Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 03-22-2002, 01:08 AM

There are no positive "proofs" in science, Randman. For instance, no scientist has ever succeeded in proving that the Earth is round. Round-Earthism is speculation taught as fact.

The scientific method relies upon falsification. A hypothesis is formed to account for the observed evidence. This is then tested, by looking for evidence which contradicts the hypothesis. If none can be found, the hypothesis is upgraded to a "theory" and accepted as fact (if well-supported) until contradictory evidence shows up later (if it does).

Evolution is accepted as fact, because the evidence is so solid. Individual evolutionary pathways are speculative, based on the extent of the evidence. For instance, there is no room for doubt that humans evolved from apes, but the precise fit of the various australopithecine species in the hominid family tree is less certain.

Creationism, however, is false. Young-Earth Creationism is incompatible with the age of the Earth and the fossil record. Old-Earth creationism is incompatible with the fossil record unless the acts of creation are timed to mimic common descent. "Intelligent design" is not incompatible with the evidence (except that some "designs" appear too clumsy and jury-rigged to be the result of intelligence), but ID enthusiasts nevertheless make false statements when they say that various features could not be the result of naturalistic evolution, or that "information cannot increase", or that "microevolution cannot lead to macroevolution".

The deciding factor is the contradictory evidence. For evolution, there is no contradictory evidence.

Oolon Colluphid · 03-22-2002, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:

What I have stated is that the fossil record does not actually show the transitions occuring. For me to show macro-evolution, as I define the term just to make sure we don't play semantics, there needs to fossils which show species to species changes accomplishing major morphological change into what is clearly a new type of creature altogether. We can debate what is a new type of creature altogether if you want, but hopefully you get the picture. I want to see species morphing into something else. In other words, I want to see macro-evolution documented.

Would you agree that a mammal would be a new type of creature if it evolved from a reptile? Okay then...

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#syn2mamm" target="_blank">See this list of differences between reptiles and mammals, and fossils linking the two, which are found in the predicted chronological order</a>.

See <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4ex2" target="_blank">this article on the Synapsida</a>.

Figure 1.4.1. The jaws of three vertebrates - mammal, therapsid, and pelycosaur
A side view of three idealized skulls of mammals, therapsids (mammal-like reptiles), and pelycosaurs (early reptiles). The figure shows the differences between mammal and reptilian jaws and ear-bone structures. The jaw joint is shown as a large black dot, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. Note how, in the reptile, the jaw joint is formed between the blue quadrate and the yellow articular (with the pink angular close by), and how, in the mammal, the jaw joint is formed between the squamosal above and the dentary below. In the reptile, the squamosal is just above and contacting the quadrate. Advanced therapsids have two jaw joints: a reptile-like joint and a mammal-like joint (Figure based on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0072909560/qid=1016794836/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/104-7065146-3862311" target="_blank">Kardong 2002</a>, p 275)

Figure 1.4.2. A comparison of the ears of reptiles and mammals
The reptile ear is shown on the left, the mammal ear on the right. As in Figure 1.4.1, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise and the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow. The stapes is shown in brown. Note how the relative arrangement of these bones is similar in both taxa, in the order of inner ear-stapes-quadrate-articular.

Figure 1.4.3. A comparison of the jawbones and ear-bones of several transitional forms in the evolution of mammals.
Approximate stratigraphic ranges of the various taxa are indicated at the far left (more recent on top). The left column of jawbones shows the view of the left jawbone from the inside of the mouth. The right column is the view of the right jawbone from the right side (outside of the skull). As in Figure 1.4.1, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. For clarity, the teeth are not shown, and the squamosal upper jawbone is omitted (it replaces the quadrate in the mammalian jaw joint, and forms part of the jaw joint in advanced cynodonts and Morganucodon).
Q = quadrate
Ar = articular
An = angular
I = incus (anvil)
Ma = malleus (hammer)
Ty = tympanic annulus
D = dentary.
(Reproduced from Kardong 2002, p 274)

Quote:

Since Figure 1.4.3 was made, several important intermediate fossils have been discovered that fit between Morganucodon and the earliest mammals. These new discoveries include a complete skull of Hadrocodium wui (Luo et al. 2001) and cranial and jaw material from Repenomamus and Gobiconodon (Wang et al. 2001). These new fossil finds clarify exactly when and how the malleus, incus, and angular completely detached from the lower jaw and became solely auditory ear ossicles.

