Creation's Terrier

A false analogy, I’m afraid. What we’ve got is a bus seen at each place. That’s it. Not seen ‘moving’ anywhere (ie leaving descendants). And not the same bus in each place, but different buses. Some might be better called MPVs. Since each bus is different, why must ‘it’ be on any route anywhere?

D minus. Must try harder.

CT

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: Creation's Terrier ]</p>

Skeptical

The question "what would demonstrate creation" is equivalent to "what would demonstrate supernatural intervention". To this the answer can only be "God showing himself and saying 'I did it'"

It is false that evolutionary theory "explains everything". As you probably know there are diverse theories that fall under the umbrella of "evolution". It is true to say that scientists only accept naturalistic explanations, for reasons I think are too obvious and rehashed to need covering.

<strong> Surely the huge diversity of life shows that nature prizes small incremental changes that allow adaptation over millions of years. You'll now say I'm just saying "it's the way evolution works, so there!". Well, why not?

Your just making an a priori assumption that "goddidit". Scientists make an a priori assumption that everything has a naturalistic explanation. The difference is that so far, everything in the universe seems to have a naturalistic explanation. I think we need not rehash the "god of the gaps".

<strong> It's overly simplistic. The term "evolution" is used to cover a very broad idea. If Futuyma is using the term broadly to mean "a naturalistic explanation of common descent", then I would agree, it's either a naturalistic explanation or a supernatural explanation. However, many portions of evolutionary theories have been changed and revised over time based on new data. In the sense that particular theories may have problems or need revising, its a false dichotomy to say that those changes require an appeal to the supernatural.

<strong> Occhams razor and an a priori assumption of naturalistic explanations backed by countless experiences of always finding a naturalistic explanation that works. If they're not related, someone went to an awful lot of trouble to make them look that way. _Could_ god have "didit"? Sure, but if science took that approach we'd still be driving chariots and reading sheep entrails to know when it's going to rain.

<strong> I think the bat question was answered already as to why its unlikely to find intermediaries, don't know about the bee. In any case, if the argument is that we should have a transitional fossil record for every animal that currently exists, don't you think that's stretching common sense a little? If we have a transitional fossil record for 70% of the species around us, don't you think it's a little silly to say, "well where's the other 30%!"? (no, I don't know the actual percentage, so it may not be as high as 70%, but I think you get my point) Honestly, do you expect a 100% complete transitional fossil record? Even if we had one, would it make a difference to you?

<strong> Ummm, since humans have only had writing for about 5,500-6,000 years, how exactly do you think we would have evidence of macroevolution _other_ than the fossil record? You do realize evolutionary theory states that it would take quite a bit longer than a few thousand years to see the types of changes that would qualify as macroevolution, don't you? And you do realize that speciation multiplied times a few million years would _be_ macroevolution, don't you?

As for the fossil record, see A1.


<strong> So, if we don't have an explanation right now that is completely satisfactory, it must be wrong? This is just the "god of the gaps" argument. We may never have a complete explanation of every single trait that every single species possesses. So what? I don't see how saying "goddidit" explains it any better. One could just as easily ask, "why did god give bats echolocation?". Same answer, "we don't know". Sure, you can make up some answer, but it doesn't help understand the world any better.

What is your point? Are you under the impression that if a scientific theory (or theories) can't explain every single phenomena it deals with then it can't possibly be correct? Scientists assume that given enough time, they'll find the answer and modify the theory accordingly. So far, the assumption has proven correct.

<strong> If the question is "show me irrefutable proof that what look like transitional fossils are in fact transitional fossils and that god did not do it", then the answer is, obviously, no one can convince someone who doesn't assume naturalistic causes. Science works based on naturalistic explanations. If you make an a priori assumption that no naturalistic explanation is adequate, there's no point in arguing about it. If the existing evidence in the fossil record and genetics studies aren't convincing, I doubt any amount of evidence would convince you. (if your not familiar with this evidence, you can find it on talkorigins, but I assume you've already seen what's there)

You've already made an a priori assumption of a supernatural cause and no amount of naturalistic evidence will convince you otherwise. I'm not even sure why you ask for it. You'll just say, "well, that's the way god did it". Ok, fine. Now go enjoy all your nice household appliances and assume that science is wrong.

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Rev. Joshua

Right you are. Theistic evolutionist here.

Joshua

P.S. It was a Babylonian Creation Myth long before it was a Christian one!

hezekiah jones

How do your more conservative colleague Revs. respond to that one, if you don't mind my asking.

Rev. Joshua

Some blather about the Babylonians having access to the "partial truth" that was later fully revealed in Genesis. *sigh*

Boro Nut

Apologies for the late reply Douglas, but I feel I must point out "theistic evolutionists" can and do count. It is only creationist who don't count beyond 6000.

