February 12, 2009

Lying for Science?

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." (2 Peter 2:1)


Speaking of Ray, I guess I should add this link also.

I was going to write an article/theory explaining about Darwin losing his Mom very early in life and then losing his three children (two as infants and one at age 10), thus possibly grudging against God, yada yada yada. But I have changed my mind. I am so fed up with the lying for science that is going on these days, I though I would just let things implode within itself. Instead, with minimal effort on my part, I will post a previous article about this day and hope that people will come to their senses. Since evilution has been exposed for what it is...a lie.


The Gospel According to Darwin

"There is scant reporting on the anti-religious zeal with which many atheists promote Darwinism.

February 12 used to be known in classrooms across the nation as Abraham Lincoln’s birthday. But over the last decade, an increasing number of schools and community groups have decided to celebrate the birthday of the father of evolution instead.

The movement to establish February 12 as “Darwin Day” seems to be spreading, promoted by a evangelistic non-profit group with its own website (www.darwinday.org) and an ambitious agenda to create a “global celebration in 2009, the bicentennial of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origins of Species.”

Darwin Day celebrations provide an eye-opening glimpse into the world of grassroots Darwinian fundamentalism, an alternate reality where atheism is the conventional wisdom and where traditional religious believers are viewed with suspicion if not paranoia.

Promoters of Darwin Day deny that their activities are anti-religious, but their denial is hard to square with reality.

According to the Darwin Day website, the movement’s inspiration was an event sponsored by the Stanford Humanists and the Humanist Community in 1995. Since then the honor roll of groups sponsoring Darwin Day events has been top-heavy with organizations bearing such names as the “Long Island Secular Humanists,” the “Atheists and Agnostics of Wisconsin,” the “Gay and Lesbian Atheists and Humanists,” the “Humanists of Idaho,” the “Southeast Michigan Chapter of Freedom from Religion Foundation,” and the “San Francisco Atheists.” The last group puts on an annual festival called “Evolutionpalooza” featuring a Darwin impersonator and an evolution game show (“Evolutionary!”).

Given such sponsors, it should be no surprise that Darwin Day events often explicitly attack religion. At a high school in New York a few years ago, students wore shirts emblazoned with messages proclaiming that “no religious dogmas [were] keeping them from believing what they want to believe,” while in California a group named “Students for Science and Skepticism” hosted a lecture at the University of California, Irvine, on the topic “Darwin’s Greatest Discovery: Design without a Designer.” This year in Boston there is an event on “Biological Arguments Against the Existence of God.”

A musical group calling itself “Scientific Gospel Productions,” meanwhile, mocks gospel music by holding annual Darwin Day concerts featuring such songs as “Ain’t Gonna Be No Judgment Day,” the “Virgin of Spumoni” (satirizing the Virgin Mary), and my favorite, “Randomness Is Good Enough for Me,” the lyrics of which proclaim: “Randomness is good enough for me./ If there’s no design it means I’m free./ You can pray to go to heaven./ I’m gonna try to roll a seven./ Randomness is good enough for me.” The same group’s website offers for sale a CD titled “Hallelujah! Evolution!”

The original “honorary president” of Darwin Day was biologist Richard Dawkins, author most recently of The God Delusion. Dawkins is best known for such pearls of wisdom as “faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate,” and “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

The Darwin Day group’s current advisory board includes not only Dawkins but Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (an original signer of the “Humanist Manifesto III”), philosopher Daniel Dennett (who praises Darwinism as the “universal acid” that eats away traditional religion and morality), and Scientific American columnist Michael Shermer (an atheist who writes that “Science Is My Savior” because it helped free him from “the stultifying dogma of a 2,000-year-old religion”).

Perhaps in an effort to revise the image of Darwin Day as merely a holiday for atheists, last year a professor from Wisconsin urged churches to celebrate “Evolution Sunday” on or near Darwin Day. But the fact that some liberal churches have now been enlisted to spread the Darwinist gospel cannot cover up the anti-religious fervor that pervades the Darwinist subculture.

Darwin Day celebrations are fascinating because they expose a side of the controversy over evolution in America that is rarely covered by the mainstream media. Although journalists routinely write about the presumed religious motives of anyone critical of unguided evolution, they almost never discuss the anti-religious mindset that motivates many of evolution’s staunchest defenders.

On the few occasions when the anti-religious agenda of someone like Dawkins is even raised, it is usually downplayed as unrepresentative of most Darwinists.

What Darwin Day shows, however, is just how ordinary the anti-religious views expressed by Dawkins are among grassroots Darwinists. Far from being on the fringe, Dawkins’ views form the ideological core of mainstream Darwinism.

Not that this should come as a shock. According to a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95 percent of NAS biologists are atheists or agnostics. A look at the major critics of the theory of intelligent design reveals similar views. Barbara Forrest, co-author of the anti-intelligent design harangue Creationism’s Trojan Horse, is a long-time activist and board member with a group calling itself the “New Orleans Secular Humanist Association,” although she fails to disclose that fact in her book, and reporters studiously avoid asking her about her own religious beliefs.

The anti-religious outlook of many of Darwin’s chief boosters exposes the hypocrisy in current discussions over Darwin’s theory. The usual complaint raised against scientists who are skeptical of Darwin’s theory is that many of them (like the vast majority of Americans) happen to believe in God. It is insinuated that this fact somehow undermines the validity of their scientific views. Yet, at the same time, defenders of Darwinism insist that their own rejection of religion is irrelevant to the validity of their scientific views—and most reporters seem to agree.

Of course, in an important sense these defenders of Darwinism are right. Just because leading Darwinists are avowed atheists or agnostics does not mean that their scientific beliefs about evolution are wrong. Scientific propositions should be debated based on their evidence, not on the metaphysical beliefs of those who espouse them.

But if Darwinists have the right to be debated based on evidence, not motives, then scientists who are supportive of alternatives to Darwin’s theory such as intelligent design should have the right to expect the same treatment.

If Darwin Day helps expose the blatant double standard about religious motives operating in the current evolution debate, then its evangelistic boosters will have performed an invaluable public service—however unintentionally."

—John G. West author of Darwin’s Conservatives: The Misguided Quest.

107 comments:

  1. You are right, Dan. http://www.darwinday.org is run by the institute for humanist studies: http://humaniststudies.org/

    The humanist studies website does have some anti-religious rhetoric.

    However, I don't see anything wrong with secular holidays celebrating some of history's greatest thinkers and scientists like Darwin, Newton, Einstein, the Greek Philosophers, Martin Luther King, and Gregory Mendell.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan,
    Please don't take this wrong, but somehow I get a kick out of watching you rail against evolution.
    You come off to me as cross between Ray Comfort and Ken Ham sans their level of sophistication.

    Next thing we know you'll be building a mini Fred and Wilma museum in your back yard!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dan,
    "I am so fed up with the lying for science that is going on these days, ........ Since evilution has been exposed for what it is...a lie."

    OK! Settle down!
    Two questions I have never seen you answer (you may have but I haven't seen it)and that is:
    1- Who is doing this lying, examples please.
    2- Who has exposed evolution as a lie; you?

    Evolution is a fact, by the way. We are still learning the biological processes that drive it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The simple man has faith in every word, but the man of good sense gives thought to his footsteps." Proverbs 14:15

    ---

    Calling evolution "evilution" is like me saying Crufiction. It's childish. Sorry, that always bugs me when I read your posts.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And by "Crufiction" I mean "Crucifiction," of course.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mike Z,

    Calling evolution "evilution" is like me saying Crufiction. It's childish. Sorry, that always bugs me when I read your posts.

    Yea, like someone saying "sure thang" instead of sure thing. I guess that bugs you also?

    Is calling it evilution absolutely wrong?

    What can I say, I call it like I see it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Froggie,

    1- Who is doing this lying, examples please.

    too numerous to list, how about the entire public school system to start. Pick a discipline in science and the ones claiming evolution as truth will be the ones lying for science. Anyone claiming that we all evolved from a single celled organism is lying for science.

    2- Who has exposed evolution as a lie; you?

    God for starters. Do we really need more then that?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dan, I believe that someone asked you for examples and evidence of your charges please. If anyone has been caught bullshitting in this idiotic manufactured "debate", it's been the people on your side, again and again.

    Check out the Dover Trial manuscripts, the Index to Creationist Claims, and how many times Ray's been caught quote mining and lying about evolution on his own blog.

    Good grief.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, Dan. You do need more than that. "God" is nothing but an unproven assertion by you people at this point, and besides, the bible was written well before science proved that evolution happened.

    As for an example of one of Ray's lies about evolution and athiest in general, just go to where he posts (and you proudly quoted) that an atheist is a person who believes that nothing made everything.

    I'm starting to get sick of this bullshit.

    No matter how many times you characters get corrected, you keep saying the same disproven bs over and over again.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dan the Denilist,

    For your edification:

    The difference between a skeptic and a denialist, on any subject, is that a real skeptic knows in advance what evidence would convince him that
    something is real or that action of a certain kind is justified.

    A denialist has no such standards. His commitment to an ideology trumps any scientific standard. Gaps in scientific knowledge, which would motivate most scientists to look for more data, are wrongly used by denialists to reject completely a concept they do not like because of prejudice. This is dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Do you all really need a list of the frauds committed for the sake of evilution?

    Here is a very short list off the top of my head: Haeckel drawings, Lucy, Nebraska man, Piltdown man, Neanderthal man, or even the image of ape to man drawing so iconic with evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nebraska Man was an example of the mistakes in science get weeded out with peer review.

    The identity of H. haroldcookii (Nebraska Man) did not achieve general acceptance in the scientific community.

    A contemporary, Osborn, was not impressed with the illustration, "no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate".

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dan,
    Check this out and tell me if you think it is a lie.

    Posted by Bath Tub:

    People should read Richard Dawkins review entitled Heat the Hornet of Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True, it covers so many points relevant to this discussion.

    Just a couple of snippets.

    "Science gets you to the moon and back. Even if we bend over backwards to concede that scientific truth is no more than that which enables you to pilot your way reliably, safely and predictably around the real universe, it is in exactly this sense that – at the very least – evolution is true. Evolutionary theory pilots us around biology reliably and predictively, with a detailed and unblemished success that rivals anything in science. The least you can say about evolutionary theory is that it works. All but pedants would go further and assert that it is true."

    "Whence, then, comes the oft-parroted canard, “Evolution is only a theory”? Perhaps from a misunderstanding of philosophers who assert that science can never demonstrate truth. All it can do is fail to disprove a hypothesis. Evolution is an unfalsified hypothesis – one that was vulnerable to falsification but has so far survived."

    And

    Jerry Coyne is probably today’s leading authority on speciation, and it is not surprising that his chapter called “The Origin of Species” is so good. So also is “The Geography of Life”. Possibly the most immediately convincing evidence against creationism is to be found in the geographical distribution of animals and plants, on continents and islands (in the broad sense, “islands” include lakes, mountain tops, oases – from an animal’s point of view any small area where it can live, surrounded by a larger area where it can’t). After setting out the voluminous evidence on the subject, Coyne concludes:

    “Now try to think of a theory that explains the patterns we’ve discussed by invoking the special creation of species on oceanic islands and continents . . . . There are no good answers – unless, of course, you presume that the goal of a creator was to make species look as though they evolved on islands. Nobody is keen to embrace that answer, which explains why creationists simply shy away from island biogeography.”

    That is the same as you denying the earth is very old when Geology wells shows you to be wrong.

    Evolution can easily be falsified.
    That's what you need to work on rather than blathering your vague circumlocutions about evolution being a lie.

    Or, if you don't want to do the science to try to falsify evolution, or sponser someone to do it, it might be better to just preach the bible.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dan
    "Do you all really need a list of the frauds committed for the sake of evilution?"

    No, but i do want emoirical evidence for the cruci-FICTION.

    Tip of the hat to Mike Z. :>

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dan,

    Has it ever occurred to you that non-religious people, particularly biologists who are non-religious are frankly sick of you nitwits always attacking our profession??? Yeah, maybe some of us do an in-your-face display on Darwin's birthday because we know the religious will be going bananas today anyways. As a biologist, I am sick and tired of listening to people that know absolutely nothing about Darwinian evolution telling me it is wrong. I just start asking them questions about codons, sympatric vs allopatric speciation, gene duplication and they generally back off. You talk about "truth" here. Well, Darwin's theory is truth, it is correct. Prediction after prediction has been confirmed. It is interesting to note that the Bible gets the "creation" wrong. Darwin apparently knows more about nature than your god. How embarrassing!

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Here is a very short list off the top of my head: Haeckel drawings, Lucy, Nebraska man, Piltdown man, Neanderthal man, or even the image of ape to man drawing so iconic with evolution."

    Lucy is no fraud. Not to mention we have tons of Australeopithicenes in museums now. Homo neanderthalensis is no fraud you twit, we have most of the genome sequenced now. The other examples were exposed by SCIENTISTS!!! Science is a self correcting method. That is how we discovered that South Korean scientists falsified their data regarding human cloning. You generate fraud, and eventually if the discovery is important enough, it will be uncovered. This is how Haeckel was found to be dishonest...some embryologists checked. The iconic Ape to Man drawing is not accurate, Stephen Jay Gould, among others, has pointed this out in various writings. Biologists recognize this as inaccurate...however, it is difficult to represent the tree nature of homonid evolution. The cartoon presented simply shows that hominids started out very ape-like and have changed through time, some becoming more human-like until homo sapien sapien. You trot out a few silly creationist old standbyes and neglect to mention the literally tens of thousands of fossils representing a dozen hominid intermediates. Each intermediate is found in the geological strata predicted by evolutionary theory. You neglect to mention all the other transitional forms found...just in the past few years that were predicted using Darwin's theory, which were subsequently found by paleontologists. Although, why would you be honest, clearly you think Jesus likes liars.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Froggie:

         I must disagree. A person can be open to evidence and yet not know what would convince him that an idea he holds is false. Conversely, a person can be certain of what would persuade him while being truly closed to evidence. As an example of the latter point, a fundamentalist christian might say that the sun rising in the west would convince him that christianity was false. I am not convinced that evolution is falsifiable in principle. I am not convinced that it makes any meaningful predictions. Small-scale evolution (over the course of years) seems more an empirical observation than a theory. Large-scale evolution (millions of years) seems to be molded to fit observations.