Here are diagrams of the actual fossils:

Skulls and jaws of synapsid reptiles and mammals:
left column side view of skull; center column top view of skull; right column side view of lower jaw.
Abbreviations:
ag = angular
ar = articular
cp = coronoid process
d = dentary
f = lateral temporal fenestra
j = jugal
mm = attachment site for mammalian jaw muscles
o = eye socket
po = post orbital
q = quadrate
rl = reflected lamina
sq = squamosal
ty = tympanic.

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm" target="_blank">Here</a> is a dissection of what other creationists have said about these fossils.

So, Mr Randman, if this is not macroevolution, why not?

There are a number of other such transitions. For instance, I�m sure <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00005991" target="_blank">Per Ahlberg</a>, who looks in here from time to time, would happily discuss <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415233704/qid%3D1016794675/202-1951191-6802243" target="_blank">early tetrapod evolution</a> with you, but there�s no point unless you show some sign of paying the slightest attention.

Oolon

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]

Daggah · 03-22-2002, 02:04 AM

Quote:

...for Old Earth Creationism, or ID models.

Either produce these "models" or put up and shut up, randman. Neither OEC (or YEC) or ID are scientific theories, and no one here has yet to see an example of a scientific "model" from them.

Oolon Colluphid · 03-22-2002, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
and it seems to me that it is just a good a case for Old Earth Creationism, or ID models.

ID? You mean intelligent design? Bwahahaha!

No you surely can�t mean that things were designed by some intelligence, rather than constructed stepwise and so constrained by their history, can you?!

You surely don't mean the sort of intelligent design that looped the recurrent laryngeal nerve round the aorta on its way from one side of the neck to the other? The intelligence in design that put genes for making <a href="http://www.devbio.com/chap06/link0601.shtml" target="_blank">teeth</a> and <a href="http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Hampe_experiment.htm" target="_blank">full fibulas and separate tarsals</a> in birds that do not have them and, according to creation, never had them? That put wings on flightless birds and beetles, non-functioning eyes in cave-dwelling creatures which live in total darkness, pelvic bones in pythons and whales, and flowers on self-pollinating plants? That forgot to give the nautilus a lens for its otherwise excellent pinhole camera eye and forgot to give the Chinese grass carp gut bacteria to digest cellulose, despite giving it pharyngeal teeth? The intelligence in design that allows us to wiggle our ears? That gave us the arrectores pilorum and their sympathetic nerves so we could get goosebumps?

Ah randman, you are funny...

Oolon

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]

phlebas · 03-22-2002, 05:02 AM

*bump*

You obviously overlooked the question, randman. I'll repeat:

Do you believe that your old threads are still alive and well in a different part of this board?

randman · 03-22-2002, 10:53 AM

Phlebas, you are under the mistaken impression that I must reply to you. Although I break this rule from time to time, I am trying to avoid people who don't treat others with decency. I don't consider you the type of person that anyone including myself should have to talk with.

On the creation models, what is an evolutionary model but a collections of ideas. It is clear what the ideas of some creation models are, namely that universal common descent is not what happened but rather God created original species that evolved within a limited range, hence the idea of "kind" being the original species.
There are differences between creationist models, but that is one basic idea. Another is that evolution could not occur due to irreducible complexity.
YEC advance concepts related to a global flood and major tectonic movements after the flood, and though I am not a YEC, I do think some of their research such as studying deposits from Mt St Helens has shed some light on false uniformatarian presumptions, but since I am too new to their ideas, I have avoided getting into it that much until I have a chance to read up on that debate.

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]

randman · 03-22-2002, 11:08 AM

"Intelligent design" is not incompatible with the evidence"

Thank you for this bit of honesty, although I doubt too many others here would admit and agree with that.
One of the arguments I have found persuasive, though I can't say I am fully qualified to assess it, is the argument for irreducible complexity.
I think that poses a problem for purely naturalistic view on origins. I also think the idea that life and then more complex or adnvanced life stemmed from inanimate objects also to be incredulous, and really, I think the separation of abiogenesis and evolutionary theory to be arbitrary, and wrong. Common descent includes a first species, and thus evolutionary thoery must adequately explain how that happened.
Moreover, I think there is considerable ignorance concerning forces in the world. The scientific view that discounts angels, God, demons, the spiritual realm, in my view is the product of science being too primitive to figure out ways to detect and quantify that realm.
I also am not a scientist, and neither are most people, and they don't really care about artificial scientific boundaries as much as about clear logic. For example, stating science doesn't conider abiogenesis as part of evolution doesn't really resonate with most people. They see this as a semantic game played by evolutionists to cover up for thier own weaknesses in their argument. They would be better to just admit that it is a serious unresolved issue.
People are looking more for honesty than proof.

