• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Quotes critical of evolution

Rodney said:
I favor the conventional definition given in Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

What the hell does this have to do with your insistance that unless we can create life in the laboratory vs. study things like abiotic bacteria and other extinct and extant lifeforms for clues as to how abiogenesis occured means abiogenesis never happened?

I thought my "create life in a beaker"/Magratheia comment would have at least elicited an LOL or a "heh" from you... or is your ignoring my comments just a further admission that you don't understand how science works?
 
T'ai Chi said:
One sees a painting. One infers, due to its complexity and information, it has a painter. It is that way regardless if one wants the painting to have real design or not.
Click to expand...
A painting is a horrible analogy to life. Paintings do not reproduce themselves, without the aid of known life forms.

Life forms procreate. Therefore, every generation has an opportunity to be a little different from their parents, and so after a long while, the life form might look entirely different from their ancestors.

Furthermore, we have evidence that "irreducibly complex" features can emerge as a consequence of evolution. See, for example, this computer model: http://www.stellaralchemy.com/ice

T'ai Chi said:
It is up to you to provide evidence that you are correct, not for others to disprove your claims you have yet to establish.
Click to expand...
First of all, it is up to you to prove ID is viable as science. So far, all anyone has provided are ontological arguments. No one has presented empirically conclusive results.

Some Examples of ID arguments presented so far:

Argument from Ignorance - "Evolution has not solved all mysteries, yet. Therefore ID must be correct!" A clear logical fallacy. Also referred to as "God in the Gaps"

Argument from Personal Incredulity - "Oh, this life form is so complex, I can not figure out how it evolved, therefore I will claim no one ever will!" Also a clear fallacy. In fact, all examples of Irreducible Complexity fall into this category. Good thing we have real scientists willing to devote their lives to unraveling the actual evolutionary history of the life form.

Argument from Bad Math - "The chances of this emerging, spontaneously, from life is so absurdly improbable, there is no way evolution can do it". This, of course, misses one of the central tenants of evolution, that of cumulative change, evaluated from cumulative probability. Even some professional scientists get this wrong, so you're in good company, if you think it has merit.

Argument from Scripture - I'm not even going to bother pointing out why this is fallacious.

No one has yet demonstrated any argument for ID that is not all in the head.

Evolution ultimately points to evidence that can be checked, double-checked, triple-checked, re-checked with more precise equipment, etc.

If you still disagree that ID is all in the head, please show me some evidence along the same standards evolutionary theory has held to. In other words, evidence that can hold up to scrutiny in the field.

T'ai Chi said:
I'd think people doing actual work in this field, are probably more interested in journals and following the standard channels of science, rather than wasting time with silly 'challenges'.
Click to expand...
How many ID advocates do work in the field? It seems most of them prefer misreading other people's papers.

ETA: My challenge is central to ID's claims. If you think they don't want to be "wasting time with silly 'challenges'", then that really means they don't want to "waste time" developing scientific evidence.
 
Last edited:
UnrepentantSinner said:
What the hell does this have to do with your insistance that unless we can create life in the laboratory vs. study things like abiotic bacteria and other extinct and extant lifeforms for clues as to how abiogenesis occured means abiogenesis never happened?
Click to expand...
It has to do with the fact that I was replying to Darat's question. And speaking of questions, how come no one has answered mine about how the abiogenesis hypothesis would be falsified?

UnrepentantSinner said:
I thought my "create life in a beaker"/Magratheia comment would have at least elicited an LOL or a "heh" from you... or is your ignoring my comments just a further admission that you don't understand how science works?
Click to expand...
I know the way science is not supposed to work is: "Even though abiogenesis may never be demonstrated, it must be true because a special creation is impossible."
 
CFLarsen said:
It is the watch in the desert analogy.

It is so debunked by now that only the most rabid Creationists still use it.

Can't we get a new argument from these guys?
Click to expand...
Yes. See http://www.alternativescience.com/richard_dawkins.htm

Excerpt:

"When he wrote The Blind Watchmaker in the 1980s, Darwinism appeared to be securely buttressed by mountains of detailed natural observations that supported its main contentions: observations such as the divergence of Galapagos Finches, industrial melanism in moths, and vestigial organs in the human body. With all this evidence, Darwinists could feel confident that they were on sure ground in general, even if matters of detail were not yet fully worked out. But while he was tirelessly recycling arguments from the anthropic principle, Dawkins failed to notice that this ‘evidence’ was melting away around him, like snow on a spring morning, thanks to better observation and clearer thinking.

