Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Charles Darwin · 10-16-2003, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by monkenstick
Some instances of homoplasy are better explained by convergent mutation - the number is quite small compared to the 900 odd nucleotides that make up the exons of the gene

...

No, it isn't. You obviously need a course in cladistics - each monophyletic family all have exactly the same stop codon, and the phylogeny (the most likely tree considering all 900 odd positions, and not just the examples of convergence the authors highlighted) coincidently also supports the monophyly of both groups

You would have to show that convergent mutations occured at enough positions in the sequence to bias the phylogeny to putting all members of hominidae in one monophyletic group, and all members of hylobatidae in another monophyletic group.

Yes convergent mutations happen - but they don't happen at the level you require to claim that the errors in the urate oxidase gene are the result of convergent mutations in all members of hominidae

Oh, c'mon. You claimed that the "existence of pseudogenes like GLO is both confirmation of evolution and a huge problem for ID/YEC" and that "urate oxidase pseudogene is an even better example." I pointed out that there are several inconsistencies, including the fact that the inactivating events do not align with the phylogeny. Identical yet independent mutations to a pseudogene in different lineages must have occurred.

Now, you respond by saying, "yes, but look at the sequence on the whole, and how it aligns with the phylogeny." OF COURSE it does; no one doubts that. We can also say this about functioning genes as well. Hemoglobin aligns well. So what? You were claiming that pseudogenes provided compelling evidence. And now, instead of admitting that this pseudogene actually has nothing of the sort (and in fact reveals convergent mutations), you jump to a different claim altogether; that this pseudogene provides evidence that is no different than the evidence provided by any other gene.

Charles Darwin · 10-16-2003, 04:43 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CD: Well please let me know when you discover origin stories that can be verified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally posted by NottyImp
Which is rather the point. Why should I believe your stories rather than, say, a Buddhist's?

Or science's?

Quote:

Originally posted by NottyImp
Ah yes, the old "You cannot know the mind of God" cop-out. What I find absurd is that you are prepared to worship a being whose acts you admit you cannot understand.

But lets run with this for a moment. Accepting that the act of "poofing" species into existence is beyond my comprehension (should god ever deign to try to explain it to me), the consequence of his actions is not.

Clearly, if creationism is correct, then at some point in time and space, a population of a new species must appear on Earth. If one were videoing this event, perhaps it would quite literally just appear out of thin air.

Have you any evidence, Charles, that a new species has ever appeared on earth in this way? Do we have recordas of it from the last 300 years or so of natural philosophy? It would surely be a knock-out vindication of your position if you had.

What I said a few posts back still applies. You are defining creationism out of the picture. If I cannot show you how God creates, then you will not accept it. Despite the fact fossil species appear planted there; that they then remain unchanged until another species comes along. The horse sequence is a good example. Once touted as a stellar example of gradualism, evolutionists finally reckoned with its reality; it got repackaged as the prime example of punctuated equilibrium. Each species appears, remains unchanged, and goes extinct.

But since I cannot demonstrate to you how God creates, you reject it. You even find it absurd to hypothesize and believe in such a thing. Let us consider, for a moment, the possibility that evolution is wrong, and creationism is right. In that case, you would rule out the truth a priori.

Quote:

Originally posted by NottyImp
I'm sorry, but who protests? Can you cite me references? I think this is precisely the rhetorical technique I was accusing you of using, charles.

Well I'm sorry, but it was not a rhetorical technique. Just look at the responses in this thread.

JonF · 10-16-2003, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Creationism can be falsified by formulating a compelling theory of evolution. [/B]

Nope. Simple logical error.

1. A and B cannot both be true.
2. I am convinced that A is true.
3. Therefore, B is false.

Statement 3 does not follow from 1 and 2. It would if statement 2 were "A has been proven to be true". However, since science does not deal with absolute proof, that will never happen, and creationism cannot be proven false in that manner.

Charles Darwin · 10-16-2003, 05:16 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Charles Darwin
C'mon guys, this is not complicated. You claimed that evolution predicts a nested hierarchy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally posted by markfiend
Fer &^$&*% sake Charles, NO! I claimed that common descent predicts a nested heirarchy. You even put the $&^@�ing quote up on your post!

This is only one example of your deliberate twisting of what I and others on this thread say. I will withdraw from this thread (for now; I may be back) until I can regain my temper. I do not wish to give moderators cause to censure me.

What? So markfiend does not claim that evolution predicts a nested heirarchy, but the common descent does? OK, whatever, but this doesn't change the fact that high rates of change would erase such a hierarchy; rates of change that are not only not ruled out by evolutionists but are in fact used by evolutionists to explain things. Such rates are certainly not ruled out by common descent so I don't see what the beef is.

