Kreitsauce's Musings

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

15 Comments for this entry

• 

  Dimensio
  December 5th, 2009 on 9:19 am

  Evolution isn’t observable.

  This assertion is demonstrably false. Either you have not studied the subject of evolution, or you are being dishonest.

  We study chimpanzees- their behavior, genetic makeup, and anatomy- because Darwinists believe that we are very closely related to them. Darwinists then use superficial similarities between humans and chimps to prove their assumptions.

  I believe that you have confused making an unsubstantiated assertion with providing a rational demonstration. That you assert that "Darwinists" engage in a technique, while providing no specific explanation of the technique nor identifying occurrences of the technique being employed, does not constitute a demonstration that any individual actually has engaged in such a technique. Moreover, your use of the term "Darwinism" suggests that you may lack a fundamental understanding of the subject that you are addressing; I have observed that a disproportionate number of individuals who employ the term "Darwinist" in reference to individuals who accept the validity of the theory of evolution actually lack a fundamental understanding of the subject of evolution. This lack of understanding is often evident simply by the use of the term "Darwinist"; such individuals are often unaware that the theory of evolution has been refined and developed significantly since Mr. Charles Darwin's initial work, and thus referring to those who accept or study the theory as "Darwinists" is as accurate as labelling those who accept general principles of physics as "Newtonists".

  Unlike Darwinism, intelligent design bases its theories on the evidence around us: information provided for our world through physics and DNA as well as the incredible complexity of the universe.

  I am unaware of any theories relating to "Intelligent Design", though I am familiar with the assertion of the existence of such theories. I have requested, upon multiple occasions, for individuals asserting the existence of a theory of "Intelligent Design" to explain the fundamental, known occurring, physical processes that are the explanatory mechanisms of the explanation termed "Intelligent Design", to logically derive predicted observations that should result from the occurrence of these stated mechanisms and to propose hypothetical observations that should in fact not occur should the explanation known as "intelligent design" be correct. Thus far, however, no individual to whom I have made such a request has provided any response.

  In spite of the fact that scientists have performed numerous experiments on animals in an attempt to prove evolution through mutation, the obvious must be declared: just because mutations can be made to happen or engineered in a lab does not mean that they did happen in the past. That is a logical fallacy. While your statement is technically correct, I do not understand how it relates to reality. I am aware of no biologist who has suggested that the demonstrable occurrence of current mutations itself constitutes a demonstration of such mutation in the past; the only conclusion of such observation is that mutation exists and thus can constitute a valid explanatory mechanism, should observations be consistent with its occurrence.

  Suppose I gave you a pile of hammers and asked you to arrange them in a potential evolutionary sequence.

  Such a procedure would be impossible. Hammers do not replicate imperfectly; as such, a collective of hammers cannot "evolve" and thus there can exist no evolutionary sequence.

  Just because scientists can superimpose an evolutionary order on things does not mean that the evolutionary order is fact.

  Your assertion is factually correct, but it is also meaningless. Biologists do not suggest that evolution is a "fact" merely because it may be "superimposed" upon observations; rather, evolution is concluded to be the most viable means by which biodiversity emerged because extant observations within multiple lines of evidence — including the fossil record and genetic data across species — are logically consistent with the fundamental mechanisms of the process, and because no other demonstrable physical process is capable of explaining such observations.

  Reply
• 

  kreitsauce
  December 5th, 2009 on 3:40 pm

  Dimensio,
  I'm not aware of one instance in which evolution has been observed. We can observe adaptation and natural selection taking place, but we have never seen these give way to anything resembling true evolution.

  Secondly, I have no problem using the term "Darwinism" because, at the very least, it has little to no negative connotation outside of the United States. I'm not sure that lumping them in with the ignorant is a good plan.That aside, whatever the developments in the theory, there is still no hard evidence favoring it, as I mentioned above. There is only speculation and interpretation of evidence. In this way, any comparison between evolutionism and physics is also a logical fallacy.

  My statements regarding mutations are important in two ways. First of all, no experiment has demonstrated that mutation is a "valid explanatory mechanism." Whatever the mutation, it only duplicates or leaves out information. It does not create new information. It also is important because the simple fact that mutations do take place in the present do not tell us whether or not it even could be an explanatory mechanism. There is a great gulf fixed between observed evolution and observed mutation.

