So you are defending all of your logic based on this article and a preposterous schematic?
Here’s how I would revise that schematic, depending on the individual case, and the evidence at hand:
The original artists should get an “A+” for creative distortions of Evolutionary logic. What we need are specific cases of the supposed problems - - and let the facts and details speak for themselves!
Great. This is the first post in this thread where you mention John Walton and his logic regarding Genesis 1.
** When are you going to start talking about those details?**
Like most people, I have no access to empirical instruments for my own testing of claims made about such things as DNA. LOL. So, like most people, I am left to deal with logic, including that implying testimonial trustworthiness. I cannot rightly argue the empirical details of which I have not witnessed. And, since I have found, today, that it seems you all here effectively deify the evo side in research review and primary research, there is no point in my arguing with you even about the logic of the claims made by any side as to what is the evidence of that primary research.
Moreover, I do think I have a topic about which I can make some progress in arguing with you about: John Walton’s logic on a particular ancient text. I’ve already opened a thread on that topic.
All we are doing is taking the evidence presented in peer reviewed articles at face value. I don’t see how that is “deifying” anything. You also seemed just fine with science reported by others earlier in the thread, so this sudden about-face is a bit weird. You claimed that this or that about DNA had been scrapped, and now you claim complete ignorance about DNA. All we ask is for a consistent stance and some evidence to back it.
That makes me, what? A poor judge of ‘DNA research’? As if that research is conducted by holy angels!
So you’re presupposing a link to demonstrate a link? What makes you think those fossils are at all connected? And in the diagram, all you have is the organisms. Your must understand that the blue lines are imaginary for now.
So survival is the one and only thing. It follows that “survival of the fittest” is circular tautology. What traits? Organisms have an infinity of traits. How would you separate traits?
Antibiotic resistance is simple built in adaptation. All organisms have this built in capacity.
Soon after the AB is removed, the population reverts to its normal resistance. See? No evolution there. That’s why AB resistance is mostly found in hospitals. Is this clear?
Are you kidding? You can also find a carnivorous insect, lizard, mammal and bird. Is that bio-diesel enough? 
It’s your contention, not mine, that biology is unique and different …but you’re not proving that.
So what exactly is you personal “fitness”, and how did you calculate that? And what exactly is your friend’s “fitness”? How did you miss that in my previous comment?
Like what? That monkeys are similar to human genetics because we look somewhat similar? How would this be different in a ID design scenario?
Survival and reproduction are the only things relevant to fitness.
Incorrect. Fitness is a propensity; it represents a greater probability of survival, not actual survival. Most new mutations that are fitter than the existing DNA do not survive. [quote=“NonlinOrg, post:88, topic:36621”]
What traits? Organisms have an infinity of traits. How would you separate traits?
[/quote]
You can use any way of dividing traits that’s convenient. Are you really incapable of distinguishing, say, dark skin from light skin?[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:88, topic:36621”]
Antibiotic resistance is simple built in adaptation.
[/quote]
Your point would be correct if it weren’t completely wrong. it has no connection to reality. Antibiotic-sensitive bacteria become resistant following a mutation; that mutation then spreads because of natural selection. Denying this reality just means your beliefs are disconnected from reality.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:88, topic:36621”]
Like what? That monkeys are similar to human genetics because we look somewhat similar?
[/quote]
Np, not like that. Like predicting the relative number of transitions and transversions when comparing two species, or predicting the relative number of mutations at CpG sites. I can predict those values for a comparison of, say, chimpanzees and bonobos, based on common descent. Can an ID scenario?
As pointed out by @Daniel_Pech, you guys (@glipsnort, @T_aquaticus, @gbrooks9, @Jay313, etc. etc.) are way too dogmatic and therefore not the best partners for a logical discussion. This is not new to me and frankly I was hoping for fresh ideas from fresh minds instead of the same recycled ones.
If you can’t even accept the basic premise of this thread - that an obviously illogical statement should be dropped - and instead look for excused, caveats and interpretations to avoid yielding the smallest thing, then there’s no point in continuing the discussion.
Please keep this in mind when you feel an urge to answer my future posts. If you have a fresh idea, by all means please reply, but otherwise, I already know what you think and perhaps you also know some of my arguments. Good luck.
I guess this means you don’t know why evolution is so much better at making predictions than intelligent design.
Why would someone turn to a fresh idea, when they have seen time and again that the tried and true old idea is demonstrably the best one available?
So, now you argue that adaptation is not genetically based?
It’s one thing to say micro evolution is separate from macro evolution. But are you really trying to say the bacteria’ s adaptation is not a genetic response?
