Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Cronos988]

I'd say I have backed by view. Unless you have a different definition of degradation and DEGENERATION then I guess you are the one that is finding it dificult to accept the finding of your own evolutionary researchers. What do you suppose multiple articles that speak to degeneration are talking about?

An evolutionary ploy is to lock horns over vague and meaningless nonsense they have to offer so they can argue about it over the numerous publications that disagree with each other.... "I publish, therefore I exist", which is the background noise of theoretical science.

I'd say you haven't. The Definition of degradation is actually neutral. It only means the "loss of a function, characteristic, or structure in an organism or a species". You can say any loss of function or characteristic is bad, but you'd have to supply arguments as to the why.

Well in real science Yes a theory based on prediction that did not eventuate should falsify the theory. However, evolutionists have hand waving to use as sticky tape. For example junk dna proves evolution and no junk dna still proves evolution. That is how one can tell TOE is not a science. TOE is a philosophy trying to turn itself into a science and failing miserably.

What is that "real science" you speak of? Does it exist anywhere? The science I know isn't falsified by one wrong prediction, but it's credibility certainly is dented. Of course, that only matters if there are viable alternate theories.

I have not mentioned any preaching. Oh come on now, even a precambrian rabbit would not really falsify evolution, Yiu guys would work around it I am sure. I did not say I have falsified evolution.

For the record, I have studied law, not biology, so I don't see who you mean by "you guys". Nevertheless I will concede that you are right, in a sense. No theory can be falsified if you continously add "special cases" for every unexplained observation. It is only "falsified" when a new theory is proposed that can explain all observations without any exceptions to the rule. I don't think there is any alternative way of gaining knowledge, though.

I did say that all the information challenges the concept of evolution by suggesting cost outweighs any benefit. My interpretation of that information is that evolution is unlikely to have continued for billions of years.

Thats a sensible argument. At least, macroevolution is probably not caused exclusively by random mutations. But we lack an alternative theory.

I publish, therefore I exist. Yes TOE is a philosophy and over 150 years of instability and change, resulting in evos being more confused than ever proves it. eg junk dna, the death of single celled LUCA, the falsification of human knuckle walking ancestry, brain size tied to bibedalism, bipedalism being soley a human trait etc etc etc.

You are of course free to redefine philosophy to include all empirical sciences if you wish to do so (and, in fact, this was the case before any of the specialized sciences emerged), but from a practical standpoint, the ToE is an empirical scientific theory, and therefore not within the common definition of a philosophy.

Hence evolutionists make it up as they go along. Right? That appears to be exactly what you are saying. If a prediction fails, don't worry; I publish, therefore I exist; Therefore any flavour of the month is irrefuteable evidence until it is falsified in favour of another irrefuteable flavour of the month. I get it!!!!

Yes, you have understood science. It's about making up theories that fit the evidence. And thanks to "making it up as you go along" you are able to communicate with me using an international network of computers called the "internet". Something that would not be possible if scientists had not "made up" a theory that explained their new findings with regard to certain phenomena like magnetism and electric charge.

Then let me resolve the discrepency. IT IS ALL ALGORITHMIC RUBBISH. I can produce research from Sanford but I prefer to use your own muddle against you and to support my own view. That's much more fun.

I am sorry, I do not get your point. Science is algorithmic rubbish?

I have. You just refuse to realize that one story in Genesis, is better than making it up as it goes along like evos do.

I have made a claim. God created by using the coalescence. Now you can demonstrate how dead elements poofed themseves into a complex factory of reproduction and how you know what chimp and human ancestry looks like with one entire half of the record missing on the back ancestral genomics evos have no clue about. Go!

Well, thanks for clearing that up. So far you had not stated specifically which creatinistic theory you wish to propose.

I will give you that, the question of how the first living cells came to be is somewhat of a mystery. There are models for chemical reactions eventuall turning into biological processes, but it is not very well understood. It is entirely valid to suppose outside influence in the creation of life, be it "Aliens" or "God", whatever you want to call it.

Beyond that, though, relying on Genesis breaks down quickly. Even if we ignore the fact that the whole Creationist theory is missing any definition of what God is supposed to be, and how he exercises his presumed powers, The account Genesis gives doesn't fit well with the evidence. It of course starts with the whole spherical world model, which is contrary to what Genesis says. But with regards to evolution specifically, it's inconsistent with a big chunk of observations we have with regards the different stages of life on earth.

In Genesis, God originally creates trees, whereas our evidence suggests trees didn't exist till after the first fish existed. In Genesis, plants were created prior to the stars, which is inconsistent with our observations. Birds are older than insects. Birds are older than Reptilians. Whales are as old as fish. None of this fits with what we know of the earth, so I would argue that the "Genesis theory" of life is worse at explaining life than the ToE, and hence is refuted.

You may like to speak to these predictions that creationists got wrong. I can and have spoken to some claims and predictions evolutionists got wrong.

Creationism would predict that all species currently on the earth have always been there. That has been refuted. Creationism would also imply that birds and reptiles are completely seperate species. Yet Molecular-genetic analysis suggests that they belong to the same family.

Yeah sure! You do not have any missing links. You have 2 or 3 fossils that are relatively complete earlier than erectus and the rest are a mess that don't demonstrate anything. Bipedalism isn't even solely a human trait anymore of one can believe any of it. Ardi has ape feet, Lucy was found with no feet and I can even present research that suggest the Laetolli footprints do not belong to Lucy now but some other unknown species of the time. Or would you like to talk about the mess the Leakeys made of Rudolfensis that had to suffer a reconstruction because they got it wrong. Or would you liek totalk about Turkana Boy the stapping athlete that has shrunk and likely requires a pelvic reconstruction.

What missing links are you talking about? There certainly are absolutely none for chimp, you know the other side of it all!!

