The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

AtomicHorror
Spontaneous Evolution is, I assume, your term for abiogenesis plus evolution? Is it both that you discount or just the combination?

Spontaneous Evolution is my term for the hypothesis that single cells 'evolved' into Man by spontaneous materialistic means.

I agree that Spontaneous Abiogenesis may be a separate concept…….but it also requires an explanation if any Materialistic view on the origin and supposed development of life over millions of years is to have any logical credibility ……and so far BOTH Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Evolution remain within the realm of speculation ……and totally unfounded speculation…..I might add!!!!

.....and therefore the dream of Atheists for an Intellectually Fulfilling (Materiailistic) explanation for the emergence of life remains just a that......an unfulfilled dream!!!:eek:




Originally Posted by J C
There is no argument over the scientific validity of Natural selection, Gene flow and Genetic drift

AtomicHorror
Then you accept that evolution is at least hypothetically possible given enough time?

No, I certainly do NOT accept that Spontaneous Evolution is either hypothetically or logically possible……
........the ’non-functional’ permutations of Nucleic Acids in DNA are effectively infinite…..while ‘functional’ combinations are very limited in number…..and in many cases only ONE combination is functional.

The effectively infinite combinatorial space of ‘useless’ bio molecules rules out Spontaneous Abiogenesis AND Spontaneous Evolution!!:D




Originally Posted by J C
The argument is over whether these mechanisms can account for the inordinate amounts of tightly specified, complex, functional information found in living genomes!!!

AtomicHorror
That would require only time. You contend that the world is much younger than it appears as measured by dozens of independent measuring methods which agree with each other. If the world is less than 10,000 years old, the answer to your question above is "highly unlikely". If it is greater than 2 billion years old, the answer is "highly likely".

It would require much more than time…....
.....could I remind you that something that is dead remains dead……no matter how many years pass by…….and something that is non-functional remains that way without an ultimate input of intelligence to restore functionality to it.

If your car wing is damaged it remains so without an intelligent input into it’s repair….and randomly whacking it with a hammer (like mutations do to the genome) will invariably damage it further!!!!:D



Originally Posted by J C
The Evolutionist contention that they account for ‘Muck to Man Evolution’ is something like claiming that a car is manufactured by driving it from Ireland to China!!!!

AtomicHorror
Firstly, I repeat once again that abiogenesis and evolution are independent. Evolutionary Theory does not innately require a theory of abiogenesis any more than it requires a theory of the synthesis of the elements. The disproving of abiogenesis would not impact on evolution.

For the ‘grand claim’ of Evolutionism to be an intellectually coherent explanation for the emergence of life, BOTH Spontaneous Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Evolution need to have valid scientific explanations……and NEITHER are plausible with our current state of scientific knowledge!!


AtomicHorror
Secondly, your manufactured item analogy (one which you have repeated variants of countless times) is flawed as manufactured items possess no means to self-replicate or develop variation.

A computer programme may be a better analogy…….and self correcting programmes, that reboot computers for example, are closer to observed living systems…….but they ALL are still the ultimate result of applied intelligence!!!!:D
......and their specified complexity.......is the scientific 'fingerprint' of this reality!!!


Originally Posted by J C
Similarly, you need an already living organism for Natural selection, Gene flow and Genetic drift to operate ……and these phenomena don’t create new functional information ……they merely select from and/or re-shuffle pre-existing information!!!!!!

AtomicHorror
Nobody is denying this. As above, abiogenesis and evolution are separate issues. Evolution is a theory, abiogenesis is considered the strongest contender of a number of hypotheses regarding the origin of life (as opposed to the origin of species). It will likely become a firm theory within the next 50 years, but it similarly may be disproven. This will not impact upon evolution though the validation of abiogenesis will mean that the theory of evolution will become part of a larger theory of earth-based life.

………50 years…..eh???!!!!

.......a 'safe' distance before any conclusion can be reached then!!!

….. unfortuately for this 'cozy' self-seving conclusion of yours......BOTH Spontaneous Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Evolution have already been disproven……because the useless combinatorial space of Nucleic Acids is effectively infinite for even the smallest known genome…….and the spontaneous emergence of ANY life-form can therefore be mathematically and scientifically ruled out!!!:D



Originally Posted by J C
......and the other 'prize horse' in the Evolutionist 'stable' (mutagenesis)...actually DEGRADES functonal information!!!!!

AtomicHorror
The vast majority of mutations are indeed detrimental within the environmental context within which they are expressed. Nobody denies this. It is logical that in a random process non-function is more common than function. Natural selection, a process you agree exists, removes any such mutation over time- simply because they are less likely to survive.

Natural selection may remove ‘damaged’ individuals…….but it is largely acting to preserve the status quo when it is doing so …….it shows no potential to increase the functional information that would be required to make the supposed transition from muck to man…..or indeed the supposed transition from a ‘light sensitive spot’ to an eye!!!!!

......NS may maintain the eye within a population ......once the eye is already present in the population ......but it shows no potential to produce the eye in the first place!!!!!!:D



AtomicHorror
The minority of mutations which are actually beneficial within a given context tend to be conserved.

When we change contexts, we also change what mutations are beneficial or detrimental. In some cases, a detrimental mutation will have a small enough impact on organism survival rates that it will persist until a context shift causes it to have a net beneficial effect. An example of this would be the CCR5d32 mutation in humans which limits immune cell intercommunication slightly (causing a net survival reduction) but which confers resistance to the HIV virus (a net survival advantage in the new context).

This is similar to whacking the wiring in a car and finding that the headlight switch now turns on the indicators……..this may even be ‘beneficial’………but it is certainly ‘degraded’…….
.......and if you whack the wiring again ……you are likely to have no lights of any description on your car!!!!!:D

Equally if you find that a defect in the wiring is causing a spontaneous ’novel’ phenomenon……like a much brighter or much dimmer headlight (due to crossing of the wires) .......this DOESN’T mean that you can then extrapolate this phenomenon and claim that whacking the wiring again will produce a reversing light where none existed before!!!!:D



AtomicHorror
The notion that a pre-existing intelligence created Earth-based life would be a valid hypothesis. It would also force us to form hypotheses regarding the origins of such an intelligence.

…..could I gently remind you that my hypothesis is precisely that “a pre-existing intelligence created Earth-based life”!!!!!!!

…….and if such an intelligence isn’t a transcendent God……you would merely have shifted the question for the ULTIMATE origin of life to another part of the Universe!!!!!:)



AtomicHorror
I.D. goes much further than the above and proceeds from the assumption that the intelligence in question is supernatural and is capable of making our scientific observations appear to be other than they "truly" are.

All ID proponents certainly don't proceed on the basis that the intelligence involved was supernatural......many just confine their hypothesis to an (undefined) intelligent actor or actors!!!!!

The observations indicate an application of inordinate intelligence in the creation of life…….just like you would expect if ‘God did it’....and this is the position from whence Creation Scientists procede!!!

In any event the bottom line here for me, is the answer to the question ….. ”WHAT IF God did it……..How do we scientifically evaluate such an hypothesis?”

The atheist recoils in horror from this question……….and says that his/her (self-serving) definition of ‘science’ rules out any ‘scientific’ investigation …….even IF the evidence is overwhelming that God did it!!!!!

The atheist concludes that because he/she doesn’t believe in the supernatural……. they therefore rule out any scientific investigation into any possible supernatural activity……and they demand that EVERY scientist MUST join them in leaving it at that, as well!!!!:eek:

The Creation Scientist / ID proponent proceeds from the knowledge that objective evidence that is available to our senses can be scientifically evaluated…….and they therfore scientifically evaluate the OBSERVABLE evidence found in living systems for evidence of applied intelligence……..and they logically and scientifically conclude that, an objective evaluation of the observable evidence in living things……indicates that an inordinate intelligence MUST have produced life.

The mechanism of this production may remain open to debate……but the requirement for an intelligence is proven beyond all doubt!!!!:)


bonkey
I've never suggested that a scientist only engages in scientific work, so naturally working with models is not the only activity a scientist engages in. Indeed, I have conceded that a scientist can argue in favour of Creationism but is not engaged in a scientific activity whilst doing so.

