[lucaspa]

foodchain said:

Yes but this roles into my stance on the use of science. It takes a human being to arbitrarily label science, or Darwinism atheist, or agnostic. These labels will also vary depending on what expert you talk to because its more of a human perception issue.

It is not a human perception issue. You can look at what science is and how science is done and reach a conclusion based on data. Just like you evaluate any scientific theory (collection of statements). As it turns out, science is agnostic. There is no doubt of that.

Quote

Darwin himself was a self labeled agnostic that from what I can understand basically still agreed with a creator being behind evolution, so how can Darwinism be atheist?

That's one argument against Darwinism being atheistic. However, at the time Darwin wrote Origin of Species, Darwin was (according to his own words) a staunch theist. It was only later in life that he had "wild" swings of belief: from theist to agnostic. He said that he was "more and more, but not always" an agnostic.

Quote

Yes, it would be a great benefit to understand a persons thought process but to simply use fact as the basis of an argument is not something that I would say any of the groups typically aiming to falsify evolution via attacking Darwin stick to, so what does that say?

I have no idea what this says. :-) Really, I don't understand your meaning. Please try again.

In order to find the flaws in reasoning and logic, you must know what the reasoning and logic are to begin with.

Quote

Yes but no proof exists for that. Its a matter of opinion, and I am sorry there is nothing scientific about that.

What is "that"? The belief that evolution is the method God used to create?

Did I say there was "proof"? NO! I labeled it clearly as belief: "I mention this because there is a huge number of people, including at least 50% of all evolutionary biologists, who believe that what science discovers, including evolution, is the specific mechanism by which God created. IOW, they believe in creation, but also accept evolution."

Notice how I was careful to use "believe" when applied to the idea that God created and "accept" applied to evolution. We "accept" scientific theories as provisionally true. Accept because of the data.

Quote

As for labels what’s to stop a person from saying Satan is the one behind evolution?

This isn't a label, but rather an ad hoc hypothesis trying to save creationism from falsification. The reason it doesn't work is because it violates the data creationists are working from: the Bible. We can test the hypothesis by going to the Bible and seeing if Satan has ever messed with Creation. Nope. Only God created. Not Satan. Therefore all the data that led us to accept evolution had to come, by the internal logic of creationists, from God. Not Satan.

Quote

You could have also called it reductionism I think. The point I am trying to make is science is a framework built to attempt to gain fact about the world around us. Doing chemistry in itself is not an endeavor you would take on in a philosophy class. Of course philosophy lead to science but the main point of what I am trying to get at is science really is just a method.

And the point I'm trying to get at is that science is NOT "just a method". Particularly not a method, as in singular. Science does not use one method. Science is the study of the physical universe. That said, it is impossible to come up with a criteria to say "this is science but this is not". All attempts to do this, including yourse that "science really is just a method" does not work.

You have to come up with a better idea of what science is.

Quote

It was not devised to be any particular human label

You just applied a human label to science! You said science is just a method! And science does not "gain fact". Instead, the ultimate production of science is theories.

Quote

Again its a subjective perceptual issue that decides what science is bad or good in relation to religion.

It's not just "subjective". Given the premise that the Bible is literal and inerrant in that literalness, then it is objective that science refutes inerrant literalness of the Bible. There is no doubt that what we have discovered thru science tells us that the earth is NOT young or that each species was NOT specially created.

Let me try this another way. What creationists have done is take a literal reading of the Bible and construct a number of scientific theories from that: the earth is young, all geological features are due to a world-wide flood, species are manufactured and independent from other species, etc. Those theories can be, and have been, evaluated just like we evaluate other scientific theories. And that objective evaluation shows that the theories are wrong.

The "perceptual issue" comes from an error on the part of creationists: tying the scientific theories to the ultimate existence of God.

Quote

My post is that for people in general to simply denounce evolution is basically claiming a great deal of science to be a conspiracy. Its one of the points I try to use against other arguments, in that for evolution to be false all of science that deals with it would have to be not only ignoring the scientific method but be working on some vast conspiracy, to me if you can believe that I have an ocean to sell you but that is a rude remark.

Yes. But the point I wanted to get across to you is that those "conspirators" were also creationists. You try to say "there is no vast conspiracy because there are too many conspirators". I am saying "So, how can there be a "conspiracy" if the adherents of creationism are the ones that showed it to be wrong? (remember, Darwin started out the voyage of the Beagle as a creationist)" IOW, there can be no conspiracy "for evolution" because all the original evolutionists were creationists. They should have stayed creationists. There is no need for them to have a "conspiracy".

