Philosophical critique of Evolution

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@RichardG

I suggest that we give up, now!.

Past due.  

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@MarkD

Based on what Steve @glipsnort just said on another of the many threads indulging Richard’s incredulity regarding evolution, perhaps this one should be renamed “Critique of Evolution by Analogy”.

Critique of Evilution by Fallacy?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Bill_II

Care to actually provide such an explanation without the use of an analogy?

No easier than you could with one.

Every time I use science I am accused of not having the qualifications.

So why should I even try?

The quote of mine you used was philosophically based so why do I need to clarify it scientifically?

Richard

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Maybe you haven’t heard that an analogy is a three-legged horse.

[Bill_II]

@RichardG

No easier than you could with one.

What you said was

@RichardG

What we don’t agree on is why I claim that you should consider other explanations for what you see.

So you either have such explanations or you are expecting scientists to come up with other explanations. And just supplying some analogies is not going to convince a scientist to abandon the current theory. How many times do we have to say you use analogies to illustrate a point, not prove a point.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Bill_II

How many times do we have to say you use analogies to illustrate a point, not prove a point.

And I said that you are talking semantics.

It is no use illustrating something that you claim does not exist The illustration is lost (s in disappeared), not defeated.

Just because you do not accept the validity does not negate the validity. It just means that you are not prepared to accept any conclusions or criticisms made in this manner. It does not mean that the criticisms are invalid, or wrong, or even inappropriate.

Richard

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@RichardG

Just because you do not accept the validity does not negate the validity. It just means that you are not prepared to accept any conclusions or criticisms made in this manner . It does not mean that the criticisms are invalid, or wrong, or even inappropriate.

Anything is possible on some level but not equally likely. Otherwise everyone could be an arm chair scientist based on their own abstract reasoning. Oh wait, conclusions based on abstract reasoning devoid of empirical observation wouldn’t actually be science. Oh well those actually trained in science would still need to shoot down our claims so we can just keep this up for days.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

Ad infinitum

As has been proved by the circular arguments spread across different threads

perhaps an actual philosophical (analogy based) conversation would help? Especially if someone was able to give the reply that scientists seem unwilling or unable to supply (Devil’s advocate)

Richard

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

Days?! Not even the end of days!

This came to mind (Warning: obscene and blasphemous language).

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Dale

Maybe you haven’t heard that an analogy is a three-legged horse.

Perhaps you had better tell that to God. The Old Testament prophets used analogies all the time. And so did Christ. (and so did you)

Richard

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Perhaps you should work on understanding analogies? They have their place and are extremely useful tools, but they are not identical with truth and do not replace it.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@jpm

It appears that this poar has reached the point where meaningful discussion has ceased.

This one, too, Phil @jpm?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Dale

Perhaps you should work on understanding analogies?

Who ever said that they did? They help understand or point to it though.

Richard

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Your reply above indicated that I believed analogies had no place. You are also trying to disprove good science by analogy, and saying things like physicists and biologists do not understand analogies.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

Perhaps, though I have not followed closely enough to judge.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

Give it a little more time please. We are down to one thread now. It might be (seen as) trolling to start another one.

Richard

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

One more little try…

I do not know how many people will have come across the activity of Chain letters. It illustrates a simple and finite change. You change one letter at a time, either by replacing, adding, or subtracting a letter from one word to another. The classic Christian usage is to change Hate to Love. There are literally hundreds of ways to achieve this

H A T E
H A V E
H I V E
L I V E
L O V E

For simple words this is fairly straightforward, but the bigger the word the more links or changes that have to be made.

Now by Evolutionary logic, any change can be made given enough time and enough changes. Correct?
But language does not contain infinite variations of correct words and some words cannot be made up because there is no “part-way” possible

Antidisestablishmentarianism?

I challenge anyone to make another word by changing, adding or removing just one letter.

Now someone might suggest that I should allow anagrams? (not sure that this would be a fair comparison in terms of DNA sequencing) One word anagram? (We are talking one system) Find one.

This is what I mean when I talk about the scope of Evolutionary change. If it is, as normally expressed, a single change or deviation, there will be some things that it just cannot change, because there is no “part-way” stage possible. No matter how long you have, or how many changes you try, it just cannot be done.

And I would suggest that there is more than one system or change (or make) to which this principle could, or even must apply.

Richard

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

Now by Evolutionary logic, any change can be made given enough time and enough changes. Correct?
But language does not contain infinite variations of correct words and some words cannot be made up because there is no “part-way” possible

Antidisestablishmentarianism?

I challenge anyone to make another word by changing, adding or removing just one letter.

There are an estimated 10^93 possible DNA sequences that will produce cytochrome c. That’s a 1 with 93 zeros after it.

Importantly, Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 10^93 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on these genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey et al . 1986; Hampsey et al . 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254). For perspective, the number 10^93 is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4

@RichardG

This is what I mean when I talk about the scope of Evolutionary change. If it is, as normally expressed, a single change or deviation , there will be some things that it just cannot change, because there is no “part-way” stage possible. No matter how long you have, or how many changes you try, it just cannot be done.

And I would suggest that there is more than one system or change (or make) to which this principle could , or even must apply.

We understand that you believe this. What we are asking for is evidence that your suggestion is true.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

We understand that you believe this. What we are asking for is evidence that your suggestion is true.

How many examples must you see before you accept any of them?

And seeing as ad hominem is used to dismiss them…

@T_aquaticus

There are an estimated 10^93 possible DNA sequences that will produce cytochrome c. That’s a 1 with 93 zeros after it

More mathematics? Whatever happened to biology being about nature and stuff?

Tell me of your

@T_aquaticus

2.3 x 10^93 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences

How many are functional?

And, can you successfully join them in an evolutionary sequence?

You are trying to speak a language without knowing the syntax or the Spelling.

It is all theoretical. It is not empirical Biology. It might be empirical Mathematics, but that is not what evolution is supposed to be illustrating.

Richard

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@RichardG

This is what I mean when I talk about the scope of Evolutionary change. If it is, as normally expressed, a single change or deviation, there will be some things that it just cannot change, because there is no “part-way” stage possible. No matter how long you have, or how many changes you try, it just cannot be done.

It’s not. That is why I used to be mistaken about the capacity of evolution, too, “the scope of Evolutionary change.” Read up on neutral drift and the neutral theory of evolution. I believe it has been mentioned before, but apparently you are still completely unfamiliar with it.