If you don’t prove this assertion… there is nothing any of us can say to you that will matter.
It would seem you find our answers beneath your contempt.
Why are you here on these pages?
What you are describing is the creationist movement, not science. To paraphrase Neil Degrasse Tyson, if you think scientists just all naturally agree with one another then you have never been to a scientific conference. You deify creationism, so to lessen the impact of this fact you try to project that fault onto others.[quote=“Daniel_Pech, post:87, topic:36621”]
‘Scrapped’ is not a term most of us ever use on ourselves in our personal track record. But most of us human persons, yourself included, readily enough admit that that term is accurate when applied to our personal track record on various things. And if it is accurate for individuals, then is accurate for… the gander. I don’t care what they say, every last large human group has had to scrap various things, and this is essentially no different for that group which is the evo community of primary and review researchers in biology.
[/quote]
Then show us what has been scrapped as it applies to the DNA evidence for evolution. You claimed that evidence had been scrapped, so lets see it.[quote=“Daniel_Pech, post:87, topic:36621”]
That makes me, what? A poor judge of ‘DNA research’? As if that research is conducted by holy angels!
[/quote]
And again with the projection. If you want to claim that scientists are wrong, you should at least understand the research they are reporting. I don’t see why that is such a problem.
I did not ever say ‘evidence’ has been scrapped. …Did I? I know what I meant, in any case. Auxiliary models have been scrapped. I thought you understood that! How can evidence be scrapped???
Diesel engines share features that gasoline engines do not. If you arrange your tree by diesel or gasoline engines you get a different tree.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:88, topic:36621”]
It’s your contention, not mine, that biology is unique and different …but you’re not proving that.
[/quote]
We have 300 years of experts who disagree, starting with Linnaeus.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:88, topic:36621”]
So what exactly is you personal “fitness”, and how did you calculate that? And what exactly is your friend’s “fitness”? How did you miss that in my previous comment?
[/quote]
There is no such thing as personal fitness as it applies to evolution. Different alleles will give you a lower or higher probability, and their interactions will also produce a different probability. Different environments will produce different probabilities as will interactions with fellow competitors and the alleles they carry. All fitness is relative and not absolute.
For all individuals in a population the effects of environment and chance are the same. The only thing that differs between individuals is their genome, and it is their genomes which ultimately determine their relative probability of passing on their genes.
If you are curious as to how selective pressures and selection are measured, then there are plenty of mathematical models found in the field of population genetics:
You are projecting.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:90, topic:36621”]
If you can’t even accept the basic premise of this thread - that an obviously illogical statement should be dropped - and instead look for excused, caveats and interpretations to avoid yielding the smallest thing, then there’s no point in continuing the discussion.
[/quote]
Do you really think that the theory of evolution is accepted by more than 99% of biologists because Dobzhansky proclaimed it to be true? If Dobzhansky had never uttererd those words evolution would still be as well supported because the theory is supported by evidence, not proclamations. The only illogical argument is the one that you are making, that poking little holes in irrelevant statements about evolution will somehow falsify the theory.
There is a hierarchy of the issues you reject. By which I mean to say:
We can’t address the logic of rejecting one of the issues, if we all know you reject one or more of the underlying premises.
So when you jump around in your discussion, it creates the appearance that all the refutations and objections are for similar categories of information. And so the dispute continues… scattering rhetoric all over the place.
But if we focus on the underlying premises (which you reject), then we don’t have to get sucked into a bottomless pit of refutations and disagreements. And it will save us all a great deal of trouble.
4) So what seems to be the most fundamental issue or premise that you reject? Let me propose the following:
@NonlinOrg’s Fundamental Dispute with Evolutionary Scenarios is:
Would you agree with this statement, @NonlinOrg ?
What are these “auxillary models” and how were they scrapped?
Sigh. As far as a given basic position is concerned, failure of some one of its auxiliaries does not cast doubt on that position.
I have only been pointing out the obvious of this, as is known to all philosophers of science, and to many scientists (even Richard Dawkins knows this stuff, and he has popularly published on it), and thereby implying that, from my position, the evo position has a poor track record. This is what I implied in mentioning that the Drake Equation is a product of the evo position: that that Equation is both one of the largest and best auxiliaries of the evo position, and one of its biggest failures.
…and by this statement it should be obvious that I’m implying the single most obvious issue in this debate: that any broadly explanatory theory, without any auxiliaries (at least implicit auxiliaries, not necessarily articulated ones), is nothing but an ignorant hypothesis.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