Charles Darwin · 10-16-2003, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albion
Yes, I know you keep saying that; it's just that it seems awfully subjective. To the vast majority of researchers in the field, the current theory of evolution IS compelling. That's why it's the current theory, not the former theory. I think we're all aware that there are some varieties of creationists (not including yourself, I gather) for whom a theory that contradicts their version of the Genesis story in the Bible is never going to be compelling, regardless of the scientific evidence. They need it not to be true for reasons totally unrelated to science, so they grasp the "scientific" refutations available at the creationist ministry websites and insist that they have scientific objections. No amount of data or anything else scientific will make any difference to them; the current theory of evolution will never be compelling (nor will any other theories unless they accord with the Genesis story), and thye'll swear blind (and probably even believe) that their objections are scientific. There's no way anybody could formulate a theory that would be compelling to them. There are people in the ID field who have tied methodological naturalism so tightly to philosophical naturalism, and have tied the latter rather tightly to all the ills of society, that a theory of human origins that doesn't involve God is unacceptable for reasons that don't necessarily have a lot to do with science but are more important to them than science. A naturalistic theory is never going to be compelling to those people because it has too much societal and cultural baggage attached as far as they're concerned - but again, in order to get their version of evolution accepted, they'll insist that their objections are purely scientific. There's no way that the current theory or any other theory that's naturalistic is going to compel these groups, because it's the naturalism that they object to. So are we going to have to say that creationism wins by default because the faithful will never be compelled? Or where do we draw the line in terms of who "compelling" refers to?

Again, as I said earlier, I thought that theories were supposed to be supported or falsified on the basis of their ability to explain the available data, not by direct competition with another theory. Creationism can't really compete directly with the current theory of evolution anyway, because they have different points of origin - methodological naturalism and "God created but we can't necessarily understand how he did so" don't come close to comparing like with like.

Yes, it is awfully subjective. However, there is a big gap. It is not as though we are quibbling over some minor details, and we're right in the gray area between good theory / bad theory. Instead, evolutionists say their theory is a fact, and there is no evidence against it; whereas it seems quite clear to me that we are nowhere close to this situation. Evolution is not close to be a good theory, much less a fact.

I can't speak for those creationists and ID people you refer to.

Are evolution and creation in competition? You probably missed some earlier posts about the definition of evolution. I have been using evolution as "the theory that the species arose via naturalistic means" which is really the complement of creationism. If evolution is a fact, creationism is superfluous (and wrong to my way of thinking).

Charles Darwin · 10-16-2003, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
This is the same fallacy I described earlier. You are failing to address the FACT that these factors DID NOT erase the hirearchy.

It's certainly a very curious fallacy: one I've not seen before. I doubt that it has a formal name. "Yes, your honour, I am aware that my client dropped his gun while fleeing from the murder scene, and that the gun was registered in his name and bore his fingerprints. But, you see, he might not have dropped it: and, if he'd held on to it instead, the prosecution would have no case against my client. Therefore the evidence is inadmissible, because it might not have existed".

and,

Quote:

Originally posted by Wynand
Its probably called the Fallacy of the Precluded Possibility, or more likely the Argument from "Your Honor, I Got Nothing".

The common name for this fallacy is 'strawman' argument. You are mischaracterizing my point in order to defeat it. Let me condense the discussion for you:

Evo: Here is an example of why evolution is such a good theory. It predicts the species to fall into a nested hierarchy. If that weren't so the theory would be all wrong, and we'd drop it.

Cr: Oh really?

Evo: Yes indeed.

Cr: But if the species were not in a nested hierarchy your theory could explain that too.

Evo: No it couldn't.

Cr: Yes it could. You have two mechanisms that could explain this: multiple abiogenesis events and rapid rates of change that occurred in the past. Both these mechanisms are accepted within evolution.

Evo: That's meaningless. You have failed to falsify evolution.

Cr: That wasn't the point. You claimed to have a prediction. I showed that it is not a prediction.

Evo: Oh.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Of course, it's also extremely unlikely that these factors could erase the hirearchy anyhow. Multiple abiogenesis events would result in different strains of unrelated microbes. And even if we assume that multiple strains evolved multicellular organisms, we would merely have a few distinct nested hirearchies rather than one: it would be rather obvious which hirearchy each organism belonged to, just as we have no problem recognising the difference between a bird and an insect today.

Why would multiple unrelated microbes, evolving into multicellular organisms, have to form nested hierarchies? Why couldn't they lead to a single species via anagenesis?

EDIT- Add this:

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Whereas common descent would have to be discarded if organisms didn't fit into a nested hirearchy (or perhaps two or three, assuming your highly implausible "multicellular organisms from multiple abiogenesis events" scenario had actually occurred),

Highly implausible? Are you saying abiogenesis is highly implausible?

Albion · 10-16-2003, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Instead, evolutionists say their theory is a fact, and there is no evidence against it; whereas it seems quite clear to me that we are nowhere close to this situation. Evolution is not close to be a good theory, much less a fact.

I don't see anybody here claiming that the theory of evolution is a fact or even that it's the last word in scientific explanation. Most of the posters here have some post-high-school science education, several are science professionals, and they know that theories are only as good as the latest lot of data. People have said so a number of times during this thread. The argument seems to be that the posters here, along with just about the entire scientific community that works on relevant subjects, see the theory of evolution as being a very strongly supported theory without any serious evidence against it, and that the only people who are claiming that there's a lot of evidence against it also just happen to be theists trying to push a supernatural explanation, not trying to replace the current naturalistic theory with another naturalistic theory, which would be the normal way to proceed if a theory was showing a greater and greater accumulation of problems in explaining the data. This suggests (to me at any rate) that there's an ulterior motive in play, which means that the people trying to push the supernatural origin are never going to be satisfied that any regular theory will explain the data.