…..IF that is the case, then it is even more likely that a scientist arguing in favour of Spontaneous Abiogenesis and Evolution is ALSO "not engaged in a scientific activity whilst doing so"!!!!!:D



Wicknight
"Medical science" doesn't tell patients what is wrong with them.

Doctors tell patients what they believe is wrong with this based on matching models of how we think disease works to observable symptoms of the patient

You can make semantic arguments…..if you wish………but the substantive point remains.
……and whether it is ‘Medical Science’…..or ‘Medical Scientists’ that tells the patients what is wrong with them……they are scientifically informed of what is wrong with them………..and the role of ‘models’ in the process is pretty tangential to the logical conclusions of a trained doctor ………using ALL of the evidence available to him/her in reaching a diagnosis!!!!!!

…..and that is why I have pointed out that science is about MUCH MORE than just ‘testing models’!!!!



Wicknight
Which is why to be considered proper science you need a falsifiable model (something evolution has……

I have asked a number of time how Spontaneous Evolution can be falsified……given the fact that the ‘Spontaneous Evolutionary model’ predicts everything from absolute stasis over 300 million years to rapid and dramatic change.!!!!

All I have got in reply is the following handwaving:-

Galvasean
“One way would be to discover the hypothetical valid alternative, which would in theory negate the need for evolution in the way the world works, thereby falsifying it.”

Wicknight
"Finding historical patterns of animal development that contradict evolutionary prediction."

……..so I repeat my question……
WHAT was the Evolutionary model 'prediction' for the Coelacanth fish.........did it 'predict' that it would remain a fish without any change over 300 million years????

......and if it 'predicted' that the Coelacanth wouldn't change......WHY does it 'predict' that Ictyostega / Acanthostega (or whatever you're having yourself) would crawl up on land and eventually become Daithifleming??????

....and no, it is not good enough to engage in circular arguments like the Coelacanth remained a fish......so that is the 'prediction' for the Coelacanth Fish........
...this is what is known as a finding AFTER the fact.....and therefore isn't a 'prediction' of any kind!!!!!

.....and could I again point out that using the word 'prediction' in relation to fanciful stories that are based on the lives of EXTINCT creatures from the historical PAST........indicates that you have got your tenses mixed up!!!!!
.....it's something like 'predicting' last week's Lotto numbers today.....only a lot less accurate!!!!!!

.....the so called 'predictions' of EvolutionaryTheory 'predict' everything from stasis over inordinate amounts of time .....to rapid massive change......and so they 'fit' EVERYTHING.....and explain NOTHING!!!!!!
.....the stories / 'predictions' change constantly....and nobody can prove that ANY of it ever happened!!!!!

.....indeed logic and a dispassionate evaluation of the evidence suggests that all of the 'single cell to Man' stuff NEVER actually happened!!!!:D

bonkey

J C wrote: »

Spontaneous Evolution is my term for <snip>

Well, at least we've established that you're just making up names. One might wonder why you apparently have an issue with using the correct scientific terminology, or even established layman's terminology, but hey....its a free world, and I'm still trying to resist the temptation to ascribe motive to peoples actions.

…..IF that is the case, then it is even more likely that a scientist arguing in favour of Spontaneous Abiogenesis and Evolution is ALSO "not engaged in a scientific activity whilst doing so"!!!!!:D

That would depend on whether or not they were discussing the scientific model, or saying it is what really happened. I've made it clear that science deals with the former, not the latter.

You, however, are insisting that neither have any merit, based on your refusal to deal with the accuracy of prediction that the model of evolution has been proven to have.

You can make semantic arguments…..if you wish………but the substantive point remains.……and whether it is ‘Medical Science’…..or ‘Medical Scientists’ that tells the patients what is wrong with them……t

You call it semantic, wolfsbane has called it pedantic, and I am gu8essing Wicknight is going to agree with me and call it accurate.

The giving of a medical diagnosis is a falsifiable prediction, derived from a scientific model.

…..and that is why I have pointed out that science is about MUCH MORE than just ‘testing models’!!!!

And yet, all of your examples were either examples of people testing predictions from models, or gaining new observations from which models were derived.

I have asked a number of time how Spontaneous Evolution can be falsified

Given that you've admitted that this is a term you've made up, I don't think this is a meaningful question. If you would care to use the correct scientific terminology, and thus be bound to specific scientific theories, then the question has meaning. While you have an ill-defined term, which is not clearly referring to any specific scientific theory or theories, there is nothing to answer.

robindch

J C wrote: »

........so I repeat my question......

618 full stops in that screed -- wow -- is that a new record? :eek:

bonkey

J C wrote: »

……..so I repeat my question……
WHAT was the Evolutionary model 'prediction' for the Coelacanth fish.........did it 'predict' that it would remain a fish without any change over 300 million years????

......and if it 'predicted' that the Coelacanth wouldn't change......WHY does it 'predict' that Ictyostega / Acanthostega (or whatever you're having yourself) would crawl up on land and eventually become Daithifleming??????

....and no, it is not good enough to engage in circular arguments like the Coelacanth remained a fish......so that is the 'prediction' for the Coelacanth Fish........
...this is what is known as a finding AFTER the fact.....and therefore isn't a 'prediction' of any kind!!!!!

I'm somewhat shocked to note that you aren't aware that evolutionary theory doesn't make predictions of this nature for individual species.

.....the so called 'predictions' of EvolutionaryTheory 'predict' everything from stasis over inordinate amounts of time .....to rapid massive change......and so they 'fit' EVERYTHING.....and explain NOTHING!!!!!!

Rabbits in the pre-Cambrian....its a famous comment and its been mentioned here before, so you have no excuse not to be familiar with it.

This comment shows a complete disregard for the underlying truth, that evolutionary theory most certaintly does not fit "everything" as you claim. It fits observation...and it does so very well. This, as you must be aware, is what a scientific theory is supposed to do.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

You can make semantic arguments

As bonkey pointed out it isn't being semantic, it is being accurate.

You seem to play fast and loose with the meanings of words JC, the rest of us don't.

J C wrote: »

……and whether it is ‘Medical Science’…..or ‘Medical Scientists’ that tells the patients what is wrong with them

Neither do. Doctors do. And most doctors are not scientists

And they also don't tell people what is wrong with them. The tell them what they believe is wrong with them based on how their symptoms match conceptual models of disease. You may think the difference is semantic, but that I would guess is because you seem to have very funny ideas of what science is.

In fact often a doctor will spend most of his time working out what isn't wrong with you.

J C wrote: »

and the role of ‘models’ in the process is pretty tangential to the logical conclusions of a trained doctor

Which is why most doctors are not scientists, nor are they acting as scientists in a scientific fashion when they do this.

J C wrote: »

………using ALL of the evidence available to him/her in reaching a diagnosis!!!!!!
…..and that is why I have pointed out that science is about MUCH MORE than just ‘testing models’!!!!

Its not, because what a doctors does in reaching a medical diagnosis is not science.

Having said that though, if you think what a doctor does is "science" then I can certainly understand why you think something like concluding an intelligent designer based on observing things qualifies as science.

J C wrote: »

I have asked a number of time how Spontaneous Evolution can be falsified

I have no idea what "spontaneous evolution" is, but I've explained how neo-Darwinian evolution can be falsified already. I'm not sure what you mean by "hand waving"

J C wrote: »

……..so I repeat my question……

And I repeat my answer.

J C wrote: »

WHAT was the Evolutionary model 'prediction' for the Coelacanth fish.........did it 'predict' that it would remain a fish without any change over 300 million years????

Yes actually it does.

The model of natural selection in Darwinian evolution predicts that natural selection will be as inherently conservative a process as possible. Rapid and significant change is more of a challenging test for the model than very slow very gradual change. It is not surprising at all that we find evidence of this.

I would also point out that the Coelacanth isn't "unchanged". It has changed significantly in its internal structure compared to the 350 million year old fossils we have.

J C wrote: »

......and if it 'predicted' that the Coelacanth wouldn't change......WHY does it 'predict' that Ictyostega / Acanthostega (or whatever you're having yourself) would crawl up on land and eventually become Daithifleming??????