Boro Nut

Duvenoy

Actually, I think they're counting to 'maybe' ten. There remains hope.

doov

Blinn

MadKally

What the hell is my picture doing in here?

--sock

Quetzal

Heya CT

You mean physically? Same mechanism you have (and just about any other organism that uses a cochlear system). I assume you know some basic anatomy, but to recap: all organisms that have this system transmit sound from the tympanic membrane (the eardrum) to three linked bones, which then transmits the vibration of the incoming sound to the individually tuned cochlear cells (and don’t even go down the road about IC – they ain’t). It’s relatively simple to adapt existing muscles in the ear to “mute” (i.e., not transmit as well) the vibrations in these bones. Bats contract these muscles immediately before emitting the outgoing squeak. Then they relax, so the bat can pick up the return. Humans have a similar set up, although not anywhere near as efficient – which is why you can shout without blowing your ears out. And yes, it’s quite easily understood that this autonomic set up can evolve incrementally. After all, any bat that squeaked really loudly that didn’t have it would be deafened. The ones whose muscle system was more efficient at it had a selective advantage and hence passed on the trait. The ones who didn’t – well there are lots of species out there that simply weren’t up to snuff. They’re called extinct.

How do you figure that’s circular? Sounds to me like science in action.
Hypothesis: convergent evolution is where two or more organisms develop a particular trait or capability independently.
Evidence: unrelated organisms are discovered – like birds, bats, dolphins, etc, with similar adaptations to similar problems; or even more fun, marsupial predators and/or herbivores with similar morphology to placentals are found in widely divergent locations – but with similar niches
Conclusion: convergent evolution has occurred.

No doubt. Of course, on the one hand, you’ve placed yourself into the position of having to prove god exists to justify this contention. On the other, all these organisms are completely unrelated and have completely different mechanisms and uses for these abilities. Sloppy design – variation even within/between similar species leads more to an ad hoc designer rather than an intelligent one. Also, variability in relative efficiency even within species casts doubt on any “design”. On the other hand, it’s just what would be expected under evolution. So either god’s a lousy engineer and can’t even follow his own design specs, or natural processes have created the variation. Hmmm, which do you prefer?


Be even more useful if it wasn’t so variable. What kind of designer runs around not only coming up with different solutions for the same problem, but also can’t seem to get the solution right? After all, what is observed is “adequate” but nothing remotely resembling “perfect design”. Next thing you know you’ll have backed into the ultimate refuge of the clueless: the Fall. I dare you to try and refute sloppy design without using a tautology like that. “Sloppy design is a result of the Fall. Sloppy design is evidence that things degenerated from a perfect beginning. God must have made everything perfect in the beginning. Therefore, the Fall occurred.”

Uhh, CT? How much do you know about how science works? If scientists can posit an evolutionary pathway, then point to existing organisms that show each step in the hypothetical pathway (by using genuine existing organisms they show that the particular step isn’t impossible – directly falsified), then they are totally justified in inferring that the pathway is a reasonable explanation. If new evidence turns up that shows something else, then they can modify the idea – or discard it. The “evidence” you’re asking for is homology with existing organisms. As it relates to bat echolocation, there are living organisms that show every single one of the necessary adaptations – from modification of the muscles of the inner ear to swallow chirps to rapid-fire tongue clicks to ultra high frequency sonar. Humans can even develop technology that closely emulates each one.

They showed what I said. Oh, you mean the details? IIRC molecular phylogenetic analysis of 7000 loci in 30 species of microchiroptera showed that they belong to two distinct clades. The lineage that led up to the node did not show evidence of the anatomical modifications necessary for high-frequency echolocation. Anatomy of various species in the two new clades didn’t start showing these adaptations until much later – and each one at different times. Beyond that, you’re going to have to ask someone who’s an expert – not my field.

Uh huh. So now your reduced to arguing that God only gave the appearance of evolution? He used all these ad hoc variations – which are not perfect, merely adequate – why? He was bored? To impress humans? You don’t think it a bit silly to insist God is merely adequate?

BZZZT (sound of annoying buzzer). I’m sorry, thank you for playing. This attempt to force the proponents of the competing hypothesis to validate your claim for you, by showing that evolution is completely true in all possible cases is a significant fallacy. Douglas Futuyma notwithstanding, falsifying (lol) evolution provides exactly the same justification for creationism as it does for alien seeding, the Finnish creation egg, the invisible Pink Unicorn, or my personal favorite Mohan the Uncaring Creator of All. In other words, “yours cannot be proven 100%, therefore mine is true” is utterly baseless argument. Let me see if I can make this clear: YOU CANNOT VALIDATE A THEORY BY DEMANDING THAT THE ADHERENTS OF AN OPPOSING THEORY PROVE THEIRS. YOU CAN ONLY VALIDATE A THEORY BY PROVIDING POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR YOURS. That plain enough for you?

So, ready to provide some positive evidence for creationism?