Yet they fit into what the ToE has predicted. Sure they are not absolute proof (there is no absolute proof in science), but they certainly give credence to the theory. Sure there are alternate interpretations (there always are) but the simplest explanation for these fossils is that there has indeed been an evolution towards larger brains and bipedalism.

Are you unable to retain information for more than an hour. Creationism would have been falsified if you lot had of actually manitained your intial predictions around junk dna and vestigial organs. That was another fiasco, with evos again speaking to left over functionless organs only to find them to be functional and having to toddle off and reinvent the meaning of vestigial to be defined as 'different' function, instead of 'no' function. eg appendix. Does any of that ring a bell at all?

How would that falsify creationism? If God created everything, he can create it however he wants. No falsification possible, not even theoretically. Of course, any specific creationist theory can be refuted. Like the Genesis theory was.

So the magic of dead elements poofing themsleves into complex factories of reproduction that you cannot explain nor demonstrate is better than suggesting that perhaps a non organic life form can perhaps do this. I see!. The thing is with you miracle workers is that the difference of what I am alledging and what you are alledging is only a matter of a difference of scale. You say non-life can poof into a complex cell, I say God can poof on a larger scale. A 'primitive cell' has never been observed and is an oxymoron statement. I still say my scenario sounds the more plausible even with the evocation of a God.

I did not ask what was the scenario that sounded "more plausible". I was asking what scenario is the better explanation. God is a poor explanation, because all we know about God is that we can know nothing about God. The information value in the statement "god did it" is zero. As long as the ToE can explain at least one case, it has the better information.

If only you could answer your own evolutionary questions as well as I am sure you will demand from a creo. It looks fairly desperate to suggest a creationist should have to present more clarity and substantiation that an evolutionists has ever been able to supply about anything.eg abiogenesis

I do not demand clarity or substantiation from you. I merely ask what your theory is. Your argument against abiogenesis is not agnostic. You do not say that you "don't know" how it happened. By saying the current scientific beliefs are wrong, you are saying that you do know how it happened, that you have the better theory. If you are making that claim, it is only logical to ask you to actually state that theory. Nothing more, nothing less.

This design came to be by one of these aliens you evos reckon are everywhere in the universe but this one is not of organic form. God is a non organic life form not of this earth that appears to be no more mysterious than dark matter. That life form is refered to as God.

But "life" is generally defined as "organic life". So if you are saying "non-organic lifeform" is either an analytical fallacy or you are using a different definition of "life".

God created by the process of coalescence whereby he took the elements of the earth, coalesced them into the correct configuration with informational engrams then gave the breath of life as an electrical charge. The purpose of life is at Gods pleasure, much the same as anyones creation. The promise of an afterlife is to give a pat on the back for those that have faith because that is what God felt like doing, and to give to atheists exactly what they hope for as well, which is likely nothing.

I am assuming there is no chemical, biological or indeed physical description of the process of coalesence. So while you dismsiss the suggestion of "abiogenesis" as faulty because there is no clear chemical, biological or physical descritption of it's exact process, you consider "coalesence", which has the exact same characteristics, viable. That is logically inconsistent.

Now you tell us all about abiogenesis. OR, how evos cop out whenever abiogenesis is mentioned... Oh the start of it all has nothing to do with evolution but a creo must explain their version of 'genesis' because evolutionists publish and therefore must exist somewhere in the background noise of confusion.

I cannot tell you all about abiogenesis, I suggest you read up on it if you want to know. I don't have the required qualifications to answer you on biological theories. I might remind you that this is a philosophy forum. Logical consitency is all that can be required here. I make the claim that a Creationist theory is logically inconsistent for the reasons given above. You are welcome to hold me to the same standard, but discussing an empirical theory at depth is unfortunately not possible for me.

[Marina000]

(Nested quote removed.)


I'd say you haven't. The Definition of degradation is actually neutral. It only means the "loss of a function, characteristic, or structure in an organism or a species". You can say any loss of function or characteristic is bad, but you'd have to supply arguments as to the why.


(Nested quote removed.)


What is that "real science" you speak of? Does it exist anywhere? The science I know isn't falsified by one wrong prediction, but it's credibility certainly is dented. Of course, that only matters if there are viable alternate theories.


(Nested quote removed.)


For the record, I have studied law, not biology, so I don't see who you mean by "you guys". Nevertheless I will concede that you are right, in a sense. No theory can be falsified if you continously add "special cases" for every unexplained observation. It is only "falsified" when a new theory is proposed that can explain all observations without any exceptions to the rule. I don't think there is any alternative way of gaining knowledge, though.


(Nested quote removed.)


Thats a sensible argument. At least, macroevolution is probably not caused exclusively by random mutations. But we lack an alternative theory.


(Nested quote removed.)


You are of course free to redefine philosophy to include all empirical sciences if you wish to do so (and, in fact, this was the case before any of the specialized sciences emerged), but from a practical standpoint, the ToE is an empirical scientific theory, and therefore not within the common definition of a philosophy.


(Nested quote removed.)


Yes, you have understood science. It's about making up theories that fit the evidence. And thanks to "making it up as you go along" you are able to communicate with me using an international network of computers called the "internet". Something that would not be possible if scientists had not "made up" a theory that explained their new findings with regard to certain phenomena like magnetism and electric charge.


(Nested quote removed.)


I am sorry, I do not get your point. Science is algorithmic rubbish?


(Nested quote removed.)


Well, thanks for clearing that up. So far you had not stated specifically which creatinistic theory you wish to propose.

I will give you that, the question of how the first living cells came to be is somewhat of a mystery. There are models for chemical reactions eventuall turning into biological processes, but it is not very well understood. It is entirely valid to suppose outside influence in the creation of life, be it "Aliens" or "God", whatever you want to call it.

