Bram Kaandorp
Master Poster
I think you nailed it on the head there.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
I think you nailed it on the head there.
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
We don't care that much about credentials, here. We argue the argument, not the person.
Okay then. Assuming you speak for everyone of course.
Last edited:
Wowbagger, consider the following on sticklebacks:
You and others have at times chided me as ignorant for focussing on the necessity of mechanisms explaining the addition of features and information for macroevolution, but please note who else raised this same issue along with IDers of course:
Hoekstra and Coyne are prominent evolutionists. I will concede that doesn't mean that much in my worldview. But it does show that raising the issue of information is something even evos use to challenge some mechanism, in this case evo/devo, as the means for macroevolution.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/01/loss_of_function_in_sticklebac015521.html
You and others have at times chided me as ignorant for focussing on the necessity of mechanisms explaining the addition of features and information for macroevolution, but please note who else raised this same issue along with IDers of course:
Hoekstra and Coyne are prominent evolutionists. I will concede that doesn't mean that much in my worldview. But it does show that raising the issue of information is something even evos use to challenge some mechanism, in this case evo/devo, as the means for macroevolution.
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
Evidence?
He is asserting an intelligent agent without a means by which we can test for one. He is, in effect, claiming the "nebulae to be an angel", according to my analogy from the previous post.
How is that an argument against macro-evolution?
Wouldn't we expect there to be some big differences in which genes control what, in such long time spans?
I gave you an example of macro-evolution, and now you complain that they're not similar enough to each other?!
We do have some possible explanations. They are being worked out experimentally, which is not something your theory is capable of doing.
Various aspects of evo/devo can account for it. A few simple ones might be transposition, or maybe the switching of regulatory genes "on" in one spot and "off" in another. The real answer might be more complicated. But, it is not impossible for this to be accounted for. At least we can test each of these ideas.
In other words: Empirical speculation trumps ontological denial of knowledge.
The paper is exaggerating, here. What we discover about this might not be anomalous, at all. (If we discover a Designer at the end of it, it would be
)Evolution can rise above confirmation bias, by conducting experiments to test various theories.
All Creationism has is confirmation bias. They have no means to conduct experiments.
Last edited:
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
I did NOT say "change in information". I said "change in the AMOUNT of information".
If I upgrade my operating system, it could be the exact same size as the last version, but it might contain a different set of features.
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
That quote has nothing to do with the amount of information in the genome.
A genenome can, theoretically, remain the same size, but contain the loss of some traits and the gaining of others.
As I said before: If I upgrade my operating system, it could be the exact same size as the last version, but it might contain a different set of features.
Chances are, it won't: It could be a little larger, or a little smaller.
But, the size is irrelevant to the fact that the process happens.
Understand?!
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
Since this thread is about evolution being a "hoax", I might as well ask:
Randman: Do you believe that evolution is a hoax of some sort? If so, to what extent? What evidence do you have to support his hoax? Demonstrate that the findings of that aspect of evolution are all fraudulent.
If not, then perhaps we should consider taking this debate to another thread.
Randman: Do you believe that evolution is a hoax of some sort? If so, to what extent? What evidence do you have to support his hoax? Demonstrate that the findings of that aspect of evolution are all fraudulent.
If not, then perhaps we should consider taking this debate to another thread.
No, at least depending on how you define amount but it does involve questioning how a mechanism for losing information is a means for adding new features and relevant information for them to produce macroevolution.
I would submit the authors should apply the same logic to NeoDarwinian mechanisms as well.
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
One easy way this happens is by gene duplication and subsequent differentiation.
There is also, in some species (mostly bacteria), horizontal transfer, where genetic information can be inserted directly.
There are several other ways this can happen.
But, it's not a question we tend to worry about.
Yes, though I would describe it as a case of modern myth-making rather than "hoax" which implies those perpetuating it are not true believers.
There are numerous examples to show this such as the historic and continual reliance on overstatements, false data, illogical fallacies, etc,.....Even the most basic terms evos use demonstrate this. Take the word "evolution." Evolution is defined as heritable change or a change in allelic frequency, etc,.....and then evos point out this is demonstable. They then say evolution is thus a fact, but they do a bait and switch there because "evolution" is defined also as the theory of common descent via NeoDarwinian means.
That's just one technique of self-delusion characterizing evolutionist thought.