Quote

Yes, but it takes a human mind to say evolution is atheism.

It takes a human mind to say anything! So what is your point?

You use your human mind to say "To me evolution is simply a fact about the world around us," It takes a human mind to say that.

And, in fact, you are wrong. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. It is such a well-supported theory that we regard it as (provisionally) true, but it is not a fact. Facts are observations. Theories are collections of statements. Evolution is a collection of statements (actually 5 theories) that is well-supported by facts.

Quote

to say its(evolution) atheism is really to say anything you want, because there is no difference to me.

Then I am really sorry for you, because there is a big difference between evolution and atheism.

What you seem to be doing is introducing your own philosophical subjective opinion into science. Yes, evolution happened. Evolution is the material explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. BUT, can you validly extrapolate beyond that to either 1) God exists or 2) God does not exist (atheism)? No. The facts won't let you.


PS, you use FSM -- flying spaghetti monster -- as tho it is a valid argument. If FSM has the characteristics of God, then it is God. A rose by any other name ... All you've done is shown your own failure to grasp the facts and your belief that, because you call deity something other than "God", you have somehow denied deity. You haven't. You could say "gristhnorp burns in the presence of oxygen to form water." I would reply "you mean hydrogen". You would say "no, I mean gristhnorp and because I said grishthnorp then hydrogen does not exist."

[the advocate]

mamakosj said:

I found this book a while ago, and managed to read most of it. It challenged my ideas at the time but, looking back with an analytical approach, I find that some thing don't seem to sound quite right. If anyone else has read this book, please tell me what you think.

How much of what is said is true at face value, and how much is made up of facts that have been specifically worded to create the wrong impression? Also, how much of the 'facts' are merely oppinions stated as facts? I would like to know how reliable this information is.

Click on this link to Amazon.com to view the book.

I was given a copy of the above book by one of my workmate. I come from a physics background and was unable to answer a lot of his points, which were evidently taken from the above book. I looked around the web and found this thread but I was dissappointed to find that the thread quickly went off topic. I was hoping to find answers to some of the major criticisms mentioned in the book, but this was apparently delt with sufficiently by referring to a web site which attacks creationism! Thereafter, it was established that Milton must be a closet creationist. Then the meaning of Darwinism was discussed from the point of view of creationists, aetheists, different scientists etc. (and I thought physics had problems right now)
It would have been helpful to know who actually read the book. I prefer to deal with these problems by establishing whether or not 'facts' can be trusted or not before proceding to attack unsound claims one at a time. Instead, the thread followed the path predicted in the book of attacking the authors character rather than the claims. Please get me started by explaining how the first self replicating cell came about. Is this something that can be explained through Darwinism or microbiology or something else.

[foodchain]

the advocate said:

I was given a copy of the above book by one of my workmate. I come from a physics background and was unable to answer a lot of his points, which were evidently taken from the above book. I looked around the web and found this thread but I was dissappointed to find that the thread quickly went off topic. I was hoping to find answers to some of the major criticisms mentioned in the book, but this was apparently delt with sufficiently by referring to a web site which attacks creationism! Thereafter, it was established that Milton must be a closet creationist. Then the meaning of Darwinism was discussed from the point of view of creationists, aetheists, different scientists etc. (and I thought physics had problems right now)
It would have been helpful to know who actually read the book. I prefer to deal with these problems by establishing whether or not 'facts' can be trusted or not before proceding to attack unsound claims one at a time. Instead, the thread followed the path predicted in the book of attacking the authors character rather than the claims. Please get me started by explaining how the first self replicating cell came about. Is this something that can be explained through Darwinism or microbiology or something else.

Well if you happen to look at other books this guy has produced he seems to basically hate Darwin or anything that has to do with evolution. I have never read the book or plan to be quite honest, I am sure its a long list of offensive statements made by a person that cares little about evolution really. If you want to know why the book is wrong just consult biology in general really, for I don’t think they will be dropping evolution or natural selection anytime soon for various empirical reasons to numerous to list.

[PhDP]

"the advocate" said:

Instead, the thread followed the path predicted in the book of attacking the authors character rather than the claims.

Nobody here has the time (or interest) to write a complete rebuttal of a complete book, but if you point out an argument we can talk about it, although I doubt it would be supported by serious references.

I would suggest, however, that you read a basic book about evolution, I don't see the point of reading a "criticism" of evolution if you don't know what is criticised.