Beyond that, though, relying on Genesis breaks down quickly. Even if we ignore the fact that the whole Creationist theory is missing any definition of what God is supposed to be, and how he exercises his presumed powers, The account Genesis gives doesn't fit well with the evidence. It of course starts with the whole spherical world model, which is contrary to what Genesis says. But with regards to evolution specifically, it's inconsistent with a big chunk of observations we have with regards the different stages of life on earth.

In Genesis, God originally creates trees, whereas our evidence suggests trees didn't exist till after the first fish existed. In Genesis, plants were created prior to the stars, which is inconsistent with our observations. Birds are older than insects. Birds are older than Reptilians. Whales are as old as fish. None of this fits with what we know of the earth, so I would argue that the "Genesis theory" of life is worse at explaining life than the ToE, and hence is refuted.


(Nested quote removed.)


Creationism would predict that all species currently on the earth have always been there. That has been refuted. Creationism would also imply that birds and reptiles are completely seperate species. Yet Molecular-genetic analysis suggests that they belong to the same family.


(Nested quote removed.)


Yet they fit into what the ToE has predicted. Sure they are not absolute proof (there is no absolute proof in science), but they certainly give credence to the theory. Sure there are alternate interpretations (there always are) but the simplest explanation for these fossils is that there has indeed been an evolution towards larger brains and bipedalism.


(Nested quote removed.)


How would that falsify creationism? If God created everything, he can create it however he wants. No falsification possible, not even theoretically. Of course, any specific creationist theory can be refuted. Like the Genesis theory was.


(Nested quote removed.)


I did not ask what was the scenario that sounded "more plausible". I was asking what scenario is the better explanation. God is a poor explanation, because all we know about God is that we can know nothing about God. The information value in the statement "god did it" is zero. As long as the ToE can explain at least one case, it has the better information.


(Nested quote removed.)


I do not demand clarity or substantiation from you. I merely ask what your theory is. Your argument against abiogenesis is not agnostic. You do not say that you "don't know" how it happened. By saying the current scientific beliefs are wrong, you are saying that you do know how it happened, that you have the better theory. If you are making that claim, it is only logical to ask you to actually state that theory. Nothing more, nothing less.


(Nested quote removed.)


But "life" is generally defined as "organic life". So if you are saying "non-organic lifeform" is either an analytical fallacy or you are using a different definition of "life".


(Nested quote removed.)


I am assuming there is no chemical, biological or indeed physical description of the process of coalesence. So while you dismsiss the suggestion of "abiogenesis" as faulty because there is no clear chemical, biological or physical descritption of it's exact process, you consider "coalesence", which has the exact same characteristics, viable. That is logically inconsistent.


(Nested quote removed.)


I cannot tell you all about abiogenesis, I suggest you read up on it if you want to know. I don't have the required qualifications to answer you on biological theories. I might remind you that this is a philosophy forum. Logical consitency is all that can be required here. I make the claim that a Creationist theory is logically inconsistent for the reasons given above. You are welcome to hold me to the same standard, but discussing an empirical theory at depth is unfortunately not possible for me.

OMGoodness, this is starting to feel like I am writing a book.

You said this

I'd say you haven't. The Definition of degradation is actually neutral. It only means the "loss of a function, characteristic, or structure in an organism or a species". You can say any loss of function or characteristic is bad, but you'd have to supply arguments as to the why.

OK then, I'd say......

It therefore seems likely that the lack of conservation and increased rate of gene expression divergence are caused by a reduction in the effectiveness of natural selection against deleterious mutations because of the low effective population sizes of hominids. This has resulted in the accumulation of a large number of deleterious mutations in sequences containing gene control elements and hence a widespread degradation of the genome during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info ... io.0030042

What function loss are they talking about with the resulting accumulation of deleterious mutations? How on earth would anyone truely know what any population size was at any time other than it being an insertion value that makes an algorithms day?

I'd say these researchers have no idea what caused a reduction in the effectiveness of natural selection, but the result of the reduction in effectiveness of natural selection against deleterious mutations is bad because it reflects a drop in fitness, if nothing else.

The same goes for the work on epistasis. A reduction in the chioces of variation creates a drop in the fitness landscape and therefore is 'bad'.

There are limits to an organisms ability to adapt. The deteriorating genome, negative epistasis, data on drosophila that showed great cost in carrying a beneficial allele is supportive of this claim. These are limits. There is plenty of data that challenges an organisms ability to adapt over billions of years. However the data that supports an organisms ability to adapt without limits, from bacteria to man, is sadly lacking.

So reply to this and I'll take up the next point of any substance in your post.

[Cronos988]

OMGoodness, this is starting to feel like I am writing a book.

I know what you mean.

What function loss are they talking about with the resulting accumulation of deleterious mutations?

I don't really know. I am no Biologist and I haven't brought the article up. I can only make assumptions as to what "gene-control-regions" are and how they are important, but that won't lead us anywhere will it?

If I am not mistaken you have used this article as an argument against the credibility of the ToE. This is strange since, the article actually presumes that Evolution via random mutation is in place. It is based on the premise that the ToE accurately describes evolution, take that premise away and the article ceases to make sense.

How on earth would anyone truely know what any population size was at any time other than it being an insertion value that makes an algorithms day?

with truely know you mean know with absolute certainity? Then the answer is never. Beyond that, I haven't read the paper, so I don't know how they came up with the values. Since I assume you have read the paper, could you shed some light on how they did it? I assume they used models for population sizes based on how many hominids an ecosystem could support etc.

It seems to me that either you are asking me a purely factual question which I am not qualified to answer, or you are taking a deconstructionalist approach to knowledge and argue that anything that is only inferred from theories is no knwoledge.

