Well, yes, but mainly I want to make sure you have a good handle on the subject. You can start with a dictionary definition or description of “nested hierarchy” if you want, although ideally you would put it in your own words rather than copy-pasting something. AIG has an alternative model. It has the shape of a bunch of sticks coming out of the ground. (It’s not a very good model.) You are welcome to suggest your own alternative if you want, but you don’t have to.
I appreciate the link, but a proton collider is not creating stars or planets, and it’s certainly not recreating the Big Bang.
Huh? Nobody’s claiming inerrancy for Darwin, of course he could be wrong. He was, about a bunch of stuff. His ideas have been modified and corrected as necessary. But his overall idea has been confirmed by everything we’ve learned since his day, not disproven.
That may be the way Dawkins explains it but he is leaving out how God is in control of every step. As I was driving through the rain this morning I was reminded that we have a very good explaination for the formation of rain with no mention of God and when you hear the forcast is for rain you take your raincoat. However this does not mean that God is not in control of the rain. Of course some people might say given the weather man’s lack of success that is proof that God is in control.
More complex models are usually less accurate than simpler ones. The only time they are more accurate is when they do a better job of modeling a complex reality than the simpler model.
And that is what the theory of evolution is: a better model of the reality we observe in the biosphere than the non-evolutionary models advanced by some ID and YEC advocates. Joshua @Swamidass and I have presented the evidence, and you have been unable to rebut it–except to say…
…which isn’t very meaningful. You could say this about particle theory, about stoichiometry, or about the Big Bang theory. You could say this about any branch of science.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:35, topic:35274”]
I would again disagree that condensing millions of years of evolution into a petri dish qualifies in any way as simple.
We do that all the time in physics and chemistry.
[/quote]
You seem to believe that a sensationalist headline about the Large Hadron Collider supports your point. In fact, the LHC experiments are to the Big Bang what the Lenski experiments are to the theory of evolution. The experiments demonstrate the existence and likelihood of the mechanisms that underlie the theories of the Big Bang and evolution, respectively.
Here’s another point: show me an experiment that proves the half-life of U-238 by measuring how long it takes for half of the U-238 in a uranium lump to decay. Go ahead. I’ll eat a bug if you find one.
To be more precise, model complexity doesn’t have to be correlated with accuracy, but the only reason to develop a more complex model is if the simple one just doesn’t cut it anymore.
What non-evolutionary models do some ID and YEC advocate? I am not familiar. Advancing a model is not mandatory. Better to have none that one that doesn’t make sense.
Here is a whole list if you want to read and understand …which you don’t. It is time to retire:
“Natura non facit saltum” (gradualism) – argument is illogic and contrary to molecular/atomic physics as well as contrary to sexual reproduction http://nonlin.org/gradualism/
“Randomness” as in random mutations and “Random creates” http://nonlin.org/random-abuse/
“Natural” in natural selection – everything is natural; this religious argument does not comply with the scientific method, is unsupported, and beyond the competence of claimants
“Unguided and Purposeless” – argument is illogical and, since selection is guided and purposeful, the outcome must be as well guided and purposeful
Recognize that Selection and Survival are one and the same – the selected survive and the surviving have been selected
“Fit” as in survival of the fittest – we cannot measure “fit” except as “survival”
“Four or five”…or LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) – in a generic “primordial soup” scenario if one happens, then many happen …unless said soup is magical(?)
“Arising” as in Arising of Everything and Life vs. Entropy http://nonlin.org/arising-of-everything/
“Benefit” and “optimization” – there’s nothing wrong with these anthropic concepts, but they are utterly incompatible with the mechanistic universe envisioned by Darwin and his followers
Truth be told, they are both speculative models. But at least Big Bang doesn’t require a ridiculous magical soup. But my contention is not so much with the lack of evidence as it is with the lack of logic of what passes for evidence.
Bill has a very good point. Lynn and Chris, if this is your view as well, then you’re OK. But if so, your “Evolution” is not the mainstream Evolution of Darwin and most of his followers and you must call it something else (Deistic Evolution maybe?). I am only disputing as ilogic a pure mechanistic interpretation of Evolution but would even be OK with that as the atheistic religion (because there’s no point in debating beliefs).