[the advocate]

foodchain said:

Well if you happen to look at other books this guy has produced he seems to basically hate Darwin or anything that has to do with evolution. I have never read the book or plan to be quite honest, I am sure its a long list of offensive statements made by a person that cares little about evolution really. If you want to know why the book is wrong just consult biology in general really, for I don’t think they will be dropping evolution or natural selection anytime soon for various empirical reasons to numerous to list.

I looked around the net and was unable to find any evidence that the other books this guy Milton produced point to him being a Darwin hater. Neither does "The Facts of Life" appear to contain any offensive statements. He even seems to be open minded to the idea of evolution. Just not with natural selection as the driving force.

I'm sorry foodchain but your answer is just not what I was hoping for. This is exactly the stance taken by most evangelical Christians nowadays when I refer them to texts which point to anomalies in the Bible. They ignore the specific point I raise. They then attack the critic as an enemy of Christianity and tell me to take a basic bible course, while believing that somewhere out there some scholar has already worked out a plausible answer. They never read the book.

When this approach is taken by scientists, it leaves us open to the charge of having double standards.

Phil said:

Nobody here has the time (or interest) to write a complete rebuttal of a complete book, but if you point out an argument we can talk about it, although I doubt it would be supported by serious references.

I would suggest, however, that you read a basic book about evolution, I don't see the point of reading a "criticism" of evolution if you don't know what is criticised.

I know what you are saying Phil. No one has time to rebutt a whole book. The problem is if we all take that line, invalid points go unchallenged and misinformation spreads through our negligence. Science works best when it attempts to break problems down into manageable chunks.

I did not ask you to rebutt the whole book but simply asked for help with one point which was particularly troubling me. I repeat, how did the first self replicating cells emerge. The emergence of such a self replicating cell with cell machinery and DNA is obviously an essential precursor to evolution by natural selection.
I have read Darwins "The Origin of the Species (By Means of Natural Selection)" and he does not appear to touch on this point. Have subsequent advances in science helped us to approach this fundamental question?

[Ophiolite]

Mokele said:

It uses the word "darwinism". Nobody uses that word except creationists, who hold the idiotic belief that if they somehow find a flaw in evolution, everyone will accept their magic sky god.

The problem with this statement is that it is wrong. Wholly, utterly, tragically wrong.
I call it tragic, because in delivering a passionate, but wholly inaccurate critique of the use of the word, Mokele calls into question other observations and 'facts' he may offer up.
And the consequence of that? The casual reader, perhaps one poorly schooled in the sciences, on the point of deciding between rational Darwinism and irrational creationism is disillusioned when he finds the Darwinist has 'lied'.
To defeat the nonsense of creationism we need to ensure that our counter arguments are well founded. Careless oversights of this sort, in my opinion, serve us ill.

A couple of examples of use of the term Darwinism by non-creationists:

Stephen Gould - http://www.stephenja..._tautology.html

Stephen Pinker
The Blank Slate (2002)
“It is not clear whether these worldly thinkers are really convinced that Darwinism is false or whether they think it is important for people to believe that it is false.”

Michael Ruse
Darwinism Defended (1982)


In my book, if it's good enough for Gould, it's good enough for me.

[lucaspa]

the advocate said:

I was hoping to find answers to some of the major criticisms mentioned in the book, but this was apparently delt with sufficiently by referring to a web site which attacks creationism!

Advocate, there are so many creationist books attacking science that we don't have time to read them all. If I did, I wouldn't have time to read the scientific papers I need to read. So, you need to walk us thru the claims from the book that you find appealing and we will deal with them one by one.

Quote

It would have been helpful to know who actually read the book. I prefer to deal with these problems by establishing whether or not 'facts' can be trusted or not before proceding to attack unsound claims one at a time.

Claims and facts are entwined. You use facts to test claims. And you test with the idea of showing the claim to be false. You can always find "facts" to support a claim -- if that is all you are looking for. So saying Milton's "facts" are accurate is not the whole story. What you need to do is look for facts that contradict Milton's claims -- and those facts are not likely to be in Milton's book, are they? :-)

Quote

Please get me started by explaining how the first self replicating cell came about. Is this something that can be explained through Darwinism or microbiology or something else.

Getting the first cell is chemistry. Once you have the first replicating cell then you can have evolution. Let me tell you something: my experience is that when people ask about abiogenesis, they aren't really talking evolution, since abiogenesis isn't part of evolution. They are really arguing theism vs atheism and using god-of-the-gaps theology. Science isn't atheism.

