Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Charles Darwin · 10-26-2003, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Yes, the evidence for common descent is so overwhelming that it is considered to be a scientific fact.

Can you give us one or two of the best evidences?

lpetrich · 10-26-2003, 01:11 AM

Charles Darwin:
Naylor shows that vestigial structures are evidence beyond the usual homology argument? I must have missed it. Can you point me to the passage where he does that? Or reconstruct the argument?

It's in his paper. CD, I don't want to spoonfeed you Naylor's arguments, when his paper should be easy to read. So why don't you read it and tell us what difficulties you have with it?

And while you are at it, why don't you ask yourself why we have appendices that can be removed without apparent ill effects? Is appendectomy patient Jenna Bush coming down with half a dozen opportunistic diseases?

And why do seed plants have vestigial gametophytes (haploid phases that make gametes)? Why are they almost, but not quite all, sporophyte (diploid phase that makes spores)? Why don't they have direct meiosis-to-gametes, as the animal kingdom does?

Female gametophytes live inside of their parent plants' reproductive structures, while male gametophytes live inside of pollen grains. In most flowering plants, female gametophytes have only 7 cells and male ones only 3.

Charles Darwin · 10-26-2003, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken
CD, you've been asked at least twice on this thread how old you think the earth is, and you have evaded the question by saying it's irrelevant; evolution is impossible no matter how much time you give it. I'm am going to pose the question again, point blank, just as you were asked before, and I will continue to ask it until I get a direct answer. I won't ask you to tell me exactly how old you think is, but only within three orders of magnitude: Is the earth thousands, millions or billions of years old?

If you are unwilling to tell us your thoughts on this, why? Is it because you don't know the answer, or because you don't want to commit yourself to a particular position and thereby alienate yourself from young-earth creationists on the one hand or old-earth ID advocates on the other hand? If you have an opinion on the age of the earth (as surely you must), please share it with us.

If you think the earth is more than thousands of years old, would you go far to say that its antiquity is a "fact?" How much evidence would be required to pronounce one position or another a "fact?" This question is relevant to our discussion of common descent, if only for us to gain insight into what constitutes for you sufficient evidence to establish a hypothesis as fact.

I have no reason to doubt that the earth is 4+ billion years old. My point was not to be evasive, but not to get off on a useless tangent. A fact? Let me put it this way; evolution is nowhere close to the old earth theory in terms of being a fact.

Charles Darwin · 10-26-2003, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken
Interesting list, given that the authors of at least two of these books (Michael Behe of Darwin's Black Box and Michael Denton of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Nature's Destiny) accept common descent (I won't even mention The Origin of Species). Michael Denton's shift from denial to acceptance of common descent would argue that there is in fact more evidence for common descent than CD wishes to acknowledge. How could such meager evidence for common descent convince the likes of anti-evolutionist Michael Denton or Michael Behe? Why does CD recommend these authors after spending so much effort to deny the very position they hold on common descent?

I didn't know that about those authors. In any case, I had assumed it would go without saying that I was not endorsing everything in those volumes; let alone what the authors personally believe.

Charles Darwin · 10-26-2003, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken
CD, in the crowded field of anti-evolutionists, it appears you've managed to carve out a niche for yourself by latching on to the idea that evolutionists are motivated more by theological than scientific considerations, and it is your mission to ferret out examples to prove your point. This is your raison d'�tre, your calling for "such a time as this" (c.f. Mordecai in Esther). This is how you intend to make a name for yourself in the anti-evolutionist community, and you may convince a few evolutionists to re-evaluate their position. Your assumption is that if proponents of evolutionary theory can be caught invoking metaphysics, then that's all that really matters, showing the real reason why they accept evolution. All the other non-metaphysical evidence they present can be dismissed as a smokescreen, a front to support the metaphysically-founded basis of their beliefs. It doesn't matter how much scientific evidence they marshal; if metaphysics pops up here an there in their writings, you will mine these quotes, amassing them as proof of your central thesis.