Because the environment required it for survival. Natural selection only favours change when the change improves the adaptation of the organism to the environment.

This is evolution 101 JC .. after 693 pages are you seriously asking us to go back the basics of evolutionary biology.

J C wrote: »

....and no, it is not good enough to engage in circular arguments like the Coelacanth remained a fish......so that is the 'prediction' for the Coelacanth Fish........

That sounds like a Creationist argument, so you are right, no it isn't good enough.

J C wrote: »

...this is what is known as a finding AFTER the fact.....and therefore isn't a 'prediction' of any kind!!!!!

The Coelacanth fish fossils where first discovered in 1938. Darwinian evolution was first developed in 1859.

Not that this matters a whole lot (see below)

J C wrote: »

.....it's something like 'predicting' last week's Lotto numbers today.....

It is exactly like predicting last weeks Lotto numbers today.

If I develop a theoretical model that attempts to model and predict what they were (say based on modelling the physics of the drum) and then I compare the prediction of the model to what they were and the model is correct then I can say my model accurately predicted this out come. Obviously I would want to run the model over and over to build up convincing argument that it is accurate.

It is actually irrelevant or not if I know what the Lotto numbers are before hand. The model predicts what it predicts. What matters is if my model can predict the correct answer or not.

If I know the numbers were 7 9 10 33 34 ... etc and my model predict that they should be 2 4 6 12 .. etc then I know my model is wrong, and must be changed because something in the model is inaccurate

J C wrote: »

and nobody can prove that ANY of it ever happened!!!!!

You are right. No one can prove any of it happened. Proving things is not what science is about.

J C wrote: »

.....indeed logic and a dispassionate evaluation of the evidence suggests that all of the 'single cell to Man' stuff NEVER actually happened!!!!:D

Models JC. Models is what science is about. And it is the thing Creationists are missing.

You can rant and rave about how you have drawn your own conclusions from looking at the "evidence", but that is not science.

AtomicHorror

Scofflaw wrote: »

Abiogenesis would certainly also imply the possibility of life on the other planets of the Solar System - although that life could have come from Earth.

Possible but unlikely given the distances involved. Panspermia appears to be possible, but in most cases (looking at the whole universe) I would speculate that it tends (with a definable frequency) to occur within solar systems rather than between them. It's one thing for life or life-progenitor matter to survive expulsion from a body (including reaching escape velocity), movement through space, re-entry and impact on a new body- quite another for that life to reach solar escape velocity, spend possibly hundreds of thousands of years in interstellar space, and then hit the relatively small target that is another solar system, let alone hitting a Goldilocks world at the right speed and angle. Undoubtedly it happens given the size of the universe (it'd be fun to work out the numbers) but the odds are very much against specifically Earth-origin extrasolar panspermia.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

Spontaneous Evolution is my term for the hypothesis that single cells 'evolved' into Man by spontaneous materialistic means.

Spontaneous materialistic means? What is that? Single cell-->multicellular organism is the theory of evolution alone. It invokes only the processes (gene flow, natural selection, genetic drift, genetic mutation) that you have accepted exist. No more than these.

So you've already admitted that mutation occurs (though you over-estimate it's admittedly significant detrimental effects). You've admitted that genetic drift, natural selection and gene flow are all real. We agree that Evolutionary Theory does not require abiogenesis and so we set aside the formation of the first genome. Given that you admit all of this, why can you not accept even the possibility that a single cell (which has a functioning genetic code, not a "random" one) could have given rise to multicellular organisms if the above stated processes were allowed to work upon it's offspring over a period of at least 2,500,000,000 years?

J C wrote: »

I agree that Spontaneous Abiogenesis may be a separate concept…….but it also requires an explanation if any Materialistic view on the origin and supposed development of life over millions of years is to have any logical credibility

This is true, no argument from any "evolutionists" here.

J C wrote: »

……and so far BOTH Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Evolution remain within the realm of speculation

Untrue in both cases.

1) Evolution is not speculation. It is a theory which has been tested and found to fit the data. Even the hugely significant biological discoveries of the last 60 years have been found to fit evolution rather than contradict it. Any scientist would have been delighted to successfully challenge this theory. None have.

2) Abiogenesis is not speculation. It is a falsifiable hypothesis (some would call it self-evident) and is therefore a valid starting point for research.

J C wrote: »

.....and therefore the dream of Atheists for an Intellectually Fulfilling (Materiailistic) explanation for the emergence of life remains just a that......an unfulfilled dream!!!:eek:

We have a very solid explanation for the emergence of man from simpler life forms. The emergence of life from non-life is a separate matter. Evolution may serve the atheists cause, but it is not an atheist tool nor their invention. Atheism is, to my mind, a philosophy and not a science. A philosophy I do not really follow myself, I should add.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
Then you accept that evolution is at least hypothetically possible given enough time?

No, I certainly do NOT accept that Spontaneous Evolution is either hypothetically or logically possible……

I asked about evolution, not "spontaneous evolution". That term does not have any meaning to me. Please answer my question. Given the correct conditions (Earth) and a period of 2,500,000,000 years (humor me on the age of the world) do you think that there is a possibility that multicellular life could arise from a functioning and reproducing single-celled organism using the processes of genetic mutation, genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection?

As well as a yes or a no I will also accept a probability (percentage chance or odds expression) as an answer.

J C wrote: »

........the ’non-functional’ permutations of Nucleic Acids in DNA are effectively infinite…..

In a genome of set length, the non-functional permutations are distinctlyfinite. Your statement assumes that random recombination of genomes occurs- this is not mutation and does not occur during reproduction. In a small genome as would have been the only kind possible in the first organisms, the non-functional permutations are both finite and limited in their nature.

J C wrote: »

while ‘functional’ combinations are very limited in number…..and in many cases only ONE combination is functional.

In what cases? When does complete, uncontrolled reshuffling of a genome occur in this manner? Ignoring the abiogenesis process again, this does not occur as a part of evolution.

J C wrote: »

The effectively infinite combinatorial space of ‘useless’ bio molecules rules out Spontaneous Abiogenesis AND Spontaneous Evolution!!:D

As you have stated before, evolution requires a functioning organism as a starting point, rendering the "infinite combinatorial space" non-relevant. For abiogenesis it is very relevant but is a separate consideration.

J C wrote: »

If your car wing is damaged it remains so without an intelligent input into it’s repair….and randomly whacking it with a hammer (like mutations do to the genome) will invariably damage it further!!!!:D

My hypothetical car wing cannot self-reproduce. If 1) the wing somehow produced multiple generations of children with randomised changes to their own dents and 2) the dent had an impact on the likelyhood that a car-wing monster could survive or reproduce, then natural selection would remove the dented car wing life-forms and within a finite number of generations give us a lovely dent-free (or at least improved) car wing. And quite a huge number of variant car wings. Freakish.

J C wrote: »

For the ‘grand claim’ of Evolutionism to be an intellectually coherent explanation for the emergence of life...

Evolution is an explanation for the origin of species, not life itself. It may later be proven that evolution acted on pre-life matter but this is not yet clear, nor is it taken as theory.

J C wrote: »

...BOTH Spontaneous Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Evolution need to have valid scientific explanations……and NEITHER are plausible with our current state of scientific knowledge!!

Once again, you are partially correct about abiogenesis, and incorrect about evolution. Please stop using the word spontaneous, because that means something in science that I don't think you intend it to.

J C wrote: »

A computer programme may be a better analogy…(than manufactured items)….and self correcting programmes, that reboot computers for example, are closer to observed living systems…….but they ALL are still the ultimate result of applied intelligence!!!!:D

Not really applicable and I would venture to say, not really a field with which either of us is familiar enough with to base analogies upon.

J C wrote: »

......and their specified complexity.......is the scientific 'fingerprint' of this reality!!!

I have no idea what you mean by that. Can you rephrase?

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
Nobody is denying this. As above, abiogenesis and evolution are separate issues. Evolution is a theory, abiogenesis is considered the strongest contender of a number of hypotheses regarding the origin of life (as opposed to the origin of species). It will likely become a firm theory within the next 50 years, but it similarly may be disproven. This will not impact upon evolution though the validation of abiogenesis will mean that the theory of evolution will become part of a larger theory of earth-based life.