But, to answer your question, you can get a self-replicating cell by dry heating amino acids. This will cause them to form proteins. Then add water. The proteins will spontaneously form cells that metabolize, grow, respond to stimuli, and divide. Go here to start: http://www.theharbin...el_sci/fox.html
This page has a picture of one type of protocell: http://www.springerl...q91868368083p2/

We can discuss this in more detail if you want. Probably make a new thread.

Now, from the Amazon reviews of Milton's book we get some specific claims Milton has made:
"the evidence for humankind's own evolution is actually nonexistent"
"Today, 'Java man' is thought to be an extinct, giant gibbonlike creature and not connected to humans."

Both of these are incorrect. We have fossils of transitional individuals -- between species -- linking us (H. sapiens) to H. erectus, erectus to H. habilis, and habilis to A. afarensis. I'll provide a partial list (because I haven't done enough research to get ALL those fossils) if you want.

"Java man" is actually H. erectus. This particular fossil is not on the direct line to H. sapiens because the transition from H. erectus to sapiens took place in Africa. However, anyone looking at pictures of these fossils and those of gibbons can easily see that they are not at all similar.

Now, if you would give us some quotes from the book or summaries of particular arguments, we'll deal with them.

the advocate said:

I repeat, how did the first self replicating cells emerge. The emergence of such a self replicating cell with cell machinery and DNA is obviously an essential precursor to evolution by natural selection.
I have read Darwins "The Origin of the Species (By Means of Natural Selection)" and he does not appear to touch on this point. Have subsequent advances in science helped us to approach this fundamental question?

IF you read Origin of Species (you got the title wrong, BTW), then you came upon this passage at the end:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

What this says is that what you call a "fundamental question" is not a question for evolution! ALL scientific theories assume the existence of something. Relativity assumes the existence of spacetime. The triple helix theory of DNA assumes the existence of DNA. NO scientific theory explains everything. Cell theory doesn't explain gravity. Relativity doesn't explain the origin of species. Evolution does NOT explain the origin of life from non-life.

That belongs to the general field of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis today consists of many different theories. Protocells are one. RNA World is another. They are all based on chemistry.

Again, when someone says abiogenesis is "fundamental" to evolution, that tells me we really aren't talking about evolution. Instead, we are into the atheism vs theism fight and the person is using god-of-the-gaps and the supposed "gap' of abiogenesis to advocate for theism. If you are not doing that, then you need to convince me that this is not happening this time.

Back to Darwin. IF you really read Origin of Species, the page before you encountered the quote above, you came across this quote:

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species,pg. 449.

The emphasis is mine. "Secondary causes" is a theological term common in Darwin's time but forgotten by creationists who insist on direct action by God. Theologically, secondary causes are material mechanisms by which God works. Gravity is the secondary cause by which God keeps the planets in orbit. Darwin is saying that evolution is the secondary cause by which God created the diversity of life on the planet. Similarly, for theists chemistry would be the secondary cause by which God created life from non-life. No "miracle" or direct manufacture of cells. Chemistry is sufficient as a material cause.

Now, you should go back and read the Fontispiece in Origin.

[foodchain]

the advocate said:

I looked around the net and was unable to find any evidence that the other books this guy Milton produced point to him being a Darwin hater. Neither does "The Facts of Life" appear to contain any offensive statements. He even seems to be open minded to the idea of evolution. Just not with natural selection as the driving force.

I'm sorry foodchain but your answer is just not what I was hoping for. This is exactly the stance taken by most evangelical Christians nowadays when I refer them to texts which point to anomalies in the Bible. They ignore the specific point I raise. They then attack the critic as an enemy of Christianity and tell me to take a basic bible course, while believing that somewhere out there some scholar has already worked out a plausible answer. They never read the book.

When this approach is taken by scientists, it leaves us open to the charge of having double standards.



I know what you are saying Phil. No one has time to rebutt a whole book. The problem is if we all take that line, invalid points go unchallenged and misinformation spreads through our negligence. Science works best when it attempts to break problems down into manageable chunks.