    Dan:

         The charge of a lie is unfounded. For evolution to be a lie, its proponents would have to believe it untrue. I am fully convinced that the supporters of evolution firmly believe it. I think that they hold it as a sacred belief, so that any evidence must be made to fit the idea. But I do think that they believe what they say.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @pvblivs

    " The charge of a lie is unfounded. For evolution to be a lie, its proponents would have to believe it untrue. I am fully convinced that the supporters of evolution firmly believe it. I think that they hold it as a sacred belief, so that any evidence must be made to fit the idea. But I do think that they believe what they say."

    I think you hold your belief that we hold evolution as a sacred belief as a sacred belief. No matter how we explain to you the nature of science, no matter how many times we demonstrate that evolution is both testable, and falsifiable its as if you plug your ears and say 'nananananana'.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hey, have a little fun. Check thisout.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Froggie,

    That was pretty cool. We owe alot to Darwin and Wallace for their insights into nature.

    ReplyDelete
  21.      "[N]o matter how many times we demonstrate that evolution is both testable, and falsifiable its as if you plug your ears and say 'nananananana'."
         Except that you haven't. (You may well believe that my belief is a sacred belief.) Every "potential falsifier" shown to me has been identified as such after it was safe. I have asked for an experiment in which a potential falsifier was identified in advance of the experiment. (After all, the documentation leading up to the experiment should include such.) You have not been able to do that. Instead you explain how it would be plausible to identify such-and-such a falsifier in advance. All you have to do is show me the documentation that they really did identify that falsifier in advance. Don't tell me that they had the information that you now use as the reasoning.
         Show me the documentation that any falsifier was identified prior to its relevant experiment (no coulda woulda shoulda's) and I will admit that I was wrong. I don't think there is any such documentation. I have not been sticking my fingers in my ears. But you have not given what I asked for. I asked for documentation that they really did identify a falsifier prior to its relevant experiment. You keep giving me assertions of how they could have identified the falsifier because they had the information that we now use to justify the falsifier (identified after it was safe.)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dan said:

    "Is calling it evilution absolutely wrong?"

    Erm, well seeing as a process that is attributed to "things" that non-sentient things do too (as well as humans) it seems a little odd to apply any sort of moral judgement to it - whether or not you believe it happens.

    If trees evolved (as these wicked liars are proposing) would they be evil? Nope, just trees. You couldn't call their practice evil, because they won't be held to account for it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dan,
    Wowee!
    You must have got pretty riled up to revise the entire Post.

    But you have stepped in some deep doo-doo.
    Your revised Post is made up entirely from an operative of the Discovery Institute, G. West, the "spinner." He has no degree in science.

    Anyhoo, in the interest of boiling this down a bit, we can cancel out your West for my Dawkins and proceed from there. K?

    ReplyDelete
  24. CWC,
    "If trees evolved (as these wicked liars are proposing) would they be evil?"

    No more than dynamite is evil.
    No more than evolution is evil.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Pvblivs,

    The charge of a lie is unfounded.

    Thanks for commenting on this subject again but we disagree. I was a jury member in a case that the police detective had her mind made up from the beginning and gathered evidence according to that presupposition. Like a detective, Scientists examine evidence and sometimes gross miscarriages of justice can occur when the investigator looks only for evidence to fit what she believes to be the truth. Sometimes people deliberately falsify evidence in order to get the required result. Disastrous consequences ensue.

    I totally get what you are saying but after finding out the truth like a negative result for a test to prove an hypothesis and still goes on believing that said hypothesis were still true, or a positive result, then at that very moment they go from a belief to a lie. Keep in mind also that I am addressing a crowd that believes that we lie for Jesus. Stinks of hypocrisy, agree?

    I wonder how many atheists believe in Creationism. Without Darwin these people would be without a home and without a god and that would be a great thing. This is a very sad day for humanity that is for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly huge.

    Without Darwin these people would be without a home and without a god and that would be a great thing.

    Many people thought that species change over time - like the ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese and Arabs.
    In the Western world people were finding out the same thing. There were people like Jean-Baptiste Lamarck who had different ideas about evolution, but it was Darwin's idea that actually had the evidence behind it. The point is, even without Darwin, the Western world would have cottoned on to the idea of evolution eventually.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dan, the theory of evolution makes an untold number of predictions that are all found to be true. My favorite example is human chromosome #2.

    A prediction made to all creatures is that they should all fall directly into a toxicological clade.

    Sure enough, no one has ever found a species that crosses one lineage into another.

    It's over Dan, evolution has to be true. If you took part in a court case, you should also know the meaning of "reasonable doubt." Given the success evolution has demonstrated, it's completely unreasonable to doubt its veracity.

    ReplyDelete
  28. But if Darwinists have the right to be debated based on evidence, not motives, then scientists who are supportive of alternatives to Darwin’s theory such as intelligent design should have the right to expect the same treatment.

    "Designists" never ever did present evidence for design. All they ever come up with is their argument from ignorance: "I don't see how evolution is statistically possible".

    2- Who has exposed evolution as a lie; you?

    God for starters. Do we really need more then that?


    Well, that would expose Him (or better: Her, I'm gonna use female from now) as a amateuristic dabbler who can not do anything right for the first time, but needs to extinct and recreate species to ultimately come to Her so-called "perfect" design.

    In other words, in Dan's position, God is unable to come up with a mechanism to create the universe leading to humanity from the first time. No, She needs to mess around in 'creation'.

    Again, religious people doing all they can to insult God while praising Her.

    No wonder the vatican, for instance, does support evolution theory.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dan,

    This, I believe, is a textbook example of dramatic irony:

    Like a detective, Scientists examine evidence and sometimes gross miscarriages of justice can occur when the investigator looks only for evidence to fit what she believes to be the truth. Sometimes people deliberately falsify evidence in order to get the required result. Disastrous consequences ensue.

    Could you take a minute to explain how the 'fit the evidence to the answer' school of thinking does not apply to your own MO? Remember the post in which you tried to explain to a thoroughly unconvinced audience that Adam's 'rib' actually referred to his DNA? I think I still hear the anguished squeals of your tortured logic.

    Attentively yours,

    FrodoSaves

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hey, Dan, can you answer these questions:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63LRfLyR-JU&NR=1

    If you cannot, could you please admit evolution is a good scientific theory?

    Thanks. :)

    ReplyDelete
  31. Haeckel drawings

    What exactly is your problem with Haeckel's drawings?

    I would be personally offended, but you'd probably not even understand why...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Science at it's core is dedicated to explaining nature through observation and empiracle evidence, it has nothing whatsoever to say on the supernatural.

    In this respect there is no place for god in science, nor should there be. Arguments for the inclusion of the supernatural in science can only be to promote bad science or a non-scientific thelogical view which, on this basis, should be ignored.

    Since science does not try to prove or disprove the supernatural, scientific theories (like evolution) cannot be used to promote any theistic or athiestic belief system.

    What one believes or does not believe in terms of the supernatural is therefore outside of science - in respect to it's falsifiability.

    It follows then that to attack or malign a scientific theory purely because of the implications one believes that theory may have for ones supernatural belief system cannot be justified; especially if that attack includes bad science dressed up and displayed as good - whether through ignorance or malice.

    Darwin's theory of evolution is beautiful in it's outward simplicity and inward complexity. It is both testible and falsifiable and as such has stood the test of time for over a hundred years, getting stronger with each new breakthrough across disparate scientific faculties.

    Whether one believes in a supernatural or naturalistic cause for the origin of life, one can not credibly argue against the evidence for evolution or common ascent through natural selection or. for that matter, with Darwin's great genius.

    Along with many other great men, his birth should be celebrated.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @pvblivs

    " Except that you haven't. (You may well believe that my belief is a sacred belief.) Every "potential falsifier" shown to me has been identified as such after it was safe. I have asked for an experiment in which a potential falsifier was identified in advance of the experiment. (After all, the documentation leading up to the experiment should include such.) You have not been able to do that. Instead you explain how it would be plausible to identify such-and-such a falsifier in advance."

    A single experiment is very unlikely to falsify an entire overarching theory. Darwin suggested that all of life was related through a universal common ancestor. Darwin knew that there must be a hereditary unit that has passed in an unbroken chain throughout geologic time, but he didn't know what this was. When we discovered DNA and worked out the genetic code, each organism we studied was a potential falsifier. We could have found that whole groups of organisms used a replicator other than DNA...this would mean that these organisms could not be related to other organisms. The genetic code is so close between all of life that it is clear that it must have evolved only once and then was slightly modified along the way. The fossil evidence was also relatively skant in Darwin's time, without intermediates predicted by Darwin's theory. Many people pointed this problem out. Today we have found positive data for Darwin's contention. Now, each fossil is a potential falsifier because if we find a human or rabbit in the precambrian....Darwin would be wrong. Instead, we find organisms exactly where they are predicted based on Darwin's theory...so much so that petroleum geologists use fossils to accurately date the rocks they are working with. I hope this clarifies because it is clear that you are stuck on a notion of how we test theories and determine the validity of a theory that is quite frankly not very reasonable.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dan,

    Does this mean that you've done your homework and you actually know what evolution is and what the Theory of Evolution describes?

    Because last time you were talking some rubbish about frogs and stuff and it kind of didn't help your credibility on the topic.

    For example, can you give us a specific claim that the Theory of Evolution makes that, you think, is demonstrably wrong?

    For a bonus point, can you give us any evidence, outside the Bible, that supports the idea of a young, created earth (inc. Flood and dinosaurs and all that jazz)?

    Thanks in advance.

    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  35. Clostridiophile:

         Proponents of ESP would quite agree with you that the testing standards are unreasonable. Nor would it be surprising to hear, "a single experiment is very unlikely to falsify an entire overarching theory" in reference to christianity.
         Statistical analysis of existing fossils tells us that we will not find rabbits in the pre-cambrian. This is similar to observations of apparent solar movement telling me the sun will not rise in the west. I am about as impressed with "every fossil dig is a test for evolution" as I am with "every morning is a test for christianity." But let's consider a hypothetical. What would have happened if, in the initial digs, rabbits had been found in the pre-cambrian. Not a whole lot. The evolutionary timeline would have been set to reflect this, just as it was set to reflect the absence of such fossils. Again, if you can show me that the timeline was set before the patterns emerged (e.g. because evolution predicts that reptile-like animals will necessarily precede rodent-like animals) that would show me wrong. For that matter, if you can show me where it predicts that something will happen (not "may," not "might," not "it would really confirm the theory but no big deal if it doesn't happen") that has not already happened (fossil digs not finding pre-cambrian rabbits are out) I will await the results of the relevant experiment. Understand, I would find chromosome 2 to be more compelling had they been more confident. I saw the history (in retrospect.) The were looking for the relevant tags as a potential confirmation. Evolution suggested they might be there. But evolution was quite safe even had they not been there. That is the pattern that I see. The conjecture is never (and has never been) put on the line. You find that standard correct for the "hard" sciences and for judging religions and recognized pseudo-sciences not to be scientific. Yet, somehow, you consider the very same standard unreasonable when I apply it to your idea.

    ReplyDelete
  36. pvblivs,

    "Proponents of ESP would quite agree with you that the testing standards are unreasonable. Nor would it be surprising to hear, "a single experiment is very unlikely to falsify an entire overarching theory" in reference to christianity."

    Testing ESP and reconstucting events that happened hundreds of millions of years in the past is not quite the same thing, my friend. For the theory to work, we don't have to come up with accurate hypothetical reconstructions of the phylogenetic tree of life before we get data. You seem to think that all of science necessitates us to come up with the correct answer before we do the experiments. ESP is bunk simply because we have no positive evidence. If people really did have ESP, this would be easily confirmed...but it hasn't. Natural selection, on the other hand has been tested ad nauseum and has passed all the tests.

    "Statistical analysis of existing fossils tells us that we will not find rabbits in the pre-cambrian."

    Although, we needed the data first before we could do the statistical analysis, so we did the work to determine whether the fossil evidence conforms to Darwin's view and this is what we find. We don't find all organisms coexisting since the beginning. That is the point.

    "This is similar to observations of apparent solar movement telling me the sun will not rise in the west. I am about as impressed with "every fossil dig is a test for evolution" as I am with "every morning is a test for christianity." But let's consider a hypothetical. What would have happened if, in the initial digs, rabbits had been found in the pre-cambrian. Not a whole lot. The evolutionary timeline would have been set to reflect this, just as it was set to reflect the absence of such fossils."

    No, here you are wrong. The earth cooled about 4 billion years ago, enough so that life could start to form. If rabbits appear right after the earth cooled...we would have a problem with Darwin's idea of slow, gradual change. The first two billion years of life's history was at the single celled stage. Next we have soft-bodied invertebrates, followed closely by hard bodied invertebrates, then the first simple vertebrates with a notochord....and so on until the major phyla become stable and begin to diversify, become extinct, and rediversify several times. We are reconstructing history here, not placing demands on nature as you seem to be asking. When we do so, our data either confirms gradual evolution, or it doesn't.

    "Again, if you can show me that the timeline was set before the patterns emerged (e.g. because evolution predicts that reptile-like animals will necessarily precede rodent-like animals) that would show me wrong."

    Well, again, this is a historical reconstruction. What we find in the rocks and in the genome is precisely that mammals evolved from a branch of reptiles. We have to calibrate our dates based on when reptiles are present and mammals absent, and then begin to form hypotheses about what structures we expect to find in intermediates, or study fossils after finding these intermediates and looking to see what morphological changes occur through time from the time when we find just reptiles, to intermediates between reptiles and modern mammals, to what we see now as more or less modern mammals. Each time we look for and find these intermediates, this is a test, because according to Darwinian theory, we should find them in a specific window in time. This has been confirmed over and over with reptiles, whales, crustaceans, etc.

    "For that matter, if you can show me where it predicts that something will happen (not "may," not "might," not "it would really confirm the theory but no big deal if it doesn't happen") that has not already happened (fossil digs not finding pre-cambrian rabbits are out) I will await the results of the relevant experiment."

    I'm not a paleontologist, so I don't know what intermediates are currently being searched for, but an example a few years back was Neil Shubin's search for an intermediate between fish and amphibs, he knew, based on previous data the exact time in the fossil record he should find this intermediate, he knew what morphological characters to look for, and then went about searching for places that had the right kind of rock at the right age, that was accessible. He found Tiktaalik. This was a prediction based on Darwinian theory that was not "known" until it was discovered...but it was predicted to be found. If it was not found, we would keep looking. If it was never found, we would chalk this up to the rarity of fossilization. However, if we never found any intermediates, then we would question the theory more....however, we have found numerous intermediates...which is what a strong theory requires, positive data.