"Through the work of Peter and Rosemary Grant, for example, we now know that there are not 13 divergent species of finch on the Galapagos islands but a single species with many varieties – just like the many varieties of dog. We know, too, that ‘industrial melanism’ has no relevant connection to evolution or natural selection but merely to shifting balances of population. And we know that organs previously thought to be ‘vestigial’ do in fact have important functions of which we were simply ignorant. Dozens of similar examples can be given. We now know also that, far from being ‘a mechanism for generating improbability’, natural selection is a tautology lacking any scientific content.

"Dawkins has failed to notice that this receding tide of fact has left him marooned alone atop Mount Improbable and that what was once a useful tool of explanation for a complex web of facts is now no more than empty sloganising."
 
None of those are new arguments.
Rodney said:
Through the work of Peter and Rosemary Grant, for example, we now know that there are not 13 divergent species of finch on the Galapagos islands but a single species with many varieties – just like the many varieties of dog.
Click to expand...
Doesn't really matter if they are divergent species or just divergent varieties. They are still evidence of a common ancestor. If you think its impossible for those varieties to have come from a common ancestor, and that it is only possible for all those varieties to have been specifically Designed, the argument is all in your head.

We know, too, that ‘industrial melanism’ has no relevant connection to evolution or natural selection but merely to shifting balances of population.
Click to expand...
What do you think the progress of evolution is made up of?!
There are a bunch of new mutations. Most of them are detrimental. Some of them are beneficial. Those members of the population that have the best adaptations, however small, cause the population to shift. And then the process happens all over again.
That is an over-simplified view of the process. But, merely dismissing part of evolution as a "shift in population" is misunderstanding the concept, and is certainly not evidence of ID.
If you think the "shift" argument is evidence of ID, then the ID is still all in your head.

And we know that organs previously thought to be ‘vestigial’ do in fact have important functions of which we were simply ignorant.
Click to expand...
Co-Option is a part of evolution. Some vestigial parts take on other jobs, as is handy to the survival strategy of the life form.
Some flightless birds have started using their vestigial wings for other purposes. They are still vestigial wings.
If you think the evolution of the purpose of body parts is proof of a Designer, I'm afraid that Designer is still only in your head.

We now know also that, far from being ‘a mechanism for generating improbability’, natural selection is a tautology lacking any scientific content.
Click to expand...
Natural Selection is ultimately based on evidence that can be examined by anyone, anytime, and under very precise equipment. If you don't think the evidence of the Galapagos finches is right, you can check them yourself. If you don't think the darkening of moths was a significant adaptation, you can study the numbers yourself.

ID is the tautology. Its arguments have no basis in measured results or testable hypothesis. ID is all in the head.
 
Another Quote from the paper Rodney posted, that caught my eye: (http://www.alternativescience.com/richard_dawkins.htm)
The need for genetic mutations to occur in the correct sequence to feed into the one-way accumulation of natural selection at just the decisive moment is the very factor that makes it so increasingly improbable as a natural mechanism.
Click to expand...
The author misunderstands an important point: There is no "one-way accumulation". Lots of varieties of mutations could be made. That means lots of possibly viable ways those accumulations could occur!
It happens that, those individual life forms that happen to survive and reproduce the best, get more opportunities to have their accumulations passed on. And the others could either die off, or take on another survival strategy (if they are "lucky"), or move to another environment where they can survive (which would also be pretty "lucky").
So, it seems the author of that critique is missing the whole point of cumulative probability. Oh well. I guess it just sucks to be him.
 
Rodney said:
It has to do with the fact that I was replying to Darat's question. And speaking of questions, how come no one has answered mine about how the abiogenesis hypothesis would be falsified?
Click to expand...

I'll be honest with you. I, a layman, don't have a good falsification. Spontaneous generation could easily be falsified because the premise of the claim was pretty simple. Maybe people more familiar with microbiology and biochemistry could come up with a potential falsification.

Rodney said:
I know the way science is not supposed to work is: "Even though abiogenesis may never be demonstrated, it must be true because a special creation is impossible."
Click to expand...

Too bad that's a straw man. Evidence for abiogenesis isn't inherently a claim that special creation is impossible because science doesn't delve into metaphysics.
 
Rodney said:
All of which does nothing to answer the question of how the abiogenesis hypothesis would ever be falsified.
Click to expand...
Abiogenesis isn't a hypothesis, it's a conjecture. RNA world abiogenesis is a hypothesis.