Take the example of the biogenetic law and Haeckel's illustrations. For well over 100 years, creationists, IDers and others showed they were frauds but evos would not admit the illustrations were, at least widely, until the late 1990s. Sure, some did but they kept using the illustrations. Not too long after Richardson called them one of the biggest fakes in all biology, he wrote or lent his name to a paper that said they were actually "evidence for evolution"!
Why the change? Could it be the uproar when the scandal was exposed?
Look at how evos kept either the term "biogenetic law" or "recapitulation". Despite the theory being exposed and watered down continually, evos kept revising things and keeping the same terms as if nothing had changed.
Look a the gross overselling of Pakicetus. Look at how evos would not accept the basic facts of stasis and sudden appearance in the fossil record until an evo came up with a way to try to explain it. This is a hallmark of evo thought. Never admit a fact or data until it can somehow be possibly explained within the theory and then use the bogus charge of quote-mining when critics show, hey, see we were right. You guys finally are admitting this is what the data showed.
The quote-mining charge is particularly telling. It's like catching someone in a lie on the stand and then the defense says, hey, that's quote mining because he says he is innocent, but you say, sure, but look at this fact he admitted to.
Evos just won't look at and admit what data says unless and until they think they can use it for their own theory.
I could go on and on.....
Why is the question. I think man was created with a need for faith. I don't mean that there isn't something real to have faith in, but what happens is men substitute myths of their creation as a substitute, in this case evo theory.
Real science welcomes criticism. Evos do not. Real science says science is not there to prove anything, but to asses what data does and does not say and use that to explore. Real science says this is what we think based on what we know today but we could be wrong as far as the science goes. Evos adopt a dogmatism inappropriate for true science.
bikerdruid
Philosopher
irony.....
creationists are dogmatic by definition.
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
I do not think this is a complete answer. Some people have a need for faith that is stronger than others. Some do not have such a need, at all.
The history of evolution, as you point out, is frought with bumbling delusions and scandals and what-not.
HOWEVER, the ultimate success of evolutionary theory is indicitive of it being more than a product of mere faith. Technologies and strategies based on macro-evolutionary theories tend to work within expected levels of reliability.
Creationism can not produce anything that works, indicating that it is more subject to faith. BUT, I think there is really a stronger factor going on here...
... more about that factor that in my next post.
Evos accept criticism based on evidence. Also, that evidence has to contradict actual evolutionary theory, not a distorted version of it.
Last edited:
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
A hypothesis I like, is that the need to promote creationist ideas arises from an innate sense of essentialism: the thinking that every specific kind of entity needs to have their own set of characteristics or properties, that they each must possess.
Every human feels this way, to a certain degree, but some have it more than others. The theory of evolution contradicts this notion, because it implies that all living entities share a common ancestor, therefore no specific set of characteristics can describe all examples of any specific kind of entity.
We can test this idea, by asking people questions to measure their sense of essentialism, then asking them if they accept evolution or not. (The details of this experiment can be described later.)
If this hypothesis is true, there should be a very strong correlation: Those who accept evolution should generally have a weak sense of essentialism. Those who tend to deny significant aspects of it will have a strong sense of essentialism.
This should be a better predictor of evolution denial than asking what religion they belong to, or how much faith in they have in God, or any God-like entity.
There are millions of people who both have faith in God AND accept the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, at the same time. Those folks probably have a weak sense of essentialism, but a strong sense of agenticity and other faith-inducing traits.
There is also, believe it or not, a small population of atheists who do not accept evolution! They might have other ideas: Aliens seeding the planet, or some nebulous idea about living energies or something. Those alternatives, and their flaws, are not the point. The point is that these folks probably have a strong sense of essentialism, in spite of their denial of God.
I do not think the drive for Creationism is fundamentally evidence-based. Instead, there is the need to verify that one's sense of essentialism must remain true, to some degree. The suggestion otherwise might lead to a form of deep anxiety.
This also explains why most Creationists take issue with "macroevolution" and not "microevolution". "Macroevolution" upsets their essentialist mentality much more than the "micro" kind.
On the other hand, those who are evolutionists are generally more interested in following the evidence. Most of them are not "married" to the need to justify essentialist attitudes. Almost all of them would not rule-out a Designer as a possibility. But, until there is a line of investigation in that direction, it would remain superfluous as a concept.