    "Understand, I would find chromosome 2 to be more compelling had they been more confident. I saw the history (in retrospect.) The were looking for the relevant tags as a potential confirmation. Evolution suggested they might be there. But evolution was quite safe even had they not been there."

    Well, we would have had to explain the difference in karyotypes. Perhaps there was another explanation...but we don't just sweep it under the rug as you seem to imply.

    "That is the pattern that I see. The conjecture is never (and has never been) put on the line."

    We always "put it on the line". DO you know how hard it is to get funding? Scientists are constantly putting everything on the line when they decide to study something. The government doesn't just throw money at us. Evolutionary biologists work extremely hard to come up with the best hypotheses and then work to test them. Sometimes our best guesses as to how life evolved are wrong, but we let the data correct our failed hypotheses, and so we formulate new hypotheses based on our revised concept. You clearly are having a hard time grasping science. If things don't turn out the way we expected, we don't falsify the theory, we learn something new. If the new data contradicts or seems to contradict the theory, but so much more evidence confirms the theory, we seek to figure out if the discrepency is real, or if we are missing something in the interpretation. This is what research is about. We don't know all the answers before we do the work.

    "You find that standard correct for the "hard" sciences and for judging religions and recognized pseudo-sciences not to be scientific. Yet, somehow, you consider the very same standard unreasonable when I apply it to your idea."

    I consider your thoughts unreasonable because they grossly misunderstand how science is practiced. It is silly to demand that we have correct hypotheses regarding the history of life before we obtain the data. And if the history doesn't conform to our hypothesis, according to you, we need to reject the theory. No, it doesn't work that way. We reject individual hypotheses under the umbrella theory, and reformulate our hypotheses based on evidence. You are being unreasonable. Clearly the theory is falsifiable in the sense that however life has evolved, there are key indicators that would lead us at very least to conclude that all of life shares common ancestry. This is really all that is required for the theory as a whole. In this respect, you should be more than satisfied. BTW, biology is considered a "hard" science today.

    ReplyDelete
  37. pvblivs,

    I need to say that if you really consider evolutionary biology to be a pseudoscience, you are a first rate whackaloon. In fact, in this sentence you really reveal your level of nuttiness:

    "I am about as impressed with "every fossil dig is a test for evolution" as I am with "every morning is a test for christianity.""

    Fossils are tests for evolution. The age and morphology of a fossil, when placed in context of other fossils is really, really significant. A fossil is the remains of an organism that once existed, these remains tell us volumes about the particular era that the fossil lived in. It even tells us about the surface of the earth at that time. For instance, whales are found in what are now deserts...this shows that the surface of the earth has changed drastically over time. How can you blow this off?? Clearly, you haven't thought about it and frankly you display no ability to reason when you make statements like this. Comparing this to some stupid statement about the sun rising being a test for Christianity really shows the sophomoric understanding you have of elementary logic and scientific evidence. I don't see how anyone can take you seriously after these statements.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Clostridiophile:

         "Fossils are tests for evolution," followed later by "For instance, whales are found in what are now deserts...this shows that the surface of the earth has changed drastically over time. How can you blow this off??" The latter statement shows the the fossil is not being used as a test for evolution. Evolution is being assumed and any fossils that are found are interpreted on the basis of that assumption. Indeed, if whale fossils were never found in places that are now desert, you would likely cite that as a "prediction of evolution." (Had that been the pattern found, it would be plausible to think of that as such a prediction.)
         "Clearly, you haven't thought about it and frankly you display no ability to reason when you make statements like this. Comparing this to some stupid statement about the sun rising being a test for Christianity really shows the sophomoric understanding you have of elementary logic and scientific evidence."
         Quite the contrary. I have thought about it. My observations tell me that you have selected a pattern already found and then identified it as a "prediction" of evolution. Ordinarily, scientific evidence proceeds by determining a pattern predicted by a hypothesis and then collecting the data and seeing if the pattern holds. With evolution, the pattern is identified in the data first. (Feel free to show me any documentation where the pattern was predicted in advance.) Now, do you have a case? Or are you going to rely on ad hominems?
         "I don't see how anyone can take you seriously after these statements."
         That's what I thought. Well my "sophomoric understanding of logic" tells me that when you call me "nutty" for stating my position rather than give evidence against it, you probably don't have a case. I have stated that every "prediction" of evolution has either been identified after the event or been hedged with "may" or "might" or something similar so that evolution would not fail if the prediction failed. The comparison to the sun rising in the west is quite apt. They share an important property that I am attempting to convey. They are predictible not to happen even if you think that what they would "falsify" is false. I am decidedly not christian and I can confidently say that the sun will not rise in the west. I am uncommitted on (large-scale) evolution and can say, based entirely on existing fossils, that no pre-cambrian rabbit will be found. If you could show me that the prediction was made on the basis of evolution when it could not be made on the basis of pre-existing data, you would have done so.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Tangent:

    I remember hating "writing assignments" when I was in grade/high school. Write 10 pages on some topic or another, and have it due within a week or so.

    I see threads like this, and even look at my own opinions (as expressed here and elsewhere) and have to laugh.

    Who woulda guessed adults would treat writing assignments as entertainment?

    ReplyDelete
  40. ""Fossils are tests for evolution," followed later by "For instance, whales are found in what are now deserts...this shows that the surface of the earth has changed drastically over time. How can you blow this off??" The latter statement shows the the fossil is not being used as a test for evolution. Evolution is being assumed and any fossils that are found are interpreted on the basis of that assumption. Indeed, if whale fossils were never found in places that are now desert, you would likely cite that as a "prediction of evolution." (Had that been the pattern found, it would be plausible to think of that as such a prediction.)"

    You misunderstood what I was conveying. I never said that whales being found in deserts were tests of the theory. This simply illustrates that the earth has changed. Evolution is not simply assumed as you claim. The transitions that we find show a smooth transition in position of the blowhole, in loss of leg appendages, although, even whales today have a pelvis with vestiges of femurs. This clearly shows that whales were once tetropods. This is powerful evidence supporting Darwinian theory. I've already told you before that Darwin hypothesized, BEFORE the evidence was found that whales evolved from land dwelling tetrapods (although he thought from the bear lineage, and this turns out not to be the case). Let me ask you, if not for an evolutionary framework, how could we explain the pattern of fossils? You state that we simply assume an evolutionary framework....what is your alternative? You are such a skeptic, please provide your alternative. I am quite frankly tired of going over science 101 with you.

    "Quite the contrary. I have thought about it. My observations tell me that you have selected a pattern already found and then identified it as a "prediction" of evolution. Ordinarily, scientific evidence proceeds by determining a pattern predicted by a hypothesis and then collecting the data and seeing if the pattern holds. With evolution, the pattern is identified in the data first. (Feel free to show me any documentation where the pattern was predicted in advance.) Now, do you have a case?"

    We don't form hypotheses in a vacuum. Scientists use existing data to formulate hypotheses. For instance, we observe bird and dinosaur morphology, and it appears very similar, much more similar than other morphologies from other groups. If this is true, then we should find intermediaries. This pattern was predicted after we made the observations that dinosaurs and birds were similar morphologically. Evolutionary theory only predicts that novel forms will spawn off of preexisting branches. We have to let the data inform us as to how this has occurred. Once we have noticed a pattern, we can formulate more specific hypotheses and test these using either molecular evidence or paleontological evidence.

    "I have stated that every "prediction" of evolution has either been identified after the event or been hedged with "may" or "might" or something similar so that evolution would not fail if the prediction failed."

    Common ancestry requires common replicators. I've already said this. Finding fossils of extant organisms in the early strata would falsify the overarching theory. I don't give a shit if you don't accept this, as if it is like you feeling confident that the sun will not rise in the west, but this is precisely what the theory suggests. The pattern we see in the fossil record speaks of evolutionary change...particularly when we combine this with other data from other fields. You need to present an alternative to broad scale evolution if you reject this as pseudoscience, you have not done so.

    "The comparison to the sun rising in the west is quite apt. They share an important property that I am attempting to convey. They are predictible not to happen even if you think that what they would "falsify" is false. I am decidedly not christian and I can confidently say that the sun will not rise in the west. I am uncommitted on (large-scale) evolution and can say, based entirely on existing fossils, that no pre-cambrian rabbit will be found."

    Who cares if you are "uncommitted" to macroevolution, this is the only theory that explains the pattern we see, and as I said when we combine this with other data from other fields, macroevolution is a powerful explanation for why we see what we see. Who cares if the fossils are existing or yet to be found? Honestly, who cares? We still need to make sense of them. If somehow we could have ALL the fossils that have ever been preserved, and then asked to come up with a theory to explain the pattern, would it not be absurd for you to object to our explanation since our explanation relied on having all the data? This is essentially what you are saying.

    "If you could show me that the prediction was made on the basis of evolution when it could not be made on the basis of pre-existing data, you would have done so."

    Darwin predicted universal ancestry without knowing about the genetic mechanism. No preexisting data in genetic terms that would point to universal common ancestry. His prediction was universal common ancestry. We have shown that all of life shares the same genetic material, that genes in bacteria are shared with humans. If all of life is an endless chain of being as Darwin predicted, we must share a common replicator. Please acknowledge this. You seem to repeatedly fail to do so. Also, provide your alternative to Darwinian theory, since you claim to have "thought about it". Also, in defense of the ad homs, after awhile, ridicule is the only weapon we can use against nonsense. You still claim that fossil evidence doesn't sway you one way or another. This clearly shows that your reasoning ability is faulty given the pattern of these fossils and the consistency in the places and order we find them. My statements were not ad homs. Saying that you lack reasoning in this case is not an attack, it is merely pointing to the obvious. In any case, I've been through all of this with you before, and there is clearly no changing your mind since you seem to think you are smarter than the entire scientific establishment...that you are "on to something". I suggest you publish your ideas if they are so revolutionary. Bring the edifice crashing down. Or maybe you should think a little more about your position, maybe read some evolutionary biology. You have never really demonstrated that you understand much about it. You simply repeat the same line over and over and poo-poo any attempt we make using examples of how the theory is tested in practice. It's like talking to the Discovery Institute fellows who simply say, "its not good enough". In any case, I think it is time you present your alternative because the burden really doesn't rest on the evolutionary postion, which has more than adequately proven itself. Let's hear it. Put up or shut up.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Pvblivs Said, "Show me the documentation that any falsifier was identified prior to its relevant experiment (no coulda woulda shoulda's) and I will admit that I was wrong."

    Neanderthals, we can tell they walked upright by their pelvic girdle. They made tools, and art. They communicated in a musical linguistic sense. They buried their dead, lived in small communities and buried their dead.

    Creationist interpreted them as being a degenerate variety of humans due to frontier living. You might expect that the science community would conclude they are a direct ancestor of Homo sapiens, but you are incorrect. After closely examining the fossils and comparing to other homid fossil and modern man, they concluded that though it was a very intelligent and successful hominid, it was actually a variant, a cousin to our direct ancestors that went extinct.

    We eventually were able to map the mtDNA of a Neaderthal. It was done simultaneously by 3 independent labs and they all got the same results. Neanderthal was neither Human, nor Primate. The mtDNA put it in between a human and a Chimp, unique enough that it defiantly could not be either.

    Now fast forward to just recently, Though it was only announced to the press and the paper has not been published yet, they now say they have mapped 60% of a single neanderthals genome. It appears that in the coding part of the genome it has differences of about 1000-2000 amino acid. between Humans and Chimps the differences are 50,000 amino acids. Since this is not published yet, I advise to take this portion of my comment as a little more lightly.

    There you have it Pvblivs, a prediction made that could have been falsified. They were predicted to be a variant that were not a direct ancestor of ours. If the mtDNA were to be found to be the same as humans it would falsify the prediction and and confirmed the creationist prediction. The results not only confirmed that they were not human but also confirmed the exact prediction made by the scientists.

    Neanderthal was not human nor a direct ancestor of humans. It was instead a variant that though was very intelligent and successful eventually became extinct.

    There are papers concerning this in many respectable journals and available online.

    Pvblivs, please explain this with your biblical model. I would like to know where there is a prediction for neanderthals.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  42. Clostridiophile:

         I do not claim to have an account. I find your call not dissimilar to christians claiming that if I do not have answers to all philosophical question that it proves godidit. I do not need to have an alternative to evolution as I am not show that evolution didn't happen, but only that it is untested and apparently untestable.
         Your claims about what I think are simply untrue. I make no assertion that I am smarter than the scientific community. I don't need to be. Seeing a blind spot in someone's vision does not necessitate having better vision.
         Me: "For that matter, if you can show me where it predicts that something will happen (not 'may,' not 'might,' not 'it would really confirm the theory but no big deal if it doesn't happen') that has not already happened (fossil digs not finding pre-cambrian rabbits are out) I will await the results of the relevant experiment."
         You: "Darwin predicted universal ancestry without knowing about the genetic mechanism."
         Very well, you have a mechanism interpreted to be consistent with universal common ancestry. I do not see universal common ancestry as an experimental result. So, if there is a relevant experiment, I will await the results.
         "It's like talking to the Discovery Institute fellows who simply say, 'it's not good enough.'"
         Not quite. I have already given you my criteria. You can look at your examples yourself and see the predictions made after the data were collected, the "hedged bets" and (in the case of universal common descent) the result being an interpretation. That you overlook this suggests that you are too close to the subject.
         "In any case, I think it is time you present your alternative because the burden really doesn't rest on the evolutionary postion, which has more than adequately proven itself."
         This comes down to the point. You desire that I be claiming is false. I do not. I claim it is untestable. If I could actually disprove evolution, that would mean it was testable. As it is impossible to prove a universal negative, the burden lies on the person saying that it is testable and even that it has been tested. I need only show that each presented "test" fails at least one criterion. I have done that. I have shown that your proposals are predicting patterns after they have been observed, "possibility predictions" in which the prediction not happening is not a disconfirmation, and a prediction whose realization is an interpretation.
         "Also, in defense of the ad homs...."
         There is no defense for the ad homs. That the fossils exhibit certain patterns is not in dispute. They fail to constitute a test for evolution because the "pattern predictions" were made after the patterns were found. Again, if I am wrong, just point me to where the prediction was made before the pattern was found. If I am right and so ridicule is all you have, well, Ray is pretty good at using ridicule too. He also insists that it is because his detractors are spouting nonsense. It might be successful in getting me to "lose my cool" and so appear to be emotional rather that rational, leading people to ignore what I say. Perhaps that is its only purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Atomic Chimp:

         I do not use a biblical model. You should know this.
         Now, let's see if I understand your stated prediction right. Are you saying that if Neanderthals had turned out to be a direct ancestor of modern humans it would be a disconfirmer of evolution? If so, I only need to see the documentation of that. If not, then, while it is a testable prediction in its own right, it is not a test for evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "I do not need to have an alternative to evolution as I am not show that evolution didn't happen, but only that it is untested and apparently untestable."