Sigh. Will they never learn? Is the average IQ really doomed to be 100 forever?
 
logical muse said:
Apparently, half the population is below average! :eek:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this is actually true, but I have read that it is not a true bell curve. More than half the population is below average, but IQs tend to go a lot higher than they go low, so while there are lots of people around the 90 mark, a few people at 150 compensate to keep the average at 100.

On a different note, a survey now shows that 3 out of 4 people now make up 75% of the population.
 
Cuddles said:
I'm not sure if this is actually true, but I have read that it is not a true bell curve. More than half the population is below average, but IQs tend to go a lot higher than they go low, so while there are lots of people around the 90 mark, a few people at 150 compensate to keep the average at 100.

On a different note, a survey now shows that 3 out of 4 people now make up 75% of the population.
Click to expand...

logical muse said:
Leaving only 1 out of 4 to make up the other 25%? Doesn't seem fair, somehow.
Click to expand...

:roll: :roll:
 
Rodney said:
It has to do with the fact that I was replying to Darat's question. And speaking of questions, how come no one has answered mine about how the abiogenesis hypothesis would be falsified?


I know the way science is not supposed to work is: "Even though abiogenesis may never be demonstrated, it must be true because a special creation is impossible."
Click to expand...


The abiogenesis being falsified was partly addressed, it is afallacy to say that a theory must be falsified. Especialy when it is in the construction phase, the question is this when it comes to falsifiability, does the theory have predictions, can those predictions be tested/observed, are there other theories that make the same prediction?

That is what falsifiable is about.

So what predictions does ID make that can be tested/observed. None.

from the alternate science link provided by Rodney
In 1992, I pointed out in print that Dawkins’s suggestion is mathematically flawed. It is true of the probability of unrelated events (such as tossing a coin) but is untrue of related events such as the cumulative natural selection of random genetic mutations. Indeed it is the cumulative nature of natural selection (which Dawkins proposed as its greatest strength) that is in fact its greatest weakness from the point of view of its improbability.

The need for genetic mutations to occur in the correct sequence to feed into the one-way accumulation of natural selection at just the decisive moment is the very factor that makes it so increasingly improbable as a natural mechanism.

From a mathematical viewpoint, the probability of life evolving via the natural selection of ten big mutations is exactly the same as the probability of life evolving via ten thousand small mutations, if the order in which the mutations must occur is taken into account (and, of course, the order is crucial).
Click to expand...

This just shows a complete and total lack of an understanding of probability, there is no aggregate probability there is only discrete probability at a single event.

And just like your arguments Rodeny it is based upon fallacious reasoning, abiogenesis as a theory is not depedant upon any one saying that they could create life in a lab, it is not dependant on wether the finches at the galapagos are the same species or not, these are all just distraction. Thsoe are just the fallacy of promoting an argument by making holes in another argument. especialy a fallacy when it is based upon a mis-statement of the theory and endlessly ignoring the current state of the theory.

The main point is : what predictions does the theory of abiogenesis make that can be observed or tested. What predictions does the theory of intelligent design make that can be observed or tested.

Alkl the rest is a waste of time.
 
Last edited:
Rodney said:
Yes. See http://www.alternativescience.com/richard_dawkins.htm

Excerpt:

"When he wrote The Blind Watchmaker in the 1980s, Darwinism appeared to be securely buttressed by mountains of detailed natural observations that supported its main contentions: observations such as the divergence of Galapagos Finches, industrial melanism in moths, and vestigial organs in the human body. With all this evidence, Darwinists could feel confident that they were on sure ground in general, even if matters of detail were not yet fully worked out. But while he was tirelessly recycling arguments from the anthropic principle, Dawkins failed to notice that this ‘evidence’ was melting away around him, like snow on a spring morning, thanks to better observation and clearer thinking.

"Through the work of Peter and Rosemary Grant, for example, we now know that there are not 13 divergent species of finch on the Galapagos islands but a single species with many varieties – just like the many varieties of dog. We know, too, that ‘industrial melanism’ has no relevant connection to evolution or natural selection but merely to shifting balances of population. And we know that organs previously thought to be ‘vestigial’ do in fact have important functions of which we were simply ignorant. Dozens of similar examples can be given. We now know also that, far from being ‘a mechanism for generating improbability’, natural selection is a tautology lacking any scientific content.

"Dawkins has failed to notice that this receding tide of fact has left him marooned alone atop Mount Improbable and that what was once a useful tool of explanation for a complex web of facts is now no more than empty sloganising."
Click to expand...


Oh I do so love poetry, what great prose , what great fiction, and a lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.

Yeah quote alternate science, that will bolster your standing!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom