Thursday, April 23, 2015

A Standardized Conversation With An Evolutionist

So you don't have to talk to them:
“It has to be descent, look at the layers.”
“I see different animals in different layers”
.
“Well, I see descent”.
“Really? What does ‘descent’ look like? Does it have a color? Weight? Dimensions?”
“Descent is the process I see.”
“Ah. You see a process happening?”
“No, it happened.”
“You know that, how?”
“By the fossils progressing through the layers.”
“So you can tell that animal X progressed from Animal Q?”
“Yes.”
“And your proof for that is what?”


“Inference to the best explanation.”
“So no experimental data then?”
“Inference to the best explanation.”
“So, no hypothetico-deductive-cause/effect-data?”
“Inference to the best explanation.”
“OK. So you have all the possible explanations and you have determined the best one… how?”
“There is only one other explanation; it is disallowed.”
“How did it get disallowed?”
“Because it can’t be tested and therefore it isn’t science, it is ideology.”
“Can your inference be tested, then?”
“Ummmm…”
“OK. Your explanation is inferential; it can’t be tested; It is therefore ideological; and it is a default theory due to lack of any other theories because the competition has been disallowed for being inferential, non-testable, ideological?
“Yes. That's why it's True.”

101 comments:

Steven Satak said...

The rules of Evidence for us are not the same as the rules of Evidence for them. The rules for them change every and any time it's needed to support their Narrative.

One might argue that, for a Leftist/Atheist/Scientismist, their whole life is one long 'just-so' story and the conflict and drama along the way is generated whenever they encounter objective reality - or other people.

Isn't that kinda the definition of a sociopath?

Robert Coble said...

I always love the equivocation involved in the word "evidence." Most atheists who have actually encountered and pondered rational arguments studiously avoid clarification of their meaning of the word "evidence." If "evidence" is explicitly defined to be PHYSICAL evidence ONLY, then it is often obvious (even to atheists) that their arguments against theism die a horribly contradictory ILLOGICAL and incoherent death.

I was recently watching a YouTube video of John C. Lennox. He put the boot on the other heel with a challenge to Richard Dawkins. Dawkins had trotted out the "God-killing" strawman:

"Well, if God created the universe, then who created God?"

Imagine the snarky laughter thereafter, until Lennox replied:

"Richard, you claim that the universe created you, is that right?"

"Yes, of course!"

"Then who created the universe, Richard?"

Lennox noted that he is still waiting for a coherent reply from Dawkins.

An alternative way of expressing the category error is to make explicit the equivocation about "evidence."

Without going into any of the metaphysical reasoning involved in arriving at an unactualized Actualizer of potentiality (or, if you prefer the classical terminology, the "uncaused Cause" or the "unmoved Mover"), here is a perfect illustration of explicitly removing the equivocation:

I assert without proof that there is a NON-PHYSICAL Cause of the universe.

The retort, "Oh yeah? Well, then what is the PHYSICAL evidence of that NON-PHYSICAL Cause?" obviously fails as a category error.

However, the demonstration of the illogic doesn't matter and does not cause the committed atheist to examine the illogic.

"The science is settled; the debate is over!"

"My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts!"

BobVong4 said...

Interesting views. Though there's nothing about biology or chemistry here, so your argument falls flat... what biological process do you believe contradicts evolutionary theory?

Robert Coble said...

It depends on what you define "evolutionary theory" to be. Please define what that means to you, so that no time is wasted addressing what you did NOT mean.

Is it the original Darwinian theory, or one of the variants and contradictions developed since Darwin?

Does it require the tenets of natural selection through adaptation, survival of the fittest and random genetic mutation?

Does it cover micro-evolution, macro-evolution or both?

Does it include intelligent design?

Please feel free to expand upon these questions (or to address whatever you think constitutes evolutionary theory) as needed to describe what you believe this theory to be.

Just trying to understand your point, not to argue with you, nor trying to constrain you to a position that you have not taken and would not support.

Thank you.

Stan said...

The evolutionary theory is fully predicated on the existence in the fossil record of slowly mutating and adapting creatures.

In the cases of major events such as first life and the creation of all major phyla in the Cambrian Explosion, there is no corresponding record of the many necessary precursor animals slowly changing into a new species with differing structures. That is necessary to demonstrate species development by mutation, especially in radical transitions from single cells to highly complex, information-rich creatures.

In fact, as Stephen Jay Gould demonstrated, creatures show up in the fossil record fully formed, with all their new features fully intact and functional, and further they remain in relative stasis until they disappear with no, or minor but insignificant changes relative to speciation.