Experimental evidence as proposed would still be very helpful.
Then I’m OK! I have affirmed in several threads that I believe that God is sovereign Creator of the universe. God intimately, providentially upholds the universe in every femtosecond and femtometer of its existence.
Oh you are so close. The theory of evolution has to be based on a purely mechanistic mechanism. Science by design doesn’t look for God. That is not because scientists don’t believe in God but because there is no test that can detect the presence of God. But all is good. The Bible tells us God is in charge of even a purely mechanistic mechanism.
Do you require experimental evidence to accept the Theory of Rain? Do you reject the purely mechanistic mechanism that generates rain because it doesn’t include God? I don’t think so. So why would evolution be any different? I have always said the Bible says God is in charge of all the natural processes that were known when it was written. Just because we come up with new descriptions of natural processes doesn’t mean that God is not in charge.
It sounds like you are referring to “your evolution” as if it is a PHILOSOPHY, rather than a scientific theory.
If “deistic evolution” is somehow a different scientific theory than the Theory of Evolution one reads in a biology textbook, then is “deistic photosynthesis” a different natural process than the one in my biology books? How about the Germ Theory of Disease vs. the Deistic Germ Theory of Disease? Are they truly different theories when conceptualized by a Christian versus an atheist? I just don’t get it. Someone like Richard Dawkins uses his understanding of the Theory of Evolution to make all sorts of philosophical leaps, but those leaps have no impact on what the Theory of Evolution explains. His philosophical conclusions are not testable under the scientific method. They are irrelevant to the Science.
I confess: I tried to work through your list. I even read the linked blog articles. I’m sincerely trying to understand your position. Truly. But I had one of three reactions to each item on your list:
(1) straw man argument, or
(2) I had no idea how the item related to the Theory of Evolution and the predictions it makes, or
(3) I couldn’t figure out what you were saying.
As to #3, what is “magical” about soup? I assume you mean the primordial soup, as some call it. Yet chemical reactions are not “magical”. Indeed, I’m sure that those scientists who are exploring the concept of abiogenesis are focused entirely on chemistry. So how did you get “magical” out it? Is the dust of the ground in Genesis 1 “magical”? I’m not even sure what magical means in such a context. (Some would say that “magical” describes anything which we observe that we don’t’ understand.)
If I had to summarize my reaction to your posts, I would say this:
It sounds like you are determined to confuse science with philosophical conclusions based upon some individual’s personal reactions to the science.
Gradualism is a cornerstone of evolution as proposed, yet nature is not gradual. Mendel noticed that a early as 1865. We need a replacement for gradualism.
Randomness cannot possibly be determined, so let’s not assume it.
Natural selection is always done by an intelligent agent in a nonrandom and purposeful manner.
There is no fit function or such a function is unknowable except through survival.
LUCA either happens every day (and why don’t we see that?) or was a a unique event impossible to duplicate. There never was a “primordial soup”.
Nothing ever arises without an external driver. We have never seen anything arise in a scientific experiment.
The pure mechanistic model fails because it relies on anthropic concepts like benefit and optimization.
These are observations and pure logical interpretation of those observations. I can’t see why anyone would disagree. And if these are true as presented, then at a minimum the understanding of the evolution mechanism needs to change dramatically.
Separating Science from Religion is impossible: Philosophy, Religion, and Science – NonLin but Observations and Logic should be common to all of us, so there is nothing (or very little) philosophical about the list above.
You know, Nonlin, you have a very bad habit of hurling insults at me and impugning my motives. Those words are extremely unbecoming of anyone who aspires to follow Christ, they undermine your credibility, and they give every reader of this thread strong motivation to ignore all that you write.
Lashing out like this is a very bad sign for the strength of your argument…
I find that difficult to believe. A scientific theory is an explanation of the observed evidence. So the theory of rain is the explanation of rain. That explanation is also known as the water cycle. Water evaporates to form clouds and those clouds condense around particles of dust under the right conditions. That explains rain. That is the theory of rain.
I think you know that. So I’m baffled as to why you say that you don’t. Like so many of your posts, I find them perplexing. (I also don’t understand your reactions to others who disagree with you, but that is another topic.)