  I have to say I find it humorous that you criticize the hammer illustration. I actually borrowed the "experiment" from a similar one that graduate-level biology teachers have used to illustrate the work of biological evolutionists. The only difference is the one I am most closely aware of used screws, not hammers.

  Finally, I think your justification of Darwinism and disdain for Intelligent Design are very ironic. Explain to me the known, observable natural functions by which biological evolution take place. Explain to me a means of forming complicated life such as ours from that which is not living, of gaining information (DNA) without an intelligent, supreme Mind to put that information in place. What is your hypothesis that predicts a world unique from the world predicted by Intelligent Design? Intelligent Design looks at the information in DNA, the order we have discovered in our world through physics, and the structure of everything from the galaxies to the human cell to the subatomic particles and proposes the existence of a Being capable of ordering these things. I could go on and on at this point, but I've written on this subject numerous times on my blog, and, frankly, other folks do it better. View this paper if you want a much more developed theory of Intelligent Design: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06….

  Thanks for visiting!

  Reply
• 

  Dimensio
  December 5th, 2009 on 8:35 pm

  I'm not aware of one instance in which evolution has been observed.

  That you have conducted no research regarding observed instances of evolution does not demonstrate that the process has never been observed. In fact, the process has been observed upon multiple occasions.

  We can observe adaptation and natural selection taking place, but we have never seen these give way to anything resembling true evolution.

  That you have failed to adequately research the subject does not constitute a logical data set.

  hat aside, whatever the developments in the theory, there is still no hard evidence favoring it, as I mentioned above.

  Your justification is based upon a false premise. That you are ignorant of the extensive evidence in support of the theory of evolution does not negate the existence of that information.

  There is only speculation and interpretation of evidence. In this way, any comparison between evolutionism and physics is also a logical fallacy.

  What is "evolutionism"?

  My statements regarding mutations are important in two ways. First of all, no experiment has demonstrated that mutation is a "valid explanatory mechanism."

  Your assertion is demonstrably false; mutation has been observed to result in novel functions in isolated biological systems.

  Whatever the mutation, it only duplicates or leaves out information. It does not create new information.

  Your assertion is again incorrect, and suggests a lack of understanding both of the process of mutation and of the means by which information, within genetics, is quantified. A mutation event can result in duplication, an omission or an alteration of existing information. While a duplication event does not alter the information content of a genome — as duplicated information constitutes no new total information — a subsequent alteration of a duplicated gene will result in the emergence of new information; a duplication event of the string ACDA will produce ACGAACDA — a string with no new information — and a subsequent alteration of that string may produce ACDAACTA, which contains novel information as compared to the initial data. This manner of event has been observed: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
  A video explanation of this may be viewed here

  It also is important because the simple fact that mutations do take place in the present do not tell us whether or not it even could be an explanatory mechanism. There is a great gulf fixed between observed evolution and observed mutation.

  Are you suggesting that mutations did not occur in the past? If so, please justify such a suggestion. If not, please explain how mutations in biological systems cannot be referenced as a likely explanation for observed events within biological systems that are fully consistent with the occurrence of mutation.

  Reply
• 

  Dimensio
  December 5th, 2009 on 8:35 pm

  I have to say I find it humorous that you criticize the hammer illustration. I actually borrowed the "experiment" from a similar one that graduate-level biology teachers have used to illustrate the work of biological evolutionists. The only difference is the one I am most closely aware of used screws, not hammers.

  The analogy remains faulty regardless of the source.

  Finally, I think your justification of Darwinism and disdain for Intelligent Design are very ironic. Explain to me the known, observable natural functions by which biological evolution take place.

  The initial and foundational stated mechanisms, as proposed by Mr. Charles Darwin, is imperfect inheritance of physical characteristics — as it was observed even by Mr. Darwin that offspring share physical attributes of their parents, but that this descent of traits is not perfect — combined with environmental conditions that result in an increased likelihood of reproduction based upon the presence or absence of certain inherited physical characteristics. Those remain the fundamental causal mechanisms of evolution, though a comprehensive explanation of the cause of imperfect heredity (as being the result of mutation) and a more detailed analysis of patterns of reproductive selection (as is explained by punctuated equilibrium) have been developed as more research has been conducted and as more information has been accumulated.

