RE: ?empirical evidence?

RE: ?empirical evidence? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

Bettawrekonize -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/5/2008 3:13:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 It is generally accepted Even if true, this is not evidence for the notion quote: that through stages in embryonic development, we can observe evolutionary relationships with other organisms, that might not be apparent in the fully developed organism. quote: These similar structures can and do provide evidence of evolutionary relationships and support UCD. Cars and bikes share similar tires but they have differences. That's not to say cars and bikes share a common ancestor. There is no reason to believe similarities are evidence for UCD. Different cars share similar tires, they don't share a common ancestor. How different must organisms be to falsify UCD and why that different?

unclemonkey -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/5/2008 5:09:54 PM)
ORIGINAL:drj11 quote: It is generally accepted that through stages in embryonic development, we can observe evolutionary relationships with other organisms, that might not be apparent in the fully developed organism. Even though it is known to be fraudulent, as demonstrated in my previous post, your ilk would rather cling to such nonsense than admit that it is fraud. quote: Earnest Haekel was wrong with his Recapitulation Theory... that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Haekel was more than simply wrong, his presentation was fraudulent. This nonsense from talkorigins you are defending is nothing more than Haekel’s fraud in a new package. quote: If only you were half as skeptical of your 'creation scientists' as you are to talk origins you might be getting somewhere. These baseless slanders of yours are nothing more than demonstrations of your bigotry. quote: The article you linked is filled with more misinformation than I can address in one post, but we'll start with the "gill slits" which are real and do exist. Ok, let’s examine the “gill slits” and see who is peddling misinformation. quote: They arent actually gills, in fish or humans. You are quite a puzzle. You refute your own claims. You unwittingly demonstrate that it is talkorigins and it’s devotees who are peddling the misinformation. Your argument that similar structures is evidence for evolution is bogus. Similar structures is every bit as much evidence for a common creator as they are for a common ancestor. Their interpretation is determined by worldview. Worldview based interpretation is not even “evidence” let alone empirical evidence. quote: Fraud? No, it was factually accurate. Gee, I wonder why Haekel himself admitted that it was fraud. quote: Your article on the other hand was filled to the brim with straw-men like the one I just pointed out, and other fallacies. There was not a single strawman in the link I provided. EVERY argument they refuted is an actual argument presented by evolutionists. I know that because I have seen the arguments presented by evolutionists and they were not altered at all in the link I provided. quote: It doesn't bother you that some of the most frequent contributers on true origins have questionable credentials? It doesn’t bother you at all that the site you are defending is promoting known frauds? BTW, credentials have nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the argument. I suppose you don't think utilizing fraud to support your argument has any bearing on the validity of the argument?

unclemonkey -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/5/2008 9:22:01 PM)
ORIGINAL:Bettawrekonize quote: How different must organisms be to falsify UCD and why that different? That’s just it. Similarities prove UCD and so do differences. That makes falsification rather difficult.

robto -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/6/2008 11:27:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:robto quote: If you've never seen a fossil, Uncle, a visit to your local natural history museum should solve that problem. A fossil is empirical evidence that the critter that left it existed, but how it fits into TOE is worldview-based interpretation. Rather than supporting evolution the empirical evidence provided by fossils actually serves to cause contention among evolutionists. News flash: ALL OF SCIENCE INVOLVES INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE. No scientific theory is directly observable. All we can do is draw out the predictions of the theory, and look to see if those predictions hold up in observations. quote: “How did Darwin overcome this “obvious and serious objection”? He claimed that the gaps were due to “the extreme imperfection of the geological record” – the fossil record does not in fact give a very good record of the past. One reason for this at the time was the still very limited knowledge of the global fossil record. Darwin expected more intermediate forms to be found as research continued. And, in fact, more and more intermediate forms are being found all the time. Example: whale ancestors. Example: human ancestors. quote: On the other side, those with a more first-hand knowledge of fossils stand for “punctuated equilibrium”: evolution occurs mainly in sudden bursts, with long periods of little change. This explains why intermediate forms are not found in the fossil record. They were around for such relatively short times that the chance of their being fossilised was very low. However, punctuated equilibrium lacks a clear mechanism. How was biological change produced as fast as the fossil record seems to require? This is still debated.” –http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/48/65/ News flash #2: Punctuated equilibrium (PE) is an EVOLUTIONARY theory. It does NOT "lack a clear mechanism" - in fact, rates of evolution as measured in the field in living organisms are much HIGHER than what is required to produce the observed rate of change of fossil organisms. What is still somewhat mysterious is the lack of change, the stasis of species. A couple of points here: 1. PE involves the species-to-species transitions. It is here that "intermediates" can be hard to find. For the larger scale transformations, between genera or families, there are plenty of intermediates. 2. In some cases, the species-to-species transition can be documented, as for example in Stephen Jay Gould's research on fossil snails. He showed that the whole transition occurred in a single "bedding plane" - a single geological layer. He was able to demonstrate how the actual change took place over time by looking at the chemical changes in the amino acids in the shells. 3. In some organisms, gradual species-to-species change has been well documented (e.g. the foraminifera). So the real debate is over how often PE occurs as opposed to gradual change.