Proving and proofs belong to mathematics. We don’t seek proof of our scientific theories. We subject theories to falsification testing. We quantify the weight of evidence to see if a given explanation is the best of all available explanations.
Is it possible that part of our communications conflicts in this thread are due to using differing definitions for the terms? I don’t know.
Is that an accurate description of my replies? If my counter-arguments are not clear, I’m certainly willing to provide more detail. But this is frustrating because so many of your arguments are simply statements of your opinion with no citations or supporting evidence. And you often appear to be using your own unique definitions of words as well as straw man arguments which have nothing to do with the actual published science. So it is difficult for me to know where to start.
The tread topic is “How the theory of evolution is useful: predicting food alergies!” Do you consider the Theory of Evolution NOT useful? Do you think it is predictive of future discoveries? Has it demonstrated its usefulness for predicting future discoveries in the past? I say yes. I can cite many of them. Do you deny that the Theory of Evolution successfully predicted the results of genomic comparisons? Did it predict the difference in chromosome numbers between humans and chimpanzees? Perhaps that would be a good specific that we could discuss. Otherwise, I’m finding your arguments difficult to follow because they seem to be a collection of philosophical viewpoints.
This is what we call a “sweeping generalization.” I might as well respond with 'nature is too gradual!"
More specifically, you appear to be trying to apply the mathematical definition of ‘gradualism’ to biology. Have you read this?
Gradualism does NOT mean that you can’t have discrete steps, it just means that those steps are comparatively small. Gradualism was originally contrasted with catastrophism, as in global flood geology. Virtually anything is gradual compared to that!
Your polemic against randomness seems equally poorly aimed. Of course God is in charge of the outcome of random events, if you believe in God at all. (Proverbs 16:33: The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.) Here are some more interesting thoughts on randomness in relation to God:
Natural selection means selection by nature. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not characterize nature as Godly or Godless or intelligent or purposeless or anything else. That is all interpretation.
So what if it is unknowable except through survival? Isn’t that the beauty of the theory, that survival is the only metric required?
Frankly I am not inspired to continue much by the quality of these arguments. I think you are arguing more against atheism than you are against evolution, and that’s not a debate I care about. I think you would benefit by reading up on the actual mechanisms of evolution more before you so thoroughly dismiss them.
You proclaim this on a website filled with “evolutionary creationists?” Have you not actually looked around?
I would disagree strongly, personally, that my “Evolution” is not the mainstream evolution of Darwin and the modern scientific community. I would also disagree that Darwin’s evolution is inherently atheistic. Darwin himself was not an atheist, he was agnostic. Evolution describes the physical processes of life. Just because people have used it to opine about God does not mean that that’s its primary function.
Falsification is passe. Have you heard that Newton’s mechanics has been falsified yet we still continue to use it because it is good enough at the macro scale?
Last one, yes.
I have yet to see anything useful. Do not confuse with genomics. You know that Darwin and Mendel were two entirely different individuals?
Someone else’s quote that is close enough:
“So what is this great and overwhelming “proof” of chimp-human common ancestry? Researchers found 96 percent genetic similarity and a difference between us of 4 percent. This is a very strange kind of proof because it is actually double the percent difference that evolutionists have claimed for years!5 Even so, no matter what the actual percent difference turned out to be, whether 2, 4, or 10 percent, they still would have claimed that Darwin was right to support their worldview.”
I might add:
What’s the value in that specific trivia?
Say you didn’t know anything about genetics and someone told you they analyzed the DNA of human, chimp and frog. Which two DNAs would you have guessed were more similar: human-chimp or human-frog?
Comparative with what? These vague definitions do not fit the scientific method. And OK, you don’t like the math argument, fine. But what about the other biology-related arguments? Why don’t you address those?
I would not want to be accused of “God of the gaps”, so let’s stick with Observation and Logic arguments. Once again, you’re welcome to address the whole list of arguments against the abuse of “randomness”. A lot of [wasteful] effort goes into trying to demonstrate how we can get something that looks designed out of randomness. Why? Because people are committed to an incorrect view of nature.