  Explain to me a means of forming complicated life such as ours from that which is not living,

  I cannot. As the theory of evolution does not address the emergence of any life — regardless of assessment of "complication" — such an inquiry is not relevant to the theory of evolution.

  of gaining information (DNA) without an intelligent, supreme Mind to put that information in place.

  As I have already noted above, gene duplication and subsequent genetic alteration will result in a gain of information.

  What is your hypothesis that predicts a world unique from the world predicted by Intelligent Design?

  I am aware of no predictions of "Intelligent Design". Thus far, no individual who has proposed "Intelligent Design" as an explanatory cause has yet identified physical process that constitute the mechanisms of such an explanation. Without an actual definition of the physical means by which "Intelligent Design" occurs, it is impossible for any predictions to be derived.

  In fact, I have even requested an explanation of such mechanisms from you. You have, as have all others to whom I have made such a request, provided no explanation.

  Intelligent Design looks at the information in DNA, the order we have discovered in our world through physics, and the structure of everything from the galaxies to the human cell to the subatomic particles and proposes the existence of a Being capable of ordering these things.

  This is an ad hoc explanation. You are positing a wholly undefined entity that engages in a vaguely defined task through entirely undefined physical processes. Such an explanation is meaningless; it is entirely untestable, as it allows for the derivation of no predictions.

  I could go on and on at this point, but I've written on this subject numerous times on my blog, and, frankly, other folks do it better. View this paper if you want a much more developed theory of Intelligent Design: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06….

  The document that you reference also fails to identify any fundamental mechanism of a theory of "Intelligent Design". As I have noted, the absence of a defined mechanism within an explanation prevents the derivation of any logical predictions regarding that explanation, and thus there exists no means by which the explanation may be tested. In fact, the document primarily relies upon a fallacious appeal to ignorance; it suggests that the cause of certain observations may not adequately be explained by known physical mechanisms and thus those observations must be the result of intelligent intervention. Such an explanation is faulty because the only logical conclusion that may be derived from the inadequacy of any known physical event in explaining an observation is that the cause of the observation is, as yet, unknown. Positing an undefined entity whose existence cannot be tested and whose mechanisms are not defined is not meaningful.

  Reply
• 

  kreitsauce
  December 5th, 2009 on 10:08 pm

  Tsk, Tsk, Dimensio,
  Think outside the box a little, buddy! Your basic premise seems to be that I'm ignorant of the arguments or supposed evidences of evolutionism (I add the "ism" because it's much more a philosophy than it is a science.) Give a guy some credit! It so happens that I make it a point to study this stuff. I just happen to not buy into it.

  1) Whether or not it is outside the realm of evolution, if you want to propose evolution as the way life developed on this planet, you have to figure out how it started. You can't just say "we don't care about that, and we're not responsible for finding an answer to that question." The obvious flaw in Darwinism is that there is no natural mechanism for life arising from that which is not life, unless you want to espouse spontaneous generation. Of course, I thought we got rid of that silliness long ago! I'd also point out that you didn't explain where DNA came, either.

  2) Once again, you've pointed out some interesting instances of natural (and not-so-natural) selection, genetic mutation, etc. What you have not done is demonstrate an instance of evolution actually taking place. I'm not interested in mice reproducing on an island. They still produced more mice. If the fact that the mice, insects, or fish prefer not to interbreed or are incapable of interbreeding is proof of a new step of evolution, then someone had best write a new textbook or something, because there's pretty solid evidence that Neanderthals and humans did interbreed. I'm not so sure that lack of interbreeding alone is proof of true evolution.

  I have no problem with new species being formed. Christianity, apart from any scientific study, teaches that creatures were made to reproduce after their "kind", not simply after their individual species. I am underwhelmed by the scientific establishment's attempt to support claims of evolution simply because finches develop different sorts of beaks or mice produce more mice. Intelligent Design also has no problem with species being formed. Be fruitful and multiply, I say. Well, actually, God said that first.