    This is patently absurd. Untested? Untestable? This is why I say that you are a fundamentalist in your belief that you have one-upped us....I demonstrated months ago that each of Darwin's propositions are testable, and have been tested. You apparently have a poor memory, and beyond that, a complete lack of understanding of science. Your criteria is not relevant because you claim that we have to predict everything correctly before discovering the data. We are reconstructing history. There is little predictability of evolutionary pathways because this has to do with both historical contingency such as mass extinction, genetic pathways that are selected based on environment, and several other variables that we couldn't possibly predict. Oddly, you seem to think this is a weakness. Perhaps you think we are wizards of some kind. Interpreting facts after data is collected IS scientific.

    You claim that universal common ancestry is not the result of an experiment. Correct. It is the result of thousands of independent experiments. Each converge on evolution. You seem to not understand this. You wanted something that was predicted before it was discovered. This is fucking it!!! Go back and read what I wrote. Darwin predicted this and it was confirmed.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Pvblivs said, "do not use a biblical model. You should know this.

    So you believe in psychic powers too. You are one of countless people I've debated and discussed with online, and have not do so with you fora long time. I apologize for the assumption on my part, but if it smells like....

    Are you saying that if Neanderthals had turned out to be a direct ancestor of modern humans it would be a disconfirmer of evolution?

    Not exactly, I'm showing a predication made by scientists and creationists, and how the scientists were correct. This example also illustrates that though it might appear they must be human or a direct ancestor, as most average people would believe, the finer skills of the scientist were able to see the details that showed it was a cousin kind of like chimps are but much, much smarter.

    The DNA would only falsify evolution if we found that hominid fossils had the same exact DNA as we do. This would mean that humans has not changed biologically any more than selective breeding has dogs, during our existence on this planet.

    So there you have it, a prediction of how the evolutionary (phylogenetic)tree should appear per the fossil evidence, a prediction that early hominids were not human but a transition from a common ancestor of humans and other primates and that this particular fossil was a variant not a direct ancestor. All these were confirmed simultaneously. This is like the science community just won a trifeta!

    Creationist on the other hand bet in the old gray mare and lost, but for some reason they do not seem to realize this. They actually still feel they are the ones winning though the tickets they hold have never paid off for over 150 years.

    "I only need to see the documentation of that."

    This has not only been predicted in papers, it has been in then news, science books, television programs and more for quite a while. I find it hard to believe you missed these predictions, but that can be resolved. A simple google will find you many papers on these predictions. It would be more helpful if you did the searches on science journals online that allow free access to the papers.

    It might be hard to find the papers with prediction about the tree and and where Neanderthals fit into it, but they are out there. The latest papers on Neanderthals evolution alone will make up a very large portion of you search results. I'm sure if you review an older scholarly book on the subject at the local library, it will mention this and show the papers its referencing.

    Here is a link to a paper on Neanderthal mtDNA that is enough to just confirm that they are variants and not human, thus confirming a falsifiable predication I'm sure you are familiar with that would could have refuted evolution.

    http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020057&ct=1

    Enjoy the reading!

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  46. Atomic Chimp:

         "'[I] do not use a biblical model. You should know this.'
         "So you believe in psychic powers too."
         No. But I consistently argue against the bible. It stands to reason that I do not use a biblical model. Well, if you actually read what I wrote, it stands to reason. If you only read Clostridiophile's mockery, I can see where you might be confused.
         "Not exactly, I'm showing a predication made by scientists and creationists, and how the scientists were correct. This example also illustrates that though it might appear they must be human or a direct ancestor, as most average people would believe, the finer skills of the scientist were able to see the details that showed it was a cousin kind of like chimps are but much, much smarter."
         I do not dispute the skills of the scientists. Being highly skilled, however, is not a shield against accepting an idea uncritically.
         "'[Are you saying that if Neanderthals had turned out to be a direct ancestor of modern humans it would be a disconfirmer of evolution? If so,] I only need to see the documentation of that. [If not, then, while it is a testable prediction in its own right, it is not a test for evolution.]'
         "This has not only been predicted in papers, it has been in then news, science books, television programs and more for quite a while. I find it hard to believe you missed these predictions, but that can be resolved."
         These have a tendency to be predictions after the fact. That is the very point I am trying to make. I can "predict" last week's weather by opening a newspaper. At any rate, since you said that a failure of the prediction would not be a disconfirmation of large-scale evolution, it is a side issue.
         From the link: "While supporters of 'multiregional evolution' argue for genetic exchange or even continuity between archaic and modern humans (Weidenreich 1943; Wolpoff et al. 1984, Wolpoff et al. 2000; Duarte et al. 1999; Hawks and Wolpoff 2001), proponents of a 'single African origin' of contemporary humans claim that negligible genetic interaction took place (Cann et al. 1987; Stringer and Andrews 1988; Ingman et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2000; Stringer 2002)."
         In short no result of this experiment will refute evolution. It is set up only to distinguish between two disputed paths. And this is what you gave me as "a falsifiable predication I'm sure you are familiar with that would could have refuted evolution." It is rather plain that this could not falsify evolution. Evolution is assumed with any result and only a particular path is being selected.

    Clostridiophile:

         "I demonstrated months ago that each of Darwin's propositions are testable, and have been tested."
         No, you called me a nut. You called me a crackpot. And you said that evolution did not need to be defended from the likes of me. (I do seem to recall you including some predictions-after-the-fact.) You have not given an example of something predicted in advance by evolution (which could not be predicted using then-current information without evolution) not hedged by "may" or "might" or some such, that was then confirmed by experiment. A prediction that there will be no pre-cambrian rabbits is useless as a test for evolution if the prediction was not made until after there were enought fossil digs to confirm that there were no pre-cambrian rabbits. I invited you to show that the prediction was, in actual fact, made before the fossil digs. And you told me that I should just accept the retroactive "prediction." Maybe the retroactive prediction satisfies you. But it's not a test.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @atomic chimp

    "So there you have it, a prediction of how the evolutionary (phylogenetic)tree should appear per the fossil evidence, a prediction that early hominids were not human but a transition from a common ancestor of humans and other primates and that this particular fossil was a variant not a direct ancestor. All these were confirmed simultaneously. This is like the science community just won a trifeta!"

    Not to mention that Darwin predicted that human transitional fossils would be found in Africa linking us with other primates on the tree of life. There were no human intermediates known in his time. Prediction, tested, confirmed. Yet pvblivs claims the theory is not tested or testable. Laughable.

    ReplyDelete
  48. @pvblivs

    I said "I demonstrated months ago that each of Darwin's propositions are testable, and have been tested."

    pvblivs replied "No, you called me a nut. You called me a crackpot. And you said that evolution did not need to be defended from the likes of me. (I do seem to recall you including some predictions-after-the-fact.) You have not given an example of something predicted in advance by evolution (which could not be predicted using then-current information without evolution) not hedged by "may" or "might" or some such, that was then confirmed by experiment."

    Oh, pvblivs, I did much more than call you a nut. I gotta say, I'm sick of having to defend my profession against know-nothings. I listed each of Darwin's postulates and showed using the Grant's research that each were tested, each were confirmed, each were falsifiable. Do you need to go back and read my post...Its still on my blog. Maybe you need me to explain it to you? Don't be embarrassed to ask for help. I pointed out that the evidence is so utterly overwhelming that you take it for granted; maybe you should step back and think about this. You seem to think that because there is so much evidence now, that this is some sort of weakness. I really don't know what to say to you anymore. Yeah, I do ridicule because after explaining this until I'm fucking blue in the face, you still misunderstand how science is done. It's not my problem that you are confused. And you are confused, there can be no mistake about this.

    "A prediction that there will be no pre-cambrian rabbits is useless as a test for evolution if the prediction was not made until after there were enought fossil digs to confirm that there were no pre-cambrian rabbits."

    Jesus titty fucking christ on a cracker! If fucking rabbits, elephants, jackasses, and other forms of extant life were found at the very beginning, there would be no Darwinian process. The prediction was not made after the fact, it was made by Darwin that life would start out very simple and increase in complexity. To make a prediction in the first damn place you need a body of evidence to work with. You seem to think this is breaking the rules.

    Please answer the following question: How would we call the process evolution if life as we know it today was no different from life found at the beginning? You simply misunderstand the significance of this and it is not my problem. You have this weird notion of what theories are and how we test hypotheses. We keep telling you that this is not how science is done. We could start out with all the fossils and work backwards to derive a theory to explain their pattern and this would be perfectly acceptable since we still offer an explanation based on the data. You seem to think that evidence rules out something being scientific.

    "I invited you to show that the prediction was, in actual fact, made before the fossil digs. And you told me that I should just accept the retroactive "prediction." Maybe the retroactive prediction satisfies you. But it's not a test."

    TIKTAALIK, TIKTAALIK, TIK-FUCKING-TAALIK. Are you dense? Are you senile? Can you read? I stated earlier and months ago that Neil Shubin predicted that fucking fossil before, I repeat BEFORE he went about finding it. He predicted exactly where it should be found in the fossil record and found the damn thing. This is what you keep asking for and we keep providing shit and it is as if you have selective memory. I don't care if I'm using ad hom's I am sick of explaining this. I'm getting about the same results as I would if I tried to teach my dog to drive itself to the park. At least the dog has an excuse.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "So there you have it, a prediction of how the evolutionary (phylogenetic)tree should appear per the fossil evidence, a prediction that early hominids were not human but a transition from a common ancestor of humans and other primates and that this particular fossil was a variant not a direct ancestor. All these were confirmed simultaneously. This is like the science community just won a trifeta!"

    This is very exciting news!
    I can't wait to see what ol Ken Ham has to say about this. A very large part of his presentations is based on his "biblical model" that cro-magnum man and Neanderthals were 100% human.
    I would love to hear the buzz going on over at AIG right now. They must be shitting themselves!

    ReplyDelete
  50. pvblivs,

    " At any rate, since you said that a failure of the prediction would not be a disconfirmation of large-scale evolution, it is a side issue."

    If large-scale evolution is incorrect, why is it that we find a progression in geological time of fossils that start off looking more ape-like, but with human features, which over time become more human-like and less ape-like? How could this be? How is this not a test of macroevolution? I could ask the same for whale evolution, or reptile to mammal, or fish to amphibian. Why do we see transitional forms such as these in a logical progression leading from one form to another? You claim to be a skeptic, but part of this is using good judgement. Please answer the question.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Pvblivs,
    I can not hold back any longer.
    With all respect I must say that I respect your intelligence and I always enjoy reading your comments, but I have watched you and Clos in this perpetual argument for months now and my limited inteelect cannot understand how you can be so dense and close minded on the subject of predictions.

    Clos has absolutely decimated your feeble attempts to discredit him.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Froggie:

         I see. Requiring that the prediction be made before the observation which confirms it is "closed minded." I must disagree with you on that. Clostridiophile has only managed to encourage those who already agree with him. He has not given an example of a scientific test for evolution. That would be prediction which if false would falsify the hypothesis followed by experiment followed in turn by direct confirmation of the prediction. That form of testing is good enough for the bulk of science. For evolution, the primary pattern seems to be open experiment followed by an observed result followed by a "prediction" of that result. There are other patterns. There is prediction which will be taken as confirmation but can be excused if the prediction is not confirmed followed by experiment followed by either confirmation or "inconclusive result." Indeed, the primary pattern I have mentioned is exactly what Clostridiophile presented to "decimate my feeble attempts."
         Strictly speaking, the bulk of science is accepted religiously by the general population. Most people, if asked how to test special relativity or even what it actually implied would give just a blank stare. But they know that it is true.
         In fact, judging a scientific theory is a lot judging a prophecy. The same criteria can be used. A scientific theory is more likely to meet those criteria.

    1> It must be possible to confirm that the prophecy was written before the event.
    2> The prophecy must not be vague or cover a wide range of possible events.
    3> The prophecy must not be indefinitely postponeable. There must be a point (assuming the prophecy does not come to pass) when we can declare that it has failed.
    4> The prophecy must be independently verifiable. No source that has as part of its agenda showing the prophet valid is useful.
    5> The prophecy must not have been fulfilled by people who knew about the prophecy and had an interest in fulfilling it.
    6> The prophecy must have been understood as a prophecy before fulfillment.
    7> The prophecy must not be something that would be expected anyway. (E.g. it will rain this year.)

         How do the predictions of evolution stack up? Well, most of the predictions were not written before the confirmations. Some of them are "maybes" -- a prediction that something might happen (but might not.) We have a couple that are subject to indefinite postponement (a particular searched for animal might never have fossilized, even if it existed) and, of course, some subject to interpretation, which fail independently confirmed.
         Consider the most recent post by Clostridiophile. "If large-scale evolution is incorrect, why is it that we find a progression in geological time of fossils that start off looking more ape-like, but with human features, which over time become more human-like and less ape-like? How could this be? How is this not a test of macroevolution? I could ask the same for whale evolution, or reptile to mammal, or fish to amphibian. Why do we see transitional forms such as these in a logical progression leading from one form to another? You claim to be a skeptic, but part of this is using good judgement. Please answer the question." Not only is he giving a prediction of a prior observation (even then "transitional form" is sufficiently vague that just about anything could be made to fit) his challenge reminds me of Sye saying "how do YOU account for logic?" I don't need to support some alternative hypothesis. Large-scale evolution could be correct and still untestable. It still wouldn't be science. I have not taken a stance that evolution is false -- despite posts that seem to assume such a stance. It is not a test for macroevolution because any result (including never finding any fossils anywhere) could be reconciled with macroevolution.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Not only is he giving a prediction of a prior observation (even then "transitional form" is sufficiently vague that just about anything could be made to fit) his challenge reminds me of Sye saying "how do YOU account for logic?" I don't need to support some alternative hypothesis. Large-scale evolution could be correct and still untestable. It still wouldn't be science. I have not taken a stance that evolution is false -- despite posts that seem to assume such a stance. It is not a test for macroevolution because any result (including never finding any fossils anywhere) could be reconciled with macroevolution.