OK, so you've discovered that a number of evolutionists do in fact bring metaphysics into their writings, perhaps mentioning theology in one out of every ten pages. But it's a stretch to see metaphysics as the most important reason for accepting evolution rather than as one of a number of considerations. If the opponents of evolutionary theory are primarily creationists who hold certain ideas about God's nature, then it's to be expected that evolutionists should address their opponents on their [metaphysical] terms, not just on scientific terms. Consider this excerpt from Answers In Genesis, where Ken Ham responds to the nascent old-earth creationism of Martin de Haan:

Now, I will give you that not all anti-evolutionists are driven by this kind of metaphysics, nor are evolutionists who respond theologically to such ideas operating strictly in the scientific realm, but it would be unfair to deny the right of evolutionists to respond to them theologically. If the prevailing idea of God in the time of Darwin was Victorian-pollyannaish, and Darwin responded to some of those concepts in his arguments for evolution, does that mean we can dismiss all his writings as unscientific? A century and a half later, you denounce that theological perspective, proudly embracing a more biblical (Old Testament) outlook along these lines:

As I have previously mentioned in speaking for myself, it was scientific rather than metaphysical considerations that led me to my present position three years ago. I agree with your thesis that metaphysical arguments are unscientific, but I see these arguments as legitimate supplemental material when it comes to responding to theistic critics of evolution, invoking whatever theological ideas are current among those critics. If those theological ideas should swing from one generation to another, then evolutionists should be expected to respond to the ideas of each generation, whether those ideas come from the Bible, the Koran or current trends. If these ideas are unbiblical or are in some other way unsupportable, then the use of such ideas by evolutionists may have no merit other than to respond to the (erroneous) ideas of their contemporary theistic critics. But none of this changes that fact that the primary reasons scientists accept evolution have been, are and always will be scientific.

But I will go further. Two particular attributes of God held by nearly all theists can legitimately be brought into the debate in any generation, namely that God is omnipotent and that he is not deceptive. When Futuyma suggests that there is no reason God should have done something such and such a way (raising your metaphysical red flag and adding to your log of unscientifically motivated evolutionists), what he's really getting at is that God, being all-powerful, could have done it in such a way as not to suggest evolution had occurred, when in fact it does appear that evolution had occurred. So, if God created in a way that is compatible with or suggestive of evolution, when it was within his power to create in a manner incompatible with evolution, and we see this pattern throughout nature, then why should scientists like Futuyma be chastised for highlighting these patterns (unless he truly fails to bring any scientific evidence to bear)?

Go on amassing your quotes, and mine this whole thread to isolate metaphysical morsels, and package them up with some supporting prose to bolster your central thesis, then do your best to bring down the whole evolutionary edifice with your revolutionary findings. But scientists will not be impressed with this game. If anti-evolutionists begin joining your bandwagon en masse, and your name rises to the fore of the anti-evolutionary movement, then you can be assured that leading proponents of evolution will not hesitate to bring to light the emptiness of your thesis. I am not impressed by the thesis that evolutionists are primarily motivated by metaphysics, nor is presumably anyone on this thread. Ashby Camp tried to use your thesis in his response to Theobald's "29+ Evidences for Macro-Evolution," but Theobald effectively rebutted these arguments in his response to Camp. What's your take on that exchange?

I'm sorry to see that you have so dramatically misunderstood my posts. I would have hoped that it would be abundantly clear that science argues against evolution and that it certainly is not a fact. This has been my point. I'm sorry to see that you have read so much into my posts.

rlogan · 10-26-2003, 01:33 AM

I'm glad we have pinned down an age of earth answer. I am completely unqualified to speak at the level of the physical scientists here, but I can give some input on the "odds of things happening", and how important the age of the earth is to that problem.

Sometimes we hear statements that sound impressive along the lines that the odds of evolution producing a human are similar to the odds of a monkey typing a book. I am completely unimpressed with such silly analogies and as a practicing statistician I would point out a simple example as a starting point for consideration of mutations and evolution:

Let's say that the odds of some event happening in a year are one in a billion. What, then, are the odds that the thing will happen in 4 billion years? The answer may be surprising, but it is:

1 - (1-(1/1,000,000,000))^4,000,000,000 = 98.2%

That is, even if the event is completely random, and the odds seem so incredibly small, you'd better bet on it happening in four billion years. Put enough monkeys to work, and one of them will win the pulitzer prize.

But that is for a RANDOM event. When we have a long series of "plays" with random mutations that a force is acting upon and "selecting" from for survival, the odds of developing complex and highly differentiated living organisms becomes - certain, from a purely statistical point of view.

So what are the odds that God did it? Here is the problem with that proposition, statistically. Mutations occur. We observe them. We have no positive proof of God by observation in "poofing" anything into existence. Zero.

