The evolving Darwin debate

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 24, 2002 | Julie Foster

[Stultis]

Logical entailments?

Yes, of course. Deducible consequences. If a given theory is true then facts "A" and "B" should be observed, whereas facts "C" and "D" should not be observed.

If no arguments or observations logically entail any scientific proposition

Yes, because entailment/deduction runs in the other direction. Consequences are deduced from theories, leading to observations which then test the theory.

Reality is the final arbiter of all scientific claims. Facts have no significance in and of themselves, they simply are whatever they are. They are significant only with respect to their consistency or inconsistency with some theory.

Theories entail facts, but facts do not entail theories. Facts are objective and impartial. If you argue that facts entail theories then you rob facts of the neutrality that allows them to be used in testing theories.

You made a reference to Popper. Have you ever read anything by him? I find it hard to believe you have if you are having such a hard time understanding what I am saying. (Although maybe it is my own inadequacy in explaining myself.)

[Stultis]

If you think "proof" implies rank dogmatism, then you must have a rather poor impression of mathematicians.

No, I think having one standard of "proof" for scientific theories you agree with (or are indifferent to) and having a completely different standard for theories you disagree with (and then pretending that "proof" means the same thing in both cases) is rank dogmatism. This is what gore3000 has been doing, and what many other creationists do.

[Stultis]

Hadn't yet realized the degree of difference between how you and I were using the term "proof".

[AnnaZ]

"Unspun with AnnaZ And Mercuria on RadioFR NOW!

LISTEN LIVE WHILE YOU FREEP!

[Virginia-American]

What's the proof of the atomic theory of matter? In Pais' "Subtle is the Lord", an excellent biography of Einstein, I learned that Einstein came up with three totally different methods of calculating Avogadro's number ca. 1900-1905. The fact that they all give (approx) the same number is strong evidence that all three methods are meaningful, and that the number is correct.

It seems to me that the fact of common descent is similar. It was widely suspected before Darwin, and is supported by evidence from genetics, embryoloy, anatomy and so forth. Darwin's hypothesis that mutation and natural selection are sufficient to explain the diversity of life may be incomplete, but it's never been falsified by any evidence or experiment.

[gore3000]

Evolution says it is science, the statement you are making is essentialy 'because I am an atheist the answer to a question cannot be God did it, therefore evolution is true.' Now if you want to believe that you came from pond scum, that you are a distant relative to an amoeba and that your uncle is a monkey, that's fine with me. You can believe anything you want, but what you cannot do is call it science when you have absolutely no way to scientifically substantiate your claim.

I am not saying God did it, I am showing that evolution is total garbage based on science, based on evidence, based on facts. Seems that all the evolutionists here have to back up their theory is a lot of sophistry and rhetoric.

[gore3000]

It has never, and cannot now give proof of its main contention: that macro-evolution has ever occurred. - me-

Do you think God was high when he created the Duck Billed Platapus? Joan Osborn seemed to think so in her song "What if God Smoked Cannibus."

Since you do not believe in micro evolution or transitional species, you need to have some explaination for this creature that lays eggs and nurses its young.

I hate to copy an entire post, but this one is just too good and needs to be seen whole to really appreciate the myrth in it!

The answer is utterly fantastic! First we have the scientific theory of evolution according to a drugged out rock and roller! Of course, since she was drugged out she had it completely backwards. The platypus is proof against evolution as I shall show in the next post.

The last paragraph is of course a complete non-sequitur which shows the desperation of evolutionists. I am speaking of macro-evolution and he is speaking of micro-evolution - small adaptations to the environment which neither I nor anyone else denies. He also shows the total arrogance of the evolutionists (following Darwin whose proof for evolution was to challenge others to disprove it). It is the job of someone making an assertion to prove it. Nevertheless, since clearly he does not have the capability to do so, I shall be happy to disprove his statements in the next post.

[JediGirl]

(following Darwin whose proof for evolution was to challenge others to disprove it).

LOL! YOU'VE NEVER READ Origins of Species have you? Or any science textbook? lol, only your creationist "literature"?

[gore3000]

THE PLATYPUS


Home: Streams, rivers, and lakes of Eastern Australian coastal regions
Description: Short, dense dark-brown fur, 2 inch wide bill, hairless, webbed feet, flat, furry tail, up to 2 foot long body

The platypus seems weird to people because it lays eggs and is a mammal, but really it's just a creature that's just very specialized to do what platys do best -- swim, eat, and burrow! Living on the banks of bodies of water, the platypus burrows 50 foot long tunnels and uses its webbed feet to doggy-paddle around. The bill is a stream-lined nose and mouth for sniffing and snuffling up pond-bottom delicacies like shrimp! Perfectly designed for underwater life, the platypus has two layers of fur -- the first is short and dense and never lets water through to the skin! The second is longer and is the layer of fur that gets wet. The flat furry tail stores fat for the long cold winter in freezing waters.