drj11 -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/6/2008 12:43:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey Even though it is known to be fraudulent, as demonstrated in my previous post, your ilk would rather cling to such nonsense than admit that it is fraud. What's fraudulent? The fact that human embryo's have tails? Thats not disputable. The fact that they have pharyngeal pouches (aka "Gill slits")? Again, not disputable. quote: Haekel was more than simply wrong, his presentation was fraudulent. This nonsense from talkorigins you are defending is nothing more than Haekel’s fraud in a new package. Yea, we know he fudged his pictures, slightly. Thanks to scientists, not creationists this was discovered. Do you know the difference between Recapitulation Theory (which was falsified by scientists) and the idea that organisms have traits in embryonic development that can give us clues to evolutionary relationships? You are conflating the two concepts, they are in no way shape or form the same thing. quote: quote: If only you were half as skeptical of your 'creation scientists' as you are to talk origins you might be getting somewhere. These baseless slanders of yours are nothing more than demonstrations of your bigotry. Look in the mirror, with your constant assertions that scientists are part of some naturalist conspiracy to destroy religion and explain away God. quote: quote: The article you linked is filled with more misinformation than I can address in one post, but we'll start with the "gill slits" which are real and do exist. Ok, let’s examine the “gill slits” and see who is peddling misinformation. quote: They arent actually gills, in fish or humans. You are quite a puzzle. You refute your own claims. You unwittingly demonstrate that it is talkorigins and it’s devotees who are peddling the misinformation. I didnt refute myself. In most mammals and fish, have what we call "gill slits". They arent actually gills, like I said. They are referred to in laymen's terms as "gill slits" because thats what they look like, even though they arent gills. The technical term is pharyngeal pouches. A little reading comprehension goes a long way... quote: Your argument that similar structures is evidence for evolution is bogus. Similar structures is every bit as much evidence for a common creator as they are for a common ancestor. Their interpretation is determined by worldview. Worldview based interpretation is not even “evidence” let alone empirical evidence. Evolution doesnt care if there was a common creator or not. A creator and evolution are not mutually exclusive. The fact that we have a fossil record that continues to confirms our expectations about similarities lends a little bit more weight to the idea that those similarites evolved, rather than a creator just poofed us into existence as we are, out of nothing. quote: Gee, I wonder why Haekel himself admitted that it was fraud. You said the quote on talk origins was a fraud. It wasn't talking about Hackel's pictures. quote: quote: Your article on the other hand was filled to the brim with straw-men like the one I just pointed out, and other fallacies. There was not a single strawman in the link I provided. EVERY argument they refuted is an actual argument presented by evolutionists. I know that because I have seen the arguments presented by evolutionists and they were not altered at all in the link I provided. No evolutionist says humans have functioning gills. No evolutionist claims a baby born with a hole in his neck has gills. No one teaches Recapitulation theory, that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Unfortunately the creation 'scientists' have overblown things to such an absurd degree on this issue, any time the word "gill slits" or "embryonic tail" or there is talk about similarities between vertebrae embryos, that anyone who takes what they said seriously explode into diatribes about Haeckel and his fudged pictures and scientific conspiracies, while never bothering to look at the reality. quote: quote: It doesn't bother you that some of the most frequent contributers on true origins have questionable credentials? It doesn’t bother you at all that the site you are defending is promoting known frauds? You havnt demonstrated it has perpetrated any fraud. Human embryo's have tails, and this is well known and verifiable. Same with gill slits. Again, I think your conflating the fact that embryos can have similarities that give us clues to our evolutionary relationships, with Recapitulation Theory. quote: BTW, credentials have nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the argument. I suppose you don't think utilizing fraud to support your argument has any bearing on the validity of the argument? Gotcha... Keep listening to those dishonest credential hoarders at TrueO. Its amazing how dishonest some people will be when they try and spread their morals.

unclemonkey -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/6/2008 1:55:34 PM)
ORIGINAL:robto quote: News flash: ALL OF SCIENCE INVOLVES INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE. I am well aware of that. However, INTERPRETATION IS NOT EVIDENCE. Interpretation is based on worldview.

unclemonkey -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/6/2008 3:08:50 PM)
ORIGINAL:drj11 quote: What's fraudulent? The fact that human embryo's have tails? Human embryos have an homogeneously echogenic protrusion typically called a tail, but in reality it is nothing more than an early stage in the development of the nervous system. “Once in a great while a child will be born with a "tail." But, is it really a tail? No, it's not even the coccyx. It doesn't have any bones in it; it doesn't have any nerve cord either. The nervous system starts stretched out open on the back. During development, it rises up in ridges and rolls shut. It starts to "zipper" shut in the middle first, then it zippers toward either end. Once in a while it doesn't go far enough, and that produces a serious defect called spina bifida. Sometimes it rolls a little too far. Then the baby will be born - not with a tail, but with a fatty tumor. It's just skin and a little fatty tissue, so the doctor can just cut it off. It's not at all like the tail of a cat that has muscle, bones, and nerve, so cutting it off is not complicated. (So far as I know, no one claims that proves we evolved from an animal with a fatty tumor at the end of its spine.)” - http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c024.html Claiming the “tail” on human embryos is evidence that we have ancestors who had tails IS A FRAUDULENT CLAIM. quote: The fact that they have pharyngeal pouches (aka "Gill slits")? Again, not disputable. The FRAUD here is claiming the folds are “gill slits”. They are NOT gills. They are NOT even slits, but simply folds in the skin. quote: Do you know the difference between Recapitulation Theory (which was falsified by scientists) and the idea that organisms have traits in embryonic development that can give us clues to evolutionary relationships? Sure do. The ONLY difference is the package they are delivered in. The basic concept is the same. I.e. the supposed features seen in developing human babies are there because we have ancestors who had those features. It is just like the difference between “spontaneous generation” and “abiogenesis”. The difference here being that “spontaneous generation” is the disproved belief that given the right conditions life will spontaneously arise and “abiogenesis” is the scientific concept that given the right conditions life will spontaneously arise. quote: quote: These baseless slanders of yours are nothing more than demonstrations of your bigotry. Look in the mirror, Please cite the personal attacks that I have made. What I have done is point out frauds in the articles you cited. That is NOT the same as the personal attacks you have made. quote: with your constant assertions that scientists are part of some naturalist conspiracy to destroy religion and explain away God. PLEASE CITE where I have made any such claim. Your false accusations here further demonstrate your bigotry. quote: Gotcha... Keep listening to those dishonest credential hoarders at TrueO. More personal attacks. You just can’t stay away from them eh? It is a real common tactic of your ilk. You can’t refute the message so you seek to kill the messenger.