I'd say these researchers have no idea what caused a reduction in the effectiveness of natural selection, but the result of the reduction in effectiveness of natural selection against deleterious mutations is bad because it reflects a drop in fitness, if nothing else.

That is a factual claim you are welcome to make, but I am not sure how that touches on the subject. You are talking in terms ("fitness", "natural selection") that require the framework of a ToE to have meaning. So are we know arguing different variants of a ToE or are we arguing against ToE as a whole? If it is the latter, than a drop in fitness would likely be nothing "bad" because there is no natural selection.

The same goes for the work on epistasis. A reduction in the chioces of variation creates a drop in the fitness landscape and therefore is 'bad'.

All this means is that random mutations are likely not the only, or even the prime, cause of macroevolution. Something that was already admitted on the first page of this thread. It seems to me that you are portraying the ToE upside down. For you, Evolution means "random mutations" and "survival of the fittest" is only a result of that. The way I understand it, the ToE only says "survival of the fittest" and "random mutations" is one of several possible explanations for how the "fittest" come about. It works for some cases, but not for all of them. Until we have a more inclusive theory of how biodiversity is generated though, it's the best bet.

Again, this is how science works. There is no absolute knowledge, just people striving to create a theory that better explains the world than the current one.

There are limits to an organisms ability to adapt. The deteriorating genome, negative epistasis, data on drosophila that showed great cost in carrying a beneficial allele is supportive of this claim. These are limits. There is plenty of data that challenges an organisms ability to adapt over billions of years. However the data that supports an organisms ability to adapt without limits, from bacteria to man, is sadly lacking.

So reply to this and I'll take up the next point of any substance in your post.

I cannot say with authority whether or not the data is lacking, but you certainly have a point. There are limits to the current understanding of evolution. Yet, any scientific theory, barring the not-yet-existing "theory of everything" will have limits. For example, there is data suggesting that the genome actively changes itself during the lifetime of the organism to adapt. That would explain that the "speed" of evolution is sometimes much higher that models based on "random mutation" would predict.

This really comes down to a "theory of knowledge" discussion. You don't seem to accept the concept of a constantly changing "relative" truth that is only defined by the current state of the art. But it seems to me that we are lacking any intelligible alternative "absolute" truth.

[Gulnara]

Evolution, as process claimed by scientists to exist, is not just this forward aimed, one directional collapse. It works together, and can not be without it's opposite, the devolution. The way those two interact is rather chaotic and unpredictable, just like lottery drawings. The two keep bouncing off each other and adding to each other. I agree that the species in pure form can not be defined or found or we'd have to eliminate the existence of time, which is change. Species categories we use are defined by a crude scale and useful only for our temporary practical uses. Just think , even when person is cloned, he is not to have the same life, because he is inserted into another time frame. He 'll have different spouse and different children than the person he was cloned off. He is a start of different chain of species, each of us is. Each person is beginning of new family, potentially new nation, new species. Also, each person is potentially a subject of devolution. As an example I can bring up generations, dynasties of Russian alcoholics, women addicted to abortions and infertile women in poor health who can not afford treatment. Very clear sign of devolution. In the US pushing childbirth to the older age is also not a pretty sight, addiction of doctors to Cesarian also diminishes repeated pregnancies. Devolution is always in fool bloom, during any era. The moment one is fired, looses house, gets in an accident, gets fatal disease, is not accepted to college - that is Hello from devolution, and it is not wise to sneeze on it. Most people do not understand that life is serious job and such quality is also a sign of devolution.

[Skakos]

Who can tell me an example of "NON deleterious mutation"?

This is what Dawkins answered when he was asked to name a mechanism which generated new information / which increases the information in the genome:

The answer is clear: "... ..."

[Marina000]

[quote="Cronos988 All this means is that random mutations are likely not the only, or even the prime, cause of macroevolution. Something that was already admitted on the first page of this thread. It seems to me that you are portraying the ToE upside down. For you, Evolution means "random mutations" and "survival of the fittest" is only a result of that. The way I understand it, the ToE only says "survival of the fittest" and "random mutations" is one of several possible explanations for how the "fittest" come about. It works for some cases, but not for all of them. Until we have a more inclusive theory of how biodiversity is generated though, it's the best bet.

Again, this is how science works. There is no absolute knowledge, just people striving to create a theory that better explains the world than the current one.


I cannot say with authority whether or not the data is lacking, but you certainly have a point. There are limits to the current understanding of evolution. Yet, any scientific theory, barring the not-yet-existing "theory of everything" will have limits. For example, there is data suggesting that the genome actively changes itself during the lifetime of the organism to adapt. That would explain that the "speed" of evolution is sometimes much higher that models based on "random mutation" would predict.

This really comes down to a "theory of knowledge" discussion. You don't seem to accept the concept of a constantly changing "relative" truth that is only defined by the current state of the art. But it seems to me that we are lacking any intelligible alternative "absolute" truth.

Indeed all modelling is just that. In actual fact the limits to any theory is that where there is more than one unknown insertion value in any algorithm the data can be flawed. Models are based on assumptions that support other assumptions. There is only a 'speed' to evolution if indeed we evolved from a common ancestor around 6mya and bacteria previously. If none of this actually occurred then the models are baseless. One actually needs to accept the assumption of evolution for the models to come to life. On their own they prove nothing more than people like to play with algorithms, sort out puzzles and make up stories.

The recent paper in Nature finds that epistasis (interactions between genetic changes) is much more pervasive than previously assumed. This strongly limits the ability of beneficial mutations to confer fitness on organisms.

Neo-Darwinism has to be modified to incorporate the effects of epistasis. It has to postulate that neutral genes are only neutral in the whole, and that beneficial mutations are only beneficial in the whole. Point mutations can no longer be considered in isolation; what's beneficial in one context could be deleterious in another.

