The evolving Darwin debate

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 24, 2002 | Julie Foster

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Even the experiments that replicated natural conditions?

Two things on this.  Firstly, the experiments for obtaining pre-biotic soup have recently come under fire because the conditions used to obtain such soup made assumptions about early-earth atmospheric conditions that current researchers feel are faulty.

Secondly, were these experiments done naturally, or by an intelligent agent?

[Dimensio]

Oh, the old standby of evolutionists - if something happened it is proof of evolution, very convincing, very scientific - NOT.

Are you thus saying that allele frequency doesn't change over time? If so then you should demonstrate how alleged observations of such are false.

Most arguments against "evolution" are actually arguments against common descent -- that humans originated through a chain of descent starting with "simpler" life forms whose offspring were subtly different and survived based on their ability to exist within their environment. Attempting to argue that the event of basic evolution -- change in allele frequency over time -- will put you in a very small school of thought not adhered to by most creationists and will rightly brand you as a luddite.

You asked for a cause of change in allele frequency over time? Mutations through a population cause it. I can't give you a "why" for mutations because there are a number of possible reasons (and by that I mean that a number of methods could cause the mutation, not that there are competing theories for the cause) for an organism to pass mutations to their offspring. How those mutations occur -- be it radiation, an adverse response to temperature, a virus, etc -- isn't relevant. That the mutations occur is what causes the change in allele frequency.

If you are going to argue against common descent, then fine. Just understand that common descent is an extension of evolution, it is not evolution itself. If you are going to argue that mutations never occur, then you're going to have to provide a lot of explanation for thousands of observed phenomena

[Junior]

Firstly, the experiments done most recently mimic the conditions in the interstellar medium and they've produced amino acids and fatty globules which structurally resemble cell walls.

Secondly, simply because an experiment is done in the laboratory, the result is not necessarily artificial (intelligently designed). Would water created by passing an electrical current through a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gas be artificial simply because it was done in the laboratory? Experiments have long been done that mimic the natural environment in an effort to allow researchers to view natural processes on the researchers time, as opposed to nature's time.

[Dimensio]

At best (or rather worst) it seems that he is stating that the weak be allowed to die or at the very least not given assistance to reproduce, not that we kill them ourselves -- and in fact I don't even see him arguing in favour of that, he's just expanding on the consequences of a population where the less adapted are still able to survive and reproduce.

Eugenics is not darwinistic or a logical conclusion of evolution because it puts human in charge of deciding what traits are best adapted for humanity. Natural selection theory states that the "best" (most adapted for an environment) organisms in a population will be the ones to survive and pass on their genetic information simply because they are the ones able to survive, not because someone should round up and kill off all of the others.

In fact, the whole of that chapter, in context (I went and read it), seems to be Darwin's concern is that humans as a species will make themselves "weaker" through their actions of insuring that even those with weak constitutions survive to marry -- especially in times of war when the "strongest" of the populace are sent to die early while the weaker, not allowed in the service, are able to stay at home to marry and propigate. It's not an illogical statement, but it's philisophy (deciding what is "best" for humanity), not science -- and nowhere in the chapter does he offer a "solution" for the "problem".

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

There is still controversy about the parameters of such experiments.  It's a lot like weather models which predict global warming, but can't even predict past weather accurately.

It doesn't matter about the results either, the end result was because of design.  In order to get more unbiased results, the experimenters will have to observe it naturally in action.  And even that won't disprove the validity of ID.

[Gumlegs]

I believe in God.

I accept evolution as His way of doing things.

According to fChristian and Gore3000, you and the Pope are in a lot of trouble.

[Gargantua]

Teaching "Evolution" is teaching religion.

It is the teaching of a belief structure absent any provably defined model. Having faith in "Evolution" is no different than having faith in God, with the sole exception that God exists, and Evolution does not.

[Virginia-American]

And even that won't disprove the validity of ID.

What would?

[Virginia-American]

In order to get more unbiased results, the experimenters will have to observe it naturally in action.

The under-the-ice exploration of Callisto (and perhaps other moons of Jupiter or Saturn) should be very interseting in this regard.

[Gumlegs]

What would?

There's the rub!

[Gargantua]

And let's not forget, it was the "brilliant" scientists of the day who wanted to kill Galileo for stating that the planet earth revolved around the sun, and not vice-versa.

Scientists are merely self-important idiots who insist on proof in a world where none exists... a fact which they bear out by beginning all of their "experiments" with a pre-conceived goal, and then continuing those models until they find one which fits their flawed theory.

You can make a curve take any shape you want if you have a hand in assembling the data, and in determining what evidence should be discarded along the way as either anomalous or irrelevant.

[Gargantua]

God Himself promised that Man's "intelligence" would prove to be nothing but a stumbling block for those who insisted on kneeling at that altar instead of before Him.

In this God-created world where the only Truth which exists is found solely through Faith, there can be no "proof" of anything else. To attempt (through science or any other man-made minutiae) to prove otherwise is to attempt to prove a negative, which is impossible.

He Is Risen! AMEN!

[Gumlegs]

And let's not forget, it was the "brilliant" scientists of the day who wanted to kill Galileo for stating that the planet earth revolved around the sun, and not vice-versa.

Why ever would they want that?