………50 years…..eh???!!!!

.......a 'safe' distance before any conclusion can be reached then!!!

I'll rephrase so. There's a good chance we will both live to see good data on this as well as a conclusion which you will utter fail to accept irrespective of the strength of the data.

J C wrote: »

….. unfortuately for this 'cozy' self-seving conclusion of yours......BOTH Spontaneous Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Evolution have already been disproven……because the useless combinatorial space of Nucleic Acids is effectively infinite for even the smallest known genome…….and the spontaneous emergence of ANY life-form can therefore be mathematically and scientifically ruled out!!!:D

This combinatorial space of yours makes the assumption that genetic codes randomly reshuffle, that the resulting sequence may be of random composition (but presumably set length). Thus a sequence of just 10 bases (nucleotides) in length (which would indeed be far too short for a genome) would have 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 = 1,048,576 combinations assuming we use the four DNA nucleotides at equal frequencies. So certainly, if you assume that DNA undergoes random reshuffling, the likelyhood of generating a functional genome is small enough to be negligible.

However,random reshuffling of DNA does not occur by any common mutation process. It does not even occur with nucleic acid strands isolated entirely from cells and dumped into water. It certainly does not occur within cells, even at the germ line, even at conception, even under harsh radiation, even in the presence of retroviral infection.

A mutation event, when it occurs, typically does one of the following:

It deletes a nucleotide from our sequence, the rest is preserved.
It substitutes a nucleotide for another nucleotide.
It replicates a gene in whole or in part and re-inserts it at another location in the genome (possibly to another chromosome).
It replicates a chromosome (a clump of genes) in whole or in part.

At no time is the genome reduced to single nucleotides and recombined in random order. This would be the only event that would allow your combinatorial space to be relevant to evolution and it does not occur. Abiogenesis is another matter.

J C wrote: »

Natural selection may remove ‘damaged’ individuals…….but it is largely acting to preserve the status quo when it is doing so …….it shows no potential to increase the functional information that would be required to make the supposed transition from muck to man…..or indeed the supposed transition from a ‘light sensitive spot’ to an eye!!!!!

......NS may maintain the eye within a population ......once the eye is already present in the population ......but it shows no potential to produce the eye in the first place!!!!!!:D

The means by which this may occur by evolution have been explained many times. Your notions on the status quo are contradicted by the observed changes in allele frequencies observed over relatively short time periods.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
When we change contexts, we also change what mutations are beneficial or detrimental. In some cases, a detrimental mutation will have a small enough impact on organism survival rates that it will persist until a context shift causes it to have a net beneficial effect. An example of this would be the CCR5d32 mutation in humans which limits immune cell intercommunication slightly (causing a net survival reduction) but which confers resistance to the HIV virus (a net survival advantage in the new context).

This is similar to whacking the wiring in a car and finding that the headlight switch now turns on the indicators……..this may even be ‘beneficial’………but it is certainly ‘degraded’…….
.......and if you whack the wiring again ……you are likely to have no lights of any description on your car!!!!!:D

Equally if you find that a defect in the wiring is causing a spontaneous ’novel’ phenomenon……like a much brighter or much dimmer headlight (due to crossing of the wires) .......this DOESN’T mean that you can then extrapolate this phenomenon and claim that whacking the wiring again will produce a reversing light where none existed before!!!!:D

This analogy has no bearing on evolution as it omits reproduction, natural selection, gene flow and genetic drift. It also ignores my point on contextual (ie environmental) changes.

I would go far as to say that your analogies very strongly suggest that you do not actually understand the theory of evolution.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
The notion that a pre-existing intelligence created Earth-based life would be a valid hypothesis. It would also force us to form hypotheses regarding the origins of such an intelligence.

…..could I gently remind you that my hypothesis is precisely that “a pre-existing intelligence created Earth-based life”!!!!!!!

That is part of your overall position, and the only part which can be said to be a valid hypothesis. That was my point.

J C wrote: »

…….and if such an intelligence isn’t a transcendent God……you would merely have shifted the question for the ULTIMATE origin of life to another part of the Universe!!!!!:)

The hypothesis raises more questions yes. However we can then make more testable hypotheses. That the hypothesis does not explain the ultimate origin of life has nothing to do with the nature of the intelligence.

Your actual assumption is something more like "Life on Earth was created by a supernatural intelligence with absolute power over reality". This is not testable, aside from being unfounded.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
I.D. goes much further than the above and proceeds from the assumption that the intelligence in question is supernatural and is capable of making our scientific observations appear to be other than they "truly" are.
J_C
All ID proponents certainly don't proceed on the basis that the intelligence involved was supernatural......many just confine their hypothesis to an (undefined) intelligent actor or actors!!!!!

Were that true, there would be no need for ID proponents to attempt to discredit evolution, as that theory does not contradict the existence of an (undefined) intelligent actor or actors. The generation of the evolution pattern itself would in fact, suggest a mind-boggling level of intelligence by comparison to ID's much-belaboured creator.

J C wrote: »

The observations indicate an application of inordinate intelligence in the creation of life…….just like you would expect if ‘God did it’....and this is the position from whence Creation Scientists procede!!!

This initial assumption is untestable and contradicts faith as well as science.

J C wrote: »

In any event the bottom line here for me, is the answer to the question ….. ”WHAT IF God did it……..How do we scientifically evaluate such an hypothesis?”

For that to be a hypothesis, "God" would need to be a scientifically-observed phenomenon. The assumption you state is equal in value (from the point of view of science) to "What if Zeus created life on Earth."

J C wrote: »

The atheist recoils in horror from this question……….and says that his/her (self-serving) definition of ‘science’ rules out any ‘scientific’ investigation

Atheists would. So would agnostics. Most Christians would also reject the notion that you can measure God. Some of them would go so far as to state that it is expressly forbidden. Faith requires that you believe in the absence of proof. Making creation scientists the least faithful of all christians.

J C wrote: »

The atheist concludes that because he/she doesn’t believe in the supernatural……. they therefore rule out any scientific investigation into any possible supernatural activity……and they demand that EVERY scientist MUST join them in leaving it at that, as well!!!!:eek:

J C wrote: »

This has little to do with atheism. Semantically, the supernatural is meant to define that which cannot be measured. Why would a scientist try to measure the unmeasurable? If something we once considered "supernatural" in fact turns out to be measurable, then it is in fact "natural". A scientist will happily measure all that can be observed.

The (hypothetical) day that a highly advanced intelligence is discovered to be the originator of life on Earth, the scientists will start to investigate the nature of this being and the creationists will say it is God. This is what separates us.

Ekancone

Phew!

AtomicHorror

daithifleming wrote: »

Phew!

My hands hurt!

Ekancone

AtomicHorror wrote: »

My hands hurt!

You actually dupllicated your post there if ya look.

AtomicHorror

daithifleming wrote: »

You actually dupllicated your post there if ya look.

Somewhere in the midst of all the quoting and copying and pasting it all went a bit pear-shaped. I think it's fixed now. Thanks for the heads-up!

Galvasean

Would J C like to explain the scientific model for iniquous creationism?

See, I can throw two words together to make stuff up too.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

Would J C like to explain the scientific model for iniquous creationism?

See, I can throw two words together to make stuff up too.

Unless that's a typo I think you also made up one of the words.

Ekancone

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Unless that's a typo I think you also made up one of the words.

I don't see why, its a perfectly cromulent word.

AtomicHorror

daithifleming wrote: »

I don't see why, its a perfectly cromulent word.

Well, I suppose that even if it is not cromulent, there's no harm in embiggening the English language a little a bit.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Quote:
Originally Posted by robindch
AiG believes that [...] a believer must be a genesis-verbatimist

Indeed they do.
Sounds like we're in agreement then.

Only you've now stopped agreeing with yourself, but hey, that seems to be something creationists enjoy!

Ah, Robin, how much I appreciate your efforts! When I'm in danger of being impressed by the scientific sounding rebuttals of Creationism, I'm reminded how weak and flawed they must be if simple logic is either lost on you or deliberately subverted.