Real_Solitude -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/6/2008 5:45:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize Cars and bikes share similar tires but they have differences. That's not to say cars and bikes share a common ancestor. There is no reason to believe similarities are evidence for UCD. Different cars share similar tires, they don't share a common ancestor. How different must organisms be to falsify UCD and why that different? Actually, I'd disagree with the claim that cars don't share a common ancestor. They certainly don't have a common ancestor in the biological sense, but in the memetic sense, they do. It's not like, without ever having seen a car before, some engineer said, "Hey, want to make a Merkur XR4Ti today?" Of course not. The engineers involved in the development of any new car are working off of their knowledge of previous models. They don't make an exact copy of the previous model, but they take the same concepts as the previous model, the same features, etc... but then they alter them a little bit to make it better. I don't know if all cars memetically descended from a single source. There might have been multiple original lines designs of cars that from there each influenced subsequent generations, which then merged features or designs later on to become more like the cars we have today. But the fact remains that cars have 'evolved' from a (?) common ancestor. The same can probably be said of tires, bikes, and many other modern technologies. quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey It is just like the difference between “spontaneous generation” and “abiogenesis”. The difference here being that “spontaneous generation” is the disproved belief that given the right conditions life will spontaneously arise and “abiogenesis” is the scientific concept that given the right conditions life will spontaneously arise. Are you seriously suggesting that "mice comes from rags" is the same as "Nucleotides formed in montmorillonite clay, they joined together to become polynucleotides, poylnucleotides formed RNA, RNA became DNA, DNA accreted a protective membrane of lipids. Etc..."? If you don't see the difference between instant creation, and a gradual, cumulative process, then there's no way on earth you can ever be convinced of many cosmological, abiogenetical, or evolutionary processes.

unclemonkey -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/6/2008 7:30:42 PM)
ORIGINAL:Real_Solitude quote: The engineers involved in the development of any new car are working off of their knowledge of previous models. They don't make an exact copy of the previous model, but they take the same concepts as the previous model, the same features, etc... but then they alter them a little bit to make it better. Hmmmmm. Sounds like a good example if ID. quote: Are you seriously suggesting that "mice comes from rags" is the same as "Nucleotides formed in montmorillonite clay, they joined together to become polynucleotides, poylnucleotides formed RNA, RNA became DNA, DNA accreted a protective membrane of lipids. Etc..."? Yes. I am seriously suggesting that the spontaneous generation of a rat is no different than the spontaneous generation of a living microbe. The difference between the most complex compound of inanimate chemicals found in nature and a living microbe is much greater than the difference between a living microbe and a rat. quote: If you don't see the difference between instant creation, and a gradual, cumulative process, then there's no way on earth you can ever be convinced of many cosmological, abiogenetical, or evolutionary processes. Adding a bunch of steps makes the impossible possible?

Bettawrekonize -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/6/2008 8:21:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude Actually, I'd disagree with the claim that cars don't share a common ancestor. Really? quote: They certainly don't have a common ancestor in the biological sense, but in the memetic sense, they do. They don't have a common ancestor period. They don't have parents, they don't have children, they don't have grandparents, or grandchildren, etc... quote: It's not like, without ever having seen a car before, some engineer said, "Hey, want to make a Merkur XR4Ti today?" But cars didn't "evolve" on their own, they were designed. Any changes among cars were designed. How humans design cars might have evolved (changed), but the cars themselves were designed. You are arguing that because cars (and bikes) share similarities, this suggests that cars were either designed by a common designer or a group of designers who worked together or different designers who were familiar with each others work. In other words, different cars were not a result of different designers who never seen each others work (hence not being familiar with each others work) who independently created very similar cars by coincidence. The fact that different living organisms share similarities suggests that they were either created by a common designer or they were created by a group of designers who either worked together or were very familiar with each others work (and hence copied each others work). It does not suggest that different designers, who were never familiar with each others work, independently created different life forms and they just happened to be similar by coincidence. Now, if life were perfect, one could suggest this to be the case because they can then argue that the designers were all seeking perfection and that's how they all independently arrived at the same designs. Imperfection resists this explanation, it is often by imperfections/mistakes that a designer can be identified. quote: Of course not. The engineers involved in the development of any new car are working off of their knowledge of previous models. Cars were engineered, they didn't evolve from a common ancestor. quote: They don't make an exact copy of the previous model, but they take the same concepts as the previous model, the same features, etc... but then they alter them a little bit to make it better. An act of engineering, again, the cars didn't evolve. The next models were designed, even if the next design is an improvement of a previous design. How humans design cars might have evolved, but the cars did not. quote: I don't know if all cars memetically descended from a single source. There might have been multiple original lines designs of cars that from there each influenced subsequent generations, which then merged features or designs later on to become more like the cars we have today. Again, more design required, not RM + NS. quote: But the fact remains that cars have 'evolved' from a (?) common ancestor. No, they were designed. The designers might have learned from a common design and changed things (how the designers design cars might have evolved), but the cars didn't evolve from a common ancestor. They were designed. quote: The same can probably be said of tires, bikes, and many other modern technologies. All of which are a result of design, not RM + NS. Cars and bikes do not share a common ancestor, different cars do not share a common ancestor. Cars, bikes, tires, etc... were all designed and yet they have similarities and differences. There is no reason to believe similarities are evidence for common ancestry.

Real_Solitude -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/6/2008 9:15:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize Please familiarize yourself with memetic theory, then reply again. Memetic theory has to do with the transmission and change of ideas, and the competition of sets of ideas against other sets of ideas.

drj11 -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/6/2008 9:16:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey Human embryos have an homogeneously echogenic protrusion typically called a tail, but in reality it is nothing more than an early stage in the development of the nervous system. “Once in a great while a child will be born with a "tail." But, is it really a tail? No, it's not even the coccyx. It doesn't have any bones in it; it doesn't have any nerve cord either. The nervous system starts stretched out open on the back. During development, it rises up in ridges and rolls shut. It starts to "zipper" shut in the middle first, then it zippers toward either end. Once in a while it doesn't go far enough, and that produces a serious defect called spina bifida. Sometimes it rolls a little too far. Then the baby will be born - not with a tail, but with a fatty tumor. It's just skin and a little fatty tissue, so the doctor can just cut it off. It's not at all like the tail of a cat that has muscle, bones, and nerve, so cutting it off is not complicated. (So far as I know, no one claims that proves we evolved from an animal with a fatty tumor at the end of its spine.)” - http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c024.html Claiming the “tail” on human embryos is evidence that we have ancestors who had tails IS A FRAUDULENT CLAIM. Actually the tails in the human embryos do have bones and nerves. The cells later die, during development, and are 'digested' by the immune system. It's evidence that we may share a close common ancestor with other living organisms with similar embryonic tails. It doesn't necessarily mean a close common ancestor had a tail, but that one probably did far enough back in history. Fraud it is not. We can look at apes and see our close physical resemblance and infer that we are closely related. Embryonic features work just the same way. quote: quote: The fact that they have pharyngeal pouches (aka "Gill slits")? Again, not disputable. The FRAUD here is claiming the folds are “gill slits”. They are NOT gills. They are NOT even slits, but simply folds in the skin. Ahh... I think I see what is going on here. Your penchant for taking things literally is getting in the way here. Please... read this very carefully. Yes, everyone knows "gill slits" are not gills and thats exactly what I explained to you already at least two times. You then continue on like evolutionists are actually claiming human embryos have functioning gills even though I have repeatedly informed you it is not true. Yet you still yell fraud. They get called that because of the way they look. Its one of those improper euphemisms or nicknames that stuck and has become a hold over from back in the day when some thought they might have actually been gills, AFAIK. No one claims human embryo's have functioning gills. They are, however, the same exact precursor structure found in both human and fish embryos. In fish they do become gills. In humans they do not. Get it? The do not call them "gill slits" because they think or are trying to teach that they are gills. This is common knowledge. The name is unfortunate, however. It seems to be a very effective tool by the 'creation scientists' for duping people into thinking scientists are spreading around all kinds of falsehoods. You fell for it hard. quote: Do you know the difference between Recapitulation Theory (which was falsified by scientists) and the idea that organisms have traits in embryonic development that can give us clues to evolutionary relationships? Sure do. The ONLY difference is the package they are delivered in. The basic concept is the same. I.e. the supposed features seen in developing human babies are there because we have ancestors who had those features. Not even close. Recapitulation Theory as described by Haeckel is extremely different than that idea. He believed as embryo's grew, they evolved through all the stages of evolution in that organisms history in a linear fashion. If you started out as a single cell organism, and evolved to a fish, reptile, bird, etc, your embryonic development would follow that pattern, in order passing through each one of those stages. Obviously this is wrong. Embryonic features may not even tell us that much about our evolutionary ancestors, but they tell us more about evolutionary relationships with other living organisms, just like the way similar features in fully grown organisms can do the same. http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/03/what-is-evo-devo.html "And this really gets to the essence of what we can retrieve from Haeckel’s theory. Clearly, Ontogeny does NOT recapitulate phylogeny. However, ontogeny does organize according to phylogeny. By which I mean, we can look at the developmental forms of different organisms and infer evolutionary relationships between them. So, to compare a fish embryo, a chimpanzee embryo, and a human embryo, is to show pretty clearly that there are more similarities in the way a chimpanzee and a human develop compared to either one and a fish. All three start off with the same number of pharyngeal slits, but only chimpanzees and humans form ear bones, and only the fish forms functional gills. And we don’t have to rely on Haeckel’s drawings, either- most biology textbooks use photographs of embryos, which may be a bit harder to interpret, but which are at least more accurate than Haeckel’s drawings." quote: It is just like the difference between “spontaneous generation” and “abiogenesis”. The difference here being that “spontaneous generation” is the disproved belief that given the right conditions life will spontaneously arise and “abiogenesis” is the scientific concept that given the right conditions life will spontaneously arise. That comparison is absurd. Trying to equate spontaneous generation with abiogenesis is like comparing creationism to evolution ;) One has some real scientific thought behind it, the other doesn't. quote: quote: quote: These baseless slanders of yours are nothing more than demonstrations of your bigotry. Look in the mirror, Please cite the personal attacks that I have made. What I have done is point out frauds in the articles you cited. That is NOT the same as the personal attacks you have made. PLEASE CITE where I have made any such claim. Your false accusations here further demonstrate your bigotry. Hey you were the one that started throwing out the B word. With all the constant demonizing of evolutionists (materialist naturalist consipiracies, yada yada yada) and prejudices you seem to have towards scientists I simply was offering the helpful suggestion that a little self reflection was in order. I may think creationism is idiotic... but I dont hate the creationists. Even really smart people can believe some stupid things. Doubting someones questionable credentials, especially when they mislead one into thinking they are authoritative sources on the topics they espouse, is not bigotry. Its common sense. I dont see how espousing conspiracies of materialism from scientists, both atheist and theist alike, is any more noble.

