Evolution a hoax?

[Wowbagger]

Already explained it in some depth on this forum. Not too many were interested in anything but creating a straw man. So no thank you. Will just let real science march on while you guys are stuck in outdated paradigms.

Could you please provide a link to where you describe these things?

I want to witness, for myself, the True Power of Intelligent Design!

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Funny--all the paleontologists I've ever spoken to (two so far today) seem to think that evolution works just fine. Seems you're in the minority, randman.

Although I share your sentiments, I don't think we should play into Randman's hand by using logical fallacies such as this.

I'm not trying to insult you, but I think that, if we want to convince Randman (or at the very least if we don't want to look like idiots), we should look out for logical fallacies on all fronts.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I see what the issue is now. You are misinformed in claiming according to creationists and IDers that speciation does not occur or cannot occur. Ring species is not a problem for either camp.

Both acknowledge and incorporate speciation of the type of ring species forming. I digressed a bit on the definition of species because it means different things in different contexts.

Hope that helps.

Then I want to know why, if speciation is not a problem, then why is macro evolution (essentially speciation) a problem?

 

[Acleron]

Obviously you have not grasped Axe's work. Additionally, a wiki article on something does not rebut published science, particularly when it doesn't even claim to.

Axe incorporates natural selection and all the "non-chance" aspects into his analysis. In fact, those things constrain what would need to happen in terms of simultaneous or near simultaneous mutations. The chance concept deals with the idea that mutations are not directed or programmed to occur or pre-adaptive according to evo theory. The chances though are infinitely small for such numerous, relatively simultaneous mutations to occur, as his work shows.

If someone flips a coin and lands on heads a trillion times in a row, I think it's safe to say something other than "chance" is going on; that there is a trick involved, a mechanism.

Axe's paper calculates the the probability of a particular sequence of amino acids occurring. He constrained his model greatly and taking that into account no-one has great problems with his calculation. But it's not the whole story and applying the numbers he generated to the evolution of an enzyme is incorrect as was shown by Lenski with his long term experiment on E. coli. (btw, I gave you the wiki reference as you seem to use it yourself, it's easy to get more technical references)

Axe has claimed that his results support ID, they don't.*

IDers have claimed that his results support ID, they don't.

Lenski's result certainly doesn't support ID but is an example predicted from the theory of evolution.

You pull some spurious example of chance to prove that the ToE doesn't work, why don't you learn something about ToE first, you never know you might find it much more sensible than goddidit as an explanation. At the very least, you might not make the mistake of pushing ridiculous statements in attempt to disprove it.

* I base this conclusion on the email sent by Axe to the IDers, should I trust it, I wonder?

 

[randman]

Could you please provide a link to where you describe these things?

I want to witness, for myself, the True Power of Intelligent Design!

Do a search on this forum and see for yourself. Been discussed by me at some length. One problem is you will see people say the multiverse is the correct view rather than Copenhagen or rather even just what we observe in QM and so it descends into debates about QM.

You'd need to recognize the issues involved in that debate and properly acknowledge them, which I have never or rarely seen an evo do. Typically they assert quantum physicists don't hold to such things as information being central to existence or fundamental, and then when I show them prominent quantum physicists that do indeed say these very same things, they howl and go off claiming I am just ignorant and other baseless charges.

So it turns out to be a waste of time.

 

[Wowbagger]

I see what the issue is now. You are misinformed in claiming according to creationists and IDers that speciation does not occur or cannot occur. Ring species is not a problem for either camp.

Both acknowledge and incorporate speciation of the type of ring species forming. I digressed a bit on the definition of species because it means different things in different contexts.

Hope that helps.

It occurs to me that the Theory of Evolution is soooo powerful, even some of its staunch critics will tend to accept 95% of its findings.



Evolution changes the course of Creationism all the time. But, Creationism does not seem to change the course of Evolution.

And, no, it's not 'cause Evos are stubborn. Evolution also changes itself all the time, as new evidence emerges within its various fields.
However, Creationism is often unable to change anything about its own self, until fresh insight from sciences such as Evolution can no longer be ignored.

 

[randman]

Axe's paper calculates the the probability of a particular sequence of amino acids occurring. He constrained his model greatly and taking that into account no-one has great problems with his calculation. But it's not the whole story and applying the numbers he generated to the evolution of an enzyme is incorrect as was shown by Lenski with his long term experiment on E. coli. (btw, I gave you the wiki reference as you seem to use it yourself, it's easy to get more technical references)

Axe has claimed that his results support ID, they don't.*

IDers have claimed that his results support ID, they don't.

Lenski's result certainly doesn't support ID but is an example predicted from the theory of evolution.