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]

pseudobug · 03-22-2002, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Collophid:
...but there�s no point unless you show some sign of paying the slightest attention.

It's hopeless Oolon, randman has been shown the type of examples demonstratin these transitions for months. He pays no attention.

He knows far more than any paleontologist and has a better idea of what should constitute a transition than people who have study and looked for these types of data for their entire professional lives.

Besides, he uses real, reliable science--quote mining from YECs--- to formulate his opinions of what should or should not constitute a transition.

hezekiah jones · 03-22-2002, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
The scientific view that discounts angels, God, demons, the spiritual realm, in my view is the product of science being too primitive to figure out ways to detect and quantify that realm.

lololol You're too much, randman. You should have your own talk show.

Darwin's Finch · 03-22-2002, 11:26 AM

hezekiahjones: Please don't give Fox any ideas.

03-22-2002, 10:53 AM	#86
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Phlebas, you are under the mistaken impression that I must reply to you. Although I break this rule from time to time, I am trying to avoid people who don't treat others with decency. I don't consider you the type of person that anyone including myself should have to talk with. On the creation models, what is an evolutionary model but a collections of ideas. It is clear what the ideas of some creation models are, namely that universal common descent is not what happened but rather God created original species that evolved within a limited range, hence the idea of "kind" being the original species. There are differences between creationist models, but that is one basic idea. Another is that evolution could not occur due to irreducible complexity. YEC advance concepts related to a global flood and major tectonic movements after the flood, and though I am not a YEC, I do think some of their research such as studying deposits from Mt St Helens has shed some light on false uniformatarian presumptions, but since I am too new to their ideas, I have avoided getting into it that much until I have a chance to read up on that debate. [ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

03-22-2002, 11:08 AM	#87
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"Intelligent design" is not incompatible with the evidence" Thank you for this bit of honesty, although I doubt too many others here would admit and agree with that. One of the arguments I have found persuasive, though I can't say I am fully qualified to assess it, is the argument for irreducible complexity. I think that poses a problem for purely naturalistic view on origins. I also think the idea that life and then more complex or adnvanced life stemmed from inanimate objects also to be incredulous, and really, I think the separation of abiogenesis and evolutionary theory to be arbitrary, and wrong. Common descent includes a first species, and thus evolutionary thoery must adequately explain how that happened. Moreover, I think there is considerable ignorance concerning forces in the world. The scientific view that discounts angels, God, demons, the spiritual realm, in my view is the product of science being too primitive to figure out ways to detect and quantify that realm. I also am not a scientist, and neither are most people, and they don't really care about artificial scientific boundaries as much as about clear logic. For example, stating science doesn't conider abiogenesis as part of evolution doesn't really resonate with most people. They see this as a semantic game played by evolutionists to cover up for thier own weaknesses in their argument. They would be better to just admit that it is a serious unresolved issue. People are looking more for honesty than proof. [ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

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

03-22-2002, 01:08 AM	#81
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	There are no positive "proofs" in science, Randman. For instance, no scientist has ever succeeded in proving that the Earth is round. Round-Earthism is speculation taught as fact. The scientific method relies upon falsification. A hypothesis is formed to account for the observed evidence. This is then tested, by looking for evidence which contradicts the hypothesis. If none can be found, the hypothesis is upgraded to a "theory" and accepted as fact (if well-supported) until contradictory evidence shows up later (if it does). Evolution is accepted as fact, because the evidence is so solid. Individual evolutionary pathways are speculative, based on the extent of the evidence. For instance, there is no room for doubt that humans evolved from apes, but the precise fit of the various australopithecine species in the hominid family tree is less certain. Creationism, however, is false. Young-Earth Creationism is incompatible with the age of the Earth and the fossil record. Old-Earth creationism is incompatible with the fossil record unless the acts of creation are timed to mimic common descent. "Intelligent design" is not incompatible with the evidence (except that some "designs" appear too clumsy and jury-rigged to be the result of intelligence), but ID enthusiasts nevertheless make false statements when they say that various features could not be the result of naturalistic evolution, or that "information cannot increase", or that "microevolution cannot lead to macroevolution". The deciding factor is the contradictory evidence. For evolution, there is no contradictory evidence.

03-22-2002, 05:02 AM	#85
phlebas Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Metropolis Posts: 916	bump You obviously overlooked the question, randman. I'll repeat: Do you believe that your old threads are still alive and well in a different part of this board?

03-22-2002, 11:26 AM	#90
Darwin's Finch Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Gardnerville, NV Posts: 666	hezekiahjones: Please don't give Fox any ideas.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.