How did the researchers address this? They didn't.

"Finally, pervasive epistasis in long-term protein evolution raises the possibility that similar epistatic interactions may be prevalent in short-term evolution and that situations when a polymorphism is benign or beneficial to one individual but deleterious to another individual within the same population may be more common than is thought at present."

We were left with Maybe's. To be able to ignore such findings under the assumption that there will and must be a viable answer as to how and why life has progressed regardless will be based on further assumptions. To continue to call this 'relative truth' is another matter, that I do not agree with. It is not relative truth. Evolutionary asumptions are relative assumptions that evolutionists hope are getting closer to truth and that the truth is TOE.

Junk dna was another example of absolute truth. It was empirical evidence for TOE and non functional remnant and now it is not. There was no relative truth going on here at all. What comes from now on will evoke more assumptive story telling. I suggest what researchers will come up with is no more relative truth than the initial claims were relative truth, and were falsified. That is why I call current evolutionary claims, flavour of the month. Claims are falsified, predictions fail, data surprises rahter than confirms, and still the juggernaught of evolutionary theory pushes on.

What is absolute truth is that we are alone, the earth is special, only one species that we know of has the capacity to make meaning of the world. That is absolute truth. We can speculate that if evolution occured on earth it must have somewhere else, we can speculate there are other earth like planets, we can speculate that life does not need an earth like planet, we can speculate much. The absolute truth is that none of these speculations are truths because the speculations are speculative and the truth is we have found none of it. So Cronos what is absolute truth now actually supports a biblical style specialness that the Copernicus and naturalists want nothing to do with.

Evolutionists need to talk about all this because they need to make the case for microbes to man. I don't. My biggests hurdle is akin to evolutionists abiogenesis in explaining how elements can coalesce into an organism. I have evidence that energy can produce matter. God is described as energy and light. Good for me as that aligns. The evidence will come but possibly not in my lifetime. "Beam me up, Scotty" and the theoretical possibility of the transference of mollecules over distance will come and will provide evidence of mans ability to reconstitute molecules and engrams.

The more unknown insertion values required to acquire data the less likely the model will have credibility. That is a limit to TOE and all theoretical speculation.

As far as having no better model, I think evolutionists expect to see some reflection of the complication they offer with libraries of outdated and falsified information. In fact creationism has many models just like evolutionary theory and all the various conflicting opinions and models. IDers have holobariamins and are working on it just like evolutionists are working on their models. 'Old' earthers and other YECS have some models. Seriously I don't think 150 years of change and falsifications with so many models, very few answers and libraries of it, really makes TOE that much more refined than other alternatives. TOE looks better because evolutionists can present much research that can support very opposing views and is a philosophy that has been trying to morph itself into a science for over 150 years. TOE is the philosophical asssertion that life can arise without the hand of God and by the processes of nature alone. This has not been demonstrated.

On some points there is agreement between evos and creos. eg life began with plants and then creatures of the sea.

Yes, all theory has limits and it is very possibe that any theories will only ever be theories. That is the sad bit and that could be a limit to any theory. Mankind wants to 'know' and probably never will.

-- Updated December 29th, 2012, 2:46 pm to add the following --

Who can tell me an example of "NON deleterious mutation"?

This is what Dawkins answered when he was asked to name a mechanism which generated new information / which increases the information in the genome:

The answer is clear: "... ..."

It's a great clip isn't it? So I gather the mechanism which generated new information is the fact that there are undiscovered common ancestors and a tetrapod did not evolve from a fish. This is a great case of...

"I publish, therefore I exist", even though I don't know what I am talking about.

After all his hatred and bigotry putting on a show like this is poetic justice. Thankyou God. You do have a sense of humour!

[Cronos988]

The answer is clear: "... ..."

I think you and "A Poster He or I" had a pretty long discussion about the question of what actually constitutes information. As of yet, you have not been able to provide a non-relative distinction between information and noise. I think that is worth considering when you judge this man's inability to answer what may well be a nonsense question.

Indeed all modelling is just that. In actual fact the limits to any theory is that where there is more than one unknown insertion value in any algorithm the data can be flawed. Models are based on assumptions that support other assumptions. There is only a 'speed' to evolution if indeed we evolved from a common ancestor around 6mya and bacteria previously. If none of this actually occurred then the models are baseless. One actually needs to accept the assumption of evolution for the models to come to life. On their own they prove nothing more than people like to play with algorithms, sort out puzzles and make up stories.

Yes, most theories are themselves based on some assumption. That doesn't make them meaningless. The flaws you ascribe to the ToE speicifcally are actually flaws that all scientific theories share. Hence your critique suggests that you regard science, in and of itself, as faulty. And I don't think that is a credible claim.

We were left with Maybe's. To be able to ignore such findings under the assumption that there will and must be a viable answer as to how and why life has progressed regardless will be based on further assumptions. To continue to call this 'relative truth' is another matter, that I do not agree with. It is not relative truth. Evolutionary asumptions are relative assumptions that evolutionists hope are getting closer to truth and that the truth is TOE.

Ok, you don't think the ToE is convincing. That is fair enough, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. What you are not entitled to is making generalizations like "evolutionists hope" because you certainly do not know what any scientist researching in the field thinks or intends.

Junk dna was another example of absolute truth. It was empirical evidence for TOE and non functional remnant and now it is not. There was no relative truth going on here at all. What comes from now on will evoke more assumptive story telling. I suggest what researchers will come up with is no more relative truth than the initial claims were relative truth, and were falsified. That is why I call current evolutionary claims, flavour of the month. Claims are falsified, predictions fail, data surprises rahter than confirms, and still the juggernaught of evolutionary theory pushes on.