  Reply
• 

  kreitsauce
  December 5th, 2009 on 10:09 pm

  3) You are overconfident in the ability of mutations to genuinely benefit the species as a whole. Were you a fan of X-men as a child, by chance, because science fiction is about the only place this takes place. Mutations are nearly always damaging, and positive mutations are so rare that they are irrelevant. Here's an example for you to ponder. There are about 4,000 diseases in humans alone that are caused by genetic mutation. Some forms of heart disease, cancer, and neurological degeneration have been demonstrated to result from one mutation or the other. Some mutations are so severely detrimental that the unborn child is spontaneously aborted; it cannot survive gestation. A 2005 study of human mutations listed 186 beneficial mutations (each of which had a drawback, such as sickle-cell anemia) and 450,000 negative mutations. The study found that for every one beneficial mutation, the next 10,000 mutations would be crippling. (Sanford, J. 2005. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Lima, NY: Elim Publishing, 26.) There is no such thing as an unequivocally beneficial mutation.

  While it is true that there are mutations that are not phenotypic- they do not change the physical structure of the organism in any way- these mutations are not candidates for evolution either. Since there are no physical changes, natural selection cannot take place. Furthermore, non-phenotypic mutations actually degrade or delete genetic information, and are therefore not technically beneficial. If enough non-phenotypic ("neutral") mutations take place, they will cause the death of the species. Of course, then we have to ask how life on earth survived millions of years of such mutations.

  4) So you believe that "imperfect inheritance of physical characteristics" and "environmental conditions" (reproduction with a slight chance of mutation plus natural selection) are responsible for evolution? That's weird, because I believe in both of those things too and I believe in Intelligent Design! I just don't believe that those two things are enough to explain the diversity of life that we see. So again, I have to ask you what you think makes evolution scientifically distinct from Intelligent Design.

  Intelligent Design states that because of the anthropic principle, irreducible complexity, and specified complexity, we have reason to believe that a Designer must have set everything we see into motion. By asking for physical processes you are begging the question and revealing an underlying materialistic presupposition that only physical processes can ever be invoked. In this way, ID is explanation by inference. If you'd like to see some of the physical processes for the creation of the cosmos, I'd recommend reading up on Moshe Carmelli and his cosmological relativity, since that has important meaning from an ID standpoint. As for the creation of life, the process of forming life is a secret of the Designer. I can't speak for all ID adherents, since they are not all Christians. I accept the biblical creation account as being literal. ID is in the position of being condemned by evolutionists if it does specifically posit the God of the Bible and condemned if it does not. If it does posit God, it is viewed as being religious in nature. You condemn it for not being specific enough. As I said at the beginning, perhaps you should be more open minded…

  Reply
• 

  Dimensio
  December 6th, 2009 on 12:50 pm

  Think outside the box a little, buddy! Your basic premise seems to be that I'm ignorant of the arguments or supposed evidences of evolutionism (I add the "ism" because it's much more a philosophy than it is a science.)

  As your stated justification is false, your employment of the term "evolutionism" is fallacious.

  Give a guy some credit! It so happens that I make it a point to study this stuff. I just happen to not buy into it.

  If you have actually studied biology, then for what reason have you incorrectly claimed that mutation cannot result in the addition of genetic information?

  1) Whether or not it is outside the realm of evolution, if you want to propose evolution as the way life developed on this planet, you have to figure out how it started.

  Your assertion is simply false. The employment of evolution as an explanation for the emergence of biodiversity from common living ancestry does not necessitate the formulation of a specific explanation of the emergence of life where no life existed previously. The process of evolution is not dependent upon any specific biogenesis cause, thus the explanation of such biogenesis — while of interest to biologists — is not necessitated by the theory of evolution, and thus the lack of such an explanation does not, in any way, affect the viability of the theory of evolution in explaining biodiversity.

  You can't just say "we don't care about that, and we're not responsible for finding an answer to that question."

  I have made no such statement. I have merely, and correctly, noted that the scope of evolution does not encompass biogenesis. As such, biogenesis requires an explanation other than evolution.

  The obvious flaw in Darwinism is that there is no natural mechanism for life arising from that which is not life, unless you want to espouse spontaneous generation. Of course, I thought we got rid of that silliness long ago!

