Science vs. Creationism

[BENTLEY]

Evidence is obvious. Same like in crime scene - you do not need to observe car hitting and killing pedestrian to know what happen when you see broken car and dead body on the road. But analysis of car damage, impact, autopsy of corpse, etc gives you perfect ( and truthful!) idea how that happened. Same with evolution. Stop being ignorant.

You admit that evolution is not observable. We are left only with clues. But even in the car/dead body scenario, which is far simpler than linking morphological changes, we have to guess at what happened. Even in this simple car/dead body scenario are our conclusions not “perfect.” Perfect would be eye-witness. But we didn’t see it. The trail, as you said, is not observable but rather inferential. Stop being obstinate. I get it, that you don’t require more clues to jump to a conclusion, but some of us hesitate to make that confident blind leap. This is why I love agnostics. They admit that they don’t know. They don’t rely on others’ testimony. They’re open to consider all possibilities. But thank you for admitting, by way of your simile, that evolution is not observable, but rather guessed at.

And now for fun I’ll quote Berlinski again:

Certainly, as someone who objects as indignantly as I do to claims of having discovered a “proof” made by the likes of Dawkins or Sam Harris or the other scientists arguing in this realm with respect to the existence of God I’m not about to say I’ve discovered a proof to the contrary. The language of proofs is appropriate to mathematics, not to a discussion like this. What is appropriate to a discussion like this is philosophic argumentation. And we cannot close the day by saying one side is definitively in possession of an argument so fine, so effective, so powerful that it ends all discussion. They won’t end. The discussions won’t end. But a little bit of balance would be welcome.

Yep, they won’t end. But failing that, I’d like to dispel the contention and imbue the thread with a bit of unity. I’m glad we have this forum. I'm glad we all have something in common that brings us together, something we all share:











































our desperation for a new coach.

 

[BENTLEY]

Let's watch these guys wrastle.

This is just a segment of the debate. Interesting debate if you care to watch the rest. It's in 8 parts and this is from the middle. I like the first 6 or 7 min of this section. Then Ruse and Behe take over and it becomes less compelling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wrs3FDiyot4

 

[BENTLEY]

I like this skipping ahead to 4:15 on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJbri9Yem0

 

[PearlWatson]

estivation is, however, a good example that demonstrates intelligence. . .. cognition and action with purpose. . . in relatively simple "life". It's like mammals who will prepare for birth by digging a hole in the ground, or going into a cave, where the vulnerable young can be kept warm and safe from predation. . . .

It is actually, a proof of "intelligent design" in it's most elemental form, where the intelligence is in the creature, at least, if not in the creator.

Your level of argument is definitely higher than the rest of us, so I'm going to deflate it.

My favorite demonstration of intelligence in the animal kingdom is when the black widow eats her mate afterwards...

 

[PearlWatson]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJbri9Yem0

While the guy has some good points about the position and behavior of Darwinists, I have to question the Darwinist who thinks a butterfly species just happened to spontaneously mutate a mouth that only feeds on bananas once bananas appeared. What are the odds?

 

[PearlWatson]

...cartilage itself is simply a modified form of connective tissue not unlike that found in worms and other non-chordate animals.

You just threw a pebble into the grand canyon.

Cartilage is a "modified form" of connective tissue or cartilage is a "spontaneously generated change" of connective tissue?...because I'll go with the former over the latter based on likelihood.

 

[One Brow]

You just threw a pebble into the grand canyon.

Cartilage is a "modified form" of connective tissue or cartilage is a "spontaneously generated change" of connective tissue?...because I'll go with the former over the latter based on likelihood.

It's both. It's a modified form, the modifications happening via spontaneously generated changes which are pared back by selection.

 

[One Brow]

You admit that evolution is not observable. We are left only with clues.

The earth rotating on its axis was not observable until the 1960s. The earth revolving around the sun is not observable. Atoms combining to make chemicals is not observable. Continental drift is not observable. The pull of gravity is not observable. In all of these cases, we are left with clues (Coriolis movement, stellar parallax, pictures in an electron microscope, distance measurements, a falling apple). However, you only apply this objection to evolutionary theory. Why is that?

... but some of us hesitate to make that confident blind leap.

It's not a blind leap. However, if all you are looking for is more evidence, than how much evidence do you need, and of what type? Set your standard, and let's see if it can be met.

And we cannot close the day by saying one side is definitively in possession of an argument so fine, so effective, so powerful that it ends all discussion. They won’t end. The discussions won’t end. But a little bit of balance would be welcome.

The discussion over evolutionary theory has not ended among scientists, either. However, the discussion has reached a point where any possible, viable direction will include universal common ancestry, random mutation, and selection as major forces. Disputes may occur as to he specific membership of the ancestry, which mutations are important, or what types of selection make a larger difference. However, these do not constitute a doubt on the reality of the basic principles. We have seen too much and experimented too effectively. Any future model of biological history that intelligently incorporates all the evidence will include universal common ancestry, random mutation, and selection as major forces.

 

[One Brow]

... I have to question the Darwinist who thinks a butterfly species just happened to spontaneously mutate a mouth that only feeds on bananas once bananas appeared. What are the odds?

Based on experience, the odds seems to be pretty good.

 

[MVP]

But thank you for admitting, by way of your simile, that evolution is not observable, but rather guessed at.

Well, if you mean by it that we could not observe how humans evolved then yes. But new species and even old species adopting to changes and developing new features because of changes in environment are regularly observed today. For example bacteria who evolved to consume nylon or bacteria resistant tom antibiotics - are they "intelligent creation" or part of evolution in your opinion? What is London underground mosquito? "creation" or evolution?

 

[MVP]

A shared strategy or capacity does not prove a line of descent from one recognizable lifeform to another. .

Yes it does. Look at embryos of hundreds different vertebrates, they all look the same at early stages. Humans, frogs, birds, fish, whales, elephants - we all have gills and tails at that stage. Dare to explain why?
So I assume you are highly religious person and believe in "biblical reasons" for mutations and other congenital problems. Lets say you are one unlucky parent who's kid was born with atavistic tail. So what do you do, leave it for "biblical reasons" or ask surgeon to correct ( remove ) it?
Or lets ask it other way - what kind of intelligence results in atavistic features?

 

[One Brow]

Yes it does.

babe is correct here. A shared survival strategy can arise independently in two lineages, particularly when they are already closely related, but even when they are distantly related. For example, "being active in the daytime" is a survival strategy shared by many plants and animals, that has evolved in response to different reasons for different living things.

Look at embryos of hundreds different vertebrates, they all look the same at early stages. Humans, frogs, birds, fish, whales, elephants - we all have gills and tails at that stage. Dare to explain why?

Embryonic gills do have evolutionary significance, but they are not an evolutionary strategy.

So I assume you are highly religious person and believe in "biblical reasons" for mutations and other congenital problems.

babe probably qualifies as a highly religious person, but I would not describe him believing in biblical reasons for biological phenomena. Almost always, he exhibits a tendency to accept science.