So we have one proposition that is virtually certain to be true statistically vs another that is probability zero.

Now, back to vestigal organs...

monkenstick · 10-26-2003, 02:22 AM

Quote:

I would have hoped that it would be abundantly clear that science argues against evolution and that it certainly is not a fact. This has been my point.

thats your attempted point - but you haven't demonstrated it - you've merely asserted that that which the vast majority of biologists worldwide consider to be science, isn't

all you seem to have is your own say so

your "say so" isn't worth much CD

rlogan · 10-26-2003, 02:48 AM

I did want to thank CD for the list of citations on creationism.

I'm digging in now...

Principia · 10-26-2003, 05:36 AM

Quote:

rlogan: I would like to know if anyone has a citation for what the creationists offer as a leading source for their view (Besides Genesis - that's a quick read).

Well, rlogan, there is no other view for Creationists aside from Genesis. Everything else is a criticism of evolution motivated by religious concerns. And criticisms are dime a dozen. I wouldn't be surprised if CD hasn't already covered the majority of them in this thread.

Please, do yourself a favor, and spend your time or your money better than to buy and read the crap that CD cited. After all, it seems that even CD himself hasn't read the books:

Quote:

I didn't know that about those authors. In any case, I had assumed it would go without saying that I was not endorsing everything in those volumes; let alone what the authors personally believe.

He's promoting books in which he fails to pick up that the authors are sympathetic towards common descent or disagree with his own views?

GunnerJ · 10-26-2003, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Hmm. How about this; the dinosaurs became extinct due to a meteor impact (certainly not a fact, but not a bad theory). A theory with a host of unknowns that merits being called a fact? How about this; the Norman Conquest occurred in the 11th century.

I am saddened and distressed to know that CD still can't use the terms "fact" and "theory" correctly.

10-26-2003, 01:33 AM	#796
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Statistician chimes in.... I'm glad we have pinned down an age of earth answer. I am completely unqualified to speak at the level of the physical scientists here, but I can give some input on the "odds of things happening", and how important the age of the earth is to that problem. Sometimes we hear statements that sound impressive along the lines that the odds of evolution producing a human are similar to the odds of a monkey typing a book. I am completely unimpressed with such silly analogies and as a practicing statistician I would point out a simple example as a starting point for consideration of mutations and evolution: Let's say that the odds of some event happening in a year are one in a billion. What, then, are the odds that the thing will happen in 4 billion years? The answer may be surprising, but it is: 1 - (1-(1/1,000,000,000))^4,000,000,000 = 98.2% That is, even if the event is completely random, and the odds seem so incredibly small, you'd better bet on it happening in four billion years. Put enough monkeys to work, and one of them will win the pulitzer prize. But that is for a RANDOM event. When we have a long series of "plays" with random mutations that a force is acting upon and "selecting" from for survival, the odds of developing complex and highly differentiated living organisms becomes - certain, from a purely statistical point of view. So what are the odds that God did it? Here is the problem with that proposition, statistically. Mutations occur. We observe them. We have no positive proof of God by observation in "poofing" anything into existence. Zero. So we have one proposition that is virtually certain to be true statistically vs another that is probability zero. Now, back to vestigal organs...

10-26-2003, 02:48 AM	#798
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Thanks for the citations... I did want to thank CD for the list of citations on creationism. I'm digging in now...

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

10-26-2003, 01:11 AM	#792
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Charles Darwin: Naylor shows that vestigial structures are evidence beyond the usual homology argument? I must have missed it. Can you point me to the passage where he does that? Or reconstruct the argument? It's in his paper. CD, I don't want to spoonfeed you Naylor's arguments, when his paper should be easy to read. So why don't you read it and tell us what difficulties you have with it? And while you are at it, why don't you ask yourself why we have appendices that can be removed without apparent ill effects? Is appendectomy patient Jenna Bush coming down with half a dozen opportunistic diseases? And why do seed plants have vestigial gametophytes (haploid phases that make gametes)? Why are they almost, but not quite all, sporophyte (diploid phase that makes spores)? Why don't they have direct meiosis-to-gametes, as the animal kingdom does? Female gametophytes live inside of their parent plants' reproductive structures, while male gametophytes live inside of pollen grains. In most flowering plants, female gametophytes have only 7 cells and male ones only 3.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.