Philosophical critique of Evolution

Faith & Science Conversation
81

This seems askew. You can independently look at myriad examples of evidence, make testable models, and arrive at the same conclusion. You can do without needing to “see” as in interpret the data in a biased way.

As for your argument I would love to see you expand upon your terms, first principles, and premises as they do not to appear to follow standard model definitions. You keep asserting randomness without using it correctly in context and asserting a direction and goal of humanity/higher level intelligence.

82

Mendelian inheritance was known in 1865 and wasn’t part of the original theory of evolution.

Heredity was proposed by Mendel who verified the basic principles with his pea plants. The discovery of DNA has certainly explained why we see the patterns of heredity that we do.

Since heredity wasn’t forced by evolution why do you doubt the rather massive amount of evidence for how heredity works? Do you doubt DNA paternity tests for instance.

And if you actually dig into that just a little bit you will discover that while the two planes shared a superficial similarity of appearance there were actually many major internal differences. Enough to show that one wasn’t a simple copy of the other.

1 Like
83

Selection is the opposite of random.

Every species is different.

A human is not comparable to a crustacean in capabilities. For example, we can’t extract oxygen from water. We also can’t grow our skeletons on the outside.

What you don’t seem to understand is that evolution doesn’t repeat itself. To use an analogy, languages develop somewhat like biological species. You often start with a shared common ancestral language, and then you get offshoots. French, Italian, and Spanish all came from Latin, as one example. As those early Latin speakers broke off into isolated communities you started getting different changes in different communities. Over time, those differences accumulated to the point that people from different communities could no longer understand one another even though their ancestors could. We would also not expect a modern Spanish to turn into French all on its own. Languages don’t repeat. Evolution also doesn’t repeat.

4 Likes
84

That seems to be because of your religious beliefs.

You haven’t found valid criticisms. The criticisms you have brought against the theory of evolution also apply equally to every other theory in science, and yet you don’t reject those other theories.

You have shown time and time again that you don’t understand the evidence. You keep acting as if it is simply similarities that are being cited. That’s false. You don’t seem to understand what a nested hierarchy is, how hypotheses are tested in science, or the differences between assumptions, observations, hypotheses, and conclusions.

2 Likes
85

No more so than the Germ theory had to prove there were germs, relativity had to prove there was curved spacetime, atom theory had to prove there were atoms, or Heliocentrism had to prove that the Earth moves about the Sun. EVERY SINGLE THEORY IN SCIENCE SETS OUT TO PROVE WHAT IT PROPOSES.

Do we only see germs because Germ Theory expects them? Do we only see atoms because Atom theory expects it? Do we only see curved spacetime because Relativity expects it?

That’s false. Common ancestry is verified by testing hypotheses. Do you know what a hypothesis is? Do you know what evidence is?

The nested hierarchy was discovered 100 years before Darwin.

Why would you doubt this fact?

Do planes fall into a nested hierarchy?

2 Likes
86

What happened to Concordski

So, when I palyfully suggested elsewhere that Concorde and the TU144 were an example of parallel evolution I got the imediate response: “No they are not, the Russians stole our plans but they had been delibertely corrupted.”

The above link deniies this but please bear with me, there is a lot to get through

Why are the two planes compared?
Because they look very similar.

Why might this be?
1 Because they came from the same basic drawing board (conspiracy)
2 Functionality, that is, the design is the best for the purpose (an idea denied by Evolutionists when comparing creatures)

Why would someone think that they came from the same design board?
Because they look alike!

Why would someone claim that the Russians stole the basic design?
Because of proven knowledge about socio-economics, Spying and counter espionage.
(Evolution has similar types of knowledge on which it bases its ideas on. Known and proven process, etc)

Is there any coroboration to this sabotage idea?
Only in terms of known paperwork (fossils?) and historic documents of other similar examoles of industrial espionage, copying etc. But not specifically this one
.( Fossil eveidence does not cover early progressions only later ones)

Is the Conspiracy theory certain? No
(But Evolution is!)

Absolute certainty could only be obtained if there was a direct eyemwitness from the design team of the TU144 or documents coming from the same. But as they die out this becomes less and less possible.

The absolute certain evidence of Evolution, being eye witness or paperwork (fossils) either disappeared in the mists of time or never actually existed. (There are some things fossils cannot show because the means of their creation did not appear until afterwards)

The above article claims that not only did the Russians not need to steal the plans of concorde but in practice the TU144 was much more soffisticated and agile. And it was that, not any sort of sabotage that was its undoing. The mechanics and construction could not withstand the stresses and demands that the specs required and kept failing.

But the similarity was due to function, not heredity.

The conspiracy theory faills on many levels and even though we may not have the definitive proof it is very unlikely, because of other things we know, that it happened that way.

Unfortunately (for me anyway) Evolution does not have such a daming counter theory. (so the conspiratorial version stands)

So, how does my little comparison square up?

Have fun! (I did)

Richard

87

No one is saying that species share common ancestry simply because they look similar. Therefore, your analogy is irrelevant. If we found a species that shared derived features from mammals and birds this would actually be evidence against evolution.

What we are saying is that common ancestry is evidence by a nested hierarchy. Do planes fall into a nested hierarchy?

1 Like
88

What is nested hierachy if it is not comparing similarities?

There is a lot of similarities between the two planes. Not only appearance but the number and layout of the engines, wheels, cockpit position and so on.
Just because you are looking at the microcellular does not mean you are not doing the same thing at all.

This is conceptual, not like for like comparison.

You have to look beyond your scientific dogma. Instead you dismiss out of hand (like I said that you would)

I am sorry my friend but you are playing on my playing field and not yours this time

Richard

89

Also comparing differences.

90

A nested hierarchy is a PATTERN of similarities.