Quote:

Are evolution and creation in competition? You probably missed some earlier posts about the definition of evolution. I have been using evolution as "the theory that the species arose via naturalistic means" which is really the complement of creationism. If evolution is a fact, creationism is superfluous (and wrong to my way of thinking).

No, I didn't miss them, cos I'm the one who asked what you meant by naturalistic means, remember? You know, since all scientific theories that explain bodies of data will do so on the basis that naturalistic means were involved, and I was wondering why you were singling out evolution. Your definition of the theory of evolution seems to be a lot broader than the one used in the scientific community. Rather than restricting it to genetic variation and various forms of selection, which is (more or less) the current theory, you're saying (if I'm reading you right) that any theory of evolution that's restricted to natural processes is going to come up short because the evidence can't be explained without recourse to supernatural intervention. However, since the form of that intervention is apparently not necessarily susceptible to investigation or understanding by mere humans, you seem to be putting forward a process that can explain anything you care to throw at it, along with its stellar opposite, and that starts to be less than useful for practical purposes.

Charles Darwin · 10-16-2003, 09:36 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I call the laws of logic, evil, good, free will, etc. non material things. Do you disagree?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Yes, I disagree.

OK, so where are the laws of logic?

Charles Darwin · 10-16-2003, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albion
(1) Why would it be evidence against materialism rather than against the particular theory? Do you mean to say that if the current theory of evolution is ever invalidated in the eyes of the scientific commnuity in general, there's no point looking for an alternative theory because the entire concept of an explanation based on purely natural processes has been invalidated along with evolution by variation and selection? And if the explanation based on natural processes is invalidated, and the scientific method is grounded in explanations based on natural processes, then what does this do for the scientific method in general?

(2) Why would these things be illusions just because they have a basis in the natural world? Come to that, why are you so sure they're non-material - is the study of neurology really sufficiently advanced that we can draw this conclusion with so much confidence? If free will or conscience is just one of many mental processes, rather than being a function of a deity, why would it not be just as real as anything else our brains come up with?

(3) Well, if accepting creationism means accepting that God may have created in ways that we don't or can't understand, then what are we actually all doing? Why bother to even try and understand anything? And why rely on saying that evolution is invalid in order to advance creationism as the most likely explanation? If we don't or can't know how God did it, then creationism is just as likely to have occurred even if the theory of evolution provides a watertight explanation.

(4) Absurd explanations have been abandoned before now, even though they wre mechanistic. When explanations progressively fail to explain, what is the advantage of holding onto them?

(5) So far, for the last several hundred years, the scientific method has required explanations to be naturalistic. That makes them testable. Can the scientific method test your creationism-based non-naturalistic explanation without having to be changed in some fundamental way? You've already got through saying that we can't expect God to work in ways we understand simply because that makes things convenient for us. Assuming that God is involved in creationism, and assuming that God is working in ways that make sense to God but may or may not make sense to us, where does that leave the scientific method?

(6) What do you mean by "outside influence" here? If a process requires catalysis or energy input to reach its lower energy level, is it still spontaneous?

(7) What is the nature of the constraint that you claim exists? I assume this might be the focus of a certain amount of creationist research, since it's one prediction of the creationist model that ought to be testable.

(1) No, I'm not saying that. Sure look for another naturalistic theory. What will they call it? Evolution. You see, evolution is not based on natural selection; that is a subhypothesis. We can take it or leave it. The essence of the theory is naturalistic processes. It is not as though there are other alternatives out there that someday might rise up and conquer evolution. No, they will become evolution. Even some for of Lamarckianism could do this if it looked plausible. So you think that the scientific method must be grounded in explanations based on natural processes. Than what happens if creationism is true?

(2) Are you saying the laws of logic are not non-material?

(3) You are mischaracterizing creationism. The understanding that God created things is a science starter, not stopper. And if evolution were compelling, then it would be fair to conclude creationism is false since God does not deceive.

(5) Where does that leave the scientific method? Imagine asking Isaac Newton this question.

(6) No, you'd have to enlarge the control volume to include the energy source. There is no big mystery here. The free energy of a system includes both the enthalpic and entropic contributions. Systems don't merely decrease the former or increase the latter, they decrease the free energy, and they do so spontaneously. Any other response will require external interference.

(7) The nature of the constraint? Good question. I don't know. We did discuss this a bit a few pages back though. I pointed out it could be kinetic (i.e., the pathway is highly unlikely), or the pathway may include fitness barriers, or the pathway may have function barriers.

Charles Darwin · 10-16-2003, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albion
I don't see anybody here claiming that the theory of evolution is a fact ...

Then you must not be reading the posts here very carefully or the evolution literature. It is a standard claim. It has been made repeatedly here, and to no suprise, it is the accepted wisdom amongst evolutionists.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.