Nothingman -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/7/2008 3:39:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize Please familiarize yourself with memetic theory, then reply again. Memetic theory has to do with the transmission and change of ideas, and the competition of sets of ideas against other sets of ideas. the memetic theory is garbage.

unclemonkey -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/7/2008 9:47:09 AM)
ORIGINAL:drj11 quote: One has some real scientific thought behind it, the other doesn't. It probably surprises you, but I agree with that statement. The spontaneous generation argument was presented with empirical support. The problem though was that the scientists providing it were not meticulous with their experiments and overlooked what was really happening. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is pure conjecture totally void of empirical support. The only thing consistent with the two is the atheist dogma that “given the right conditions life will spontaneously arise”. Do you suppose the fact that frogs and humans both have five digits on their hands/feet is empirical evidence that frogs and humans share a common ancestor?

drj11 -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/7/2008 10:09:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:drj11 quote: One has some real scientific thought behind it, the other doesn't. It probably surprises you, but I agree with that statement. The spontaneous generation argument was presented with empirical support. The problem though was that the scientists providing it were not meticulous with their experiments and overlooked what was really happening. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is pure conjecture totally void of empirical support. The only thing consistent with the two is the atheist dogma that “given the right conditions life will spontaneously arise”. Well, I dont think anyone would argue that abiogenesis doesn't have a long way to go, before it can be declared a reasonably accurate approximation of reality. Its tenets will eventually either be proven wrong, or they will gain more standing. Only time, experimentation and progress will tell. quote: Do you suppose the fact that frogs and humans both have five digits on their hands/feet is empirical evidence that frogs and humans share a common ancestor? I believe all vertebrate are thought to have a common ancestor. The similarities go farther than the digits on a finger.

unclemonkey -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/7/2008 3:20:07 PM)
ORIGINAL:drj11 quote: Well, I dont think anyone would argue that abiogenesis doesn't have a long way to go, before it can be declared a reasonably accurate approximation of reality. That is what you choose to believe. However, what you choose to believe doesn’t constitute empirical evidence. I asked for empirical evidence and all you have provided so far is defense of the fraud promoted by talkorigins, character assassination attacks and personal belief. Where is the empirical evidence? quote: quote: Do you suppose the fact that frogs and humans both have five digits on their hands/feet is empirical evidence that frogs and humans share a common ancestor? I believe all vertebrate are thought to have a common ancestor. The similarities go farther than the digits on a finger. You didn’t answer my question. “Do you suppose the fact that frogs and humans both have five digits on their hands/feet is empirical evidence that frogs and humans share a common ancestor? “ Please answer either yes or no. Beating around the bush indicates that you are afraid to give a direct answer.

drj11 -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/7/2008 11:58:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey That is what you choose to believe. However, what you choose to believe doesn’t constitute empirical evidence. I asked for empirical evidence and all you have provided so far is defense of the fraud promoted by talkorigins, character assassination attacks and personal belief. Where is the empirical evidence? I gave you links with more than enough empirical evidence. You just have chosen to ignore it, which is why I didnt really bother spending time typing out the finer details for you. You just yell fraud over indisputable facts since you cant seem to untangle the confusion in your mind over Haeckel's falsified "biogenic law", and evolutionary development biology. Fact: Human embryo's have "gill slits" - Not disputable Fact: Human embryo's have tails - Also not disputable Not fraud. It either shows complete ignorance from the creationists saying otherwise, or it's a deliberate subterfuge to conflate Haeckel's old ideas with evolution. Either way, it doesn't bode well for their credibility. quote: Do you suppose the fact that frogs and humans both have five digits on their hands/feet is empirical evidence that frogs and humans share a common ancestor? You didn’t answer my question. “Do you suppose the fact that frogs and humans both have five digits on their hands/feet is empirical evidence that frogs and humans share a common ancestor? “ Please answer either yes or no. Beating around the bush indicates that you are afraid to give a direct answer. Short answer: I dont know. I'm not a frog expert. Just looking superficially at the digits, it would probably be very a weak connection. If you take into account the whole organism, its features such as the skeleton, nervous system, embryonic development so on and so forth, you could begin to draw a better idea of where it fits on the phylogenetic tree and where our lines may converge.