  That a scientific explanation does not address events outside of its scope is not "flaw"; it is irrational to suggest such. That gravity does not explain the origin of matter whose presence results in gravitational attraction is not a "flaw" of gravitational theory; similarly, that evolution does not explain the ultimate origin of life that evolves is not a "flaw" of the theory of evolution.

  I'd also point out that you didn't explain where DNA came, either.

  Such an explanation does not affect the validity of the theory of evolution. The mean by which deoxyribonucleic acid came to exist does not affect the process of evolution.

  2) Once again, you've pointed out some interesting instances of natural (and not-so-natural) selection, genetic mutation, etc. What you have not done is demonstrate an instance of evolution actually taking place.

  On the contrary; the examples that I have referenced are in fact explicit examples of allele frequency changes over time, which is the fundamental definition of evolution.

  I'm not interested in mice reproducing on an island. They still produced more mice.

  In what way does this negate the examples that I have provided?

  If the fact that the mice, insects, or fish prefer not to interbreed or are incapable of interbreeding is proof of a new step of evolution, then someone had best write a new textbook or something, because there's pretty solid evidence that Neanderthals and humans did interbreed.

  Please reference the "solid evidence" to which you refer, and explain how it negates the examples that I have referenced.

  I'm not so sure that lack of interbreeding alone is proof of true evolution.

  A lack of interbreeding is a condition of speciation, which occurs as a result of evolution producing significantly divergent populations, an event which has occurred upon multiple occasions.

  I have no problem with new species being formed. Christianity, apart from any scientific study, teaches that creatures were made to reproduce after their "kind", not simply after their individual species.

  Please define "kind" within a biological context. Additionally, how do you rationally deny evolution while accepting the occurrence of speciation, given that speciation is a direct result of the process of evolution?

  I am underwhelmed by the scientific establishment's attempt to support claims of evolution simply because finches develop different sorts of beaks or mice produce more mice.

  Perhaps if you were to identify the specific claims that you believe are argued as being "supported" through such observations, I would better be able to address your actual objections.

  Intelligent Design also has no problem with species being formed. Be fruitful and multiply, I say. Well, actually, God said that first.

  This does not constitute a meaningful argument in support of your position.

  Reply
• 

  Dimensio
  December 6th, 2009 on 1:14 pm

  3) You are overconfident in the ability of mutations to genuinely benefit the species as a whole. Were you a fan of X-men as a child, by chance, because science fiction is about the only place this takes place. Mutations are nearly always damaging, and positive mutations are so rare that they are irrelevant.

  Your assertion in this regard is demonstrably false: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
  The majority of mutations are neutral. At times, a neutral mutation may become beneficial due to alterations in environmental conditions. Occasionally, whether a mutation is harmful, neutral or beneficial is dependent upon local environmental conditions.

  Here's an example for you to ponder. There are about 4,000 diseases in humans alone that are caused by genetic mutation. Some forms of heart disease, cancer, and neurological degeneration have been demonstrated to result from one mutation or the other. Some mutations are so severely detrimental that the unborn child is spontaneously aborted; it cannot survive gestation. A 2005 study of human mutations listed 186 beneficial mutations (each of which had a drawback, such as sickle-cell anemia) and 450,000 negative mutations. The study found that for every one beneficial mutation, the next 10,000 mutations would be crippling. (Sanford, J. 2005. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Lima, NY: Elim Publishing, 26.)

  Mutations so deleterious that the organism's reproduction is entirely prevented do not persist within a population, while mutations that provide a reproductive advantage are more likely to be represented in future populations. As no selection pressure exists against neutral — the most frequent — mutations, they will also be represented in subsequent generations.

  There is no such thing as an unequivocally beneficial mutation.

  I have never suggested otherwise.

  While it is true that there are mutations that are not phenotypic- they do not change the physical structure of the organism in any way- these mutations are not candidates for evolution either. Since there are no physical changes, natural selection cannot take place. Furthermore, non-phenotypic mutations actually degrade or delete genetic information, and are therefore not technically beneficial. If enough non-phenotypic ("neutral") mutations take place, they will cause the death of the species. Of course, then we have to ask how life on earth survived millions of years of such mutations.