    Dumbfuck, I said that Darwin predicted these fossil intermediates BE-fucking-FORE they were discovered. Shubin predicted Tiktaalik "BE-Fucking-FORE he found it. This was not a "prediction of a prior observation". You seem to have a problem comprehending chronology. You see, Darwin lived in the late 1800's. DNA and fossils of hominids were found after this. Darwin predicted common ancestry before these things. That is what "prior" means. You know, preceding the events. OH, you are retarded. That is why you claim that "any result could be reconciled with macroevolution". What if humans contained a different replicator than chimps? What if humans were found in the precambrian? What if we never found differential survival in nature? This is clearly falsifiable....but it wasn't. This evidence also demonstrates the theory is testable, contra to your claims. Again, not my fault that you don't understand this. Science is all complicated, I know, but there are places where you can read about it. Maybe you should start be actually reading and trying to comprehend what I am writing. Clearly you are having trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Pvblivs, I'm still waiting for your response to the predictions, the falsifiability of these predictions and the verification of them.

    Also, I would like you to offer another possible explanation for the evidence concerning Neanderthals being an advance hominid cousin of humans that, demonstrated a high intelligence, walked upright, made tools and art, and was in many ways like humans, but were not human at all. The DNA, fossil, and archaeological evidence is all there, please explain what conclusion you draw.


    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  55. Pvblivs,
    Clos said
    " DNA and fossils of hominids were found after this. Darwin predicted common ancestry before these things. That is what "prior" means. You know, preceding the events. OH, you are xxxxxxxx. That is why you claim that "any result could be reconciled with macroevolution".

    Darwin aslo predicted that we would find a replicator mechanism in our cells, which turned out to be DNA.

    One cannot say that the predictions mentioned by Clos were not precicely that. They predicted that they would find tikalik in a certain area, they went there- Bingo.

    Now, I fully understand that I am gettng out of my element here but while it seems to me that evolution does not have quite the predictive element of some other theories, "The predictive power of science comes from being able to say things we would not have been able to say otherwise. These predictions do not have to be about things happening in the future. They can be "retrodictions" about things from the past that we have not found yet. Evolution allows innumerable predictions of this sort."---T.O.

    Maybe there is something I'm not understanding here.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Pvblivs,
    "Strictly speaking, the bulk of science is accepted religiously by the general population."

    I disagree. In my experience, most people accept science because it is a reasonable expectaion to accept that the science is valid.

    After all, I surely can't be expected to get a degree in medicine before I go to the doctor, or become an engineer before driving a car, etc.

    I am actually offended that you would use the fundamentalist christion argument that trusting science is "religious."
    That is equally absurd coming from you as it is from them.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Atomic Chimp:

          From the link: "While supporters of 'multiregional evolution' argue for genetic exchange or even continuity between archaic and modern humans (Weidenreich 1943; Wolpoff et al. 1984, Wolpoff et al. 2000; Duarte et al. 1999; Hawks and Wolpoff 2001), proponents of a 'single African origin' of contemporary humans claim that negligible genetic interaction took place (Cann et al. 1987; Stringer and Andrews 1988; Ingman et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2000; Stringer 2002)."
         In short no result of this experiment will refute evolution. It is set up only to distinguish between two disputed paths. And this is what you gave me as "a falsifiable predication I'm sure you are familiar with that would could have refuted evolution." It is rather plain that this could not falsify evolution. Evolution is assumed with any result and only a particular path is being selected.
         I trust that that link you provided (and I already responded to) is what you refer to when you speak of the predictions. They were not a test of evolution, nor were they intended to be. The introduction to the paper is quite clear. They are distinguishing only between competing paths for evolution.
         "[P]lease explain what conclusion you draw."
         I do not draw any conclusion. I have already stated that I am not offering an alternative hypothesis. I am only examining whether evolution has been tested. From what I can see, it has not. I don't even say that makes it false. Attempts to have me give an alternative hypothesis are distractions as they are attempts to bind me to a position I have not taken. Even if I were arguing that evolution was false, I would not need to present an alternative hypothesis. When I assert that the christian god is fictional, I do not need an alternative account for why everything exists. For that, I need only note that the description is that of a blatent meddler and that we do not observe such meddling. So, if I were to assert that evolution was wrong I would need to find holes in the idea not present an alternative so that you could look for the holes. But I do not assert that. I assert that evolution can be reconciled with any observation that cannot be ruled out without evolution. It makes no predictions. Predictions are presented regarding the particular path evolution is considered to have taken. But, even if the asserted path has to be changed, evolution is consistent with all possible observations.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Froggie:

         "I disagree. In my experience, most people accept science because it is a reasonable expectaion to accept that the science is valid."
         And in other cultures faith in some tribal healer is considered reasonable. People go to doctors because going to doctors appears to make them better. But it's indistinguishable from magic (at the knowledge level of the general population.)
         "After all, I surely can't be expected to get a degree in medicine before I go to the doctor, or become an engineer before driving a car, etc."
         No, you can't. But when you accept something that you do not understand, it is an acceptence as an article of faith. Life in modern civilization is so complex that functioning without such articles of faith may be impossible.
         I am sorry about your offense. I realize that religious is often meant to imply faith in something that is false. However it is the best term available to describe faith in something that one cannot test oneself. After all, if we know something to be false, we will not have faith in it.

    ------------

         Photos of primates show that some look more human and some look less human. Depending on your level of leniency, some can already be taken as transitional forms. It still looks like a prior observation to me. Some say I am predisposed to interpret things as a prior observation. That may be true. If it is, I don't see it. But it stands to reason that I would have a blind spot too. However, insults are not going to convince me. Nor are they going to convince anyone who has not already made up his mind (if there is anyone like that.) They look like an effort to rally existing supporters -- which would explain why Ray Comfort uses them exclusively.

    ReplyDelete
  59. ""I disagree. In my experience, most people accept science because it is a reasonable expectaion to accept that the science is valid."
    And in other cultures faith in some tribal healer is considered reasonable. People go to doctors because going to doctors appears to make them better. But it's indistinguishable from magic (at the knowledge level of the general population.)"

    Holy shit, now pvblivs is likening science-based medicine to magic. People go to doctors because doctors use the knowledge accumulated over centuries to treat particular illnesses. So a diabetic receiving insulin is "magic"? Getting a scrip for a cephalosporin is "magic" even though it is known to be bactericidal based on experiments. Receiving reverse transcriptase and protease inhibitors for HIV is "magic"? People don't accept this as an "article of faith", going to doctors more often than not results in palpable results. Even if people don't understand science or medicine they trust the results....you are using this computer. The computer is a result of science. Cell phones are a result of science. Antibiotics are a result of science. This is much, much different than "magic", which people know to be false. Pvblivs, you come across as antiscience, I really don't know what else to make of this. Earlier you likened science to a religion. Only a fundamentalist religious nut would make this comparison.

    "They were not a test of evolution, nor were they intended to be. The introduction to the paper is quite clear. They are distinguishing only between competing paths for evolution."

    Yeah, within the larger construct, we make specific hypotheses, alternative hypotheses and then test each specific one. Several will be rejected in favor of the one that best explains the data, and is not falsified. This is how science is done. I keep telling you that you don't understand the scientific method. When we derive various hypotheses regarding human origins today, we aren't asking "is evolution true or false", we already know based on so much evidence that it is correct. We are way past this sort of question currently. The work being done now is to ask how various lineages evolved. This is what you are continually missing. You still think that we need to be developing experiments to determine whether evolution is true or false, and this is just silly now. The following statement of yours really reveals your ignorance of evolutionary biology, comparative anatomy, paleontology, genomics, and various other relevant fields:

    "Photos of primates show that some look more human and some look less human. Depending on your level of leniency, some can already be taken as transitional forms. It still looks like a prior observation to me."

    You really think this is how we determine "transitional forms"? When I and others say "more ape-like" and "more human-like", we are oversimplifying for the sake of discussion. This sort of thing is extremely rigorous in terms of measuring various anatomical features, calibrating molecular clocks based on both fossil and genomic data, etc. We can trace our ancestry and determine the time and order of divergence of primates based on viruses and other transposable elements common and unique in their genomes. Today we even have paleogenomics, as atomic chimp presented. We know that Homo neanderthalensis was a separate species based on sequencing of the Y chromosome. Furthermore, what you are talking about misunderstands "transitional forms". Every extant organism is a transitional form to some future lineage. Apes today could not be considered a "transitional form" to modern humans because modern humans now exist. What we describe is something completely different. Modern humans do not arrive in the fossil record until a few hundred thousand years ago. You will not find modern Homo sapien sapien before this. Now, we need to explain this appearance in the fossil record. We know from genetic evidence that we are most closely related to chimps and bonobo's and that we share a common ancestor around 5 million years ago. Between this time (5 million years and 100-200 thousand years) we find the expected fossil transitions from Australeopithicenes (and even earlier transitions) to more human-like fossils like Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo neanderthalensis, and finally Homo sapien. Now some of these were not direct descendents, but branched off from another common ancestor. In any case, several "experiments" were performed by nature and we survived. Now, to say that this is not a confirmation of macroevolution is delusional. As I and several others have pointed out, chromosome 2 is decisive evidence for common ancestry with chimps and other apes. We know the mechanism for this Robertsonian translocation, and this even provides a potential mechanism for speciation, as it has proven with species brought by humans to islands, such as mice, that seem to have a high rate of chromosomal rearrangements that lead to rapid speciation. Taken together, we have a very coherent picture of human evolution....and I have left quite a bit out. pvblivs, you are being completely unreasonable.

    ReplyDelete
  60. " I assert that evolution can be reconciled with any observation that cannot be ruled out without evolution. It makes no predictions. Predictions are presented regarding the particular path evolution is considered to have taken. But, even if the asserted path has to be changed, evolution is consistent with all possible observations."

    No, evolution is not consistent with "all possible observations". Good science formulates alternative hypotheses, in this case alternatives to various possible evolutionary pathways and then works to systematically test each particular one against the evidence. I have explained over and over what would have falsified evolution, but you continue to ignore this in defense of your fundamentalist belief.

    ReplyDelete
  61.      "[N] pvblivs is likening science-based medicine to magic."
         In the sense that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The general population does not know how medicine works. Nor can the general population be expected to know how medicine works. People accept that it works. There are people who have the knowledge to distinguish medicine from magic. But the general population does not. At this point, there remains no doubt that Clostridiophile is trying to score points rather than defend his position. I suspected that was the case when he was using ridicule. But there could be some doubt at that point.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Pvblivs pointed out, "While supporters of 'multiregional evolution' argue for genetic exchange..."

    I see no way this refutes the prediction of evolutionist. They predicted that 1) In the Evo-Tree we should see variants of certain branches that have gone extinct and are unique from know animals and direct ancestors of known animal. 3) We should find ancestors that were intellectually, morphologically, and anatomically unique from humans 2) Neanderthal, though appearing much like our direct ancestors in appearance, intelligence and life style, were not but instead variants that went extinct.

    again these are the three predictions made before hand. Please read the complete paper, it clearly support that the Neaderthal mtDNA is outside of the human variation and clearly unique. In case that single paper is not enough here are a few more that conclude they are not human or human direct ancestors but instead a variant.

    http://www.eva.mpg.de/english/presskits/mtDNANeandertalarticle.pdf

    http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Green_Complete_Cell_2008.pdf

    You cannot just cherry pick portions of a paper, you have to read it all to understand the conclusions draw by them ,which is that it supports the the prediction that Neanderthals should be considered a separate species, Homo Neaderthalus. this is further supported byt the recent announcement by the AAAS that after mapping 60% of the neanderthal genome, they found 1000-2000 amino acid differences in the coding part of the genome.

    "In short no result of this experiment will refute evolution."

    The paper was just one of many that could falsify predictions of previous papers. Though the main theme is to refute the clams I mentions, this paper and many others concerning the mtDNA do clearly speak about the previous predictions I mention and how this confirms them. One of the new papers I've given you actually speaks of the predictions of the diversification of Neanderthals as predicted by the fossil and archeological evidence is conformed by the mtDNA. It clearly shows that its genetic divergence from our common ancestor, Homo erectus, is as would be expected of a variant.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  63. Pvblivs said,"Even if I were arguing that evolution was false, I would not need to present an alternative hypothesis."

    The problem with that is even if you could refute some of the evidence for evolution, if there is no better explanation available, then it is still the best one.

    The god hypothesis has little to no objective evidence for it and we have found ways to better explain the world and life. If we did not have ways to explain things, the "God did it" hypothesis would then be the best explanation available.

    If you cannot offer a better illation and show support, unless you can refute every piece of evidence they have, your claims that the current inference of the evidence supports evolution is moot. You can't just say, I don't know what the evidences means but they are wrong. Even if all the claimed evidence does not support evolution 100%, it still the only game in town with any support, and quiet a bit at that.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  64. Pvblis said,"if you actually read what I wrote, it stands to reason..."

    I'll say this one more time, I discuss and debate with many people on many different websites, radio/tv programs, and other media. I have a very busy career so my apologizes if I assume incorrectly but I do not have time to read through all of a discussion I jump in on. I read your claim and responded to that.

    "These have a tendency to be predictions after the fact.

    You are assuming that what I speak of was after the fact. I was surprised you were not aware that it was long before it was confirmed by the most recent genetic evidence since it was not only in many peer reviewed works but in the media.

    "In short no result of this experiment will refute evolution. It is set up only to distinguish between two disputed paths."

    That does not mean the result could not have refuted evolution. Here is one of several ways the conclusion of these papers couls have been used to falify evolution.

    Since Neandethals were believed to diversify around 500,000 years from homo erectus, if we found the Neanderthal mtDNA to be within the normal variation of human mtDNA, that would not only falsify previous evolutionary predictions but would also falsify evolution due to the fact that it would not reflect the level of evolutionary divergence of genes predicted in the ancestral species of its age.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  65.      "I see no way this refutes the prediction of evolutionist."
         It doesn't. I was quoting from your link and showing how the paper identified all possible results as consistent with evolution and that only the path it took was in dispute.
         "I was surprised you were not aware that it was long before it was confirmed by the most recent genetic evidence since it was not only in many peer reviewed works but in the media."
         Until you posted the link, I was unaware that there were experiments done on Neanderthal mitocondrial DNA. However, the possible result you identify as a refutation of evolution (which did not occur) appears to be identified in the paper as supporting multiregional evolution. It is possible that I misunderstand you and that you identifying a third result. But that is what it looks like from here.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Do I believe that nothing made everything? Well, of course not, they don't believe nature was made at all. Houses, of course, are 'made'. So I guess atheists believe nature just exists (until someone comes up with a plausible scientifically proven God, for a change).

