Creation vs. Evolution (take 187)

[hecd2]

SeekerJen:

By “fantasy story”, do you mean “all humans are evolved from clams”, or “organisms can evolve to adapt to their environment”?

The former is as yet still a theory, and one that doesn’t have any more evidence than creation theory to prove it as fact. The latter I have seen in my own work as a biological scientist.

To suggest that humans evolved from clams is utterly bizarre for someone who claims to be a ‘biological scientist’. If you think any professional ‘biological scientist’ entertains the notion that humans evolved from clams then you must have a palsied grip on phylogenetics.

Humans: Homo sapiens is a member of Hominidae, which is in Catarhinni, in turn a primate. Primates are placental mammals (Eutheria), which are one of many Synapsid groups. Synapsids are amniotes which are one of several groups of tetrapods. Tetrapods are Gnathostomata or jawed vertebrates, which are part of the group of Chordates, which is one of three groups of deuterostomes.

Clams: The clam is a bivalve. Bivalves are molluscs which fall into the group of Lophotrochozoa. Lophotrochozoans are protostomes.

The divergence of protostomes (of which clams represent one example) and deuterostomes (of which humans represent one example) is deep in the tree of life: it is the fundamental divergence of bilaterians, the oldest example of which was found this year and dated to 40 million years BEFORE the Cambrian:
Chen et al, Science 305, 218 - 222 (July 2004).

So the idea that humans evolved from clams is grotesque.

And to say that evolution is ‘only’ a theory, and that it has no more evidence than ‘creation theory’ (whatever that is) is to display an astonishing degree of ignorance for someone who claims to be a scientist of any kind.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[hecd2]

SocaliCatholic:

Okay first it seems like your more logical than some of the evolutionists that I’ve talked to in the past. They apparently didn’t want to talk after a point because they didn’t want the fallacy of evolution exposed by their un-scientific reasoning. In a way we can’t blame them- evolution is the product imaginative Darwin and makes a case for die-hard atheists.

After you’ve had the fact pointed out to you for the third time that your definition of science is hopelessly narrow, entirely your own idiosyncratic invention and simply wrong, and you have ignored that for the third time; after you have been shown for the third time that your incorrect definition would exclude many, many branches of science that are accepted into the canon of science by all scientists, philosophers of science and historians of science, and you have ignored that for the third time; after you have, in effect, made the ridiculous claim for the third time that geology, geomorphology, geochemistry, palaeontology, climatology, ocean science, palaeo-ecology, cosmology, astrophysics, quantum gravity and other branches of theoretical physics, evolutionary biology, phylogenetics and cladistics are not really science then it’s time for a sensible person to move on and leave you to your odd ideas.

Since you, who have not posted the slightest shred of scientific evidence one way or the other, nor shown that you understand anything about a single modern scientific principle, nor given reason to think that you have even the foggiest notion about what the theory of evolution states and what evidence supports it (the closest you have come is to claim your father as an engineer and your friendship with physicists) - since you insist on defining what science is and what it isn’t erroneously, over and over again, then a sensible person will recognise the absurdity of your refusalor inability to listen, your fundamental ignorance of the topic you are pontificating on, and your unpersuadibility, and move on to a more sensible and rewarding discussion.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[SocaliCatholic]

hecd2:

After you’ve had the fact pointed out to you for the third time that your definition of science is hopelessly narrow, entirely your own idiosyncratic invention and simply wrong, and you have ignored that for the third time; after you have been shown for the third time that your incorrect definition would exclude many, many branches of science that are accepted into the canon of science by all scientists, philosophers of science and historians of science, and you have ignored that for the third time; after you have, in effect, made the ridiculous claim for the third time that geology, geomorphology, geochemistry, palaeontology, climatology, ocean science, palaeo-ecology, cosmology, astrophysics, quantum gravity and other branches of theoretical physics, evolutionary biology, phylogenetics and cladistics are not really science then it’s time for a sensible person to move on and leave you to your odd ideas.

Since you, who have not posted the slightest shred of scientific evidence one way or the other, nor shown that you understand anything about a single modern scientific principle, nor given reason to think that you have even the foggiest notion about what the theory of evolution states and what evidence supports it (the closest you have come is to claim your father as an engineer and your friendship with physicists) - since you insist on defining what science is and what it isn’t erroneously, over and over again, then a sensible person will recognise the absurdity of your refusalor inability to listen, your fundamental ignorance of the topic you are pontificating on, and your unpersuadibility, and move on to a more sensible and rewarding discussion.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

Your right I aplogize.

I’m probably a defective mutation from the evolution of intellegent humans.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

wanerious:

I’m pretty sure I’ll talk as long as you like

I agree, though I think “educated guess” is a little weak. A hypothesis is more like an educated guess, a theory is a very convincing court case, usually accurate beyond a reasonable doubt. But you’re right, what elevates a hypothesis to a theory is some body of evidence supporting it, and (importantly), no evidence contradicting it. Newton’s Laws predict the elliptical orbit of Pluto, and one may observe some portion of the orbit and note that it follows the prediction of Newton’s gravitational equations. Newton’s theory of gravitation, then, is supported. It is only an approximation, however. Looking at Mercury’s orbit we notice that it also follows an elliptical path, but the orbit iself precesses around the Sun over time. This is too small an effect for us to measure for the outer planets. Newton’s theory has to be modified to account for this subtle motion. Einstein’s General Relativity is a more successful model and predicts just this precession. In the future, there may be other observations that cause us to further modify our most current gravitational model.

Fossils exist within geologic deposits, to be directly observed by human eyes. Molecular evidence in DNA exists, to be fairly directly observed by human eyes.

Based upon direct observation and comparison of fossils, as well as the material they are embedded in, as well as DNA in modern organisms, the guesses as to their relationships can be verified or modified.

I strenuously disagree

No prior orbits of Pluto were observed, either. We assume our science is good enough to reconstruct the story. Also, if we and “monkeys” had a common ancestor, why would we expect to see monkey-men now?

What? The original hypotheses were constrained and modified based upon the last 150 years or so of geologic, palentologic, and biologic observations.

We will never “observe” evolution, just as we will never “observe” gravitational theories. They are explanations for natural processes. The map is not the territory.

Okay so if I am understanding you correctly, it appears that science is kind of like a story that gets more and more accurate as new discoveries are made.

Would you agree to that or is there a better analogy?

 

[wanerious]

SocaliCatholic:

Okay so if I am understanding you correctly, it appears that science is kind of like a story that gets more and more accurate as new discoveries are made.

Would you agree to that or is there a better analogy?

I agree. The only judge in whether or not something is a good theory is the degree to which it is supported by or predicts observations. As time goes by and our observations are more precise and discerning, we can better discriminate between competing explanations or realize that the current ones are sufficiently imprecise as to warrant corrections. 19th century technology was good enough to support 19th century physics. 20th century engineering and technology showed that our old theoretical models were too imprecise to be predictive, which led to the corrective theories of the atom, quantum mechanics, and relativity.

Well, relativity is a little bit of an exception, due to the remarkable genius of Einstein. The theory came first, to be supported later by delicate observations.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

wanerious:

I agree. The only judge in whether or not something is a good theory is the degree to which it is supported by or predicts observations. As time goes by and our observations are more precise and discerning, we can better discriminate between competing explanations or realize that the current ones are sufficiently imprecise as to warrant corrections. 19th century technology was good enough to support 19th century physics. 20th century engineering and technology showed that our old theoretical models were too imprecise to be predictive, which led to the corrective theories of the atom, quantum mechanics, and relativity.

Well, relativity is a little bit of an exception, due to the remarkable genius of Einstein. The theory came first, to be supported later by delicate observations.

Then if we are in agreement about science being like a story backed by evidence, would you also agree that everything that science concludes is a not equivalent to a mathematical truth (logic alone), but a truth relative to the evidence presented? (logic + evidence) And would you also agree that observations and evidence are basically the same thing.

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

SocaliCatholic:

Definitely tired of the fantasy story of evolution and the ridiculous claim that evolution is part of science.

Right…and that empirically verified, explicit, prediction generating alternative hypothesis of…oh wait…there isn’t one.

Urvogel Reverie

 

[JimG]

Evolution obviously cannot begin unless creation has occurred. So I still don’t understand why there is a disagreement.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< So I still don’t understand why there is a disagreement. >>

There are disagreements because of the theological objections that folks have. Creation is true since there is a Creator, but how the Creator created is another question. Young-earth creationists don’t like the “death before sin” idea since that conflicts with their interpretation of Genesis and Romans 5:12, etc and other Christian or Catholic folks don’t like the “humans and chimps had a common ancestor” idea since that conflicts with their understanding of Original Sin, the Fall and a literal historical couple Adam/Eve. Good theological objections. I don’t have an answer yet. Some people try to reconcile

The “scientific objections” to evolution have been answered over and over again in the many long threads on this topic. So give it up you “scientific” creationists. Take a break and read TalkOrigins for a few weeks

Phil P