  Your assertions in fact lead to another important question: if what you claim is factually correct, how did a population of Podarcis sicula develop, over subsequent generations, physical alterations that better enabled them to survive within an environment to which they had been transplanted and isolated? Your assertions would suggest that this event — which has been documented — could not have occurred. Either your assertion is not correct, or biologists have willfully lied regarding observations of the population.

  4) So you believe that "imperfect inheritance of physical characteristics" and "environmental conditions" (reproduction with a slight chance of mutation plus natural selection) are responsible for evolution?

  Evolution is a direct result of the occurrence of those two mechanisms. The two processes, combined, can produce a change in allele frequencies within a population over subsequent generations; evolution is fundamentally defined as a change in allele frequency over time.

  Reply
• 

  Dimensio
  December 6th, 2009 on 1:14 pm

  That's weird, because I believe in both of those things too and I believe in Intelligent Design! I just don't believe that those two things are enough to explain the diversity of life that we see. So again, I have to ask you what you think makes evolution scientifically distinct from Intelligent Design.

  As I have stated, evolution is posited as being the direct result of demonstrable, observable mechanisms, which I have identified. Moreover, because these mechanisms are defined — and understood — meaningful predictions may be derived postulating observations that should be recorded as a result of the occurrence of those mechanisms. As an example, as imperfections in replication are known to be caused by mutation, the genetic sequences of organisms previously established as being relatively closely related through common ancestry should fit patterns more similar than the genetic sequences of other organisms posited to be less closely related. Additionally, other derived predictions from knowledge of other biological functions — such as the knowledge that mitochondrial DNA, which mutates at a relatively constant and known rate (but which is not selected for, because it results in no changes to the organism) — allows for comparison of multiple lines of data with one another for consistency.

  Conversely, no proponent of "intelligent design" has yet identified a single mechanism of the postulate that they have termed "intelligent design". Without any such defined mechanisms, it is impossible to derive logical predictions of observations that should result from the occurrence of the "intelligent design" process. Without such predictions, it is impossible to establish with any confidence that the process of "intelligent design" has ever occurred: undefined processes cannot be logically demonstrated.

  Intelligent Design states that because of the anthropic principle, irreducible complexity, and specified complexity, we have reason to believe that a Designer must have set everything we see into motion.

  Until and unless a "Designer" is meaningfully defined, and the processes by which this "Designer" could "set everything we see into motion", there exists no means by which the claim may be meaningfully evaluated. It is irrational to suggest that a wholly undemonstrable and undefined process "must" have occurred.

  By asking for physical processes you are begging the question

  What specific question have I begged?

  and revealing an underlying materialistic presupposition that only physical processes can ever be invoked.

  I am confused; what processes, other than "physical processes", could be addressed by scientific inquiry?

  In this way, ID is explanation by inference.

  Until and unless the mechanisms of "Intelligent Design" are defined, "Intelligent Design" is conjecture, not explanation.

  Reply
• 

  Dimensio
  December 6th, 2009 on 1:14 pm

  If you'd like to see some of the physical processes for the creation of the cosmos, I'd recommend reading up on Moshe Carmelli and his cosmological relativity, since that has important meaning from an ID standpoint.

  Dr. Carmeli's postulates relate to cosmology, and thus are not related to the subject of evolution.

  As for the creation of life, the process of forming life is a secret of the Designer.

  You are asserting the existence of a "Designer", but you have not demonstrated the existence of such an entity. Moreover, claiming that the explanation of an event is a "secret" does not constitute a meaningful explanation for that event.

  I can't speak for all ID adherents, since they are not all Christians. I accept the biblical creation account as being literal.

  Then you explicitly reject "Intelligent Design", as "Intelligent Design" postulates that all extant biodiversity emerged from common ancestry and that while evolution is primarily the means by which this emergence occurred, an undefined "designer", employing undefined mechanisms, "designed" certain biological structures that could not have otherwise evolved.

  ID is in the position of being condemned by evolutionists if it does specifically posit the God of the Bible and condemned if it does not.

  It is my understanding that the conjecture termed "Intelligent Design" does not postulate any specific deity, or any deities at all. I have, however, observed a number of proponents of "Intelligent Design" who have disagreed with my assessment.