What is absolute truth is that we are alone, the earth is special, only one species that we know of has the capacity to make meaning of the world. That is absolute truth. We can speculate that if evolution occured on earth it must have somewhere else, we can speculate there are other earth like planets, we can speculate that life does not need an earth like planet, we can speculate much. The absolute truth is that none of these speculations are truths because the speculations are speculative and the truth is we have found none of it. So Cronos what is absolute truth now actually supports a biblical style specialness that the Copernicus and naturalists want nothing to do with.

If I may paraphrase you: "it is an absolute truth that we are the only species we know of that has the capacity to make meaning of the world". Do you see any logical problem with using the phrases "absolute truth" and "that we know of" in one sentence? It seems to me that if it is based only on what we know, then it is relative to our knowledge. As our knowledge expands, the absolute truth may cease to be a truth. How is it absolute, then?

The fact of the matter is that it is a theory that animals aren't sentient as we are. It is also a theory that there is no other intelligent life in our solar system. Theories with a very good foundation, of course, but theories nonetheless.

Evolutionists need to talk about all this because they need to make the case for microbes to man. I don't. My biggests hurdle is akin to evolutionists abiogenesis in explaining how elements can coalesce into an organism. I have evidence that energy can produce matter. God is described as energy and light. Good for me as that aligns. The evidence will come but possibly not in my lifetime. "Beam me up, Scotty" and the theoretical possibility of the transference of mollecules over distance will come and will provide evidence of mans ability to reconstitute molecules and engrams.

Or maybe the evidence wont come, and instead there will be a consistent theory of abiogenesis. None of us here knows for sure. What I do know, however, is that in order to make your theory work, you would need an actual definition of a personal god as an entity. Something that, to my knowledge, no-one has ever been able to do. I think that is a pretty major hurdle, far higher than the one that abiogenesis faces.

The more unknown insertion values required to acquire data the less likely the model will have credibility. That is a limit to TOE and all theoretical speculation.

I am not sure what you mean by "unknown insertion values".

As far as having no better model, I think evolutionists expect to see some reflection of the complication they offer with libraries of outdated and falsified information. In fact creationism has many models just like evolutionary theory and all the various conflicting opinions and models. IDers have holobariamins and are working on it just like evolutionists are working on their models. 'Old' earthers and other YECS have some models. Seriously I don't think 150 years of change and falsifications with so many models, very few answers and libraries of it, really makes TOE that much more refined than other alternatives. TOE looks better because evolutionists can present much research that can support very opposing views and is a philosophy that has been trying to morph itself into a science for over 150 years. TOE is the philosophical asssertion that life can arise without the hand of God and by the processes of nature alone. This has not been demonstrated.

On some points there is agreement between evos and creos. eg life began with plants and then creatures of the sea.

Yes, all theory has limits and it is very possibe that any theories will only ever be theories. That is the sad bit and that could be a limit to any theory. Mankind wants to 'know' and probably never will.

I have yet to see one example of an alternative model to evolution that can be considered a scientific theory (i.e. is theoretically falsifiable) and actually explains observations with regard to the fossil record. You seem to know a few, could you give me some links? I am interested in what people propose.

In any event, this is not the place to pit differing scientific theories against each other. This is about the philosophy of science. And I think we have finally arrived at the heart of the question: What exactly constitutes a "good" scientific theory.

[Marina000]

(Nested quote removed.)


I think you and "A Poster He or I" had a pretty long discussion about the question of what actually constitutes information. As of yet, you have not been able to provide a non-relative distinction between information and noise. I think that is worth considering when you judge this man's inability to answer what may well be a nonsense question.


(Nested quote removed.)


Yes, most theories are themselves based on some assumption. That doesn't make them meaningless. The flaws you ascribe to the ToE speicifcally are actually flaws that all scientific theories share. Hence your critique suggests that you regard science, in and of itself, as faulty. And I don't think that is a credible claim.


(Nested quote removed.)


Ok, you don't think the ToE is convincing. That is fair enough, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. What you are not entitled to is making generalizations like "evolutionists hope" because you certainly do not know what any scientist researching in the field thinks or intends.


(Nested quote removed.)


If I may paraphrase you: "it is an absolute truth that we are the only species we know of that has the capacity to make meaning of the world". Do you see any logical problem with using the phrases "absolute truth" and "that we know of" in one sentence? It seems to me that if it is based only on what we know, then it is relative to our knowledge. As our knowledge expands, the absolute truth may cease to be a truth. How is it absolute, then?

The fact of the matter is that it is a theory that animals aren't sentient as we are. It is also a theory that there is no other intelligent life in our solar system. Theories with a very good foundation, of course, but theories nonetheless.


(Nested quote removed.)


Or maybe the evidence wont come, and instead there will be a consistent theory of abiogenesis. None of us here knows for sure. What I do know, however, is that in order to make your theory work, you would need an actual definition of a personal god as an entity. Something that, to my knowledge, no-one has ever been able to do. I think that is a pretty major hurdle, far higher than the one that abiogenesis faces.


(Nested quote removed.)


I am not sure what you mean by "unknown insertion values".


(Nested quote removed.)


I have yet to see one example of an alternative model to evolution that can be considered a scientific theory (i.e. is theoretically falsifiable) and actually explains observations with regard to the fossil record. You seem to know a few, could you give me some links? I am interested in what people propose.

In any event, this is not the place to pit differing scientific theories against each other. This is about the philosophy of science. And I think we have finally arrived at the heart of the question: What exactly constitutes a "good" scientific theory.

Unknown and best guess insertion values are such values as population size and mutation rate. etc.

Here are a couple of links.