You pull some spurious example of chance to prove that the ToE doesn't work, why don't you learn something about ToE first, you never know you might find it much more sensible than goddidit as an explanation. At the very least, you might not make the mistake of pushing ridiculous statements in attempt to disprove it.

* I base this conclusion on the email sent by Axe to the IDers, should I trust it, I wonder?

Axe says his work supports ID. Evos say it doesn't. I chalk it up to evos not being willing to admit they were wrong and that is based on a long history of evos denying basic facts and data when they believe it contradicts evo theory such as taking decades to admit the reality of the fossil record not showing the transitions, adherence to the biogenetic law and faked data, refusal to accept experiments showing epigenetics decades ago, etc, etc,....

 

[Dinwar]

What logical fallacy? randman is disagreeing with the majority of experts in the field I'm most familiar with, which is important data--these people are not idiots, nor do they accept evolution uncritically. I've never said that randman was wrong for disagreeing, merely that most experts disagree with him, which is an indication that he may want to re-evaluate what he's saying. Just about the only flaw I can see is that he wants to bring mollecular biology into this, which paleontology necessarily cannot speak to.

Second, randman insulted us by implying that we weren't real scientists. I'm humanizing these people he's insulting--it's libel against real people. Some of them are my friends. Some are co-workers. Real scientists--the flesh and blood humans who are doing science--have rejected the theories randman is supporting. Again, this is important data.

I'm not saying I'm not committing a fallacy here, just that I don't see it.

 

[Wowbagger]

So it turns out to be a waste of time.

Fine. I concede that this statement of yours is probably true.

You score one point!

 

[randman]

It occurs to me that the Theory of Evolution is soooo powerful, even some of its staunch critics will tend to accept 95% of its findings.



Evolution changes the course of Creationism all the time. But, Creationism does not seem to change the course of Evolution.

And, no, it's not 'cause Evos are stubborn. Evolution also changes itself all the time, as new evidence emerges within its various fields.
However, Creationism is often unable to change anything about its own self, until fresh insight from sciences such as Evolution can no longer be ignored.

I'd say you are just plain ignorant then. Creationism changed evo theory in respect to the fossil record by forcing evos after decades of denial to admit the fossil record shows stasis and sudden appearance. There are numerous other examples of either creationists or IDers being well ahead, often decades and sometimes over 100 years ahead, when it comes to basic factual analysis and claims about data.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

What logical fallacy? randman is disagreeing with the majority of experts in the field I'm most familiar with, which is important data--these people are not idiots, nor do they accept evolution uncritically. I've never said that randman was wrong for disagreeing, merely that most experts disagree with him, which is an indication that he may want to re-evaluate what he's saying. Just about the only flaw I can see is that he wants to bring mollecular biology into this, which paleontology necessarily cannot speak to.

Second, randman insulted us by implying that we weren't real scientists. I'm humanizing these people he's insulting--it's libel against real people. Some of them are my friends. Some are co-workers. Real scientists--the flesh and blood humans who are doing science--have rejected the theories randman is supporting. Again, this is important data.

I'm not saying I'm not committing a fallacy here, just that I don't see it.

You're right. I think I read your reply too narrowly.

 

[randman]

Then I want to know why, if speciation is not a problem, then why is macro evolution (essentially speciation) a problem?

For a number of reasons. Try to look at the process without the simplistic thinking of evos. Just because something evolves does not mean it can forever evolve. Evos are like someone that sees a man walking, and then sees video of a man walking on the moon, and then insists man walked to the moon.

There are clear restraints on observed microevolutionary processes that make it wholly unsuitable as a mechanism for macroevolution.

Pierre Paul Grasse pointed this out long ago as have many other noted scientists.

 

[Resume]

For a number of reasons. Try to look at the process without the simplistic thinking of evos. Just because something evolves does not mean it can forever evolve. Evos are like someone that sees a man walking, and then sees video of a man walking on the moon, and then insists man walked to the moon.

There are clear restraints on observed microevolutionary processes that make it wholly unsuitable as a mechanism for macroevolution.

Pierre Paul Grasse pointed this out long ago as have many other noted scientists.

What's an evo?

Micro and macroevolution are the same thing.

 

[Wowbagger]

Axe says his work supports ID. Evos say it doesn't. I chalk it up to evos not being willing to admit they were wrong

You haven't shown us where he invokes the Intelligent Designer! In fact, you admitted that he doesn't!

Why must you insult our intelligence like that?! We are trying to give you every opportunity to demonstrate the power of Intelligent Design! It's not our fault your example, here, is flimsy.


One more point occurs to me: You accept micro-evolution, right, randman? Wouldn't Axe's work, if it were true, be a mark against that?! He is not working with macro-scale evolution. He is trying to refute the small stuff: That small changes can't accomplish something.