  If it does posit God, it is viewed as being religious in nature.

  An explanation that posits a deity is inherently unscientific, and thus cannot be considered to be science.

  You condemn it for not being specific enough.

  I merely note that it, having yet to meet certain required criteria, it cannot constitute a valid scientific explanation.

  As I said at the beginning, perhaps you should be more open minded…

  Are you suggesting that I accept postulates that are wholly undefined and undemonstrable?

  Reply
• 

  kreitsauce
  December 6th, 2009 on 7:27 pm

  Well, as is often the case, our differences are fundamentally based on philosophy and language. When you use the term "evolution", you appear to mean both microevolution and macroevolution. When I use the term, "evolution" (Darwinism), I refer only to macroevolution. The instances you have given me, the only observable sort of evolution, are instances of microevolution. I have no problem whatsoever new species developing if you say that primates will always be primates, finches will always be finches, turtles will always be turtles, etc. I do have a problem with saying that finches will eventually cease to be birds or came from something that was not a bird. I do have a problem with saying something that wasn't a human will become a human. I have a problem with this because there is no proof that the various species become something completely different. So, yes, I do see that microevolution takes place. New species will crop up from time to time. There don't appear to be any physical processes or amount of mutation that will cause these species to be anything other than what they are categorically.

  Secondly, we have a philosophical problem with each other, one that must first be resolved before we can go further. You are philosophically a materialist. You assume your materialism is true, and that taints your scientific experience. It is the filter through which you determine which scientific theories you wish to accept and which you wish to categorically reject. This materialism is not scientific in nature, because the assertion that only physical processes are capable of doing something is itself not a scientific assertion. As a theist, and more specifically a Christian, I believe philosophically that God created the world and all of the matter, energy, scientific laws, and information in the universe. While he miraculously intervenes on occasion, He usually allows the universe to run according to the way He designed it. When He said "Reproduce after your kind", He put into motion the ability for a number of species to come into existence. I have no philosophical problem with the existence of the supernatural alongside various physical laws. You put the universe in a box of your own creation, of your own philosophical background.

  When I say "think outside the box", I'm being quite real here. Consider something outside of the laws you have imposed or believe to be true. I'm not asking you to throw out everything we know to be true about science and buy in to some hocus-pocus. I'm asking you, scientifically speaking, to see that microevolution can exist because a Designer put it there. The Design implications of which I speak- irreducible complexity, the existence of DNA, and such- do imply the existence of a Designer. I'm also asking you as a fellow human being to consider the existence of a God that loves us so much He wants us to come to know Him. If truth is what you are after, and I can only assume that you must be considering you took time to read and write here, you must ask yourself about the Truth of that which lies beyond scientific inquiry.

  Reply
• 

  Dimensio
  December 10th, 2009 on 3:38 pm

  When you use the term "evolution", you appear to mean both microevolution and macroevolution. When I use the term, "evolution" (Darwinism), I refer only to macroevolution.

  Please identify the fundamental differences between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Exlpain the specific physical mechanisms that constitute a part of one of those processes that does not occur in the other.

  I do have a problem with saying that finches will eventually cease to be birds

  I possess no formal biological training, however an individual who has experienced such training would suggest that organisms do not "outgrow" their established taxonomic classification; rather, they diversify and diverge into new classifications.

  or came from something that was not a bird.

  Do you believe that theropod dinosaurs should be classified as avians?

  I do have a problem with saying something that wasn't a human will become a human.

  I am unaware of any individual who posits such a claim.

  I have a problem with this because there is no proof that the various species become something completely different.

  Scientific claims are not "proven"; rather, they are either supported through a preponderance of evidence or they are disproven through the observation of demonstrably contradictory information.

  Secondly, we have a philosophical problem with each other, one that must first be resolved before we can go further. You are philosophically a materialist. You assume your materialism is true, and that taints your scientific experience.

  Scientific investigation is inherently "materialist". Attempting to apply non-materialistic concepts to inquiry results in non-scientific investigation and methodology.

  It is the filter through which you determine which scientific theories you wish to accept and which you wish to categorically reject.

  Any explanation that appeals to non-material mechanisms is non-scientific, based upon the fundamental definition of science.