    But what do theists believe? Do they believe everything is made?

    If would be "scientific" to state that everything has to be made, then who made God? But mono-theists believe nothing made their God. He just exists.

    So basically, euhm...

    The original statement is "atheists believe that everything is made from nothing." is either a misrepresentation of their viewpoint (it is), or theists believe a similar thing about God.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Pvblivs said,"Until you posted the link, I was unaware that there were experiments done on Neanderthal mitocondrial DNA."

    This is telling, you claim there is not support, nor were there any prediction for evolution that were later confirmed, but you appear to have put no effort into investigating the subject at all. I think I can speak for many others here in saying the we, have done the research. We have research not only the most current scientific evidence, but also the fringe theories and claims, including creation sciences.

    My point being Pvblivs, you can't go around making these assertions if you can't do the work to support them. That no better than if, I was not familiar at all with the atomic theory they have no support for it, but never actually looked if they do. What you have demonstrated so far in willful ignorance not a sound argument.

    I can't just sit here doing the work for you. instead, you should be making an effort to do so instead of making baseless claims. You also need to completely read the papers you find or are provided, not just mine them for portions you feel support your beliefs. This is know as PubJacking, and is a common practice of creation science proponents. You can start with completely reading the 3 papers I've provided, but don't stop there. Just on PubMed you'll find over 200,000 papers concerning evolutions. There are many other online resources with as much or more form other schools of science. I suggest starting at TalkOrigin with the paper on 29+ evidence for macro evolution, written by Douglas L. Theobald, Ph.D. a professor of biochemistry

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    Though not a peer reviewed paper, you can use it to get familiar with some good lines of research and use the list of papers he referenced to support it.

    Good luck with your future researching. I think you'll find it very illuminative.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  68.      "This is telling, you claim there is not support, nor were there any prediction for evolution that were later confirmed, but you appear to have put no effort into investigating the subject at all."
         FAIL. Not having run across your particular paper does not equate into having put no effort. Perhaps you are saying that you will only count exhaustive search as any kind of effort. It rather voids your earler "I'll say this one more time, I discuss and debate with many people on many different websites, radio/tv programs, and other media. I have a very busy career so my apologizes if I assume incorrectly but I do not have time to read through all of a discussion I jump in on. I read your claim and responded to that." No, I have not done an exhaustive search. I do not know every experiment that is out there. I find some patterns to the ones I do know about and, by induction, believe that the patterns will hold. I also expect that if one were to break these patterns that it would be heavily publicized and that I would know about it. Even so, I invite anyone to show a counter-example if they can.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Pvblivs said, "Not having run across your particular paper does not equate into having put no effort."

    I find it hard to believe you've put the effort to find anything that counters your claim when with little effort a person can easily locate many resources to do so. Like I said before, your not looking hard enough. I feel like I'm helping one of my students with his paper. They too always seem to hit a road block not because the information isn't available, but instead because they think they've already put in the required amount of research and refuse to do more. So, I guess I'll just resort to how I help them, and that's by telling them, The information is there, please invest more time into you research.

    I have also seen that people here such as Clostridiophile and Froggie and have shown you many examples that refute your claim, yet you still refuse to accept it. Just the list of valid evidence here you for some reason still reject, is nothing compared to the wealth still out there.

    My last point, is why is it so important that the evidence was predicted before? If it support evolution, or fits into the model well, why will you not accept it. ERVs were not predicted as evidence for evolution but it overwhelmingly supports it. A detective does not have to predict what evidence he will find at a crime scene. If he finds evidence that overwhelming supports the case against a suspect, that he never would have expected, it is not considered invalid in a court.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  70. I would like to take thhis opporunity to call for a brief intermission.

    I have yet to see Dan debunk an atheist.

    We now return you to your regularly scheduled row...

    ReplyDelete
  71. Look, I suspect Dan gets all giddy whenever he posts about Evolution now, and when Pvblivs and whomever else go at it, and I don't want to get into it, but, I thought I offered a rather convincing example of a testable prediction -- one which would quite easily have disproved Evolution -- which could not have been said to be an ex post facto fitting.

    I had cited the age of the sun, with the then-accepted theory according to William Thompson (Lord Kelvin). With nuclear fusion as-yet unknown, there was no known mechanism for allowing the timescales Evolution required -- had fusion been a faster process, or had some other process been found which likewise proved too short, Evolution would have been a non-starter, way back in 1862 -- when Darwin's published theory was a mere three years old.

    In regards to everything else (with respect to the arguments against Pvblivs), I don't really care. Dan denies Evolution because he's a fundamentalist, Pvblivs does for no apparent reason whatsoever. I don't give a shit. I just want to know from Pvblivs whether he accepts the example I gave or not (I forgot what your verdict was the last time I proposed it).

    I'll let you guys get back to bashing one another now... No low blows, and following a knock-down go to a neutral corner.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  72. Wem,

    I have yet to see Dan debunk an atheist.

    Is that absolutely true or a subjective opinion? :0)

    Moving on

    ReplyDelete
  73. It's apparently lying for Jesus.

    Pretending to be doing something you're not is either hubris or lying, and according to your belief system, it guarantees you a seat in Hell. One would think you'd take this more seriously.

    Unless, of course, you don't have nearly as much faith as you'd have us believe...

    ReplyDelete
  74. Stan:

         Just to be clear, I neither affirm nor deny evolution. I also neither affirm nor deny that Obama had eggs for breakfast yesterday. I cannot draw a conclusion. As to the sun issue. I believe I noted that (when solar time was thought short) evolution was not considered falsified. It was taken as a difficulty that needed explaining, but not a falsifier. If it had been accepted as a falsifier, evolution would need to have been "rediscovered" after solar age was updated.

    Atomic chimp:

         "My last point, is why is it so important that the evidence was predicted before?"
         Because then I can rule out "tweaking" the "theory" to fit the new data. I have seen it noted (by supporters of evolution, no less) that the current "theory" has changed from Darwin's original ideas. In the case of evolution, the "model" appears to be a description of all relevent observations thus far. If it were a predictive model, I would expect that it could be applied to determine likely future features of animals given an environment. In fact, we get "we might find something (we won't know what is is until we find it) that we can interpret as a go-between from A to B." It's vague. If nothing is found, it's not a falsification or even "negative data."
         If I make a model of something and it reflects features of reality that were known but I did not consider when making the model, it can increase my confidence in the model. But it won't increase someone else's confidence in the model. Nor should it. There is no reason for someone else not to think that I did adjust the model to that feature and am just trying to make it look better.
         I have not accepted what has been presented as possible falsification because it did not meet my criteria, which I specified in advance. A prediction made on the assumption of evolution which can not have been made without the assumption of evolution and which, if not met, refutes evolution, and the prediction then being verified by experiment. The confirmation of the prediction, must not be subject to interpretation; nor may it be so broad that nearly anything will fit. What I am actually presented with are "safe bets."

    ReplyDelete
  75. Conceerning Stan's comment, Pvblivs said,"It was taken as a difficulty that needed explaining, but not a falsifier."

    I think I see part of the problem. ToE, like many other theories, is so well explained and validated, that even if we do see things that do not fit the theory at all, before we just throw out the old theory, we take a closer look and see if its just that we don't fully understand why the new evidence can contradict the theory.

    We look closer at the new evidence and see if there is a way to understand it and explain it in a way it does fit the current model. Then we find a way to test it and either validate or refute the new addition to the theory.

    This was recently done concerning the issue with humans having one pair less chromosomes than other great apes. They analyzed, predicted and found a way to falsify this prediction. It was successfully validate and fit the current understanding we have of genetics and evolution.

    If this prediction failed, they would not just throw in the towel though. With so much evidence confirming evolution so far, it should take more than one minor puzzle to refute it entirely. Instead the correct thing to do is look for other possible solution. If they each continue to fail, then you'd begin to see a shift in how we look at and test the model. New idea would be pushed forward that could totally reinvent how we explain the development of mankind.

    Just because we have been successful does not mean its being done incorrectly. This is why I say that unless you have another model to offer, evolution is the only game in town and it is well supported. We will continue to follow it until it begins to consistently fails.

    "I can rule out "tweaking" the "theory" to fit the new data. I have seen it noted (by supporters of evolution, no less) that the current "theory" has changed from Darwin's original ideas.

    But thats how science works. Once a theory is well validated, it shifts to being refined by new data and observations. Newtons laws were found to be incorrect in some ways but we have not thrown them out. Instead we modified and refined them to correct the errors. Though his model is incorrect, we still do use it for many things because it works in those circumstances.

    Using your flawed reasoning, if the current model of ToE is close to being exactly correct, you will never believe it is since it will continue to be refined and validated by the evidence.

    None the less, ToE predication are made, a way to falsify them is found, and tested. You just seem to miss the point that there can be more than one way to catch a fish. general biology, genetics and molecular chemistry is not a simple numbers game its complicated.

    "If it were a predictive model, I would expect that it could be applied to determine likely future features of animals given an environment.

    Now your getting closer to where I'm very familiar with evolution. We do make prediction all the time concerning the evolution of life. Your flu vaccination, and treatments for HIV are two great examples where we use it all the time. Please take the time to read about evolution of HIV fitness and how it relates to maintained the stability of patients.

    As for animals, its hard to predict where a much more complicated organism with a slower rate of mutation and unpredictable guidance of a natural process is. A weather man has a tough enough time making his predication, I'm surprised you'd think we could do so well with animals.

    "I have not accepted what has been presented as possible falsification because it did not meet my criteria,

    You can judge science using your personal criteria, but that does not make it a valid method of examining the data. Creationist also apply their personal criteria when examining the same data.

    Nothing about science should be personal. In a college scince class you are taught a method for the investigation, and examination of the natural world. You are educated on critical thinking of the puzzling questions that lie ahead. These tools have been refined for hundreds of years and will continue to be refine. The scientific method maybe flawed in some way, but it has been the most successful method for understanding the world around us. You may believe your method is better, but you have not shown me any evidence so far.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  76. Wem,

    I would like to take thhis opporunity to call for a brief intermission.

    I have yet to see Dan debunk an atheist.


    I was just thinking yesterday that Dan must be clicking his heels in excitement watching two try to tear each other apart, without him even having to do anything. Still, I don't think that's the kind of thing he could take credit for exactly, is it? Because if Dan applied Pvblivs' standard of skepticism to his everyday life, he'd probably never even get out of bed.

    Hi Dan! :D

    FBWY.

    ReplyDelete
  77. @pvblivs

    " "[N] pvblivs is likening science-based medicine to magic."
    In the sense that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

    I see you can quote Dawkins. He was speaking of alien superadvanced technology. Patients do not think that an MRI is "magic". They may not understand the principle behind it, but this is not what you are claiming. You are claiming they think it is supernatural...the sense that Dawkins was using this phrase. You are mistaken.

    "The general population does not know how medicine works. Nor can the general population be expected to know how medicine works. People accept that it works. There are people who have the knowledge to distinguish medicine from magic."

    Just because I don't understand the math behind string theory doesn't mean I regard it as "magic", nor do I think that string theorists are sorcerers. The Average Joe doesn't think a doctor and his fandangled equipment is a voodoo trick either.

    "But the general population does not. At this point, there remains no doubt that Clostridiophile is trying to score points rather than defend his position."

    Score points? You mean correcting a comparison that isn't realistic? That would be more accurate. Also, it is your position that needs defense. I have more than answered your criteria. You ignore everything I provide and continue repeating your challenge anew. Are you capable of recognizing that I have answered your challenge?

    "I suspected that was the case when he was using ridicule. But there could be some doubt at that point."

    The ridicule was mere frustration at your inability to acknowledge that your challenge has been answered. Broken records annoy me. Having to repeat myself for months annoys me. The fact that you can't see that I have met your criterion (while not really relevant to science in principle or practice) annoys me. How are you surprised when you receive ridicule? How, after everything I have written, can you claim that ridicule is the meat of my position? You are truly an odd individual. My arguments still stand untouched.

    ReplyDelete
  78. @atomic chimp

    "ERVs were not predicted as evidence for evolution but it overwhelmingly supports it. A detective does not have to predict what evidence he will find at a crime scene. If he finds evidence that overwhelming supports the case against a suspect, that he never would have expected, it is not considered invalid in a court."

    You have expressed this better than I have been able to. I almost used the court case example. We have both explained to pvblivs that his criterion is absurd. My example was having all the fossils and all the genomic data and being asked to derive a theory to account for this data. According to pvblivs we would have to reject the evidence because the theory was developed "after the fact". Likewise, if an attourney asked for a case to be rejected because the prosecutor came up with his theory about how the crime went down after looking at the data, he would be laughed out of the courtroom. This is completely illogical. I am willing to bet that this explanation will be ignored and pvblivs will continue to sound like a fundamentalist creationist (even though he claims not to be) and say "not good enough, I want a prediction made before the data was produced that would potentially falsify....blah, blah, blah. More likely in addition to him ignoring the argument he will whine about being ridiculed. Boo hoo.

    ReplyDelete
  79. @Frodosaves

    "I was just thinking yesterday that Dan must be clicking his heels in excitement watching two try to tear each other apart, without him even having to do anything."

    Yeah, Dan doesn't know why evolution is wrong, he just knows it is. Oh, wait, he does know why it is wrong, Jesus didn't talk about evolution in Dan's Bibble. He can explain things like dinosaurs, since it says "behemoth" in the Bibble. Behemoth = dinosaur. Crystal clear! Checkmate, atheists!

    ReplyDelete
  80. Clostridiophile,

    Behemoth = dinosaur

    And don't forget, the Hebrew word for 'rib' actually means 'DNA'. This is despite the fact that ancient Israelites would have lacked any concept of cells, genetics, molecules, and atoms, and also that it would have meant young Jews growing up without a word for 'rib'. Of negligible importance, obviously.

    FS

    ReplyDelete
  81. It's so weird seeing an intelligent and thought-out discussion going on in the depths of the Debunking Atheists comment section.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Clostridiophile said,"You have expressed this better than I have been able to."

    Thanks for the kind words Clostridiophile. Coming from someone more well educated in these subjects like you, means a lot. Trust me though, its due to the constant repetition in explaining the same things. Eventually a little gem bubbles to the top.

    Pvblivs has set a ridiculous standard while also refusing to do the leg work to attempt to refute his own claims. He reminds me of the ID community. They make claims about ID and evolution and never make the effort to devise away to falsify their own claims and put them to the test. He seem to expect others to do the work for him, but when valid examples are brought forward, he rejects them based on fallacious reasons or a pubjacking of the materials provided.