I did not ask you to rebutt the whole book but simply asked for help with one point which was particularly troubling me. I repeat, how did the first self replicating cells emerge. The emergence of such a self replicating cell with cell machinery and DNA is obviously an essential precursor to evolution by natural selection.
I have read Darwins "The Origin of the Species (By Means of Natural Selection)" and he does not appear to touch on this point. Have subsequent advances in science helped us to approach this fundamental question?

biologists in the field of biology know that evolution does not stand at 100% perfect understanding currently. In contrast to say in our past understanding of evolution was at the zero percent marker or did not exist. that being said this books takes unknown variables in an equation for instance or example and basically uses them as leverage to apply anything that typically person might feel like using such for. Such is an overused tactic of anti evolutionists really. For biology to accept evolution as a scientific field with many disciplines that all study such one way or another, from medicine to molecular biology and not find evidence for evolution yet still support it is a preposterous idea by any means of rationality. Biology as a collective field has in what is my opinion so much empirical evidence to back the reality of evolution that its impossible for a single person to know it all. that’s why I don’t care to read the book to be honest. I can bear criticism to evolution, but only ones that happen to be something other then a product of an agenda that really has little to do with science and or understanding, peace and all that good stuff.

[Reaper]

How wrong are YEC's and advocates of intelligent design?

Here you go... http://www.youtube.c...mmon%20ancestor

Enjoy :D

[the advocate]

Thanks for clearing up this point. It makes sense that the study of abiogenesis (as you call it) is considered separately. While Darwin recognised this as a major stumbling block to providing a complete explanation of how life might have emerged from inert matter, he had no choice but to leave it to future generations to ponder over.

I agree that you need to take some things for granted in any given field of science and that it was perfectly reasonable to omit this question from evolutionary study. I would prefer to call abiogenesis a problem to be put aside for later, rather than a founding axiom of evolutionary theory. It is inevitable that this problem would have to be reconsidered when advances in science allowed.

I checked out the article on protocells. While I was amazed to find protein molecules appearing to self organise into structures resembling cell membranes,no explanation for this behaviour was given. Also, term protocell is a bit misleading, as going by what I've found on the web so far, this is one plausible step in a long chain which would be required to produce something as complex as the cells we have today. I need to look into this area but my gut instinct is that there is more going on here than chemistry as we know it.

I believe the “god-of-the-gaps” mentality works both ways. It is misused even by prominent scientists on both sides of the atheism vs theism debate. Both extrapolate that based on scientific problems or discoveries that God either does or does not need to exist. The truth is that there is no compulsion to accept either view. The evidence is there, make of it what you will.

One complaint of Richard Milton is that Darwinism no longer turns up novel facts. He classes it a degenerating paradigm. He also claims that it is un-falsifiabil. I would be greatfull if someone could put these claims in perspective. I apologise if these problems are in no particular order i'm just presenting them according to my own preference and not following the book.

[lucaspa]

the advocate said:

I checked out the article on protocells. While I was amazed to find protein molecules appearing to self organise into structures resembling cell membranes,no explanation for this behaviour was given. Also, term protocell is a bit misleading, as going by what I've found on the web so far, this is one plausible step in a long chain which would be required to produce something as complex as the cells we have today.

You have 2 different claims here:
1. Getting life from non-life.
2. Getting "something as complex as the cells we have today."

Those are 2 VERY different things. "Life" does not need to be like we see it today in order to be "life". The protocells are living by the basic definition of life: metabolism, growth, response to stimuli, reproduction. What protocells lack that modern cells have is directed protein synthesis. However, there are several paths (in small steps) to get from protocells to directed protein synthesis.

As to why the proteins would assemble into cells -- with membranes -- that is easy. The membranes of modern cells are 50-60% protein. The reason the proteins would form membranes is the same reason the proteins in modern cells make up a lot of the cell membrane: hydrophobic interaction. That is the same reason that lipids make cell membranes. Remember, most amino acids have hydrophobic (water-hating) side chains. Some amino acids have hydrophilic (water-loving) side chains. The hydrophilic side chains arrange themselves in space to be together -- because that is the lowest energy. Lipids have a hydrophilic "head" and a hydrophobic "tail". Thus ,the tails tend to be together with the hydrophilic "heads" out to make the lipid bilayer. Proteins can do something similar within themselves and by interaction with other proteins.

Quote

I need to look into this area but my gut instinct is that there is more going on here than chemistry as we know it.