  This materialism is not scientific in nature, because the assertion that only physical processes are capable of doing something is itself not a scientific assertion.

  I have made no assertion that "only physical processes are capable of doing something". Rather, I recognize that science is capable only of addressing purely physical causes and the subsequent result of those causes. If any event is the result of non-physical causes, that event cannot be explained by science. As such, the explanation, even if true, will be inherently unscientific.

  As a theist, and more specifically a Christian, I believe philosophically that God created the world and all of the matter, energy, scientific laws, and information in the universe. While he miraculously intervenes on occasion, He usually allows the universe to run according to the way He designed it. When He said "Reproduce after your kind", He put into motion the ability for a number of species to come into existence. I have no philosophical problem with the existence of the supernatural alongside various physical laws.

  Your beliefs, even if correct, are not scientific, and thus are not directly relevant when addressing scientific methodology and explanations.

  Reply
• 

  Dimensio
  December 10th, 2009 on 3:38 pm

  You put the universe in a box of your own creation, of your own philosophical background.

  As I have noted, your assessment of my philosophy is in error.

  I'm asking you, scientifically speaking, to see that microevolution can exist because a Designer put it there.

  Until and unless you are able to explain the means by which a physical process may be "placed" by a "Designer", there exists no means by which the claim may be evaluated. Claims that cannot be objectively evaluated are of no scientific merit.

  The Design implications of which I speak- irreducible complexity, the existence of DNA, and such- do imply the existence of a Designer.

  Assertions regarding irreducible complexity have been consistently refuted. Your assertion that the existence of deoxyribonucleic acid implies the existence of a "Designer" is unsubstantiated.

  I'm also asking you as a fellow human being to consider the existence of a God that loves us so much He wants us to come to know Him.

  Without evidence in support of such a claim, I do not understand why I should consider that your claim is more credible than the claims of any other individuals who have posited, without evidence, the existence of a deity possessed of a different — whether slight or significant — nature.

  If truth is what you are after, and I can only assume that you must be considering you took time to read and write here, you must ask yourself about the Truth of that which lies beyond scientific inquiry.

  I am willing to investigate claims of truth, but I cannot do so if no means of evaluating such claims exists.

  Reply
• 

  kreitsauce
  December 10th, 2009 on 5:29 pm

  The statement that scientific investigation is inherently materialist is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one. It is not a scientifically demonstrable statement, but one of belief. Your belief in an interpretation of evidence is based on your fundamental belief in materialism. You limit all of existence to that which may be scientifically discovered. Therefore, you require a Designer to use strictly physical processes to create. The very basic understanding of God, for instance, would require that He not be made of the same stuff as this universe nor be bound by the laws of this universe. If evolutionists are not required to come up with a way for life to have sprung into being by natural forces, I see no reason why ID folks or creationists should have to come up with a physical process for how the Designer God created life as we know it.

  Onward to evolution….
  Microevolution deals with adaptation and natural selection, while macroevolution has no known physical processes. Hence, in 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution." Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No."

  In other words, I believe that theropods are not avians. There may be flying dinosaurs and land dinosaurs, and there may be flying birds and lands birds. These are two completely different types of organisms that grew up alongside each other. Darwinists, on the other hand, do claim that animals did eventually evolve and become human. I find that very difficult to believe, and that is a claim with very little evidence. See my previous post for more details on that, and there'll be another post coming out on Saturday, I believe.

  You claim that a belief in things beyond the realm of science may exist, but that a belief in such things is inherently unscientific. Where, then, do you propose we go? There's very little evidence for macroevolution taking place. There may even be none. The fossil record is a shaky place, and paleontology and biology are both fairly soft sciences. Therefore, another theory must be proposed. Scientists needs to act a little more logically, which is the point of my post in the first place. There must be room for logic to fill in gaps where the scientific process cannot. Already that is how paleontology in particular is being handled.

  As evolutionists lack all of the answers for the puzzle they are putting together, ID lacks answers as well. Give ID a chance instead of having it blacklisted by the scientific establishment, the courts, the media, etc.

  Reply
• 

  Dimensio
  December 10th, 2009 on 3:39 pm

  I inadvertently neglected to close my HTML tag following my use of the word "refuted". I apologize for this error.

  Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website