    ID and creationism are the only other available theories and are unsupported. Pvblivs refuses to offer any new theory. What I would like to know is with all the data and evidence available, does he expect we're just going to say, "We don't know", no matter what it appears to suggest? If science were to take that position, we would have no understanding of anything of the natural world, nor a basis for science education.

    Kaitlyn said,"It's so weird seeing an intelligent and thought-out discussion going on in the depths of the Debunking Atheists comment section."

    I'll take that as a compliment for those of us here.:) You are one I also often see making very well clear, concise and well supported comments that clearly show you are very well educated, deep in a cloud of nescience on a blog.

    Pvblivs, Sorry I missed this one. You had said,"It rather voids your earler", referring to my comment about you not doing the research in relation to me just jumping into the discussion.

    Your point is moot since the two are completely different. A discussions on a blog like this are informal and sort of evolve. They often will currently have absolutely nothing to do with the original statements, so I tend to just read a few back from where it is at. If I missed an important point, I usually am told to read back or it is repeated.

    When you make a bold claim about science though, and the citation to refute it is easily available, yet you seem to be unfamiliar with the most recent data, I am suspect. When you also appear to just pubjack the papers provided, your arguments credibility begins to erode even more.

    I will not claim to have read every available peer review work on the subjects we discuss. When I do get the impression though, that the extent of my knowledge is below what is needed to keep my claims afloat, I take the time to review what is offered to me and spend a good quantity of time getting up to speed. Whether what I learn supports my argument or refutes it, I'm always elated by the opportunity to expand my knowledge with people who are willing to help me better understand the subject at hand.

    I may not agree with the all the claims I discuss, but that does not stop me reevaluating them if a person can offer me new information I was not aware of, no matter how painfully long, or flawed it might be.

    By setting a standard as you have and not doing the work to find support for it, you're only hurting yourself. I respect your right to your opinion, but I can't respect your method for drawing this conclusion.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  83. "Pvblivs has set a ridiculous standard while also refusing to do the leg work to attempt to refute his own claims. He reminds me of the ID community. They make claims about ID and evolution and never make the effort to devise away to falsify their own claims and put them to the test. He seem to expect others to do the work for him, but when valid examples are brought forward, he rejects them based on fallacious reasons or a pubjacking of the materials provided."

    Although, unlike the ID community, pvblivs doesn't claim that evolution is wrong, but rather that evolution is untestable/untested. Not even the IDers are this uninformed, most of them see evolution as a good explanation; but incomplete (although they do jump back and forth quite a bit). The real comparison between pvblivs and the IDers is to be found in their mutual denial of evidence presented which falsifies their own claims. Both seem to ignore inconvenient facts that would lead them to reject their pet idea. This is the hallmark of a fundamentalist. Scientists and rationalists must be willing to reject even charished notions when the evidence warrants such rejection. Fundamentalists are immune to evidence. Clearly, pvblivs would fit this criterion because of his stark refusal to admit that his argument is bunk. Notice that he has left the conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Atomic Chimp:

         After making the assumption that I apply a biblical model, you have no business claiming that I "refuse to do the legwork."
         Strictly speaking Newtonian physics has been falsified, but it remains a useful approximation. Ultimately, large-scale evolution is a claim of universal common descent. No experiment has ever been conducted that might refute that.
         My criteria are the ones generally advanced as the scientific method. They are the means by which pseudosciences are rejected as pseudosciences. Of course, exceptions are made for evolution. Normally, however, definitive prediction, followed by controlled experiment. followed by observation is the method of testing. I reject a "potential falsifier" because the prediction came after the observation and with the knowledge of the observation; and you simply say that it was a good potential falsifier. You do not attempt to show that I am wrong and that the prediction was made without knowledge of the observation. You only say that the criterion is unreasonable.
         "I will not claim to have read every available peer review work on the subjects we discuss."
         No, you don't. But, when you find that there was an experiment that I had not heard about (testing Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA) you assert that I have not looked at anything. The exhaustive search is a requirement that you seem to apply only to dissenters.
         "The scientific method may be flawed in some way, but it has been the most successful method for understanding the world around us."
         Perhaps, but that is not my contention. I am asserting that the scientific method does not seem to be applied to evolution. a modified method where one is predicting known observations or where an absence of confirmation is not treated as a negative datum is used.
         "I may not agree with the all the claims I discuss, but that does not stop me reevaluating them if a person can offer me new information I was not aware of, no matter how painfully long, or flawed it might be."
         I, too, reevaluate on the basis of new information. When you presented an experiment as a potential falsifier of evolution, I read what it had to say. I stopped when I was able to discern that it was only distinguishing paths and that no observation would be taken as against evolution. (In short, it was not testing evolution.) I then came back and pointed out why I concluded that it was not testing evolution.
         "Your point is moot since the two are completely different."
         A predictable response for someone employing a double standard. I do not hunt down every new experiment for the same reason that you do not check the history of every new person to whom you respond. It would be far too time-consuming and I expect no deviations from the existing pattern. Now, when you say something is a deviation from the pattern I have identified, I look at it. No, the two are not completely different. They are exactly the same.
         "When you make a bold claim about science though, and the citation to refute it is easily available, yet you seem to be unfamiliar with the most recent data, I am suspect."
         When you make a bold claim about me (that I use a biblical model) and my own blog which refutes that entirely is readily available, yet you seem to be unfamiliar with the data, I am suspect. At any rate. I showed that your data (with which I was, in fact, unfamiliar) did not refute my claim. I claimed that macroevolution was not being challenged or tested. The new datum was an experiment that did not challenge macroevolution. It listed all outcomes as supporting evolution but distinguishing between paths. I point that out and you say "pubjacking." Perhaps you were hoping that, by the time I got to the end of the paper, I would forget that the potential result that was not realized was not a refutation of evolution either. I really don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  85. "Normally, however, definitive prediction, followed by controlled experiment. followed by observation is the method of testing. I reject a "potential falsifier" because the prediction came after the observation and with the knowledge of the observation; and you simply say that it was a good potential falsifier. You do not attempt to show that I am wrong and that the prediction was made without knowledge of the observation. You only say that the criterion is unreasonable."

    TIKTAALIK. Are you dense? This one example...out of many, many, falsifies your claim that evolution is a pseudoscience, using your specific criteria.

    ReplyDelete
  86. pvblivs,

    Just answer this question: Was Neil Shubin simply choosing the site to dig for a transition between fins and wristbones completely at random? That is, was he making a prediction based on evolutionary theory or not?

    ReplyDelete
  87. pvblivs you said,” After making the assumption that I apply a biblical model, you have no business claiming that I "refuse to do the legwork."

    If you look like, sound like, and smell like Shit, I’ll call it like I see it. Even though you deny it, you still are no different to me. I’ll see if can invent a nice term for you’re type or pseudo-science.

    If you consider a comment about a person on a blog the same as making a serious science claim, I can understand why your standards are so messed up.

    ” when you find that there was an experiment that I had not heard about (testing Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA) you assert that I have not looked at anything.”

    You are correct and if you claimed there is no evidence that new genes, or genetic machines can or have been created by an organism, I’d also say you aren’t doing the research. If the data and the papers are the most recent and all over the news and you don’t know about it, yet you still claim to do the work, I have good reason to not believe you do.

    I many not know all of the research available, but through many science new outlets and peer review journals, I do check on a daily and weekly basis as to what is happening in the sciences I discuss.

    ”I do not hunt down every new experiment for the same reason that you do not check the history of every new person to whom you respond.”

    I base my science claims on supporting evidence, but also keep up to date, as mentioned above. I watch for new evidence that may support or refute it. I also keep track of other Pseudo-sciences that include but not restricted to ID and Creation Science. The entire content of the comments for this post is a flash in the pan compared to the extent of time I have been doing this. I expect the same of someone who make bold claims.

    So, your point is moot.

    ”When you make a bold claim about me”

    You seem very bothered by this. You keep bringing it up over and over. I’m not sure why. I apologized for my misjudgment of you, and admitted I was wrong.

    I guess this is where you and I differ.

    ” I showed that your data (with which I was, in fact, unfamiliar) did not refute my claim.”

    A prediction was made that via evolution variants should be present in fossil evidence. Neanderthal was predicated to be a variant in fossil evidence as predicted by evolution. The mtDNA and more recent Neanderthal Genome confirm that they are genetically unique thus a variant as predicted by the theory, fossil evidence, and known rate of genetic drift, to name a few. Please explain to me how this does not show predictions made before hand being tested and confirmed through the 3 of the many papers available on this.

    As Clostridiophile had mentioned we have provided many examples. They are many others such as the inner ear of whale transitional fossils and missing chromosome in humans to name a few. You seem to have decided your standard and definitions of predication and testing are better than the science community.

    ” My criteria are the ones generally advanced as the scientific method.”

    I like the fact you don’t say it is, but that it is generally. When one of my students or associates are not getting expected results from their works, and I get a comment like that, I tell them to remove all the, generally(s), and other such words and phrases from their work and standards. When they follow the proper practices, they are always amazed how everything seems to fall into place.

    I’m glad you mentioned this pvblivs, we’ve been trying to tell you that the claims and criteria you’re applying are generally wrong.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  88. Atomic Chimp:

         "Even though you deny it, you still are no different to me. I’ll see if can invent a nice term for you’re type or pseudo-science."
         And you are no different to me. You demand uncritical belief. You are the one practicing a pseudo-science. I am only pointing out where there are discrepencies from the scientific method.
         "' when you find that there was an experiment that I had not heard about (testing Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA) you assert that I have not looked at anything.'
         "You are correct...."
         The remainder of the assertion is not necessary. It doesn't matter (to you) how much I have examined. The criterion that you are applying to me is exhaustive search. And you have already admitted that you do not apply that criterion to yourself.
         "'When you make a bold claim about me'
         "You seem very bothered by this. You keep bringing it up over and over. I’m not sure why. I apologized for my misjudgment of you, and admitted I was wrong."
         Not when you say "you still are no different to me." You "mouthed the words." but your other comments reveal the insincerity. And, yes, I am quite bothered by people telling me "what I believe" when I have made it quite clear that I believe no such thing. It has been called "broadbrushing" and "pigeonholing." And it is usually a mechanism to get people not to listen. So, yes, I am quite sensitive to that.
         "When one of my students or associates are not getting expected results from their works, and I get a comment like that, I tell them to remove all the, generally(s), and other such words and phrases from their work and standards."
         And I am glad that you mentioned that. I have removed the "generally" from my standard. I note it only in my comment because scientists and other supporters of evolution make an exception for evolution, even though they apply the standard for the scientific method to other disciplines. So, my criteria are the ones generally advanced as the scientific method. By rights, these criteria should be universally advanced as the scintific method. But certain ideas (like evolution) are not subjected to the standard.
         Now, a couple more points. I have never claimed that there are no data that support evolution. Indeed, I have acknowledged that there are many data that support evolution. There are reasons for critical belief in evolution. However, I have stated that it has not been subjected to any attempts to falsify it. I have stated that there have been "confirm or inconclusive" experiments (e.g. chromosome 2.) I have stated that "potential falsifiers" have been identified after they have been ruled out (e.g. precambrian rabbits.) And, certainly, mine is only a critical analysis rather a scientific theory on its own. So, again, if you think that you can show that I am wrong and that the scientific method which I said was generally applied (because I see an exception being made for evolution) was actually applied to evolution, show me the evidence.
         No one complains that the standard that I put forth is unreasonable to apply to relativity or to quantum mechanics. Both have met the standard. Nor did I invent the standard. I am sure that you are quite familiar with it. If you want to tell me that large-scale evolution is the conclusion of critical analysis, that's fine. People looked at data that was already there, found something that fit, and there are no obvious reasons to say that it is not true. But that is still short of a scientific theory.
         I, too, was told the scientific method in school. I was told that for something to be a theory, it had to withstand falsification attempts. One can construct a good hypothesis by analyzing existing data. But then it must go through fasification attempts. Saying that the "theory" predicts something that can be predicted without the "theory" is useless. Identifying something that would have falsified the idea that was not identified as a potential falsifier prior to experiment is not a test. Sure, some ideas have been falsified in such a serendipitous manner. But the experiment did not consider the possibility of falsifiability and it was not a falsification attempt. And yet, and yet, when it comes to evolution, these rules are discarded. This is what I have been noting. You insist that I am wrong. You tell me the rules are unreasonable. Some people have said that those can only be applied to "hard sciences." Well, if the standard can only be applied to a "hard science," then I can only recognize theories in "hard sciences."

    ReplyDelete
  89. pvblivs said,

    " And you are no different to me. You demand uncritical belief."

    Atomic chimp, we are wasting our breath. The last paragraph, where he explains his personal criterion has been exhaustively laid out in previous discussions. He fails to recognize the solution to his own questions. I will not repeat myself again and again. Pvblivs, think what you want. Enjoy. Drink some wine and boast to yourself that you have outsmarted the entire world of evolutionary biologists. They are apparently too stupid to recognize that what they are doing is a pseudoscience. The alternative hypotheses that they continue to devise and test, and falsify for individual pieces of the evolutionary puzzle matter not, because Pvblivs is far beyond our paultry reasoning ability as scientists. Again, I think you should publish your philosophy of science....if you could overthrow the evolutionary establishment with your interpretation of the scientific method, what are you waiting for? I notice that you are now ignoring my questions. All you can and have done is repeat your tired argument over and over and over. Atomic chimp, notice that he can do nothing except say, "Not good enough, this doesn't meet my standard". How easy is it to do that? Ray Comfort does that. Michael Behe does that. Pvblivs does that. Pvblivs might as well be a creationist...he accepts some of evolutionary theory. Perhaps antibiotic resistance? But when it comes to new species...kinds making other kinds....no, no, no, no, no. You can't test something that happened in the past! Ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  90. "I have stated that there have been "confirm or inconclusive" experiments (e.g. chromosome 2.)"

    Pvblivs, how could scientists have predicted human chromosome 2???? Robertsonian translocations, and for that matter recombination in general is RANDOM. We have to observe it AFTER THE FUCKING FACT AND THEN EXPLAIN IT. You demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of modern genomics. What a twit. Get a fucking textbook and actually read it. Your understanding of biology, and science in general is paultry at best. Oh no, personal attacks! Why don't you try actually responding to questions? Frightened? Recognizing that we are correct?