Now you are back to arguing theism and god-of-the-gaps. To get from protocells to modern cells takes chemistry AND evolution. Now that you have a population that reproduces but with variation, evolution steps in. Here is a possible first step in going from protocells to directed protein synthesis:

"In more recent work, Fox and his colleagues have shown that basic proteinoids, rich in lysine residues, selectively associate with the homopolynucleotides poly C and poly U but not with poly A or poly G. On the other hand, arginine-rich proteinoids associate selectively with poly A and poly G. In this manner, the information in proteinoids can be used to select polynucleotides. Morever, it is striking that aminoacyl adenylates yield oligopeptides when incubated with proteinoid-polynucleotide complexes, which thus have some of the characteristics of ribosomes. Fox has suggested that proteinoids bearing this sort of primitive chemical information could have transferred it to a primitive nucleic acid; the specificity of interaction between certain proteinoids and polynucleotides suggests the beginning of the genetic code." A. Lehninger, Biochemistry, 1975, pp 1047-1048

Quote

I believe the “god-of-the-gaps” mentality works both ways. It is misused even by prominent scientists on both sides of the atheism vs theism debate. Both extrapolate that based on scientific problems or discoveries that God either does or does not need to exist.

You missed my point: theologically god-of-the-gaps is wrong. Having it used by "both sides" doesn't make it correct. So, in trying to make abiogenesis part of evolution, what you were doing was arguing theism vs atheism using god-of-the-gaps. You are still trying to use GOTG by your "gut instinct" that "there is more than chemistry". After all, WHAT is that "more"? I'm betting you are planning to say "God".

To put God into the "gaps" in scientific knowledge has, as its corollary, that God is absent where there is no gap. This theological mistake is what allows Dawkins and other militant atheists to misuse science to say God does not exist. Trying to "prove" the existence of God by the use of "gaps" such as abiogenesis and your "gut instinct" leads you into the position where science would "disprove" God by filling in all the gaps.

Judeo-Christianity long ago abandoned god-of-the-gaps partly due to the theological problems. The rejected theology has been revived by creationists and IDers. It shows that, as dreadful as creationism and ID is as science, it is even worse as theology. Since you have read Milton: does he ever state or imply that, since Darwinism is wrong, this means that God created?

Quote

One complaint of Richard Milton is that Darwinism no longer turns up novel facts. He classes it a degenerating paradigm. He also claims that it is un-falsifiabil. I would be greatfull if someone could put these claims in perspective. I apologise if these problems are in no particular order i'm just presenting them according to my own preference and not following the book.

Darwinism is certainly falisifiable -- or was. That is, there are several pieces of data that, if found, would have falsified evolution and natural selection. Darwin suggested several of these. One of the possible falsifications of natural selection was:
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." Origin, pg 501.

Of course, no such structure has been found. Some structures or parts -- such as in those found in mutualistic organisms -- are there for the benefit of another species, but that also provides benefit for the species that have them. So there are not structures for the exclusive benefit of another species.

Irreducible complexity is supposed to be a falsification of natural selection, but it has been shown that Behe used a strawman version of natural selection and that natural selection can produce any complex biological structure: http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/JTB.html

In terms of common ancestry, there were many possible falsifications. However, when we looked at the data, the data that was there did not falsify evolution. Nearly all the possible falsifications have been tested. About the only data not looked at that could falsify common ancestry is finding mammalian fossils in pre-Cambrian or Cambrian strata.

Remember, Popper never said that a theory had to be ALWAYS falsifiable. Just that, when proposed, there should be data that COULD, if found, show it false. Evolution had that. What Milton fails to see is that that tests were done and evolution was not falsified. Because all those tests were done, basically evolution is now not false and we can't think of any more tests that could possibly falsify it.

I find it interesting that Milton is so ignorant of the philosophy of science that he thinks evolution fails 2 different and contradictory views of science. That's right. The Kuhnian version of how science is/should be done can't be reconciled to Popper's version of how science is/should be done. Popper says theories are falsified on the data. Kuhn denies that. If Popper is right, Kuhn is wrong, and vice versa. Yet Milton tries to tell us that evolution "fails" each one?

Since I am a Popperian, I'll subject Milton's statements to testing to see if they are 1) falsifiable and 2) falsified. By Milton's statement, there should be NO novel or surprising facts found by evolution and that publications involving evolution should be decreasing over time (a declining paradigm):

One of the most surprising results in the last decade or so is that natural selection is such a good method of getting design. Natural selection -- in the form of genetic algorithms -- are so good at getting design that people now use them when the design problem is too tough for them. And then they are surprised that they don't know how the design works! A Scientific American article in 2003 discussed how natural selection is being used to get patentable inventions! And, of course, to get a patent the idea must be "novel". Jr Koza, MA Keane, MJ Streeter, Evolving inventions. Scientific American, 52-59, Feb 2003 check out www.genetic-programming.com

Also, if you look at PubMed using the search term "evolution" and then look at the time limits for how far back you search, you will see that the number of articles that involve evolution has been increasing over time. That is, in the last 6 months there are more articles using/describing evolution than in the 6 months before that, and that number is larger than the 6 months before that, etc. A declining "paradigm" doesn't do that.