But what does that mean “selection by nature”? Who/what is “nature”? This post is not yet ready:
“Is Natural Selection a logically coherent concept? No. Here’s why:
a. Who decides what is and is not “Natural” in Natural Selection? Nuclear energy was very much supernatural in the 1800s, and Darwin enrolled domestication in support of his “Natural Selection”, so “Natural” seems to include everything …except Intelligent Design.
b. It is impossible to prove “blind, mindless, and purposeless”. Paley’s watch argument has yet to be satisfactorily disputed.
c. Randomness cannot be positively identified, hence the starting point of this process is doubtful.
d. “Better adapted” is an anthropic concept incompatible with “randomness, blind, mindless, and purposeless”
e. Fitness is just another word for the anthropic “better adapted” and cannot be measured independent of survival”
You’re the first person I see taking this position. If that’s the only metric, then why build an entire ‘just so’ story around survival of the fittest?
Since everyone has religious views, and atheists are quite fanatic about theirs, I can only discuss the Observable and Logic of this theory …to the extent we’re not crossing into the realm of personal Belief which I will respect, like it or not.
FALSE! The word “passe” means “out of fashion”. Falsification is just as essential to science than it ever was!
No. It was not falsified. It was shown to be incomplete and subject to further qualification/quantification. Einstein showed that Newton’s physics became more and more inaccurate at high speeds—but Newton’s serves quite accurately in most contexts.
You would benefit from Einstein’s famous essay. He explained how the common complaint about “science is constantly proven wrong” should be replaced with an understanding of how science gets things more and more right with time. Newton got a lot right but Einstein added to the equations so that they became EVEN MORE RIGHT (and more accurate.)
Falsification testing will always be at the heart of science.
I gave you several examples. You simply ignored them. You keep declaring peer-reviewed, textbook science as “wrong” on the basis of nothing but your own declarations.
You are making no sense again. You asked for examples of evolution being useful and making predictions. The prediction about chromosome numbers differences was proven by genomic mapping about seven years later. Instead of admitting that reality you changed the subject to genetic similarity percentages. You ignore that fact that percentages are not nearly as important as the nested hierarchies mapping those differences and similarities. The genomic comparisons produced trees which confirmed the long ago constructed phylogenetic trees. In other words, the Theory of Evolution predicted that the molecular data would confirm the same relationships as the phylogenetic trees. That’s a HUGE slam-dunk for the Theory of Evolution. Useful. Powerful, Predictive. Impressive.
As to looking to Answers in Genesis, have you considered reading what experts in the relevant fields happen to say about these topics? David DeWitt, the author of the article, has degrees in biochemistry and neuroscience. In other words, his bio shows no evidence of relevant expertise. That probably explains why I found his article littered with mischaracterizations and what appears to be an intentional avoidance of the actual evidence for the evolutionary science he is denying. (Why doesn’t he explain to his readers why and how scientists keep finding overwhelming evidence for Common Descent? It is not simply a matter of percentage differences! He says nothing of nested hierarchies—and nothing of ERVs.) I could go through and refute his claims, one by one, but so far you have simply denied everything you don’t like and refuse to engage the topics with evidence and citations. So I think it would be a waste of my time.
We have different burdens of proof. I am pointing to what is found in any university textbook on these topics. You are claiming that the science academy is wrong. So you have the bigger burden of proof. My work has already been done for me—in thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles and summarized in hundreds of textbooks. If you truly wish to understand the arguments and evidence I’ve already posted, you can easily find more details online or any library. But to buttress your claims, we are left with those outside fo the relevant fields of the science academy, like David DeWitt.
No. Common Descent and a Common Designer do NOT generate the same evidence and do NOT look at all alike. And that is where he really ought to start. (Think trees, not percentages.) It is NOT simply a matter of “same data, different interpretations.” Why would a “Common Designer” decide to design living organisms in such a way that their phylogenetic trees and their genomic data trees match so closely and look like the result of Common Descent? Is God trying to fool us? Did he “plant” data in the biosphere to convince us of a history of life on earth which never happened? (That is the same kind of predicament Answers in Genesis creates for themselves when they try to claim that what geologists call “The Geologic Record” in textbooks is simply what a global flood leaves behind! Is it? No. But they say that that is simply what God chose to do. Yet, why would God give us piles of evidence which point to a history which never happened? Is God a deceiver? Does he like to confuse us? That “logic” is just as bad as “The universe is very young but God simply decided to make it LOOK like it is very old!”)