This lastest example:
You originally said: AiG believes that to have "scientifically and biblically tenable" views, a believer must be a genesis-verbatimist.

You report that without the qualifying phrase, to have "scientifically and biblically tenable" views, and make me appear to agree with a believer must be a genesis-verbatimist.

As you are not alone in this practise - Galvasean & Wicknight illustrated in my post 10253, page 684 - I see more clearly that anti-Creationism is just a lot of propaganda rather than a serious and sincere scientific counter argument.

But you do keep us fit, so thanks for the exercise, guys. :pac::)

I'm filing this post for future reference, just in case I begin to take you guys seriously again. :D:D

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

As you are not alone in this practise - Galvasean & Wicknight illustrated in my post 10253, page 684 - I see more clearly that anti-Creationism is just a lot of propaganda rather than a serious and sincere scientific counter argument.

Two points

1) I have already explained that JC was contradicting himself in that post. The bit Galvasean left out was irrelevant to that fact. We can hardly be blamed because yourself and PDN didn't understand that.

2) "Anti-Creationism" is not and can never be a "serious and sincere scientific counter argument" If you followed the posts about the nature of science you should really understand that by now.

Various people have made long, detailed and sincere attempt to explain to you Wolfsbane what science is, what evolution is and that Creationism isn't.

While no one expects you to "convert", you could at least demonstrate some form of appreciation.

Any time you want to explain to us the ins and outs of the details of Creationism go ahead

Zombrex

daithifleming wrote: »

I don't see why, its a perfectly cromulent word.

lol

J C

Originally Posted by J C
I have asked a number of time how Spontaneous Evolution can be falsified

Bonkey
Given that you've admitted that this is a term you've made up, I don't think this is a meaningful question. If you would care to use the correct scientific terminology, and thus be bound to specific scientific theories, then the question has meaning. While you have an ill-defined term, which is not clearly referring to any specific scientific theory or theories, there is nothing to answer.

So, are you saying that you believe that Evolution is NOT Spontaneous……but was guided by some intelligence?????

Could I point out that Spontaneous Evolution is the most accurate descriptor of the Materialistic Evolutionist claim……that matter spontaneously produced the complex specified functional information found in living organisms ..... without any intelligent input.

Neo-Darwinian Evolution is a heady mixture of scientifically valid concepts such as Natural Selection and genetic drift using pre-existing genetic information………combined with scientifically invalid concepts such as the spontaneous generation of functional information and the supposed spontaneous ‘morphing’ of muck into Man!!!!

……so once again I am asking how can Spontaneous Evolution be falsified????




Originally Posted by J C
……..so I repeat my question……
WHAT was the Evolutionary model 'prediction' for the Coelacanth fish.........did it 'predict' that it would remain a fish without any change over 300 million years????
......and if it 'predicted' that the Coelacanth wouldn't change......WHY does it 'predict' that Ictyostega / Acanthostega (or whatever you're having yourself) would crawl up on land and eventually become Daithifleming??????

....and no, it is not good enough to engage in circular arguments like the Coelacanth remained a fish......so that is the 'prediction' for the Coelacanth Fish........
...this is what is known as a finding AFTER the fact.....and therefore isn't a 'prediction' of any kind!!!!!

Bonkey
I'm somewhat shocked to note that you aren't aware that evolutionary theory doesn't make predictions of this nature for individual species.

OK…….so bonkey claims that Evolutionary Theory doesn’t make any ‘predictions’ for individual species…..which renders it pretty useless as a ‘predictor’ of so-called evolutionary change then!!!!!

……but WAIT a minute……here comes an Evolutionary Theory ‘prediction’ (from bonkey in his next post) for an individual species (that Rabbits won’t be found in the pre-Cambrian):-

Originally Posted by J C
.....the so called 'predictions' of EvolutionaryTheory 'predict' everything from stasis over inordinate amounts of time .....to rapid massive change......and so they 'fit' EVERYTHING.....and explain NOTHING!!!!!!
Bonkey
Rabbits in the pre-Cambrian....its a famous comment and its been mentioned here before, so you have no excuse not to be familiar with it.

….and could I gently ask you WHY you would expect to find Rabbits at the bottom of the ocean during Noah’s Flood …….which is how the so-called pre-Cambrian rocks came to be laid down???!!!!!!:eek:




Originally Posted by J C
You can make semantic arguments

Wicknight
As bonkey pointed out it isn't being semantic, it is being accurate.

Being semantic adds nothing to accuracy…..and it is merely playing ‘word games’!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
You seem to play fast and loose with the meanings of words JC, the rest of us don't.

You’re the guys using meaningless and ambiguous terms……things like 'neo-Darwinian Evolution'…….which tells us nothing about what you are talking about…….it’s the equivalent of me talking about neo-Ham Creationism!!!!!!


Originally Posted by J C
……and whether it is ‘Medical Science’…..or ‘Medical Scientists’ that tells the patients what is wrong with them

Wicknight
Neither do. Doctors do. And most doctors are not scientists

OK so …….a Doctor studies Medical Science…....and he/she diagnoses and treats patients using Medical Science ………but a Doctor isn’t a scientist…… such is the warped definition of 'scientist' in the Evolutionist’s mind!!!!!:D


Wicknight
And they also don't tell people what is wrong with them. The tell them what they believe is wrong with them based on how their symptoms match conceptual models of disease. You may think the difference is semantic…….

…..you’re correct that your distinction…… between a Doctor telling a patient what is wrong with them and a doctor telling a patient what they believe is wrong with them ……..is entirely semantic …..and a completely useless distinction!!!!!:eek:


Originally Posted by J C
and the role of ‘models’ in the process is pretty tangential to the logical conclusions of a trained doctor

Wicknight
Which is why most doctors are not scientists, nor are they acting as scientists in a scientific fashion when they do this.

……so when a Doctor is doing something useful ……like diagnosing and treating a patient he/she is not behaving as a scientist……according to Evolutionists

…...but if they are devising ‘pipe dreams’…..and ‘making hare-brained models’……..then they can be called ‘scientists’ ………

.......on that basis the word ‘scientist’ must have become a term of derision amongst Evolutionists!!!!!!:D:)



Originally Posted by J C
WHAT was the Evolutionary model 'prediction' for the Coelacanth fish.........did it 'predict' that it would remain a fish without any change over 300 million years????
Bonkey
I'm somewhat shocked to note that you aren't aware that evolutionary theory doesn't make predictions of this nature for individual species.

Originally Posted by J C
WHAT was the Evolutionary model 'prediction' for the Coelacanth fish.........did it 'predict' that it would remain a fish without any change over 300 million years????
Wicknight
Yes actually it does.

…..so bonkey claims that the Evolutionary model DOESN’T make any prediction about the Coelacanth……and Wicknight says that it DOES !!!!!

…..so Evolutionists differ…..and Coelacanth Fish survives …….to completely embarrass them all !!!!!:D



Originally Posted by J C
......and if it 'predicted' that the Coelacanth wouldn't change......WHY does it 'predict' that Ictyostega / Acanthostega (or whatever you're having yourself) would crawl up on land and eventually become Daithifleming??????
Wicknight
Because the environment required it for survival. Natural selection only favours change when the change improves the adaptation of the organism to the environment.

……another good old circular argument……along the lines that whatever happens ….happens……and it therefore has absolutely NO scientific or ‘predictive’ value whatsoever!!!!!:D


Wicknight
I would also point out that the Coelacanth isn't "unchanged". It has changed significantly in its internal structure compared to the 350 million year old fossils we have.

………which is a pretty poor 'evolutionary' performance on the part of the Coelacanth ……..when the Ictyostega / Acanthostega (or whatever you're having yourself)……has turned into Daithifleming!!!!! :eek:;):D


Wicknight
The Coelacanth fish fossils where first discovered in 1938. Darwinian evolution was first developed in 1859.

…..CORRECTION…..the LIVING Coelacanth fish first discovered in 1938………after the Evolutionists has paraded around with Coelacanth FOSSILS for over fifty years …….with the FALSE claim that the Coelacanth fish was an EXTINCT 'primitive' ancestor of ‘modern’ fishes……that died out over 300 million years ago!!!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
(science modelling) is exactly like predicting last weeks Lotto numbers today……….