If you look carefully at the output from both the Creationist and Evolutionist camps, you will find that the evolutionists have had the most success in generating knowledge and developing technologies, by far. Creationists are usually content with merely trying to debunk evolution.
If this hypothesis is true, it teaches us a valuable lesson: If one wants to succeed in science, they have to rise above innate tendencies of the human mind. There is an empirically objective reality out there, but it takes a strong discipline of mind to find it!
(Though, to be honest, a touch of madness probably doesn't hurt, either.)
Every human feels this way, to a certain degree, but some have it more than others. The theory of evolution contradicts this notion, because it implies that all living entities share a common ancestor, therefore no specific set of characteristics can describe all examples of any specific kind of entity.
We can test this idea, by asking people questions to measure their sense of essentialism, then asking them if they accept evolution or not. (The details of this experiment can be described later.)
If this hypothesis is true, there should be a very strong correlation: Those who accept evolution should generally have a weak sense of essentialism. Those who tend to deny significant aspects of it will have a strong sense of essentialism.
This should be a better predictor of evolution denial than asking what religion they belong to, or how much faith in they have in God, or any God-like entity.
There are millions of people who both have faith in God AND accept the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, at the same time. Those folks probably have a weak sense of essentialism, but a strong sense of agenticity and other faith-inducing traits.
There is also, believe it or not, a small population of atheists who do not accept evolution! They might have other ideas: Aliens seeding the planet, or some nebulous idea about living energies or something. Those alternatives, and their flaws, are not the point. The point is that these folks probably have a strong sense of essentialism, in spite of their denial of God.
I do not think the drive for Creationism is fundamentally evidence-based. Instead, there is the need to verify that one's sense of essentialism must remain true, to some degree. The suggestion otherwise might lead to a form of deep anxiety.
This also explains why most Creationists take issue with "macroevolution" and not "microevolution". "Macroevolution" upsets their essentialist mentality much more than the "micro" kind.
On the other hand, those who are evolutionists are generally more interested in following the evidence. Most of them are not "married" to the need to justify essentialist attitudes. Almost all of them would not rule-out a Designer as a possibility. But, until there is a line of investigation in that direction, it would remain superfluous as a concept.
If you look carefully at the output from both the Creationist and Evolutionist camps, you will find that the evolutionists have had the most success in generating knowledge and developing technologies, by far. Creationists are usually content with merely trying to debunk evolution.
If this hypothesis is true, it teaches us a valuable lesson: If one wants to succeed in science, they have to rise above innate tendencies of the human mind. There is an empirically objective reality out there, but it takes a strong discipline of mind to find it!
(Though, to be honest, a touch of madness probably doesn't hurt, either.)
Last edited:
Wowbagger:
I don't see it. Certainly advances in microevolutionary research or variation as some creationists put it has been useful and if you think of macro-evolutionary theories as applying to the ecology in a macro-sense, that's useful but doesn't really need ToE. It's just useful to study the interdependence of various biota and the environment.
But NeoDarwinism has been a hindrance to science, frankly.
I don't see it. Certainly advances in microevolutionary research or variation as some creationists put it has been useful and if you think of macro-evolutionary theories as applying to the ecology in a macro-sense, that's useful but doesn't really need ToE. It's just useful to study the interdependence of various biota and the environment.
But NeoDarwinism has been a hindrance to science, frankly.
JudeBrando
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,692
No one can prove God.
No one can prove no-God.
No one knows.
Everyone believes, unless they don't.
No one can prove no-God.
No one knows.
Everyone believes, unless they don't.
Wowbagger, you are going to need to breakdown what you mean by essentialism a little more for me. Not seeing the point. We all are the same in one sense, all human beings, and yet we are all distinct in another which enables one individual to be distinguished from another.
I don't think you are correct on evo theory. Entities, in this case species, are described by specific sets of characteristics. The idea all of life is the same is more of a metaphysical claim. Certainly, some evos apply their theory to such metaphysical oneness of all life but so do some religions in varying degrees. As a science, it's incorrect to suggest specific characteristics are not how entities are described.
I don't think you are correct on evo theory. Entities, in this case species, are described by specific sets of characteristics. The idea all of life is the same is more of a metaphysical claim. Certainly, some evos apply their theory to such metaphysical oneness of all life but so do some religions in varying degrees. As a science, it's incorrect to suggest specific characteristics are not how entities are described.