumption.
Can you expand on this a little?
I've always had trouble with assumed rates of genetic drift and mutation (whatever the mutagenic cause), given that some families of organisms are evolutionarily dynamic (example, cichlids of Lake Malawi), and others (like lungfish) appear evolutionarily stagnant.
Also, how can DNA distance clocks be reconciled with punctuated equilibrium theories?
Well I'm no scientist, so let me ask you...
Would it be fair to say that such assumptions are not scientific?
And would it be fair to say that, in the absence of evidence or observation, claims of specific loose ends being tied up are also not scientific?
Would you say that an unqualified claim that evolutionary speciation arises from random mutagenic causes is unscientific?
Um, not really my field of expertise, but I can probably summarize succinctly. Since the 70's various scientists have been gathering up samples of critters and subjecting their most primative DNA-produced parts (the very parts the existence of which, we have taken for a reason to put them in related families, phylum & such) to analysis regarding their relative mutational distance. (How many changes must be made to get from, say hummingbird to human, assuming a reasonably constant clicking of the mutation clock). And, as it turns out, this produces a tree of relationships whose branching tree structure matches astonishingly well with the tree the fossil guys have drawn up from the bones, along all the main branches.
however, this mutational distance clock is a mismatch for the geological record in which the fossils are buried, according to the guys at Cambridge who update the geological/fossil clock every 10 years, by about 30% overall. And with some especially acute problems distinct from that at the very beginning of life, as per the latest revision of the tree of life, just 2 years ago. I can give you pointers to a longer discussion if you like.
It is my personal opinion that they cannot. I don't believe we have it right when we assume that background radiation is the source of mutational speed. Did you know that transcriptase heals single wounds wrought by single-strike background radiation hits as it traverses the DNA? DNA encoding is redundant on both chains, so they can be, and are, fixed. I think mutational speed is controlled by an internal mechanism we as yet know nothing about, but which must be rather similar to the immune response. Mutation rates speed up when the environment grows stressful, and so I think the clock is a crock, as it stands.
Science is far to young to have a suficient window of observation to accurately estimate a rate of genetic drift (if there even is a constant one, since evolution doesn't appear at all to be gradual and constant at all times).
Genetic drift theories remind me of linguistic drift theories, whereby the time frame for the differentiation of Latin into the Romance languages becomes the presumed yardstick for extrapolating backwards to some date of a proto-Indo-European language.
Way too incautious an assumption, IMO.
It's early, but I'll drink to that.
Can I get your opinion on the questions I raised at #353?
Any excuse to be crocked!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