However, planes don’t fall into a nested hierarchy. This is why planes are not a relevant analogy.

We are saying that the evidence for common ancestry is a nested hierarchy. You try to use planes as a counter example, but planes don’t fall into a nested hierarchy. This has nothing to do with dogma.

Do you understand what a nested hierarchy is?

2 Likes
91

Is the tl:dr that if two things are similar conceptually that only eyewitnesses or fossils can provide proof of evolutionary connections. And because evolution does not provide your specific conceptual proofs every time and for all aspects that evolution is therefore full of holes?

92

Yeah, I don’t think you have got the gist of this concept thing yet.

Richard

93

Do you get the gist of the nested hierarchy concept yet? Do you understand that objects can share features but not fall into a nested hierarchy?

2 Likes
94

In this case similar functionality. Boeing also designed but didn’t build a similar plane.

Only at a quick glance. If you actually compare the two they are very different. Internals matter.

An industrial spy was caught in possession of design information for the Concord.

Stolen documents are a strong proof of theft.

You forget the current DNA evidence that points to common ancestry. You forget the dual nested hierarchies that point to common ancestry. You always seem to conveniently forget the current evidence that exists.

Strange then that it flew much longer than the Concord.

Then why did NASA use it to test high speed jet aircraft?

So your little analogy doesn’t apply to evolution, unless I am misunderstanding where you are going.

About as well as your other analogies.

The conspiracy theory is partially true so the evidence says the theory needs to be modified, just as for any theory, including evolution. Evidence Richard, where is your evidence?

Edit to add:
Richard I think I went off on a tangent and missed your point.

2 Likes
95

First this is a man made design and humans repeat what works. In fact the design is constrained by a large number of human factors. I have an interesting story about what happens when human factors are ignored.
Second, how many other planes match the list you provided? So these two planes are similar to a large number of other planes.

2 Likes
96

So, there is no philosophical objection to evolution whatsoever. It would be like a philosophical objection to a dining room, gravity, potato chips, a pine cone, lamplight.

Critique, yes, like there is of movies, literature, politics, research methods and philosophy itself.

3 Likes
97

When? It’s often called “convergence”.

For instance, both Ostrea lawrencei and Plicatula marginata are bivalves that live attached to hard surfaces in bivalve reefs. Both of them have an atypical level of plasticity to their shape. It is not due to direct relationship, as Plicatula is closer related to scallops than to oysters. The fact that both grow in among hard objects make a level of plasticity quite useful, in being able to grow despite things being in the way.

Similarly, patellogastropods, fissurellids, hipponicids, calyptraeids, Concholepas, cocculinids, ancylines, and a few other groups of gastropods are limpet-shaped. That shape is useful for hanging onto hard surfaces, for whatever exact reason (strong currents, mode of life, etc.). None of those groups are closely related: they are in four different subclasses, and have been known to not be very related for a while, as their anatomies are extremely different.

1 Like
98

No, it means that you are failing to see how it might. And missing the whole point.

All the answers so far have been concentrating on trying to affirm what details may or may not be correct. The article did not indicate that a theft actually occurred as you suggested. But, that is still not the point of Philosophy or how to criticise an analogy. It is not about the specific details or any historical accuracies or inaccuracies. It is about the thought process that constructed the theories.

By stating that the idea of function removes it from Evolution is the complete reverse of what the analogy is trying to show. Evolutionists refuse to even consider the idea of function! And you are obviously included.

The whole point of the analogy is to show how function might acutally apply. (because of comparable thought processes in reaching conclusions in the two theories), It is not about any real diefferenece/ similiraities between the two planes. It is about any similarites between the way the two theories were constructed (The conspiracy theory and Evolution)

LIke I said from the start. You need to understand what an analogy is about. and what it is actually trying to address. But scientists seem to be unable to think along these lines. (This is no more an insult than pointing out the differences between the male and female thought processes. ie Men are from mars and women from Venus)

Richard

99

Just for interest let’s try a different type of argument. (comparison)

Here is a very famous optical illusion

illusion

Most people see either an old hag or a beautiful woman, and struggle to identify the other one.

That is not the point. Neither actually exist. The human brain takes what it sees and tries to make sense of it. It uses experience and “similarities” of shape and form to undersand and conceptualise.

What you are looking at is nothing more than pen marks on a piece of paper. No person exists or ever existed here.

Now I hope that you already know where I am going…

Fossils. They rely on our knowledge of what to look for. They rely on us identifying a shape be it 2D or 3D and deducing what it is (or might be)

(I can already hear the cries of indignation. Of course Fossils are actual bones, or at least the impressions left by them) Of course?

And as for the connections in DNA Heredity…
(Of course they are there!)

I saw a program claim that a hinged jaw bone evolved from the first ridge of a gill. Why? Because the images (fossils) matched! You do not even know whether DNA is that specific. That the sequence is so specific it can change a part of an organ into something else. Or that if you corrupt the DNA for a Gill the whole gill will ossify not one specific (lucky) part.

The evolutionary theory relies almost 100% on interpreting data. How can you be certain that what you see actually exists or ever existed? The computer-generated (Or artist-drawn) impressions of DInosaurs. They are pure speculation (in many senses).The internal organs are deduced using what we know about modern creatures and visually identifying the signs of them.

The whole connection theory is based on visual and cognitive perceived connections.
(But it is impossible to even consider that any of this might be an illusion)

Let the outrage begin (or continue, it has been building ever since you starrted reading this, probably)

Richard

100

Which brings us back to these examples:

If you wish me to send you a few thousand photographs of these sorts of mollusks fossils, I can do so, but there are better ways to apply the next few months.

Here is a specific example:
image

IMG_2302
IMG_23021920×1440 57.9 KB

Would you agree that considering these to be very similar, but not identical, is reasonable?

1 Like