This is a link to many creationist resaerch papers.

http://www.trueorigin.org/

http://web.archive.org/web/200710092358 ... ution.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/content ... nology.pdf


This one speaks to some content but sites books. It is much the same as TOE on the internet, there are snipets everywhere.

http://creation.com/flood-models-biblical-realism

Science is science, lab work is lab work, and field work is field work. Science, in its purest form, deals with what can be tested and worked with. It does not matter when adding materials to a Petri dish, when excavating fossils, when operating the spacecraft, whether the person or people involved are atheistic, deistic, agnostic, New Age, or whatever else they might consider themselves. The technical aspects are not part of the belief systems of the men and women involved.

http://carm.org/creationism

I am not going to repond to the rest of your post because the one thing that no one gets to do is put my benchmarks up for me as if they really have any themselves. For example, I no more need to describe the entity God, than you NEED to describe dark matter. Dark matter is a mystery that is described as an unknown powerful force that controls the universe, that is unseen, unable to be explained and was invented by those that have faith in a particular paradigm and remains a concept that researchers have no clue about. That is also my description of God. If that is not good enough then neither is your cosmology that hangs on a mystery.

I think even a 'good' theory has limits. It is harder when the theory is not easily testable. For example we have many opportunities to test the theory of general relativity and as good as it is, it still may require tweaking here and there.

I suppose in the end a theory is limited by definition until there is such a level of verification that it becomes a fact. That may or may not be able to be accomplished.

[Cronos988]

Unknown and best guess insertion values are such values as population size and mutation rate. etc.

Given that definition, it seems everything that is outside my own consciousness is a "best guess insertion value". Can you give examples of values that are not "best guess"?

Science is science, lab work is lab work, and field work is field work. Science, in its purest form, deals with what can be tested and worked with. It does not matter when adding materials to a Petri dish, when excavating fossils, when operating the spacecraft, whether the person or people involved are atheistic, deistic, agnostic, New Age, or whatever else they might consider themselves. The technical aspects are not part of the belief systems of the men and women involved.

I agree. The belief systems should be irrelevant. But the way you are phrasing your posts really implies quite the opposite. The way you use the term "your researches" "your theories" etc. indicate that you think in terms of "camps". That there is a faction of "good" scientists and a section of "evil" scientists. Your entire habit of generalization implies that you do in fact think whether the scientist is theistic or atheistic matters a lot. But such generalisations are only masked ad hominem arguments and hence really have no place in any philosophical discussion.

I am not going to repond to the rest of your post because the one thing that no one gets to do is put my benchmarks up for me as if they really have any themselves. For example, I no more need to describe the entity God, than you NEED to describe dark matter. Dark matter is a mystery that is described as an unknown powerful force that controls the universe, that is unseen, unable to be explained and was invented by those that have faith in a particular paradigm and remains a concept that researchers have no clue about. That is also my description of God. If that is not good enough then neither is your cosmology that hangs on a mystery.

That may or may not be true (I am not familiar with the definition of dark matter) but it is irrelevant in the discussion at hand. The ToE does not include dark matter as a central point. The Theory of creationism includes God.

If I propose the theory that Abiogenesis was caused by "Unobtanium", would you then demand that I define Unobtanium? Those aren't benchmarks I put up at my leisure, those are requirements of logic.

Of course, If you have no interest to explain your theory to me, to discuss your theory with me, or to convince me that your theory is right, you don't need to explain anything. But then, why are you even spending time talking to me?

I think even a 'good' theory has limits. It is harder when the theory is not easily testable. For example we have many opportunities to test the theory of general relativity and as good as it is, it still may require tweaking here and there.

I suppose in the end a theory is limited by definition until there is such a level of verification that it becomes a fact. That may or may not be able to be accomplished.

I think we are in complete agreement on this point. This is what I meant by "relative truths": The things we call truths are just really good theories.

I will look through the links you posted when I have time. However, it seems to me that whatever I say about them, the discussion will then shift away to a different argument. I have tried to answer every question you posed to me, but instead of acknowledging these answers, you seem to constantly shift the focus away from the points I have answered. But maybe that is because we really are in agreement about most points, and the only difference is that you say "god" where I say "abiogenesis"?

[Marina000]

(Nested quote removed.)


Given that definition, it seems everything that is outside my own consciousness is a "best guess insertion value". Can you give examples of values that are not "best guess"?


(Nested quote removed.)


I agree. The belief systems should be irrelevant. But the way you are phrasing your posts really implies quite the opposite. The way you use the term "your researches" "your theories" etc. indicate that you think in terms of "camps". That there is a faction of "good" scientists and a section of "evil" scientists. Your entire habit of generalization implies that you do in fact think whether the scientist is theistic or atheistic matters a lot. But such generalisations are only masked ad hominem arguments and hence really have no place in any philosophical discussion.


(Nested quote removed.)


That may or may not be true (I am not familiar with the definition of dark matter) but it is irrelevant in the discussion at hand. The ToE does not include dark matter as a central point. The Theory of creationism includes God.

If I propose the theory that Abiogenesis was caused by "Unobtanium", would you then demand that I define Unobtanium? Those aren't benchmarks I put up at my leisure, those are requirements of logic.

Of course, If you have no interest to explain your theory to me, to discuss your theory with me, or to convince me that your theory is right, you don't need to explain anything. But then, why are you even spending time talking to me?


(Nested quote removed.)


I think we are in complete agreement on this point. This is what I meant by "relative truths": The things we call truths are just really good theories.

I will look through the links you posted when I have time. However, it seems to me that whatever I say about them, the discussion will then shift away to a different argument. I have tried to answer every question you posed to me, but instead of acknowledging these answers, you seem to constantly shift the focus away from the points I have answered. But maybe that is because we really are in agreement about most points, and the only difference is that you say "god" where I say "abiogenesis"?

I take the criticism of my use of language and ‘You’ and ‘Your’. I would better put ‘current thinking’. I will work on that.