…..well that’s about as USELESS an activity as I can imagine…….

…..could I gently point out that everyone KNOWS what last weeks Lotto numbers were……
……. the real test of a ‘prediction’…….would be if it accurately predicted NEXT WEEKS Lotto numbers!!!!:eek:



Originally Posted by J C
....and nobody can prove that ANY of it ever happened!!!!!

Wicknight
You are right. No one can prove any of it (the evolution from single cells to Man) happened. Proving things is not what science is about.

…..if this Evolutionist ‘science’ can prove NOTHING…….can only ‘predict’ LAST week’s Lotto numbers…….and can’t diagnose or treat serious medical conditions……..it is about as useful as a hole in the head…….or a crowbar in a bog!!!!!!!!!




Originally Posted by J C
Abiogenesis may be a separate concept…….but it also requires an explanation if any Materialistic view on the origin and supposed development of life over millions of years is to have any logical credibility

AtomicHorror
This is true, no argument from any "evolutionists" here

………so when it comes to the ‘origin of life’ the Materialistic Evolutionists haven’t got a clue how it happened…….
………..but the Theistic Evolutionists are still running about …..and saying that they KNOW that life originated through EVOLUTION!!!!



AtomicHorror
Given the correct conditions (Earth) and a period of 2,500,000,000 years (humor me on the age of the world) do you think that there is a possibility that multicellular life could arise from a functioning and reproducing single-celled organism using the processes of genetic mutation, genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection?

As well as a yes or a no I will also accept a probability (percentage chance or odds expression) as an answer.

The percentage chance of a single cell SPONTANEOUSLY becoming a Human is ZERO……even over 2.5 billion years!!!!

….simple reason……..we have single cell protozoa and bacteria……..and they have been observed to doggedly REMAIN protozoa and bacteria!!!!!!!!!

….less-simple reason……. complex specified functional information REQUIRES an intelligent input!!!!

.....and really sophisticated reason (courtesy of Prof Stephen Jay Gould) ......“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” .....from Protozoa to Man!!!!!!!!!!

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

So, are you saying that you believe that Evolution is NOT Spontaneous……but was guided by some intelligence?????

That isn't what spontaneous means :rolleyes:

Spontaneous means taking place without apparent external cause. Darwinian Evolution (or any proposed theories on abiogenesis) does not take place without external cause.

What "spontaneous evolution" could refer to is the Creationist idea that evolution takes place by undetectable magic that just magically causes something to start happening.

J C wrote: »

Could I point out that Spontaneous Evolution is the most accurate descriptor of the Materialistic Evolutionist claim……that matter spontaneously produced the complex specified functional information found in living organisms ..... without any intelligent input.

You could if you had no clue what Darwinian evolution says.

J C wrote: »

combined with scientifically invalid concepts such as the spontaneous generation of functional information and the supposed spontaneous ‘morphing’ of muck into Man!!!!

There is nothing in the Darwinian Evolution about spontaneous generation of functional information. That is an idea that lies firmly in the realm of the magic of Creationism.

Nothing in the theory of evolution happens spontaneously. There is always an external cause, be it heat from a source like the Sun, or the laws of chemical reaction and bonding.

You either really do not understand the theories of evolution, or you are just making this up.

J C wrote: »

...this is what is known as a finding AFTER the fact.....and therefore isn't a 'prediction' of any kind!!!!![/I][/B]

Perhaps when you are looking up "spontaneous" in the dictionary you should also look up "prediction" :rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

Being semantic adds nothing to accuracy…..and it is merely playing ‘word games’!!!!:eek:

Which is why I said I wasn't being semantic, I was being accurate.

J C wrote: »

You’re the guys using meaningless and ambiguous terms……things like 'neo-Darwinian Evolution'….which tells us nothing about what you are talking about…….it’s the equivalent of me talking about neo-Ham Creationism!!!!!!

Neo-Darwinian Biological Evolution is the name of the modern theories of biological evolution, that incorporate models of genetic structures that were unknown to Darwin (hence the "neo" bit).

It is a well known, widely used and very well defined term in biology.

Given that you claim to be well read in all areas of evolution it is rather surprising that you have not come across it already.

J C wrote: »

OK so …….a Doctor studies Medical Science…....and he/she diagnoses and treats patients using Medical Science ………but a Doctor isn’t a scientist

Yes, a fact that you would understand if you actually knew what science was.

You appear to be under the mistaken belief that "science" is the formulation of a conclusion of reality based on observation (something that a doctor may do, and proponents of Intelligent Design certainly do).

It isn't.

This throws into serious doubt any claim you have made to be a practising scientist.

J C wrote: »

……so when a Doctor is doing something useful ……like diagnosing and treating a patient he/she is not behaving as a scientist……according to Evolutionists

No he is not

Again if you understood what science was you should know this already.

J C wrote: »

…...but if they are devising ‘pipe dreams’…..and ‘making hare-brained models’……..then they can be called ‘scientists’ ………

If they are doing science (developing testable theories/models and testing the predictions of these models against observation) then they can be called scientists.

Where exactly did you learn about and practice science JC?

J C wrote: »

…..so bonkey claims that the Evolutionary model DOESN’T make any prediction about the Coelacanth……and Wicknight says that it DOES !!!!!

…..so Evolutionists differ…..and Coelacanth Fish survives …….to completely embarrass them all !!!!!:D

Groan ... read it again JC :rolleyes:

Coelacanth isn't a Species, it is an Order, which is 3 levels above Species level

J C wrote: »

……another good old circular argument……along the lines that whatever happens ….happens……and it therefore has absolutely NO scientific or ‘predictive’ value whatsoever!!!!!:D

If it didn't happen then the prediction would be wrong, wouldn't it.

J C wrote: »

…..well that’s about as USELESS an activity as I can imagine…….

I shudder at what you can imagine JC.

J C wrote: »

…..could I gently point out that everyone KNOWS what last weeks Lotto numbers were……

I would gently point out that the purpose of prediction in scientific modeling is not to find out the result, but to test the accuracy of the model.

Knowing the result that the model is attempting to predict before hand is of no issue. It doesn't matter what the result is, or if you know what it is, what matters is if the model can accurately predict that result.

Again if you knew anything about science you should already know this.

J C wrote: »

……. the real test of a ‘prediction’…….would be if it accurately predicted NEXT WEEKS Lotto numbers!!!!:eek:

Next weeks or last weeks, it doesn't matter. The purpose is not to find the lotto results. The purpose is to see if the model is accurate or not.

I mean how many ways must this be explained to you. You claim to be a trained and practicing scientists. You should already know all of this already.

J C wrote: »

…..if this Evolutionist ‘science’ can prove NOTHING…….can only ‘predict’ LAST week’s Lotto numbers…….and can’t diagnose or treat serious medical conditions……..it is about as useful as a hole in the head

Spoken like someone who has no clue about what science is or what its purpose is

Well done JC, bravo

Tell us again about your vast amount of scientific experience ... :rolleyes:

Eschatologist

Bonkey
Rabbits in the pre-Cambrian....its a famous comment and its been mentioned here before, so you have no excuse not to be familiar with it.
JC
….and could I gently ask you WHY you would expect to find Rabbits at the bottom of the ocean during Noah’s Flood …….which is how the so-called pre-Cambrian rocks came to be laid down???!!!!!!


Eh, because it's called a thought experiment JC? Rabbits are higher up in the evolutionary tree compared to say, Pikaia (a primitive chordate). Evolutionary Theory predicts that we should not find higher mammals at the base of the stratigraphic record.

But then, according to a worldwide flood 'model', I would expect that hydrological sorting would put T-Rex at the base of the record - heck all those massive dinosaurs! This prediction of creation science fails spectacularly to fit observation.

You've yet to spontaneously produce any sense!!!!!

bonkey

J C wrote: »

So, are you saying that you believe that Evolution is NOT Spontaneous……but was guided by some intelligence?????

No, JC.

What I'm saying is that you've made up (or borrowed from other Creationists) a term which has no scientific meaning. You are asking me to "play by your rules" and discard scientific accuracy for your terminology and I am saying that I'm not playing that game.