drj11 -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/8/2008 12:06:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize Even if true, this is not evidence for the notion Cars and bikes share similar tires but they have differences. That's not to say cars and bikes share a common ancestor. There is no reason to believe similarities are evidence for UCD. Different cars share similar tires, they don't share a common ancestor. How different must organisms be to falsify UCD and why that different? Show me cars and bikes that mate and combine their "genes" to form a completely new unique bike or car with differing traits, and where those traits could be beneficial or harmful to their handling on the road. If they could, you might find a car that has turned into a motorcycle or a bike that has turned into a 4 wheeler. Fact is, you cant really compare cars and other inanimate creations to life when speaking about evolution. We tend to liken protein transcription to a computer system of sorts to make it easier to understand, but the fact is, its unlike any machine we have every built. When DNA was discovered and genetics was just beginning, it was a questionable future for evolution... our better understanding of the biochemistry and genetics showed us more similarities and common traits than I think anyone ever expected. But there is no rule or reason that life needs to be so similar genetically. If we didn't have a common ancestor we would expect the chemical make up of different organisms to be radically varied as well as our morphology. As it stands, most organisms are sort of like parodies of one another. If we were designed, we should also rightly expect much more precision and efficiency in creation.

unclemonkey -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/8/2008 9:09:11 AM)
ORIGINAL:drj11 quote: I gave you links with more than enough empirical evidence. All you have done is promote talkorigins. quote: You just have chosen to ignore it, Yea, I reckon you can call explaining why it is fraud ignoring it. quote: Short answer: I dont know. You sure don’t know much for someone who smugly casts about insults the way you do. quote: Just looking superficially at the digits, it would probably be very a weak connection. Aw, come on! You insist that gill slits that aren’t really gill slits ARE evidence of a common ancestor. The FACT that frogs and humans have the same number of digits on their hands/feet certainly ought to be a lot stronger evidence than non-existent gill slits. Are you afraid to commit to a yes/no answer because while you support the fraudulent “gill slit” argument because talkorigins promotes it you haven’t been able to find anything at talkorigins about a frog/human digit connection?

upNORTder -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/8/2008 11:58:58 AM)
quote: News flash #2: Punctuated equilibrium (PE) is an EVOLUTIONARY theory. It does NOT "lack a clear mechanism" - in fact, rates of evolution as measured in the field in living organisms are much HIGHER than what is required to produce the observed rate of change of fossil organisms. What is still somewhat mysterious is the lack of change, the stasis of species. If enviromental changes cause evolutionary changes in an organism, you would think that rather than have a great number of species die out (as is currently happening), you would have a great deal of evolving going on. Where is it? With DNA testing we should be able to detect evolutionary changes as organisms adapt. Have we?

drj11 -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/8/2008 12:00:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:drj11 quote: I gave you links with more than enough empirical evidence. All you have done is promote talkorigins. I provided you with the explanations you asked for. You cant really fit the details in a few one liner answers. Its complicated stuff that deserves more than a forum poster can provide. quote: You sure don’t know much for someone who smugly casts about insults the way you do. I can count at least 3 or 4 times in this thread or the last where you called me a bigot. But yea, I must not know much because I'm not familiar with frog anatomy. quote: quote: Just looking superficially at the digits, it would probably be very a weak connection. Aw, come on! You insist that gill slits that aren’t really gill slits ARE evidence of a common ancestor. The FACT that frogs and humans have the same number of digits on their hands/feet certainly ought to be a lot stronger evidence than non-existent gill slits. Are you afraid to commit to a yes/no answer because while you support the fraudulent “gill slit” argument because talkorigins promotes it you haven’t been able to find anything at talkorigins about a frog/human digit connection? You still just don't get it. I haven't studied the digits on a frog hand I cant say one way or the other. A bat and a bird both have wings, but despite their superficial similarities bats and birds dont share another bird as a common ancestor. Two completely different ways of accomplishing the same task but they look similar superficially. I already explained to you, taken by themselves, in isolation and very superficially, they probably wouldn't be much evidence. In light of all the other similarities one could begin to build a stronger case. Just like with humans, and all of our characteristics, including gill slits and tails. If you put blinders on, and just zoom in on one feature and ignore the evidence, its probably pretty weak. If you take them all into account, the case becomes strong, and collectively they provide strong evidence. You keep wanting to compound topics that really require much more detail into yes or no, one liner answers. I know what your trying to do... a nice little booby trap. If I say 'no' you will try and paint me as inconsistent with the "gill slits", and tail, and if I say 'yes', you will start talking about how ridiculous and tenuous the connection is. But its not really ridiculous at all. It only seems that way if you frame it the way you do, for an over-simplistic answer.