The platypus closes its eyes and ears underwater! How does it manage to find its food in the murky depths below? With an amazing touch-sensitive beak! Platypus bills aren't like bird bills -- they're soft, flexible cartilage -- like the stuff our noses are made of!

Like a duck-billed cowboy, platypus males have spurs on their hind feet that deliver a poisonous venom with a swift kick! A platypus sting is powerful enough to make people sick and kill a dog!

Mama platypus lays usually two eggs less than an inch long that stick to the fur on her belly. The babies bust their way out with an egg tooth, and then attach themselves to mom's belly-hairs. Milk oozes from glands nearby that soak the fur and the babies suck it up!

... The platypus bill is a finely tuned instrument with approximately 850,000 electrical and tactile receptors, which are far more sophisticated than those found in fish and can detect any movement in the murky water.
From: Platypus

So here we have an animal with some features seen only in mammals, some features seen only in reptiles, some features seen only in birds, some features seen only in snakes and some features seen only in fish!

So this is the question for evolutionists: where did all the varied features of the platypus descend from? According to evolution they had to have descended gradually from one single species having at least the ancestry of these features. So let's see, what species ancestral to the platypus had the following features:
1. the mammary glands.
2. the egg laying.
3. 3 earbones.
4. the poison spur.
5. the duck like bill.
6. the webbed feet.
7. the toothless mouth.
8. the electro-sensor in the bill.
9. the fur.
10. the cloaca.
11. the ability to vocalize and make different sounds.

Hope I do not have to wait for 150 years for an answer!

[gore3000]

Proven impossibility?

Yes indeed. The evolutionists were doing pretty badly trying to figure out a way for life to have come from inert matter 50 years ago. However, when DNA was discovered, it threw them completely off. The gene is too complicated to have been constructed by inert matter. The evolutionists and atheists have absolutely not the vaguest idea how they could even develop a hypothesis as to how life could have come from inert matter, let alone prove that such a thing ever did happen.

[gore3000]

What you need to do is cut the rhetoric, the sophistry and the misrepresentations. I have asked you for facts supporting the theory of evolution and all you give is a long discussion on the meaning of the word "is" and the meaning of the word "alone". You clearly are being deceitful and trying to cover up the fact that there is absolutely no scientific proof of evolution, none at all. I have told you several times how scientific theories give proof: by experiments, by formulas which can be tested, by applying the theories to everyday problems and many other ways. You continue to fail to give the proofs which other scientific theories certainly do give. So it is time to stop the rhetoric. It is time to stop the sophistry. It is time for you to back up your claims that evolution is science.

[VadeRetro]

You were pinged back on that other thread to answer for past dumb-dumbisms and face new evidence against same. There's a nice history of vertebrate evolution in there which puts the monotremes (that would include your pal the platypus) just where they should go in the story.

Anyway, instead of responding, I see you'd rather troll for suckers in fresh waters.

[gore3000]

Of course fast doesn't mean only a few years but many thousands of years. That may be slow compared to the lifespan of a human but for me that is pretty fast on a geological time scale.

And how did you determine that timeline of thousands of years? Did you just make it up or do you have an example of macro-evolution, of the creation and spread of new genes to support your statement?

[VadeRetro]

Anticipating quibbles, the ping to you is later, here, after Junior suggests it.

[js1138]

The gene is too complicated to have been constructed by inert matter.

Why do you continually slander matter? Are quantum phenomena so prosaic that for you, tunneling is mere dirt? Do you have any appreciation for the mysteries we have uncovered in the mere existence of "inert matter". What exactly is so inert about matter?

[gore3000]

"Everything that has previously been selected is available to build upon."

The above is absolutely incorrect. You cannot just "borrow" a gene and turn it into something else for a very simple reason: that gene is already doing an essential job for the organism and changing it will destroy the function it is performing and result in serious problems to the organism. Thiat is the reason why mutations are almost always detrimental - the genetic makeup of an organism is doing what it is supposed to do, mutating a part of it will destroy needed functions. Even if the mutation were not a death dealing one, it would render the organism less fit than it otherwise was and of course that would be contrary to your theory would it not?

[gore3000]

Well put. One of the opponents of teaching "Intelligent Design" in Science courses criticizes it because it cannot be examined by the Scientific Method.

So how can evolution be examined by the scientific method? Each time I try to ask scientific questions to evolutionists here all I get is rhetoric. What is the proof of evolution - scientifically wise?