Scientists are merely self-important idiots who insist on proof in a world where none exists... a fact which they bear out by beginning all of their "experiments" with a pre-conceived goal, and then continuing those models until they find one which fits their flawed theory.

Evidence? Or is the idiocy of scientists a pre-conceived goal of yours?

You can make a curve take any shape you want if you have a hand in assembling the data, and in determining what evidence should be discarded along the way as either anomalous or irrelevant.

Sounds more like lawyering than science.

You appear to reject science entirely. An interesting position to take ... for a person who posts to a web site. At least G3K is willing to admit that there is some "true" science out there that comes up with results he/she/it approves of.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

What would?

That's a question for which I have no easy answer.  Suffice it to say that the problem is with evolutionary theory.  If the same methodology is applied to such theory as its adherants try to apply to ID, gaping holes become quite obvious.  While ID is not perfect, it is an attempt to plug those holes.

ID does not state evolution could not and cannot happen.  Rather it states that such changes are directed rather than done by random chance.

The proponents of evolutionary orthodoxy try to prove evolution is true by assuming it is true.  A catch-22 to say the least.  My conclusion is that any experimentation done by humans along these lines proves the feasibility of ID, but not necessarily the feasibility of evolution.  While the passive observation of such phenomena only show evolution can exist, but does not militate against the ID nature of it.

[Gargantua]

The shoe is on the wrong foot, here. The Faithless have an impertinent habit of standing Truth on its head in their attempts to prove the impossible.

We have historical text records of all Creation, given to Man by God, which explain the origin of everything including the spiritual rebelliousness exhibited by those who have no Faith.

Now, the Faithless are demanding proof of God's existence, or merely stating (as if they somehow knew) that there is no God. Hogwash. It is entirely the responsibility of those puporting a new, improved explanation to prove their position, not the other way 'round.

Let scientists prove that God did not create the universe, and does not exist. Good luck.

[Gargantua]

"You appear to reject science entirely."

Well, at least some of your powers of observation still function. :-)

[Stultis]

[Goldhammer] Logical entailments?

[Stultis] Yes, of course.

[Goldhammer] If no arguments or observations logically entail any scientific proposition

[Stultis] Yes

Don't you realize that you are contradicting yourself?

No I'm not. You just ignored the rest of the sentence (following my last "yes") and indeed the rest of the message, where I pointed out that facts/observations do not entail theories, but rather theories entail facts/observations. If I were confused or inconsistent about the direction of entailment, I would be contracting myself. If I argued that facts entail theories, but can also be used to test the theories they entail, I would be contradicting myself.

You need to REread Popper.

[Dimensio]

The shoe is on the wrong foot, here. The Faithless have an impertinent habit of standing Truth on its head in their attempts to prove the impossible.

Oh dear, a shifting of burden of proof.

We have historical text records of all Creation, given to Man by God, which explain the origin of everything including the spiritual rebelliousness exhibited by those who have no Faith.

You'll need to demonstrate that those text records are accurate. Why should I simply accept that they are true because you say so?

Now, the Faithless are demanding proof of God's existence, or merely stating (as if they somehow knew) that there is no God. Hogwash. It is entirely the responsibility of those puporting a new, improved explanation to prove their position, not the other way 'round.

Except that the "Faithless" aren't making a proposition (well, except those who assert that a God does not exist). The proposition is that there exists a God. The burnen of proof is on the claimant to demonstrate that the proposition is valid. It's no better than me demanding that you prove that you do not owe me a large sum of money (otherwise, you'd better pay up).

Let scientists prove that God did not create the universe, and does not exist. Good luck.

Exactly how would they go about proving such? What evidence would prove that God did not create the universe and that God does not exist?

Science works with what has been observed. It can only prove that a proposition is false if that proposition makes claims that can be tested and observed (the proposition is falsified when the tests fail to produce the predicted observations). If God can't be observed then science cannot start with the assumption that God is there (if God can be observed, then state how such an observation can be made, tested and repeated reliably).

Also note that no scientific theory asserts that there are no gods; in fact scientific theories are explanations of phenomena and not assertions against phenomena.

[Gargantua]

"What evidence would prove that God did not create the universe and that God does not exist?"

Exactly! You're learning.

The newcoming challengers (Evolutionary scientists) bear the responsibility for proving their novel sputum. It isn't as though the evolutionary scientists were here first, and then these religious interlopers came along trying to inject their radical ideas about Creation into the world. Creation happened before there were any people at all, and thousands of texts from Antiquity state this quite clearly.

And as to the fact of the existence of these ancient documents, your phony assertion that it is somehow my reference to them upon which their existence (or accuracy) relies is as absurd and pointless as are the rest of your gainsaying arguments... indeed, as pointless as is man's insistence upon believing in his own artificial and temporal "intelligence." It does not exist.

In the end, you are only fighting against yourself, and the well-being of your own eternal soul. If you are certain that that is a fight worth fighting, I cannot stop you.

But I do mourn your unwise choice, and pray for God's wisdom in your heart.

[Gumlegs]

ID does not state evolution could not and cannot happen. Rather it states that such changes are directed rather than done by random chance.

Any scientific theory must be capable of being falsified. So, using your post as the definition of ID, how would you falsify ID? "If we observe X, then we can rule out direction as the agent of change"?