DanJames -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/8/2008 1:13:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 Actually the tails in the human embryos do have bones and nerves. The cells later die, during development, and are 'digested' by the immune system. It's evidence that we may share a close common ancestor with other living organisms with similar embryonic tails. It doesn't necessarily mean a close common ancestor had a tail, but that one probably did far enough back in history. Fraud it is not. We can look at apes and see our close physical resemblance and infer that we are closely related. Embryonic features work just the same way. ... Ahh... I think I see what is going on here. Your penchant for taking things literally is getting in the way here. Please... read this very carefully. Yes, everyone knows "gill slits" are not gills and thats exactly what I explained to you already at least two times. You then continue on like evolutionists are actually claiming human embryos have functioning gills even though I have repeatedly informed you it is not true. Yet you still yell fraud. They get called that because of the way they look. Its one of those improper euphemisms or nicknames that stuck and has become a hold over from back in the day when some thought they might have actually been gills, AFAIK. No one claims human embryo's have functioning gills. They are, however, the same exact precursor structure found in both human and fish embryos. In fish they do become gills. In humans they do not. Get it? The do not call them "gill slits" because they think or are trying to teach that they are gills. This is common knowledge. The name is unfortunate, however. It seems to be a very effective tool by the 'creation scientists' for duping people into thinking scientists are spreading around all kinds of falsehoods. You fell for it hard. This thread took a LONG time to read. I should stop dropping in in the middle of a long conversation... whew! Drj, you keep saying that no evolutionist is claiming that humans have gill slits, and you're wrong. My professor himself has made it a point to say that ALL representatives of the phylum Chordata are similar in that they all posses a nerve cord, a notochord (backbone), a tail (chord that protrudes beyond the anus), and gill slits at some point in their development. You may think and claim that evolutionists are not pushing this idea, but you would be mistaken. One GRADUATE student TA even thought that the embryo used the gill slits to breath in the amniotic fluid during its development. Now what was it that you're saying that evolutionists are doing such a great job of teaching? Would you like for me to email you a PDF file of my biology exam that has a short answer question "Recapitulation theory:_________________" Guess what the correct answer was? I don't know what survey you took of biology professors that made you think that ontogeny is being taught in the way you described, but I have not seen evidence of it in MY college's biology department.

cognitivemagic -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/8/2008 5:09:54 PM)
quote: What empirical evidence? I hear this claim over and over yet I have never seen a single piece of empirical evidence that supports evolution. Please enlighten me. There's a difference between direct and indirect empirical evidence. Of course, there's no direct empirical evidence for evolution. But, Darwinists are going to claim that there's indirect empirical evidence for their claim (i.e. the fossil record, organic adaptability, genetic similitude, etc.). But your post is double edged: what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. They might well reply with: "What empirical evidence do you have for God? Or the resurrection of Jesus? Or any miracles?" In regards to "direct" evidence, we don't have evidence for either God or the resurrection of Jesus, though we might have seen some "miracle". But there's plenty of indirect evidence for them. However, I appreciate where you were going with this. But I also want to be fair to your opposition.