In terms of medicine, evolution by natural selection is providing explanations for old problems that seemed intractable. Two of these are 1) infectious diseases and 2) the failure of cancer therapies.

2. RM Nesse and GC Williams, Evolution and the origins of disease. Scientific American 279: 86-93, Nov. 1998. Concepts from evolution help unify the medical sciences.
4. BR Levin, M Lipsitch, S Bonhoeffer, Evolution and disease: population biology, evolution, and infectious disease: convergence and synthesis. Science 283: 806-809, Feb. 5, 1998.
7. KC Nicolaou, CNC Boddy, Behind enemy lines. Scientific American 284: 54-61, May 2001

So, by Popperian science, I have falsified Milton's hypotheses by finding data that can't be there if his statements are true.

Lockheed said:

How wrong are YEC's and advocates of intelligent design?

Here you go... http://www.youtube.c...mmon%20ancestor

Enjoy :D

Wait a minute! On a science forum you reference a youtube video as evidence? Are you nuts?

What's worse, the video presents no scientific evidence. It is all by ad hominem analogy. It compares YEC to some ideas that we know -- by other means -- are very wrong. BUT that doesn't tell us that YEC is wrong!

If you think that ad hominem analogy is a valid form of argument and science, you really need to rethink your participation in a science forum. You are going to get very angry as scientists tell you the argumentation is wrong.

[Reaper]

lucaspa said:

Wait a minute! On a science forum you reference a youtube video as evidence? Are you nuts?

What's worse, the video presents no scientific evidence. It is all by ad hominem analogy. It compares YEC to some ideas that we know -- by other means -- are very wrong. BUT that doesn't tell us that YEC is wrong!

If you think that ad hominem analogy is a valid form of argument and science, you really need to rethink your participation in a science forum. You are going to get very angry as scientists tell you the argumentation is wrong.

Well, do I really need to? We all know why it is so wrong so its kind of pointless to have to repeat it over and over again. And besides, you should look at his other videos and his credentials... They are not ad hominem, and this one isn't either. The analogies are there to demonstrate a point about creationism.

Besides, I find it rather comical that despite being that wrong they still insist on forcing their beliefs on others and in the education system.

[lucaspa]

Lockheed said:

Well, do I really need to?

Yes. You need to recognize valid forms of argument and evidence from invalid forms.

Quote

We all know why it is so wrong so its kind of pointless to have to repeat it over and over again. And besides, you should look at his other videos and his credentials... They are not ad hominem, and this one isn't either. The analogies are there to demonstrate a point about creationism.

The point is that many people do NOT know why creationism is wrong. They have just been fed the bad info from creationists. They are unaware -- as the Advocate was unaware -- of the data that is out there. This one is most certainly ad hominem. It insults creationism by comparing it to some very insulting positions -- without showing how those positions are equivalently wrong. The logical fallacy is, yes, the positions compared to are wrong -- but there is no data showing creationism is equivalently wrong. Without such data, the argument is ad hominem.

And I don't care about cdk's "credentials". That itself is an appeal to the Argument from Authority -- which is also an invalid form of argumentation.

[CDarwin]

I don't believe that video was meant to argue against Creationists... It's intent was to demonstrate to people who already know Creationism is whooey just how off it is, as a sort of call to arms. We needn't rake poor Lockheed over the coals, here.

[ghstofmaxwll]

Lockheed said:

We all know why it is so wrong so its kind of pointless to have to repeat it over and over again. And besides, you should look at his other videos and his credentials... They are not ad hominem, and this one isn't either. The analogies are there to demonstrate a point about creationism.

This "know" you speak of is in fact not knowledge but biblical assertion. We know nothing of the sort in regard to evolution being wrong whereas we know plenty about it being correct. If you look in the dictionary you will find the word "know" is the quality of seeing the underlying factuality. not the quality of being told something is true by a higher authority.

Quote

Besides, I find it rather comical that despite being that wrong they still insist on forcing their beliefs on others and in the education system.

I think you know full well that science isnt about forcing belief on anyone, but allowing students to experiment and find out through records that a finding(such as evolution) stands up.

[Reaper]

lucaspa said:

The point is that many people do NOT know why creationism is wrong. They have just been fed the bad info from creationists. They are unaware -- as the Advocate was unaware -- of the data that is out there.

But its not really meant to show any data, because you can always look it up yourself. It's basically there to put things into perspective. As far as this science site is concerned, there is a huge number of threads and posts that already explain why it is wrong so I see no need to repeat them again. After a while it just becomes redundant.

Quote

This one is most certainly ad hominem. It insults creationism by comparing it to some very insulting positions -- without showing how those positions are equivalently wrong. The logical fallacy is, yes, the positions compared to are wrong -- but there is no data showing creationism is equivalently wrong. Without such data, the argument is ad hominem.

See my earlier statement. And why can't creationism be as wrong as believing that you can hold your breath for a year, to give an example. In fact, why can't it be as wrong as saying that things fall up, or that 2+2=5, or that perpetual motion machines can be built? They have already been demonstrated to be false, so we don't really need to consider them. For all intents and purposes, all those things are taken to be self-evident.

Quote

And I don't care about cdk's "credentials". That itself is an appeal to the Argument from Authority -- which is also an invalid form of argumentation.

But I never meant that. I know all about the logical fallacies. What you just did was the appeal to pity fallacy (which I could tell by the way you reacted and made statements on how "insulting" they are, along with making a strawman out of my posts).

The reason I asked you to look at his other videos is because he (she?) does have a point and a reason to compare it to other totally wrong statements. It is not a "baseless" conclusion. Granted, credentials are purely cosmetic, but I do know that he/she at least has some sort of background in a particular field of study.

ghstofmaxwll said:

This "know" you speak of is in fact not knowledge but biblical assertion. We know nothing of the sort in regard to evolution being wrong whereas we know plenty about it being correct. If you look in the dictionary you will find the word "know" is the quality of seeing the underlying factuality. not the quality of being told something is true by a higher authority.

I'm well aware of that. All I was doing was telling lucespa that we are already aware of the arguments that discredit creationism.

Quote

I think you know full well that science isnt about forcing belief on anyone, but allowing students to experiment and find out through records that a finding(such as evolution) stands up.

And yes I am aware of that too. It wasn't a comment about science.

===================================================================

CDarwin said:

I don't believe that video was meant to argue against Creationists... It's intent was to demonstrate to people who already know Creationism is whooey just how off it is, as a sort of call to arms. We needn't rake poor Lockheed over the coals, here.

Indeed.

[ghstofmaxwll]

Lockheed said:

I'm well aware of that. All I was doing was telling lucespa that we are already aware of the arguments that discredit creationism.

Sorry, was you not one of the people arguing evolution is flawed?

I jumped in late in the argument.

[Reaper]

ghstofmaxwll said:

Sorry, was you not one of the people arguing evolution is flawed?

No, I was one of the ones saying that creationism is wrong.

Quote

I jumped in late in the argument.

Its okay. If you read the earlier posts, lucaspa is basically trying to lamblast me over a video I posted.

[Mr Skeptic]

Lockheed said:

See the above statement. Why can't creationism be as wrong as believing that you can hold your breath for a year, to give an example. In fact, why can't it be as wrong as saying that things fall up, or that 2+2=5, or that perpetual motion machines can be built? They have already been demonstrated to be false, so we don't really need to consider them. For all intents and purposes, all those things are taken to be self-evident.

Since when does science prove a universal negative? Can you prove that it is impossible to hold your breath for a year, or that a perpetual motion machine cannot be built? What about cryogenics research (hold your breath for how long?), the cyclical universe theory (machines are part of the universe). You can't actually prove that god didn't create the universe (possibly planting evidence re its age), any more than you can prove any other universal negative, no matter how loudly or how many times you say you can. What you can do is demonstrate that a creator god is unnecessary and irrelevant par Occam's Razor. And the proof for even that is not yet complete.

As for your other example, things fall down because down is the direction things fall, and 2+2=4 because of what 2 and 4 mean. These are definitions so you they are among the few things that can be proved.

In summary: Don't be an ass. Ad hominem arguments never belong on a science website, and just make you look silly.

[ghstofmaxwll]

Lockheed said:

Its okay. If you read the earlier posts, lucaspa is basically trying to lamblast me over a video I posted.

I'm lazy you see. I just saw you saying it was wrong(assuming you meant evolution does not fit). Some of these posts here have heavyweight references and links, so not very conducive for the casual asshole( like me) to digest.:D