So yes basically I think in substance we both agree on much. “I think we are in complete agreement on this point. This is what I meant by "relative truths": The things we call truths are just really good theories.” I get what you mean now.

That could apply to TOE as well as theories around life being brains plugged into a computer etc.

If a ‘relative’ truth can be easily overturned, then a limit to TOE and any theory would be ‘knowing’ when a relative truth has been verified substantially enough to pass from relative truth to ‘truth’ or 'fact'.

Much is about how much weight one gives to any evidence and the credibility behind the evidence and the interpretation of what is accepted as empirical evidence. This is arbitrary and affects what we see as a ‘good theory’.

[Gulnara]

I believe evolution can takes steps back if necessary and then again forward.

[Marina000]

I believe evolution can takes steps back if necessary and then again forward.

I think Richard Dawkins is an excellent example of the limits of TOE and peer review, reflecting the background noise of TOE and its' assumptions.

I Publish, Therefore I exist, even though I have no idea what I am talking about.

[A Poster He or I]

Skakos said,

Who can tell me an example of "NON deleterious mutation"?

The “CCR5-delta 32” allele (a mutation in the configuration of a specific protein receptor on cell surfaces) provides immunity to HIV with no deleterious side-effects for its carrier.

As for the Dawkins video you posted, I thought we had already put the discussion about information to bed, but maybe not. Other than putting him on the spot without a prepared response to a meaningless question, you’ll have to explain to me the significance that you see in this video for our discussion.

[Marina000]

Skakos said, (Nested quote removed.)

The “CCR5-delta 32” allele (a mutation in the configuration of a specific protein receptor on cell surfaces) provides immunity to HIV with no deleterious side-effects for its carrier.

As for the Dawkins video you posted, I thought we had already put the discussion about information to bed, but maybe not. Other than putting him on the spot without a prepared response to a meaningless question, you’ll have to explain to me the significance that you see in this video for our discussion.

I'd like to comment.

That allele is only a non deleterious mutation if one has already assumed man evolved from a common ancestor with other primates. Below one sees researchers dancing around their only assumption of common ancestry with the goal of making it all fit regardless of any anomaly.

The age of the Δ32 allele has been estimated to be between 700 and 3,500 y based on linkage disequilibrium data [2,3], and recent ancient DNA evidence suggests the allele is at least 2,900 y old [4]. If Δ32 were neutral, population genetics theory predicts it would have to be much older given its frequency. The alternative explanation is that the Δ32 mutation occurred recently and then increased rapidly in frequency because of a strong selective advantage

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info ... io.0030339

It appears from the research that this allele has not fixed in the population and therefore isn't even a support for TOE. Immunity did not drive the evolution of man unless evolutionists have some new paradigm. Even if there are mutations that are not deleterious, all the recent data into epistasis suggest the costs outweighs the benefit. And more speculation is offered as to why evolution plods on regardless, with little to no substantiation of 'how'.

Re Dawkins

Given the amount of publishing Dawkins has done and his inference that religionists are ignorantly avoiding the evidence, one would expect some sort of an appropriate response to the question posed to him seeing as every one that does not ‘know‘ is somehow cognitively lacking. This should not be a difficult one to answer given that evolutionists talk about this buzz word 'new information'.

The reason why Dawkins fumbled is not because he did not have time to prepare. It was because when asked a straight question Dawkins could not answer it. Like this....

Some monkeys have a mutation in a protein called TRIM5 that results in a piece of another, defunct protein being tacked onto TRIM5. The result is a hybrid protein called TRIM5-CypA, which can protect cells from infection with retroviruses such as HIV. Here, a single mutation has resulted in a new protein with a new and potentially vital function. New protein, new function, new information.

Although such an event might seem highly unlikely, it turns out that the TRIM5-CypA protein has evolved independently in two separate groups of monkeys. In general, though, the evolution of a new gene usually involves far more than one mutation. The most common way for a new gene to evolve is for an existing gene to be duplicated. Once there are two or more copies, each can evolve in separate directions.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... ation.html

TRIM5-CypA protein has evolved independently by faith but there is no answer to 'How', it just did. Above researchers are saying that regardless of the unlikelihood of the above occurring at all 'IT has happened' at least twice. Then they will play with the anomoly of dating somehow. That algorithmic conundrum is on top of assuming common ancestry. The data above is equally good evidence to suggest primates do not share a common ancestor at all.

Indeed using the same letters to spell different words is not producing new information and neither is duplicating the information or rearranging it or having it posted in via HGT.

To me, the meaning of Skakos's comment, "that says it all", reflects the question below, related to the thread topic. Dawkins response supports the answer and reasoning below.

So, is the scientific method a philosophy? Yes it is. And when a philosophy is elevated to the level of dogmatism, then truth suffers.

http://carm.org/scientific-method-philosophy

[A Poster He or I]

I don't see anyone requiring common ancestry with other primates for an allele to be assessed as providing HIV immunity. I don't see anyone requiring the allele to be fixed in the population for it to be assessed as providing HIV immunity. If it doesn't make sense to you that HIV immunity would provide a potential survival advantage allowing for eventual spread of the allele through the population, then I imagine that is because it doesn't serve your agenda to discredit evolutionary science.

While I agree that Dawkins is dogmatic--a most unfortunate and embarrassing spectacle for a scientist--I find your interpretation of his response in the video to be merely a self-serving rationalization. Information theory is a poor way to couch molecular genetics, leading to the sort of ambiguities that the question put to Dawkins entails. Not that I have any sympathy for Dawkins. He always comes across as a quasi-polemicist to me, so I'm not surprised that he might find himself painted into a corner by his own absolutism. If you think that represents some sort of defeat for evolutionary science, then I doubt that anything I might say about separating the messenger from the message will convince you otherwise.