unclemonkey -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/8/2008 6:44:47 PM)
ORIGINAL:cognitivemagic quote: There's a difference between direct and indirect empirical evidence. What you are calling “indirect empirical evidence” is simply a particular interpretation. The same evidence you see as support for a common ancestor I see as support for a common Creator. The interpretation is dependent on worldview. Simply calling your worldview based interpretation “indirect empirical evidence” does not make it empirical evidence. E.g. you see the fossil record as a record of new life. I see the fossil record as a record of catastrophic death. You believe it should be interpreted from an evolutionary worldview and I believe It should be interpreted from a Biblical worldview. The difference is that I don’t have the audacity to call it “empirical evidence” for my worldview. quote: Of course, there's no direct empirical evidence for evolution. Thank you for the admission. You confirm my contention that, in spite of all the claims, there is actually NO empirical support for evolution. quote: But your post is double edged: what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you read the OP it is obvious that this is nothing more than an attempt as misdirection. The topic of this thread is empirical evidence supporting evolution. My position that there is none has been verified. If you want to question the existence of “empirical evidence” supporting the existence of God you need to start a thread for that purpose. However, I will state at this point that there is in fact “empirical evidence” not only supporting the existence of God, but that He is the God of the Bible. If you wish to learn of that evidence start a new thread for that purpose as this thread is about the lack of empirical support for evolution.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/8/2008 11:09:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 Show me cars and bikes that mate and combine their "genes" to form a completely new unique bike or car with differing traits, and where those traits could be beneficial or harmful to their handling on the road. If they could, you might find a car that has turned into a motorcycle or a bike that has turned into a 4 wheeler. The point is that similarities are not evidence for common ancestry. quote: Fact is, you cant really compare cars and other inanimate creations to life when speaking about evolution. Why not? They share similarities yet they don't share a common ancestor. There is no reason to believe similarities are evidence for a common ancestor. quote: We tend to liken protein transcription to a computer system of sorts to make it easier to understand, but the fact is, its unlike any machine we have every built. This still does not explain why similarities are evidence for common ancestry. quote: When DNA was discovered and genetics was just beginning, it was a questionable future for evolution... our better understanding of the biochemistry and genetics showed us more similarities and common traits than I think anyone ever expected. That's because they assumed evolution to be true and, with this assumption, given all the morphological differences of life and the assumption that evolution is true, they did not expect life to be so genetically similar. quote: But there is no rule or reason that life needs to be so similar genetically. There is no rule or reason for it to be different either. It's similar and it works fine. quote: If we didn't have a common ancestor we would expect the chemical make up of different organisms to be radically varied as well as our morphology. Why? How varied and why that much? Our morphology is radically varied between us and bacteria. If evolution was true and, "there is no rule or reason that life needs to be so similar genetically" then it should not be expected that the chemical (and genetic) differences should be so little while the morphological differences should be so great. If there is no rule or reason that life needs to be so similar genetically, then there is no rule or reason for greater genetic differences not to have evolved, especially given all the morphological differences that supposedly did evolve. It should be expected that the chemical and genetic differences would evolve with morphological differences so that by the time such radical morphological differences did occur, an equally radical amount of genetic differences would likely have occurred. In fact, if life were as different genetically as it were morphologically, an evolutionist can then reasonably argue that this is to be expected and hence this is evidence for UCD. There is no reason for evolution to predict genetic similarities and morphological differences, that's only accommodated into the consensus after it is discovered to be true. Darwin was familiar with many of the morphological differences of life, where did he predict such genetic similarities? This isn't something evolution predicts, its only accommodated into the hypothesis after it is known/thought to be true. In fact, many genetic mutations (ie: unexpressed genes and/or Introns) can occur without having any morphological impact. The fact that more expressed mutations are harmful than beneficial would tend to conserve morphology while it would be expected for unexpressed genes to change far more by the time there is a morphological difference. Granted, a morphological difference that does endure a benefit may spread through the population, by the time this difference does occur, it would be expected that the organism that did acquire a mutational advantage would also have acquired many neutral differences from its ancestors and many of those neutral differences would likely spread through the population as well (and the population itself would also likely acquire many neural differences with respect to unexpressed genes so even if one particular neutral difference does not spread because it does not create an advantage, the organism that has that advantage will likely meet with other organisms that have had many other neutral differences). So, over time, it would be expected that the genetic differences should far outweigh the morphological differences. In fact, many mutations, even with expressed genes, do not change morphology. In the case of MRNA (one can easily convert this to DNA) UUU and UUC both produce phenylalanine; UCU, UCC, UCA, and UCG all code serine; UAA, UAG, and UGA are all stop codons (and the list goes on. I know a stop codon is not expressed). So, even among expressed genes, by the time a beneficial mutation did occur, there is a likelihood that the DNA that codes for this new beneficial gene endured some neutral mutations in the past that would also spread throughout the population. By the time we see this much morphological variation within the population, we should also expect at least as much genetic variation. You also have the fact that different organisms are mutating differently in different sections of the genome (and many of these mutations are neutral). With such a huge number of bacteria, each likely mutating differently in different sections of the genome, all supposedly multiplying and mutating for millions of years, we should expect that there should be huge difference in DNA among different bacteria alone (I am not merely referring to the mutational differences of any single bacterium (supposedly) over millions of years, I am referring to the accumulated mutational differences among a very large quantity of bacteria (supposedly) over millions of years). By no means should this level of genetic conservation be expected if UCD is true. More on that here http://www.creationwiki.org/index.php/Talkorigins_refutation In fact, here is a paper that seems to recognize the problems with gene conservation among organisms that are (supposedly) distantly related (which is determined, in part, by differences in morphology). quote: Even between very distant species, remnants of gene order conservation exist in the form of highly conserved clusters of genes. This suggests the existence of selective processes that maintain the organization of these regions. Because the clusters often span more than one operon, common regulation probably cannot be invoked as the cause of the maintenance of gene order. ... Gene organization is extensively conserved in some genomic regions, and further studies are needed to elucidate the reason for this conservation. ... The level of conservation is high when organisms are phylogenetically closely related, but conservation is lost rapidly, probably to a higher degree than other genetic or genomic features [8]. Thus, the instances in which gene order is conserved between phylogenetically distant organisms may indicate that strong selection pressures are keeping them together, in the cases in which lateral gene transfer is unlikely to be the origin of the conservation. http://genomebiology.com/2001/2/6/research/0020 While the paper tries to explain why such genetic conservation exists within an evolutionary paradigm, the implication is that such conservation would not be expected if common ancestry were true. That's not to say that it can't be accommodated within a UCD paradigm (which is exactly what this paper tries to do) just that conservation is not expected within a UCD paradigm and hence conservation is not evidence for UCD. If common ancestry predicts such conservation then the paper would not need to speculate/argue that, "selective processes that maintain the organization of these regions" are responsible for this conservation. Further studies would not be needed to elucidate the reasons for this conservation, conservation would be expected due to common ancestry. quote: As it stands, most organisms are sort of like parodies of one another. So? quote: If we were designed, we should also rightly expect much more precision and efficiency in creation. How much more and why that much? The Ford pinto was designed yet when it was first designed it had a flaw that caused it to explode when someone hit it from the back. It wasn't a perfect design, yet it was designed. Many (often older) cars aren't perfectly designed, which is why there exists (often newer) cars that are more optimal than them. Just because a car isn't optimal is not evidence that it wasn't designed. If life were perfect, one could then argue that natural selection brought it to perfection and that it maintains its perfection. Perfection is not evidence for design any more than it is evidence for evolution and imperfection is not evidence for evolution anymore than it's evidence for design.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI