Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin: Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

[The_Barbarian]

The ID/creationists are between a rock and a hard place. It usually goes like this:

• IDer: “Evolution can’t produce information.”
• Scientist: “Here’s an example of that happening.”
• IDer: "That’s not really information. "
• Scientist “Oh. Well, then, as you see, evolution doesn’t need your sort of information.”
• IDer (Big Font) “It does too!!!”
• (scientist chuckles and walks away)

 

[redneck22]

I’d hate to have to close this thread for going off topic, people. Please stick to evolution and take side issues to new or existing threads. Thank you all.

In keeping with the original post it seems research published in New Scientist indicates that Teleology is built into the human psyche.

Humans may be primed to believe in “creation”.

“What her work suggests is that the creationist side has a huge leg up early on because it fits our natural tendencies,” says Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University. “It has implications for why most people on earth are creationists, I think.”

In another article here Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose

Dr Barrett said there is evidence that even by the age of four, children understand that although some objects are made by humans, the natural world is different.

He added that this means children are more likely to believe in creationism rather than evolution, despite what they may be told by parents or teachers.

Dr Barrett claimed anthropologists have found that in some cultures children believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them.

*“Children’s normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe.” *

Since research seems to confirm that belief in a deliberate creation and in the existence of a Creator God seems to be the natural mode of our thinking, it follows that belief in naturalistic or random process is therefore anti-natural.

Therefore educators are now on record as stating they have obviously failed to eradicate such a belief in purpose by the time students get to university so they have now publically recommended finding new ways to educate people to get them to reject creation or purpose and disbelieve in a creator God! This is no surprise as such researchers are simply confirming two things the Bible has stated for the last 2,000 years: The apostle Paul wrote the evidence of God is so clearly seen in creation there is no excuse for unbelief (Romans 1:20), and the apostle Peter wrote that sceptics will deny both Creator and Creation because they chose to be deliberately ignorant (2 Peter 3:5). We remind such researchers of an educational warning from Christ, who is the Creator, that if anyone leads astray one of these little children who believe in Him, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea, rather than face an eternity being punished in Hell. (Mark 9:42-43). Reference-John Mackay creationreseach.net.

 

[Ender]

All of this shows that the phrase “there are gaps between all species and all higher taxa” is not so much a claim or comment that he endorses, but an illustration of the erroneous understanding of scientists about taxonomic separation in order to set up his discussion of the controversy surrounding species concepts.

The unambiguous statement about the existence of gaps is, as you said, an introduction to the discussion of different species concepts, but nowhere does Mayr state - or even imply - that gaps are purely an artifact of the definition of a species. What was said was that the study of gaps between species depends on a correct understanding of what species are, which is the topic of the chapter. He starts the chapter by stating that gaps exist and then explains what is involved in studying them: a proper understanding of terms. After making his statement (which you dispute) about the existence of gaps he introduces the topic of the chapter with this:

“Obviously one cannot study the origin of gaps between species unless one understands what species are.”

I don’t think this supports your claim that gaps are merely taxonomic misunderstandings.

Ender

 

[Ender]

" A few fossil lineages are remarkably complete."

I do not doubt this. Nor do I doubt that, as only “a few” are complete, most are not. Another way to state this is that gaps exist in most fossil lineages.

Note that since Mayr wrote the transitions from fish to tetrapod and from dinosaur to bird have also been documented by multiple transitional fossils.

If you are claiming that gaps do not exist then it seems somewhat contradictory to simultaneously claim that certain gaps have been filled in since Mayr wrote his book.

Then you either haven’t read that chapter, or you haven’t understood what you’ve read, since it is not about the taxonomy of fossils, but about species concepts and the process of speciation in extant organisms.

The chapter is, as you said, about species concepts, and Mayr explains why an understanding of “species” is necessary if one is to study the origin of gaps. Since you have access to the book can you point to anything in that chapter where he implies that gaps don’t exist?

Ender

 

[PEPCIS]

Apparently I was right - you aren’t here for honest debate. You’re just looking for a fight.

I’m not the only person here you’re crossways with.

LOL As I said, you’re not here for honest debate. Honest debate would require that you answer the direct questions of others. You don’t do that, and this answer showed that.

Almost all people of European descent thought that other races were inferior. Like Abraham Lincoln, how had the same opinion, he was considered a liberal on race because he thought that all people had a right to freedom and dignity, regardless of race.

PEPCIS:

That’s not the point. The point is that these sentiments were reciprocal with evolution theory, and always have been.

Perhaps you don’t know what “reciprocal” means.

The only one that is linguistically challenged here is you. You have problems distinguishing between ad hoc, and post hoc. Sorry for your confusion there. But if you continue to have problems with the meaning of reciprocal, then I suggest you try to illuminate and enhance your vocabulary by learning this word. Pay particular attention to the first definition.

Today, few evolutionists think that way, because evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races.

That’s not true at all. Evolution theory is at odds with politically-correct pronunciations on the subject, and being that most evolutionists are liberals, then I would say that they hide their true feelings quite well.

But as late as the 1990s, creationists were still claiming that blacks were intellectually and spiritually inferior. This included the leader of the largest creationist organization in the United States.

Well, sadly, blacks have historically shown that they are intellectually inferior. But that’s more a result of their environment and culture, than of capacity and ability. Today, much of that has been changed for the better. But, even if it didn’t, SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST should rule.

There are many people today who continue to believe that morphology plays a significant understanding in evaluating evolutionary claims. Evolutionists continue to use morphology to class species.

Homologous organs. Would you be offended if I asked you to learn why?

Of course I would. Why should I offer you the benefit of the doubt while you repeatedly limit the same toward me? Don’t be a schmuck. If you have something valid to share, then please share it.

He certainly was. Most of English upper-class people favored slavery.

Well, there you go.

 

[PEPCIS]

Well I have been away for a few weeks and just came back to the thread a few days ago. I appear to have missed your definition: can you indulge me by repeating it or linking to it?

Let’s start off by stating the obvious, which has already been stated eloquently by William Dembski:
[SIGN]“The fundamental intuition underlying information is not, as is sometimes thought, the transmission of signals across a communication channel, but rather, the actualization of one possibility to the exclusion of others.”[/SIGN]

In other words, information IS NOT the measurement of data points being transmitted across a communication channel, but a message which has content and meaning.

What makes that message have content and meaning is the arrangement of the data points. It is this specific understanding to the exclusion of all others that gives rise to the definition that information is aperiodic and non-stochastic in nature.

Information also has specificity and complexity. The greater the information content, the greater the order of specificity and complexity.

This is not, by any means, a complete definition, but it certainly spells out the main understanding of what information is.

1. Show how [information] can be measured

PEPCIS:

It is not necessary to measure information in order to identify it. That request is unreasonable. That would be like claiming that you had to measure how much snow had fallen to the ground in order to state a theory that snow had fallen. It is enough that the theory states that snow will fall under certain conditions. Measuring it, or not measuring it, will not effect the theory.

hecd:

Huh? One step in the anti-evolutionist claim that we are discussing is that natural processes cannot increase information.

It is unscientific to juxtapose ID as an alternative to evolution theory. Either ID is scientific, or it is not. One of the central tenets of ID theory is that information does not rise de novo without a cause. This is a favorite point that ID’ers love to share with evolutionists, but it is not necessary to show how to measure information in order to identify what information is.

For the same token, evolutionists claim blindly that they measure information all the time, and that information arises stochastically, without a causal agent. But when asked to identify information, they are unable to do so. This means that evolutionists have no idea if they can support their religion of evolutionary-induced information rising de novo without being able to point to what information is.
hecd:

In order to assess the validity of [the] claim [that evolutionary forces cannot produce/increase information] one must determine whether information has been added or not, so one surely needs to be able to measure it - to quantify how much is there initially and how much is there later in the process. if you can’t measure it then you can’t quantify it, and if yo can’t quantify it, you can’t make the claim that it cannot be added.

Listen carefully: If I ask you to measure the amount of dextroamphetamine in a jar, and you fail to distinguish it from its stereoisomer, then how can you ever know if you are measuring what you claim to be measuring? The answer is, YOU CAN’T.

That is why it is important that evolutionists give a credible definition of what information is, not how to count it. It’s all bluster unless you can do that.
hecd:

The rest of your response is a dreadful muddle between facts, theories and predictions.

You’ve not made much sense from the beginning.

1. Show that the evolutionary process necessarily requires increases in information according to whatever definition and measure one has chosen

PEPCIS:

Why would the Intelligent Design Theory have to make any remarks regarding evolutionary processes? However, in discussing the differences between the two theories, it may assist us to compare the two theories and determine if there are any disparities that must be considered or overcome in order to verify the strength of the theory.

hecd:

First of all, I am not aware of any such thing as an Intelligent Design *Theory *

in scientific terms.

Well, that’s your problem, not mine. Do some HONEST research.

[It]
is not a primary claim of evolutionary theory. . . that the evolutionary process necessarily requires increases in “information”

Well that’s just a load of dung. I don’t believe that’s even worthy of a response. How about trying again.

 

[PEPCIS]

Oooooops! You made a few errors of omission, so I figured I’d correct that for you.

The ID/creationists are between a rock and a hard place. It usually goes like this:

• IDer: "Evolution can’t produce information."
• Evolutionist: Sure we can. A hurricane is information. Information can arise stochastically."
• IDer: "Evolution can’t even identify what information is. How the heck do you expect to measure what you don’t know?"
• Evolutionist: “Sure we can. Information is Shannon information.”
• IDer: "But what is Shannon information? Isn’t that a bit circular to argue like that?"
• Evolutionist: "Shut up you fat, ignorant, little toad. How dare you speak to me like that? You can’t even define “Science.”
• IDer: "Yeah, probably not to your liking. So, anyways, what about that example of information arising stochastically?"
• Evolutionist: “Here’s an example of that happening.”
• IDer: "A hurricane? You can’t be serious. I already told you that wasn’t information, but order. That’s not really information."
• Evolutionist: “Oh. Well, then, as you see, evolution doesn’t need your sort of information.”
• IDer: "Yes, I’ve noticed how you keep on arguing in circles. You know they call that a tautology. Do you know what a tautology is?"
• Evolutionist: “You don’t read too well. You have no comprehension skills. Did I mention that you’re bald?”
• (IDer chuckles and walks away, wondering if the Evolutionists will ever wake up to reality, and give a definition for information)

 

[The_Barbarian]

ID/creationist: “Evolution can’t produce information.”​

Evolutionist: Sure it can. Information often is produced by nature. A hurricane produces information. (I’m sure you didn’t mean to misrepresent me, so I corrected your error)​

ID/creationist: "Evolution can’t even identify what information is.​

Evolutionist: “Sure we can. Information is Shannon information.” I showed you how to measure it.​

ID/creationist: “But what is Shannon information? Isn’t that a bit circular to argue like that?”​

Evolutionist: Nope. You see, information is a measure of uncertainty. I showed you some links for it. More to the point, it works that way. You’re only able to communicate on the net because information is the way Shannon defined it.

ID/creationist: "Shut up you fat, ignorant, little toad. How dare you speak to me like that?

Evolutionist: You’d probably do better if you could control your temper and use normal size font.

ID/creationist: “A hurricane? You can’t be serious. I already told you that wasn’t information, but order. That’s not really information.”​

Evolutionist: Odd then, that meteorologists gather that information you claim doesn’t exist, and use it to forecast what the hurricane is going to do.

ID/creationist: Evolution needs information. I said so. But it’s not like Shannon information.

Evolutionist: “Oh. Well, then, as you see, evolution doesn’t need your sort of information.”​

ID/creationist: “Yes, I’ve noticed how you keep on arguing in circles. You know they call that a tautology. That’s what they taught me to say. Do you know what a tautology is?”​

Evolutionist: Yes. A tautology is saying the same thing, using different words. As you learned, that’s not what Shannon information is about. Shannon’s theorm shows how information works and show to most effectively encode information. It can also explain how information increases in populations of organisms.

ID/creationist: (Big font, more accusations, red text, etc.)

…

 

[The_Barbarian]

Alex writes:
[It] is not a primary claim of evolutionary theory. . . that the evolutionary process necessarily requires increases in "information"

Well that’s just a load of dung. I don’t believe that’s even worthy of a response. How about trying again.

It’s true. Nothing in Darwin’s theory or any modification of it says that information has to increase in evolution. Indeed, evolution can produce a reduction in information. Just as every new mutation produces an increase in information, every time there’s a fixation of a gene in a population, there is a reduction in information.

Would you like to see the calculations?

 

[The_Barbarian]

LOL As I said, you’re not here for honest debate. Honest debate would require that you answer the direct questions of others. You don’t do that, and this answer showed that.

Probably, you’d do better if you tried to put together a reasonable argument, instead of lashing out when you’re frustrated.

Barbarian observes:
Almost all people of European descent thought that other races were inferior. Like Abraham Lincoln, how had the same opinion, he was considered a liberal on race because he thought that all people had a right to freedom and dignity, regardless of race.

That’s not the point.

It’s very much the point. Darwin objected to the argument of some creationists that other races were best served by slavery. Although few evolutionists even think human races exist as a real entity, some creationist leaders continued to assert the inferiority of blacks into the 1990s.

The point is that these sentiments were reciprocal with evolution theory, and always have been.

Barbarian suggests:
Perhaps you don’t know what “reciprocal” means.

The only one that is linguistically challenged here is you. You have problems distinguishing between ad hoc, and post hoc.

You thought “ad hoc” meant “after the fact.” That’s not what it means.

But if you continue to have problems with the meaning of reciprocal, then I suggest you try to illuminate and enhance your vocabulary by learning this word. Pay particular attention to the first definition.

“Opposite” is not quite right. They are today, but that’s because evolutionary theory has shown biological human races don’t exist.

That’s not true at all.

Yep. Human genome project nailed that one. There is more variation within any sort of “race” you might define than between those “races.” Racists would like you to think otherwise, but it’s not scientifically defensible. Race is just a cultural construct for humans, and how many there are differs in different societies.

Some anthropologists argue the contrary, saying that there are certain genes that are useful in determining ancestral homes of humans. But scientists reply that an American of European descent is as likely to be a better genetic match to an Australian aborigine as he is to be a better match for another person who is descended from people of the same nation. That being a fact, the notion of “race” collapses.

Barbarian observes:
But as late as the 1990s, creationists were still claiming that blacks were intellectually and spiritually inferior. This included the leader of the largest creationist organization in the United States.

Well, sadly, blacks have historically shown that they are intellectually inferior.

Wasn’t hard to out that one, um?

But, even if it didn’t, SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST should rule.

Not according to Darwin, who said that all men were entitled to freedom and dignity, and who thought that even letting inferior people die was to commit evil. And later Darwinists showed that the idea was not feasible for human societies.

There are many people today who continue to believe that morphology plays a significant understanding in evaluating evolutionary claims. Evolutionists continue to use morphology to class species.

Barbarian observes:
Homologous organs. Would you be offended if I asked you to learn why?

Of course I would.

I figured.

Homologous organs are those with different functions, but composed of the same anatomical organs. That’s the opposite of what you’re talking about. There is no explanation for homology except common descent.

Barbarian, regarding why most upper-class English people favored creationism:
Most of English upper-class people favored slavery.

Well, there you go.

Yep. We tend to think of racism and creationism as trailer-park stuff, but they don’t have to be.

 

[PEPCIS]

LOL As I said, you’re not here for honest debate. Honest debate would require that you answer the direct questions of others. You don’t do that, and this answer showed that.

Probably, you’d do better if you tried to put together a reasonable argument,

There is no “reason” in your arguments.

instead of lashing out when you’re frustrated.

LOL Yeah, that’s what it is when I correct your errors…lashing out. ROFLMBO!!!

Almost all people of European descent thought that other races were inferior.

PEPCIS:

That’s not the point. The point is that these sentiments were reciprocal with evolution theory, and always have been. There are many people today who continue to believe that morphology plays a significant understanding in evaluating evolutionary claims. Evolutionists continue to use morphology to class species.

Perhaps you don’t know what “reciprocal” means.

PEPCIS:

The only one that is linguistically challenged here is you. You have problems distinguishing between ad hoc, and post hoc. Sorry for your confusion there. But if you continue to have problems with the meaning of reciprocal, then I suggest you try to illuminate and enhance your vocabulary by learning this word

. Pay particular attention to the first definition.

You thought “ad hoc” meant “after the fact.” That’s not what it means.

Rabbit trails. YOU LOVE THEM!!! Stop showing your arse, it really isn’t that great looking. You flubbed your understanding of “reciprocal” even after I encouraged you to avail yourself of the hyperlink to its dictionary definition. As for ad hoc/post hoc, you don’t have a clue what the heck you’re talking about, do you? I mean, you REALLY don’t.

Sad. I already explained myself to rossum about the use of the term ad hoc, and it was NEVER offered as meaning “after the fact.” Don’t play the moron.

But if you continue to have problems with the meaning of reciprocal, then I suggest you try to illuminate and enhance your vocabulary by learning this word

. Pay particular attention to the first definition.

“Opposite” is not quite right.

You really know how to confuse an argument, don’t you? Where did you get this “opposite”??? We were talking about reciprocal, remember?

Today, few evolutionists think that way, because evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races.

PEPCIS:

That’s not true at all. Evolution theory is at odds with politically-correct pronunciations on the subject, and being that most evolutionists are liberals, then I would say that they hide their true feelings quite well.

Yep. Human genome project nailed that one.

Yep, evolutionists have more than one way to lie.

Race is just a cultural construct for humans, and how many there are differs in different societies.

Double speak. Just spit it out. Your friends will forgive you.

But as late as the 1990s, creationists were still claiming that blacks were intellectually and spiritually inferior. This included the leader of the largest creationist organization in the United States.

PEPCIS:

Well, sadly, blacks have historically shown that they are intellectually inferior. But that’s more a result of their environment and culture, than of capacity and ability. Today, much of that has been changed for the better. But, even if it didn’t, SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST should rule.

Wasn’t hard to out that one, um?

No, it never is hard to get the Barb to show his true colors. Let’s see: racism, hatred, bigotry. What else you got up that dumb sleeve of yours?

There are many people today who continue to believe that morphology plays a significant understanding in evaluating evolutionary claims. Evolutionists continue to use morphology to class species.

Homologous organs. Would you be offended if I asked you to learn why?

PEPCIS:

Of course I would. Why should I offer you the benefit of the doubt while you repeatedly limit the same toward me? Don’t be a schmuck. If you have something valid to share, then please share it

I figured.

Of course you figured. You’d rather play the schmuck than be an honest debater.

Homologous organs are those with different functions, but composed of the same anatomical organs.

You are the MOST CONFUSED evolutionist that I’ve debated, I think ever. You have the wrong term. You are thinking of “ANALOGOUS ORGANS”, which are those which are similar in different species, but have variations in their function. For example, a house fly and a dragonfly have mouth parts that are somewhat analogous.

There is no explanation for homology except common descent.

Of course there is, but I don’t expect you to understand that, because you have not shown the aptitude to grasp even those things within your own theory that could be explained in different ways.

The fact is, similar organs (homologous AND analogous) are the result of a sole Creator designing several species using the same or similar body parts/plans/designs.

 

[Ender]

Well that’s just a load of dung. I don’t believe that’s even worthy of a response. How about trying again.

[/quote]

PEPCIS - just for clarification: I assume you are dismissing the claim that Darwinian evolution doesn’t require an increase in information as opposed to arguing that every instance of Darwinian evolution represents such an increase. That is, evolution from algae to humans may require a gigantic increase in information but this does not mean that Darwinian theory rules out “devolution” which is accompanied by a loss of information. Is that your position?

Ender

 

[PEPCIS]

PEPCIS - just for clarification: I assume you are dismissing the claim that Darwinian evolution doesn’t require an increase in information as opposed to arguing that every instance of Darwinian evolution represents such an increase.

Well, hecd claimed that evolution doesn’t even acknowledge that an increase in information is an inherent feature of evolution. But, you are correct to note that, if evolution is true, that genomic information changes, either up or down.

Ender:

That is, evolution from algae to humans may require a gigantic increase in information but this does not mean that Darwinian theory rules out “devolution” which is accompanied by a loss of information. Is that your position?

Yes. Evolutionists cannot account for the vast increases of information that would be required to support the incredible changes in body plans and structures that have occurred from, let’s say, dinosaur to bird. It’s one thing to state that you can lose information via random mutations, but quite another to claim that you can increase information by the same method.

 

[PEPCIS]

[It]
is not a primary claim of evolutionary theory. . . that the evolutionary process necessarily requires increases in “information”

PEPCIS:

Well that’s just a load of dung. I don’t believe that’s even worthy of a response. How about trying again.

It’s true. Nothing in Darwin’s theory or any modification of it says that information has to increase in evolution.

That’s not the argument, and never was. hecd got it wrong, just as you are doing here. For what? Debate points? LOL

Indeed, evolution can produce a reduction in information.

And that is the chief, and PRIMARY process of evolution. Increases in information would be a fluke, like throwing 50,000 quarters in the air, and all of them landing on heads.

Just as every new mutation produces an increase in information…

Well now, that’s the CLAIM.

Would you like to see the [manipulations]?

No thanks.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Every mutation increases the information in a population. Every fixation reduces the information. Evolution proceeds in either case.

No matter who disapproves.

 

[aslan963]

should we even be talking about Darwinian evolution anymore? Hats off to the man, he was clearly ahead of his time. So much, dare I say, information exists now that did not exist in the time of Darwin, that evolution can stand on it’s own without being tied to Darwin. It is easy to poke holes in a ‘strawman’ that is based solely on Darwin’s work.

 

[ricmat]

With all this talk of “information in DNA”, what a coincidence that I just stumbled across this article today. It involves an atheist converting to Catholicism due to the information contained in DNA. Scroll about 3/5 of the way through the article to see this:

Was there ever an aha moment that finally made you abandon atheism?

Several, but one in particular actually shocked me.
I asked myself two questions: What is information? And: Can information ever come from a non-intelligent source?
It was a shocking moment for me because I had to confront the fact that DNA is information. If I remained an atheist, I would have to believe that all the intricate, detailed, complex information contained in DNA comes out of nowhere and nothing.
But I also knew that idea did not make sense. After all, I don’t look at billboards — which contain much simpler information than DNA — and think that wind and erosion created them. That wouldn’t be rational. Suddenly, I found that I was a very discomfited atheist.

This doesn’t prove anything of course, but I thought it was interesting.

 

[grannymh]

With all this talk of “information in DNA”, what a coincidence that I just stumbled across this article today. It involves an atheist converting to Catholicism due to the information contained in DNA. Scroll about 3/5 of the way through the article to see this:

This doesn’t prove anything of course, but I thought it was interesting.

It may or may not prove anything but it makes my day.
About three miles back, I made the small comment that it is the information itself that is important no matter how it is measured or something to that effect. I guess you all can count me in with the prideful.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[The_Barbarian]

should we even be talking about Darwinian evolution anymore? Hats off to the man, he was clearly ahead of his time. So much, dare I say, information exists now that did not exist in the time of Darwin, that evolution can stand on it’s own without being tied to Darwin. It is easy to poke holes in a ‘strawman’ that is based solely on Darwin’s work.

The four basic points of his theory remain true. But he missed a few things; modern evolutionary theory is not merely Darwinism.

 

[The_Barbarian]

And that is the chief, and PRIMARY process of evolution. Increases in information would be a fluke, like throwing 50,000 quarters in the air, and all of them landing on heads.

As you learned. Information in a population is the number of alleles for each locus. Hence, any mutation produces an increase in information.

Well now, that’s the CLAIM.

And, even most creationists admit that it’s true. If there are four alleles in a population, and a mutation produces a fifth one, it would take a rather odd view of information for anyone to insist that was a decrease in information.