    ReplyDelete
  91.      No, Reynold, I just don't think it is scientific in the sense of a scientific theory. Nowhere did I post that evolution was necessarily incorrect. I posted that nothing had been set up taht could falsify it.

    ReplyDelete
  92. @Clostridiophile

    ”Atomic chimp, we are wasting our breath. The last paragraph, where he explains his personal criterion has been exhaustively laid out in previous discussions. He fails to recognize the solution to his own questions.”


    I agree Clostridiophile. It’s amazing how well he skirts around the evidence given to him and the flaws in his reasoning we’ve often pointed out. I can’t wait to hear the news of how he get awarded a Nobel for writing a paper on the flaws in science the evolutionary sciences and how we can reconcile them.


    I’m really surprised how Pvblivs gets upset he gets when you compare him to the creationist/ID proponents. It’s like a young earth creationist getting upset when I mistakenly call him an old earth creationist. Just thinking about it busted my irony meter again. I think he will not let it go until we say he is in no way like them at all, but I think being honest is more respectful.


    I’d like to know why he’s getting into talking about relativity and quantum mechanics now. Is he trying to compare these sciences to biology related sciences?! That’s almost as good as when he mentioned that he wanted evolutionary biologists to predict ”future features of animals given an environment”. Though when I showed him we do apply that to the more reasonable scope of viruses, he had nothing to say.

    He still tries to claim he does the work while drag us down by accusing us of being hypocrites. I get the impression he does a lot of selective reading on more than just the papers available.


    I’ve repeated enough here. I’m sure this will not be the last time though, but in the future, I’ll be less generous with my responses. I have a debate for this coming Monday I have to prep for anyway, so my time would be better spent reviewing and updating my arguments. I always like the data to be fresh in my mind. This time no beer before the debate too!


    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  93. pvblivs

    "I posted that nothing had been set up taht could falsify it."

    Experiments to test natural selection could not falsify a particular hypothesis? So we can't test for differential survival in a population under changing environmental circumstances? Please justify this statement. Haven't we already done experiments under domestication that show that a selective agent can produce quite alot of variety? Common descent could not be falsified? Please explain. Variation within a population cannot be falsified? I'm waiting to hear the explanation for this. We don't find a pattern of evolution in the fossil record? Please explain.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Atomic Chimp,

    I followed Reynold's link to pvblivs' blog where he restates his demands on evolutionary biologists. I went over there and gave a long and respectful reply...he deleted it, and then wrote a subsequent post:

    "You have demonstrated to me that you are not interested in knowing what my position is, that you are not trying to persuade me to your position, and that you are only looking for something that you can twist and ridicule. I gave you the benefit of the doubt before. But do not bother posting on my blog anymore. I will delete your comments unread. I would love to have a civilized discussion; but I realize that you are just not interested."

    Not interested? Atomic Chimp, or anyone, has Pvblivs addressed any of my examples or arguments? You will notice he does not, he just repeats his claims over and over. Yeah, I am going to get frustrated. Yeah, I called him names. We have been going over this for months. I'm getting a little pissed. He uses this as his "get out of the conversation without actually addressing the argument free card". This is precisely what fundamentalists do, they find something like this to weasel out without admitting that their arguments have been exposed as incorrect. The evidence creationists ask for, when it is present is always ignored, downplayed, or the goal-posts shift.

    Pvblivs,

    I spent hours trying to have a civil discussion. I carefully, and calmly tried to explain, using both your criterion and the actual criterion used by the scientific community (which actually differs from your own) that evolution is testable, falsifiable, and factual. To claim that I am "not interested in knowing what my position is, that you are not trying to persuade me to your position, and that you are only looking for something that you can twist and ridicule" is utter bullshit and you know it. It is you who is not interested in a real discussion because you do nothing except repeat your criterion even when we present data that falsifies your claims. I'm starting to think that you are just someone trying to get a rise out of people. If that is the case, go crawl in a hole somewhere. If you are serious about having a discussion, why don't you start by actually addressing my arguments! It's like discussing something with Sye. The burden is never on him either...he just sits back and says "not good enough". Yet another parallel between yourself and the fundamentalist mind.

    ReplyDelete
  95. From pvblivs' blog:

    "Evolution (and large-scale evolution in particular) is an idea that fits existing data. However all "predictions" are protected in some fashion. It cannot be falsified. Chromosome 2 was taken as a confirmation of the prediction that they might find a fusion of chromosomes. But, had no such confirmation been found, it would mean nothing against the idea. It was a "confirm or inconclusive" test."

    Since I have been booted out...not unlike Ray Comfort's blog (another fundamentalist), I will post a reply here. To say, "However all "predictions" are protected in some fashion. It cannot be falsified." is utterly ridiculous. If natural selection is never observed in nature...how would this be "protecting" a "prediction"? If experiment after experiment failed to demonstrate common ancestry, how would this be "protecting" a "prediction"? This is a conspiracy theory. He is suggesting that biologists are knowingly misrepresenting the data and the interpretations.

    As for "Chromosome 2 was taken as a confirmation of the prediction that they might find a fusion of chromosomes. But, had no such confirmation been found, it would mean nothing against the idea. It was a "confirm or inconclusive" test." Not even close, pvblivs. There was a discrepency in the karyotypes of humans and chimpanzees. There could have been several interpretations of this data; one of the leading hypotheses was a chromosomal fusion, which is not uncommon in mammals, and is a source of speciation. What was critical was that the genetic material from the missing chromsome in humans could not have been lost. That was the key observation. When Chr. 2 was sequenced, it showed that two chimp chromosomes that are separate are fused in humans....with all the molecular vestiges predicted based on what we know about chromosome structure and cell division. To blow this off is profoundly stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Fuck yeah, I will ridicule. What else could this observation possibly mean???? You have two chromosomes obviously fused, with two vestigial telomeres stuck together in the center, two centromeres, only one of which functions...the other, again a vestige. You must be smoking crack to reject this because of your phony baloney criterion. Your strange notion of how science is performed is blinding you to the data in front of your face.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Atomic Chimp:

         I bring up these scientific disciplines because they demonstrate the standard which must be met to qualify as a scientific theory. (After all, you seem to be asserting that I was inventing an impossible standard.) I did not invent the standard. I only note that you are excusing a particular idea that you like from the standard.
         If you are looking belief, then you are indeed wasting your breath. You do indeed give evidence supportive of evolution. But as I pointed out (and why I mentioned the other scientific disciplines as I did) a theory must go through falsification attempts. It is a very high bar. I did not set this bar. I didn't make a special bar to apply just to evolution. But you reject the bar as impossible. I point out that other disciplines have met this bar and you say "I’d like to know why he’s getting into talking about relativity and quantum mechanics now." Well, here's a very good reason. When creationist (with whom you would like to lump me) make the claim that evolution is "just a theory," these other theories are trotted out as examples of what the word theory means in a scientific context. People draw attention to the fact that a scientific theory must meet the highest standard imaginable. If it's a good enough comparison for saying that theory means more than what the creationists are trying to make it out to mean, it is also a good enough comparison when trying to determine whether the standard is valid.
         "I’m really surprised how Pvblivs gets upset he gets when you compare him to the creationist/ID proponents. It’s like a young earth creationist getting upset when I mistakenly call him an old earth creationist."
         Well, let me remove the surprise for you. Since you are a young earth creationist, present your evidence for young earth creationism. The objection that forms in your mind is the same one that formed in mine. It is a deliberate, dishonest misrepresentation of views. Since I have rejected the bible outright, my views do not resemble using it as a model in any way, shape, or form. If you called me a "hyper-skeptic," saying that I doubted things that you think should be seen as obviously true, that would have been reasonable. So, no, I don't think you're being honest when you say that I am like a creationist. Unless your idea of "like a creationist" means only "does not give unquestioning belief to evolution." That is about the only overlap.
         "[B]ut in the future, I’ll be less generous with my responses."
         Well, thanks for the warning. I, however will refrain from claiming that people are stupid because they don't agree with me. You appear upset because I will not believe blindly and because I reject your false dichotomy.
         For all the evidence that you have given to show support for evolution, you have given none to show that it was subjected to a possible falsifiability. You have not shown that anyone has ever looked for a way that evolution might be wrong. There are reasons to believe evolution true. But no experiment has been set up to rish showing it false. I take the chromosome 2 because it was oh so close. They thought to look for a fused chromosome. They even identified what would be evidence of a fused chromosome (the centromeres and telomeres.) If they had announced that failing to find any fused chromoses would falsify the theory, that would be a falsification attempt. But, apparently, they weren't sure they would find it. And they protected the idea from a possible disconfirmation. That stands out because (after the fact) failure to find it is cited as a "potential falsifier." Well, no, it wasn't.
         So, I suppose you will believe about me that which makes you feel comfortable. But the comparisons you make fit the idea that you think of me as a heretic. There's a pattern for that, too. First, attempt to bring the person "back into the fold." When it becomes clear that that is not working loudly denounce his ideas so that the faithful dare not come near.

    ReplyDelete
  97. "First, attempt to bring the person "back into the fold." When it becomes clear that that is not working loudly denounce his ideas so that the faithful dare not come near."

    Atomic chimp,

    Doesn't he whine like an IDer? Pvblivs has been Expelled!

    ReplyDelete
  98. @ Pvblivs,

    ” Well, let me remove the surprise for you. Since you are a young earth creationist, present your evidence for young earth creationism. The objection that forms in your mind is the same one that formed in mine.”

    Well, sorry to say that you prediction has been falsified. I find humor in it because t is a baseless assertion to attempt to prove a point. If it happened in an actual discussion, most likely the comment would be awarded a spot on the bulletin board in my office. It would them become the joke between my friends and associates for a short while. I enjoy rumors and mistaken impressions about me. It makes my life sound so much more complicated and mysterious.

    More often than not I've seen the same reaction from a person when they see a bit of truth in my comments.

    Hmmm, Very telling, very Telling.

    ReplyDelete
  99. @Clostridiophile,

    As you might have noticed, Pvblivs had only recognized that I compared him to creationist, though I had written ‘creationist/ID Proponent. I did this since I consider ID and Christian Science creationism one in the same. I’m a bit suspicious that he had nothing to say about the ID connection.

    You’ll enjoy this. I went to Pvblivs’ blog and read his diatribe. I was then inspired to revisit the 24+ paper at Talk Origins, where I once again read the portion on one of my recent favorite subjects ERVs. From that I bounced to various articles that questioning ERVs as evidence for evolution. I found one interesting article at ARN, an extension of the discovery institute. As I read it, I that the general premise and particular portions read exactly like things Pvblivs claimed. Though the language used is much different, the points are the same.

    Basically the entire thing is about how predictions made that support evolution, are not predictions. The author, one at time, gives the ‘claimed’ predication, and then follows it with how he thinks incorrect. Each one of his comments begins with, ”It is not a prediction of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry or the more specific hypothesis of neo-Darwinism that…”, and continues in more detail about that particular predication in the same direction.

    I was LOL as I read it.

    ReplyDelete
  100. @ Pvblivs,

    I’m sorry it upsets you but your claims are no different than ID proponents. Again, I can accept that you are not a creationist/ID Proponent if you say so, but your unrealistic standards are virtually the same, thus the reason why I will use a new word to apply to label the likes of you. How does Neo-ID Science Proponent or NISP sound?

    ” If you called me a "hyper-skeptic…”

    Anything beyond the necessary a healthy amount of skepticism is called paranoid in my book. Since your claim is not far from saying that there is a big science conspiracy amongst the entire science community world wide, to hold TOE to a very different standard, I can call you Paranoid or Science Conspiracy Theorist if you’d like.

    ReplyDelete
  101. @ Pvblivs,

    When I brought up the point of The Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics, I was trying to call your attention to the unrealistic predication expectations you had of evolutionary science. I then reminded you of the more practical example I had provided that fulfilled your request. Though it applies the same science standards you claim that you use, you chose to ignore it. My point was that you clearly demonstrate over and over that it is you that hold evolution to a different standard. Be it because of a lack of understanding the subject, or a willful ignorance or defiance of evolution, and/or science in general, I can not say.

    ” the comparisons you make fit the idea that you think of me as a heretic.
    Strange how you view of the discourse has a religious tone to it. Well, you’re taking it far more seriously than you should or I do. It’s just a discussion. You can continue to believe what you want, but for reasons explained many times already, I will no longer consider this an intelligent discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  102. @Clostridiophile,

    "First, attempt to bring the person "back into the fold." When it becomes clear that that is not working loudly denounce his ideas so that the faithful dare not come near."

    Atomic chimp,

    Doesn't he whine like an IDer? Pvblivs has been Expelled!


    I agree completely. The entire quote might just get a spot on my board at work, to remind my associates what the results of descent will be. Burn all the heretics, burn them! ;)

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  103. Atomic Chimp:

         "As you might have noticed, Pvblivs had only recognized that I compared him to creationist, though I had written 'creationist/ID Proponent.'"
         Actually, you wrote "your bible model."

    Pvblivs, please explain this with your biblical model. [emphasis added] I would like to know where there is a prediction for neanderthals.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    February 13, 2009 9:59 PM

         "More often than not I've seen the same reaction from a person when they see a bit of truth in my comments."
         A bit of truth, or an anticipation of a successful shun? Howmany of them told you it was "a bit of truth"? Fine, you're secure enough that you will not be shunned. But my response was to a blatent misrepresentation that had zero truth to it.
         "Strange how you view of the discourse has a religious tone to it."
         It's not strange at all. Religion (normally cults, but sometimes more powerful ones) are the only other thing (of which I am aware) that attempts to ostracize dissenters. Even your board to ridicule differing views is part of it.

    ReplyDelete
  104. @ Pvblivs

    Wow, you're still hung on exactly what I said on February 13, 2009 9:59 PM. You seem to have forget about how after you corrected me on it, a week later I updated my description when i said,"I’m really surprised how Pvblivs gets upset he gets when you compare him to the creationist/ID proponents...", on February 20, 2009 11:39 AM and you quoted later @ 7:34 PM.

    Don't linger in the past Pvblivs keep up with us. Like I mentioned before, on a blog discussion this evolve, so its only the most recent posts that really matter.

    @ Pvblivs

    "Even your board to ridicule differing views is part of it.

    I have a board to ridicule parts of religion?! Science?! Pvblivs?! Something?!

    Wow, I'm good! I must be doing it during my naps in between lunch and our afternoon mass where we read scriptures from our pagan science bibles.

    Where is this board? I'd like to see my handiwork.

    Praise Dr. Emmett Brown!
    ~High Priest, Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>