Its entirely your perogative to continue to refuse to engage in scientific discussion of scientific topics, but all I am going to do is continue to point out this refusal despite your claims of scientific qualification.

Feel free to continue to re-ask your non-scientific question regarding some non-scientific terminology. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by it, nor who you are trying to sway with your abandonment of science, but your motives are none of my concern.

Could I point out that Spontaneous Evolution is the most accurate descriptor of the Materialistic Evolutionist claim……that matter spontaneously produced the complex specified functional information found in living organisms ..... without any intelligent input.

No, JC.

You are making up terms, applying them to made-up descriptions which cover seperate aspects of science.

The distinction between abiogenesis and evolution has been explained on this thread more tiomes than I care to count. As someone claiming to be versed in the scientific theory of evolution, you have no excuse to even need it explained once...and yet you continue to conflate the two as you are again doing here.

If you have a meaningful challenge to the scientific models regarding evolution, I'm more than willing to discuss those with you. Until then, I refuse to play your game.

OK…….so bonkey claims that Evolutionary Theory doesn’t make any ‘predictions’ for individual species…..which renders it pretty useless as a ‘predictor’ of so-called evolutionary change then!!!!!

No, JC.

You're doing it again - misrepresenting a science you claim to be well-versed in. YOu are either aware of the types of prediction that evolutionary theory has led (and leads) to, or you have overstated your familiarity with evolutionary theory.

……but WAIT a minute……here comes an Evolutionary Theory ‘prediction’ (from bonkey in his next post) for an individual species (that Rabbits won’t be found in the pre-Cambrian):-

No, JC.

I said that its a famous comment, which you - claiming to be versed in evolutionary theory - should be familiar with. I did not say that it was a specific prediction limited to a specific species. You are either unaware of the origins and implications of the comment, or you are (again) deliberately misrepresenting things. If its the former, then I would suggest that you google the term and (re-)learn some of the evolutionary theory that you have previously claimed to be well-versed in.

I don't care, JC, why you refuse to discuss science that you claim to be familiar with on a scientific level that you claim to be capable of doing. If your claims regarding the weakness of the various scientific theories were true, however, it would be trivial for someone with the scientific qualifications and background you claim to possess to do so.

You avoided discussing my point about science being model-based, by focussing on a specific comment that Wicknight made and misrepresenting the discussion as being your literal interpretation of that one comment. You insist that you have answered my question comprehensively and that I am wrong, but all of your response fits exactly with what I described. Of the self-professed scientists on this thread, you are the only one to dodge the question, just as you refuse to engage on discussing science at a scientific level.

I find it ironic in the extreme that in another thread, Wolfsbane is lamenting how science will not allow Creationists to question it, and yet you, claiming to possess all the necessary learning and qualification to engage in such questioning refuse to do so.

You have insisted previously that you need to keep your identity secret for fear of reprisals taken against you, and yet despite being granted that anonymity you still refuse to make use of it to put your case.

I will not play your game, JC. If you ever decide that you want to discuss the scientific issues, then it may be worth re-engaging with you. Until then, however, you serve only to distract from what should be being discussed. I suspect that this is not entirely unintentional.

Ekancone

bonkey wrote: »

Until then, however, you serve only to distract from what should be being discussed. I suspect that this is not entirely unintentional.

Its quite obvious that JC is a wum, if this were any other board/thread he would have been banned by now. It makes me question the motives/integrity of the mods here.

AtomicHorror

This is going to be another big one. Sorry in advance.

J C wrote: »

So, are you saying that you believe that Evolution is NOT Spontaneous……but was guided by some intelligence?????

If you mean “spontaneous” as it is generally meant in the English language (meaning an event occurring without apparent external influence) then the answer is no. We do not consider evolution to be a spontaneous process as it requires natural selection (an external pressure) and mutation (which is caused by external influence many cases).

Or do you mean “spontaneous” as it is meant in chemistry?

J C wrote: »

Could I point out that Spontaneous Evolution is the most accurate descriptor of the Materialistic Evolutionist claim……that matter spontaneously produced the complex specified functional information found in living organisms ..... without any intelligent input.

I don’t know what a materialistic evolutionist is. Given that I don’t believe in what you define as “spontaneous evolution”, I guess by your definition that I am not one.

J C wrote: »

Neo-Darwinian Evolution is a heady mixture of scientifically valid concepts such as Natural Selection and genetic drift using pre-existing genetic information………combined with scientifically invalid concepts such as the spontaneous generation of functional information and the supposed spontaneous ‘morphing’ of muck into Man!!!!

Neo-Darwinism does not include spontaneous generation of anything, least of all functionality. It does not include “morphing”.

J C wrote: »

……so once again I am asking how can Spontaneous Evolution be falsified????

Spontaneous Evolution, defined as evolution occurring without apparent external influences, has already been inadventantly falsified by a number of means during the research into Darwinian Evolution. Given that Spontaneous Evolution has never been put forward as a hypothesis or theory by anyone on this thread and given that it is falsified, it is thus considered by us to be disproven and invalid. Since we are agreed that Spontaneous Evolution is disproven, there is no value in further discussing it here. We should now limit the debate to Darwinian Evolution and Neo-Darwinism.

J C wrote: »

You’re the guys using meaningless and ambiguous terms……things like 'neo-Darwinian Evolution'…….which tells us nothing about what you are talking about…….it’s the equivalent of me talking about neo-Ham Creationism!!!!!!

Neo-Darwinism is a term common enough to have its own Wikipedia page. Ignoring this, its meaning would be easily interpreted as “new Darwinism” suggesting a further development of the theories of Darwinian Evolution.

Quite what “neo-Ham Creationism” might mean is highly ambiguous as even a well-versed creationist would struggle to make the leap as to what, if anything, new ham has to do with creationism. The comparison of a nonsense term that you created in this post to an established term is not valid.

The analogies and similes that you tend to use are usually at best misleading. In this case and others, simply illogical.

J C wrote: »

OK so …….a Doctor studies Medical Science…....and he/she diagnoses and treats patients using Medical Science ………but a Doctor isn’t a scientist…… such is the warped definition of 'scientist' in the Evolutionist’s mind!!!!!:D

Would you consider a mechanic to be a scientist if he does not conduct scientific research? His knowledge and ability to diagnose mechanical problems and to fix them is based upon scientific knowledge. Chemistry and Physics underlie all forms of engineering.

Similarly, a doctor is not considered a scientist unless he is also engaged in research. He makes a diagnosis based upon established science; he does not make new science to diagnose, nor to heal. It’s certainly another matter if he is involved in clinical trials, but his day-to-day work is still not in itself, science.

Few would make the argument that the guy who fixes their car is a scientist. A doctor however, fits the superficial stereotype of a scientist; a clever man in a white coat.

J C wrote: »

…..you’re correct that your distinction…… between a Doctor telling a patient what is wrong with them and a doctor telling a patient what they believe is wrong with them ……..is entirely semantic …..and a completely useless distinction!!!!!:eek:

The distinction between opinion and fact is not at all semantic. Wicknight merely suggested that you would claim that it was so, which you have just done.

J C wrote: »

……so when a Doctor is doing something useful ……like diagnosing and treating a patient he/she is not behaving as a scientist……according to Evolutionists

…...but if they are devising ‘pipe dreams’…..and ‘making hare-brained models’……..then they can be called ‘scientists’ ………

.......on that basis the word ‘scientist’ must have become a term of derision amongst Evolutionists!!!!!!:D:)

Nobody here, aside from you, has described scientists in those terms. We have repeatedly stated that a scientist is one who forms testable hypotheses and tests them. You have taken this summary and modified it in order to change its meaning significantly.

J C wrote: »

…..so Evolutionists differ…..and Coelacanth Fish survives …….to completely embarrass them all !!!!!:D

You do understand that progenitor and descendent species can both survive natural selection given differing environments, right? Nothing about the survival of the coelacanth species is in any way embarrassing or inconsistent with evolution.

J C wrote: »

……another good old circular argument……along the lines that whatever happens ….happens……and it therefore has absolutely NO scientific or ‘predictive’ value whatsoever!!!!!:D

What you are describing as a “circular argument” is natural selection. Several pages ago you claimed that natural selection is in fact real.

J C wrote: »

Wicknight
I would also point out that the Coelacanth isn't "unchanged". It has changed significantly in its internal structure compared to the 350 million year old fossils we have.

………which is a pretty poor 'evolutionary' performance on the part of the Coelacanth ……..when the Ictyostega / Acanthostega (or whatever you're having yourself)……has turned into Daithifleming!!!!! :eek:;):D

Evolutionary “performance” is not measured by the extent of morphological changes. It is measured by fitness to environment. Evolutionarily speaking, Daithiflemming is no more or less evolutionarily fit than the coelacanth. The human species may only be considered the “peak” of evolution by very specific measures. That’s part of the “human-centric” individual’s problem with evolution.

J C wrote: »

…..if this Evolutionist ‘science’ can prove NOTHING…….can only ‘predict’ LAST week’s Lotto numbers…….and can’t diagnose or treat serious medical conditions……..it is about as useful as a hole in the head…….or a crowbar in a bog!!!!!!!!!

Or as useful as an understanding of how genetic disorders arise and how they may be corrected. It also teaches us caution in our interpretation of “disorder” since we are becoming increasingly aware that many modern genetic disorders were only able to propagate because they have a net beneficial effect under different environmental contexts. This has implications in ethics as well as further science and of course medicine.

J C wrote: »

Abiogenesis may be a separate concept…….but it also requires an explanation if any Materialistic view on the origin and supposed development of life over millions of years is to have any logical credibility[/I]

AtomicHorror
This is true, no argument from any "evolutionists" here

………so when it comes to the ‘origin of life’ the Materialistic Evolutionists haven’t got a clue how it happened…….

We don’t just have a clue- we have a variety of testable hypotheses which is considerably better than a mere clue.

J C wrote: »

………..but the Theistic Evolutionists are still running about …..and saying that they KNOW that life originated through EVOLUTION!!!!

Theistic Evolutionists would be considerably less likely to make such a claim than atheists would. At any rate, I’ve not heard them make such a claim. They claim that the human species arose through evolution, which is different.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
Given the correct conditions (Earth) and a period of 2,500,000,000 years (humor me on the age of the world) do you think that there is a possibility that multicellular life could arise from a functioning and reproducing single-celled organism using the processes of genetic mutation, genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection?

As well as a yes or a no I will also accept a probability (percentage chance or odds expression) as an answer.

The percentage chance of a single cell SPONTANEOUSLY becoming a Human is ZERO……even over 2.5 billion years!!!!

Round three. I did not ask what is the probability of a single cell spontaneously becoming a human. I agree that the probability of that event is negligible over the given time span.

The question once again is what is the probability (if you wish to express it in that manner) that multicellular life could arise from a functioning and reproducing single-celled organism using the processes of genetic mutation, genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection?

J C wrote: »

….simple reason……..we have single cell protozoa and bacteria……..and they have been observed to doggedly REMAIN protozoa and bacteria!!!!!!!!!

To be sure you understand this I will restate that progenitor and descendent species can both survive natural selection given differing environments. It is utterly unsurprising that single celled life continues to exist.

In terms of multicellularity, many single celled species show the beginnings of this development, many others will never make the transition. In terms of observing the transition itself, given that we consider the required time span for such an event to become likely to occur to be on the order of 1x10^8 years (that’s hundreds of millions), it is highly unlikely that we would have yet observed a single celled organism transition to true multicellularity. This is because we have been observing for less than 1000 years, on the order 100,000 times less time than required. We have however observed the emergence of new species, sub-species, and strains even in multicellular organisms over this time. This is expected.

J C wrote: »

….less-simple reason……. complex specified functional information REQUIRES an intelligent input!!!!

You previously supported this statement with a spiel about combinatorial spaces, which I refuted.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

J_C:

….. unfortuately for this 'cozy' self-seving conclusion of yours......BOTH Spontaneous Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Evolution have already been disproven……because the useless combinatorial space of Nucleic Acids is effectively infinite for even the smallest known genome…….and the spontaneous emergence of ANY life-form can therefore be mathematically and scientifically ruled out!!!:D

This combinatorial space of yours makes the assumption that genetic codes randomly reshuffle, that the resulting sequence may be of random composition (but presumably set length). Thus a sequence of just 10 bases (nucleotides) in length (which would indeed be far too short for a genome) would have 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 = 1,048,576 combinations assuming we use the four DNA nucleotides at equal frequencies. So certainly, if you assume that DNA undergoes random reshuffling, the likelyhood of generating a functional genome is small enough to be negligible.

However,random reshuffling of DNA does not occur by any common mutation process. It does not even occur with nucleic acid strands isolated entirely from cells and dumped into water. It certainly does not occur within cells, even at the germ line, even at conception, even under harsh radiation, even in the presence of retroviral infection.

A mutation event, when it occurs, typically does one of the following:

It deletes a nucleotide from the sequence, the rest is preserved.
It substitutes a nucleotide for another nucleotide.
It replicates a gene in whole or in part and re-inserts it at another location in the genome (possibly to another chromosome).
It replicates a chromosome (a clump of genes) in whole or in part.

At no time is the genome reduced to single nucleotides and recombined in random order. This would be the only event that would allow your combinatorial space to be relevant to evolution and it does not occur. Abiogenesis is another matter.

I forgot also that mutation may insert a nucleotide. Anyway, you have not returned to this. Have you additional support for this claim that the emergence of function requires intelligent intervention?

J C wrote: »

.....and really sophisticated reason (courtesy of Prof Stephen Jay Gould) ......“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” .....from Protozoa to Man!!!!!!!!!!

Gould was speaking of the idea of punctuated equilibrium, which is fully compatible with Darwinism. He was not suggesting that the transitional forms did not exist, but that they existed for short enough time periods that they were less likely to exist in large numbers in the fossil record.

This makes sense, since many transitional forms would be non-functional or possibly detrimental and would exist in relatively few individuals and for relatively few generations until the changes became net beneficial and stability returned. Despite this, we have plenty of examples of such forms, functional, neutral, detrimental and many shades in between both in the fossil record and in living organisms.

Gould was also a very strong critic of Creationism and a campaigner against it, so if you wish to start quoting him more extensively and in context that would be just fine with me.

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

Its quite obvious that JC is a wum, if this were any other board/thread he would have been banned by now. It makes me question the motives/integrity of the mods here.

The mods are extremely lenient here, otherwise you would just have received an infraction for back seat modding. Please don't do it again.

In this rather bizarre thread both wums and trolls have historically been allowed to post. Otherwise many of the posts would have been deleted and very few posters would be left.

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

The mods are extremely lenient here, otherwise you would just have received an infraction for back seat modding. Please don't do it again.

So I am not allowed to make a call on whether someone is a wum or not?

PDN wrote: »

In this rather bizarre thread both wums and trolls have historically been allowed to post. Otherwise many of the posts would have been deleted and very few posters would be left.

I guess so.

Zombrex

daithifleming wrote: »

So I am not allowed to make a call on whether someone is a wum or not?

What is a "wum" (yes I tried Google)

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

So I am not allowed to make a call on whether someone is a wum or not?

You are free to say you think someone is a wum. Others are free to say that they think you are a troll. Incidentally, neither would be tolerated on certain other fora on boards.ie

What you are not free to do is to is to tell the mods how to do our jobs or to cast aspersions on our integrity or motives. That is back seat modding and it is a no-no right across boards.ie. If you want to discuss this further take it to feedback or feel free to PM myself or Asiaprod.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

What is a "wum" (yes I tried Google)

Wind-Up Merchant

Ekancone

Wicknight wrote: »

What is a "wum" (yes I tried Google)

JC

A person whose sole reason for posting is to derail the thread and to be a general nuisance. It is something we are all guilty of from time to time, but JC's sole existance on boards.ie is to post on this thread in order to piss people off. It is for this reason that I believe that JC is someone's wumming account, and is probably someone who posts quite regularly in the Christianity forum under a different alias. It is for this reason that I chose to put him on ignore. For the record, I dont believe Wolfsbane is a wum and I appreciate his contributions.