How do you resolve your acceptance of micro-evolution, with Axe's grinding (see what I did there?) against micro-evolutionary-scale concepts?

Creationism changed evo theory in respect to the fossil record by forcing evos after decades of denial to admit the fossil record shows stasis and sudden appearance.

You mean punctuated equlibrium? The process by which was worked out by Evos (especially Gould)?

What did I.D. add to our understanding of punctuation before the actual theory was established?

And for the record, there is no "sudden appearance", except in the loosest sense of the word. There is still, ultimately, a gradual change in place over shorter time distances than usual.

 

[randman]

Wowbagger, this comment of your's discredits you and shows you haven't the slightest idea of what Axe's paper actually is.

You accept micro-evolution, right, randman? Wouldn't Axe's work, if it were true, be a mark against that?! He is not working with macro-scale evolution. He is trying to refute the small stuff: That small changes can't accomplish something.

I suggest you reread his work. It's no use discussing it with you if you won't take the time to understand it.

 

[randman]

You haven't shown us where he invokes the Intelligent Designer! In fact, you admitted that he doesn't!

Why must you insult our intelligence like that?! We are trying to give you every opportunity to demonstrate the power of Intelligent Design! It's not our fault your example, here, is flimsy.


One more point occurs to me: You accept micro-evolution, right, randman? Wouldn't Axe's work, if it were true, be a mark against that?! He is not working with macro-scale evolution. He is trying to refute the small stuff: That small changes can't accomplish something.

How do you resolve your acceptance of micro-evolution, with Axe's grinding (see what I did there?) against micro-evolutionary-scale concepts?

You mean punctuated equlibrium? The process by which was worked out by Evos (especially Gould)?

What did I.D. add to our understanding of punctuation before the actual theory was established?

And for the record, there is no "sudden appearance", except in the loosest sense of the word. There is still, ultimately, a gradual change in place over shorter time distances than usual.

See my comment on how you don't understand Axe's work in response to that on my post above.

As far as PE, no, evos haven't worked it out, but due to non-evos, they were forced to actually admit what the data itself shows; stasis and sudden appearance. Evos proposed the reason we don't actually see the transitions in the fossil record (sudden appearance) is because they happened so fast no fossils were left. They do not show, as you suggest, that the fossils show rapid transitions. They assume rapid transitions but admit the fossils themselves do not document that.

Take some time to learn wowbagger.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

There are clear restraints on observed microevolutionary processes that make it wholly unsuitable as a mechanism for macroevolution.

Then why do genetic distance measurements confirm the family tree?

And worse than that for ID, why are the differences so low across the board? The number of genes that can build all the proteins in humans and chimps (and any other pair of creatures you care to name) is so vast that there doesn't need to be any such relationship between species.

 

[randman]

Then why do genetic distance measurements confirm the family tree?

And worse than that for ID, why are the differences so low across the board? The number of genes that can build all the proteins in humans and chimps (and any other pair of creatures you care to name) is so vast that there doesn't need to be any such relationship between species.

You think genetic distance measurements still "confirm the family tree"? You ought to get up to speed a little more on that, at least if you are talking about things such as the proposed molecular clock, and even if you are talking relational distances, there are discrepancies which shouldn't be there.

As far as your 2nd question, please consider evos first proposed the Universal Genome and said that showed evolution and then have had a couple revisions from there.

Why is it totally contradictory views on data always nonetheless, according to evos, confirm evo theory? Shouldn't something that is used as strong evidence for evolution at least mean the exact opposite is not strong evidence for it, if not evidence against it?

 

[Wowbagger]

I suggest you reread his work. It's no use discussing it with you if you won't take the time to understand it.

I read much of his stuff. He is suggesting that Darwinism cannot account for folding sequences in certain enzymes. But, as I stated before, this is a micro-evolutionary-scale issue. This is not even an inter-species issue.

We know such folding has a significant genetic component, that varies within a population; because there are degenerative diseases that are inherited, that cause it to go wrong.

Perhaps you are refering to the origin of life, in some manner? Well, we know natural selection can not account for everything, by itself, but other things can, and they are studied in the field of abiogenesis.
You are not refuting macro-evolution, when you are citing origin-of-life concepts.

Perhaps you are thinking that different species use fundamentally different foldings in themselves? If so, I'd like to see evidence of that.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

You think genetic distance measurements still "confirm the family tree"? You ought to get up to speed a little more on that, at least if you are talking about things such as the proposed molecular clock, and even if you are talking relational distances, there are discrepancies which shouldn't be there.

Got anything besides all this blather?