And there is no common ancestor fossil found, or even deductively postulated, for all the creatures which simultaneously came into being during the Cambrian explosion, including animal and plant. After nearly two centuries of excavation, no common ancestral precursor is known to actually have existed, except in the minds of evolutionary believers.

Those are the fossil indicators, negative ones, that have led the Altenberg 16 (elite evolution theorists) to reject each and every premise that Darwin used (outside the bounds of modern science procedures) to declare "evolution" had occurred. This rejection occurred within the evolution community, not from the outside.

The fossil record does not show evolution; it shows animals occurring at various times, staying for various lengths of time and then vanishing (or still around), without becoming gradually mutated into new creatures. John Lennox has demonstrated this fully.

Since the fossil record is the only (presumptive and inferred) evidence and it does not support evolution, then there is no need for an evolutionary theory at all, much less a biological one.

Under the false ideology of Philosophical Materialism, there is a presupposed need to provide a material source of causation for the multiple occurrences of biological existence, despite all the visible and tangible evidence which shows creatures showing up fully formed. This has no basis in any fact. It is purely ideological.

The most recent Cambrian finds have driven the time frame down to 5 mya from single cells to dinosaurs. There are no intermediate creatures between the single cells and the fully functional, skeletal, vascular, organ-laden, sexual, conscious, objective driven (non-deterministic), animal.

And there are no empirical hypotheses for deducing how that happened, if it is logically necessary that the prokaryote did indeed produce the full dinosaur.

But that is a logical necessity only under a false ideology.

Robert Coble said...

I'm also curious as to the failure of the "argument" on the basis that it does not explicitly reference biology or chemistry.

What, pray tell, IS the "argument" that you see?

I saw this as an illustration of the futility of trying to use logic with an ideologue.

1A. There is an assertion that descent exists because there are layers, and different animals in the layers, implying (but not demonstrating) a speculative connection (common descent?) between the animals in one layer (presumably indicative of a specific geological age) and the animals in another layer (presumably indicative of a different specific geological age).

1B. This assertion is countered by an assertion that there are different animals in different layers. Given that correlation is not causation (at least statistically), there is nothing demonstrated by the data given (so far) establishing a connection between the different animals in the two (or more) layers.

2A. Descent is claimed (without proof) and asserted to be an invisible process which can be seen (think about that for a second or two), operating over geological time.

2B. Requests a description of descent in physical terms or a description of how the process can be seen to be happening.

3A. Shifts from present tense to past tense, making an assertion that the process of descent "must" have happened because different animal fossils are in different geological layers.

3B. Requests how the fossils show progression (connection) between the different fossils in the different layers.

4A. Asserts that animal X progressed from animal Q.

4B. Requests proof (data) establishing the connection between the different animals in different layers.

5A. Asserts inference to the best explanation, without any experimental, hypothetico-deductive-cause/effect data to support the inference that the different animals in the different layers are connected.

5B. Requests explication of all possible explanations, and the process by which the selected explanation was selected and all other hypotheses were rejected.

6A. Asserts that there is only one other explanation, which is disallowed because it can't be tested, is not "science" but is instead ideology.

NOTE: So far, we have no data for the asserted descent, no data for the putative process, and no proof via the scientific process of experimentation to confirm the hypothesis. Instead we have a mere assertion of "inference to the best (and only allowed) explanation."

6B. Requests that the given inference be "tested" by the same criteria used to disallow the alternative explanation.

7A. Crickets chirping. . .

7B. The same criteria are applied to the "inference to the best explanation" and it is found to be incoherent by its own criteria used to reject the alternative explanation.

8A. Assertion that the selected explanation is TRUE even though it fails to meet the same criteria as the disallowed explanation. It appears that it is true because it is the only allowed explanation, thereby eliminating by fiat based on an ideological position that all other possible explanations are inoperative.

I think the exercise is supposed to illustrate the incoherence of stipulating a set of criteria to be met in order to form an acceptable explanation and then the illogic of asserting (without proof or any supporting data) that the accepted explanation is TRUE, although it fails to meet the stipulated criteria.

Question 1: How does that illustration "fall flat" in demonstrating the illogic?

Question 2: What need is there for biology or chemistry in demonstrating the logical inconsistency of asserting the truth value of an explanation that has failed to meet its own explicitly stated criteria in order to be true?

Please elucidate.

BobVong4 said...

That's a lot of text... but still very little regarding biology. What I meant by that, are things such as addressing people's views, instead of the actual facts.

Evolutionary theory is based on tons of facts, make predictive guessing, and yield new facts. Just like any theory. It includes both micro and macro, since that's the same processes over a long time. Fossils are just 1 more piece of evidence, but a great one of course. The point is that most of what I read above, has nothing to do with evolution and what we know about it.

For example, something very simple, during cell division, some errors occur, thankfully very rarely. And lots of animals also engage in sexual reproduction. These 2 facts yield a 3rd fact: every living organism born of the random combination, of parent genes, will inherit most of the parents' characteristics. The offspring is thus a new unique living thing, of the same species, as the parents. Always. That's one of the laws of evolution.

So looking up, I can see that law being broken, indirectly, by asking to show examples of animal A turning into animal B. This cannot happen. Instead we see species spawning sub-species, beginning new branches in the tree of life. Did I misunderstood the question, maybe you knew that law already?
Just trying to clarify as mentioned above. Thanks for the politeness.

Regarding this:
.....Underestimate the false ideology of Philosophical Materialism.....,
I would agree with you, I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist. I know it's clichey but it's a simple question: do you believe in God, yes or no? If you say no, you believe that on faith, and excludes yourself from the 98% of humanity who say yes.

BobVong4 said...

Stan, regarding the Cambrian explosion, Google , evo devo regulatory genes, fascinating stuff about how genes, which used to look like they were useless, turned out to be regulatory genes which account for some periods of, faster than usual, evolution.

Stan said...

BobVong4,
Where did the genes come from, all of a sudden? By not asking the pertinent question, the ideology is stasis just as are the animals in the record.

Also, you are promoting some things which are not the case.

First, evolution is NOT predictive. No actual evolutionary theorist claims that it is.

Second, there are NOT tons of facts which verify evolution in any veridical manner. There are tons of inferences (opinions) drawn from circumstances which are presupposed to be evolution - essentially by decree, not by objective observation or replicable experiment performed on hypothesis based in objective observation.

Third, even theoretical evolutionists recognize the difference between micro and macro evolution, and that variablity within a set does not support variability outside that set. Macro-evolution is a mathematical and logical error, AND there is no objective evidence to support it - biological or otherwise. All "evidence" is purely extrapolated opinion.

That falsifies your statement,
" Instead we see species spawning sub-species, beginning new branches in the tree of life."

Subspecies do not have any genes that the species do not have. Set Theory: they are still in the set.

AND, there is no record of such in the Cambrian Explosion.

Read the short course on evolution in the upper right column to bring yourself up to date on what the internal community now thinks about evolution: to wit, they now reject Darwinian principles, all of them, 100%. Further, they now have no pretense of causal evidence for the fossil record. Further still, all inferences taken from the fossil record are recognized as extrapolated opinion. Finally, there is no known, proven mechanism that creates the creatures, as found, in the fossil record. They now have backed off into Meta-theories, because causal theories based in known biological principles do not work.

However, being true believers and Materialist ideologs, they still demand that it be recognized that "evolution happened", despite the the rational failure to empirically or logically prove the truth of that claim.

You appear to be a true believer who is saddled with old "factoids" which are now rejected by the experts in the field.

The record of the 2010 Consortium of Evolutionists at Altenberg (Altenberg 16) is in their book, edited by Massimo Pigliucci, and Gerd Muller. If you have not read it, then you are out of date.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Extended-Synthesis-Massimo-Pigliucci/dp/0262513676/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429967118&sr=1-1&keywords=the+extended+synthesis

Robert Coble said...

@BobVong4:

Thank you, but your insistence on discussing evolution in the sole context of biology rather than addressing the fallacious argumentation (if it can be called that) in the original illustration does not address either of the questions I posed to you.

I am quite prepared to accept micro-evolution (variation WITHIN species) as proven by empirical science, i.e. observation of the natural world. I have yet to see any empirical evidence supporting macro-evolution (CREATION OF ENTIRELY NEW SPECIES FROM AN EXISTING SPECIES).

"Inference to the best explanation" does not work if all alternate explanations are ruled out by fiat without any evidence whatsoever for the discarded theories nor for the "best explanation" either.

That there are "tons of facts" does not mean that there are not equally valid alternate interpretations of those facts. Gathering AND INTERPRETATION of facts is what science qua science is.

If one BEGINS the process with hidden premises, then the resulting theory may be flawed in its conclusions.

Since Darwin, there has been an enormous search for transitional forms in the fossil record. Because of this, there have been attempts by some "true believers" (I hesitate to call them "scientists") to "short circuit" the search by manufacturing supposed transitional forms, such as the Piltdown Man. That fraud does not prove or disprove the existence of transitional forms, but it does cause the field to be questioned at the least for its commitment to scientific integrity and truth. (Think global climate warming/cooling/change as another modern example.)

The search for transitional forms has (so far) yielded NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS.

Given the minute changes required over geological time for speciation to occur, it becomes astronomically unlikely that the end points (the beginning and the ending species) will be preserved adequately in the fossil record to establish their respective existence, yet simultaneously all of the millions (billions? trillions?) of transitional forms in-between are absent from that same fossil record.

I don't have enough faith in non-existent evidence to believe that "just so" stories will enable us to "climb Mt. Improbable."

I can only laugh at the idiocy of multiplying untold millions and billions and trillions of remote improbabilities and then assuming a probability of one that "it happened this specific way because that's the only explanation that my ideology allows."

It reminds me of my favorite line from Toy Story.

Buzz Lightyear: "To infinity AND BEYOND!"

It requires no biology or chemistry to raise a logical question about how Mr. Lightyear proposes to progress beyond infinity.



BobVong4 said...

Stan,
What does this mean: "Where did the genes come from, all of a sudden?"
We know how genes work, how they can change during cell division, how they can be turned ON/OFF, by regulatory genes, how they can fuse, or be duplicated, and so on... There is nothing in biology related to genes showing up 'all of a sudden'.

"First, evolution is NOT predictive. No actual evolutionary theorist claims that it is." I went back to read the article you suggested, your own, and I see that you created your own definition of what predictions can, and cannot be. It seems that the only predictions you would accept are of the form "outcome of any organism in any environment" but it's non-sense, because you are right about it, we cannot predict that. So why expect that to be a prediction?

But then you reject the actual predictions we can make, finding a “pre-Cambrian rabbit”. And that's based on ideology, alone, because the fossil record is the best prediction of evolutionary theory, not its best source! You could literally forget everything we know about the fossil record, come up with an explanation for biological diversity, based only of phylogeny, and genetics, and you would then be able to predict with great accuracy what we will find, in the fossil record. Not the timing of course, but the order. It does work, so when you say "there is no known, proven mechanism that creates the creatures, as found, in the fossil record" you are wrong, completely wrong. Everything we see in the fossil record fits the data we gather from current living animals.

"Recognize the difference between micro and macro evolution." Time is the only difference. Period. You will not find any biologist arguing with this. Of course, it's convenient to use the 2 words in some cases, to reflect speciation being the result of long-term evolution, or macro, for example, while offspring being always slightly different from their parents being short-term, or micro, evolution. If you can pinpoint exactly where the difference between micro and macro is, you might actually disprove evolution (of course you won't...) since it's an intrinsic part of what evolution is, how it works. Individuals change, micro evolution if you want, then over time population change, macro evolution. Nothing crazy about it.

What I find strange in your approach is this: why do you insist on mentioning things like "They now reject Darwinian principles"? As I mentioned, arguing with people's views, especially someone who died more than 130 years ago is not relevant to the facts we know of, today. Of course Darwin was wrong on a lot of things, but his research and data gathering remain a wealth of knowledge that we benefit from today.

"You appear to be a true believer who is saddled with old "factoids" which are now rejected by the experts in the field." Would you have 1 single example?

BobVong4 said...

Robert,
"does not address either of the questions I posed to you." I find it difficult to address questions regarding evolution when they do not even come close to discussing biology. Neither you nor Stan addressed my very simple example. Why? This is one of the most basic fact that the theory of evolution encompasses. Do you reject that fact, or law I should call it, or do you accept it? It seems that you reject it! Because you said:
"(CREATION OF ENTIRELY NEW SPECIES FROM AN EXISTING SPECIES)."
But that is a violation of the law! You cannot get an ENTIRELY NEW species from an EXISTING species. That's not how it works. It's often a question of language unfortunately. We say for instance that humans came 'from' primates. Right? And you probably reject that fact? But the problem is that it's mislabeled. Humans do not come 'from' primates, they 'are' primates. Not just because they look like other primates, but because all primates today share a common ancestor, another primate.

Note also that the search for 'transitional forms' that you are talking about is mostly a media thing, not a biological thing. In biology, we understand that all animals, every one, is a transitional form, from its parents/grand-parents/great-grand-... to his children/grand-children/great-grand... and so on. And we found tons of fossils, as predicted, that are somewhere in between the great-grand-parents and great-grand-children within the same species. Actually, we have so many that it becomes difficult to sort them in some cases, because the transition is so smooth that you cannot really tell where the old species end and the new sub-species begin. And you cannot go back in time and try to make them mate together, obviously, so you cannot know if they are, in fact, different species are not. But the fact remain that every single organism born of parents was the same species as the parents, and yield offspring of the same species. That remains.

Steven Satak said...

Reading BobVong4's 'replies' very reminds me of Monty Python's 'Argument Clinic'.

Or in the words of Gertrude Stein, there is no 'there' there. He consistently refuses to answer Robert's question on logic because it does not conform to his own desire to argue based on 'biology'. Never mind that all the biology in the world will not help you if you are contradicting yourself in the first place.

He is irrational. And determined to remain that way. Fine - he is in a place reason and logic did not get him to, and all the reason and logic in the world will not get him out of it. You gents can save your time having it out with this guy/gal. Complete waste of time.

BobVong4 said...

Steven, your comment is rude and essentially 1 big ad hominem attack. Do you always try to avoid discussion like this? I already explained why I cannot answer everything written above. It's either not relevant to biology, because yes that's the only thing evolution deals with, and because asking gotcha questions regarding illogical statements, that nobody makes, is pointless, such as finding species A yielding an entirely new species B. Atheists do this all the time by asking to prove a non-physical God in terms of physical evidence... Reas on and logic point to evolution being true, there's no doubt on 2015. And it does not disprove God, stop being afraid of the truth!

BobVong4 said...

*Reason and logic point to evolution being true, there's no doubt in 2015.* --fixed

Stan said...

BobVong4 said:
“What does this mean: "Where did the genes come from, all of a sudden?"
We know how genes work, how they can change during cell division, how they can be turned ON/OFF, by regulatory genes, how they can fuse, or be duplicated, and so on... There is nothing in biology related to genes showing up 'all of a sudden'.


Bob, really? That is precisely what happened in the Cambrian Explosion. After a billion years of nothing but prokaryotes, there were no genetics for any of the new phyla. No genes for hearts, vascular systems, nervous systems, skeletal systems, sexual reproduction, on and on and on.

Yet the new flora and fauna were found to exist, complete and not partial, all of a sudden - All Of A Sudden, in a geological eye-blink (5 mya). Suddenly, there were new, complicated and diverse genetics that built all the new phyla, both flora and fauna. Again, those genetics did not exist in the single cell life immediately prior to the Cambrian Explosion.

To repeat in a slightly different way for emphasis and clarity: The Cambrian Explosion required all new genetics, far beyond the genetics for single cell life. Those genetics occurred in parallel step functions that cannot be accounted for using variation/mutation/selection. Nor is there any reason to believe that the genetics pre-existed, just waiting to burst forth into all sorts of plant and animal varieties. That is biology as is found in the fossil record. It is so basic that if you cannot get to that point, then there is no discussion possible. All reputable expert evolutionary theorists know and understand this problem.

You appear to be Appealing to Authority of Biology because you apparently think we are ignorant or stupid. Yet it is you who does apparently not comprehend that biological issue which the experts in the field of evolutionary biology say about their own field. Not only that, you obviously do not read for comprehension, you appear to read to look for the errors which you presuppose you will find because of your presupposition that we here are ignorant or stupid.

So until you are clear on the problem – the BIOLOGICAL problem which is discussed by evolutionary experts– about which we are attempting to speak here, then there is no possible conversation to be had.

I have not read your comment any further than this; until we get this basic part straight, there is no need to proceed.

Steven Satak said...

*Reason and logic have nothing to do with evolution being true in BobVong4's mind in 2015.* --fixed

Oh, and you're not on 4Chan anymore. In case you hadn't noticed.

BobVong4 said...

I agree that setting the basic part straight is crucial, which is why I ibist on 1 of the basic laws of evolution I mentioned above, but was ignored, by you 3, so far.
Regarding the Cambiance explosion, the only mystery was timing, as 5 million years was faster than expected. But claiming it's impossible, because we don't know how, is pleading ignorance, and doesn't justify any alternative explanation. However, we DO have an explanation now: regulatory genes. Look it up...

Steven Satak said...

Zombie science...

"Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice. In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status."

To say "that the theory is phony, and always was phony, and this is why it so singularly fails to predict reality is regarded as simplistic, crass, merely a sign of lack of sophistication. And anyway, there are... the reputations of numerous scientists who are now successful and powerful on the back of the phoney theory, and who by now control the peer review process (including allocation of grants, publications and jobs) so there is a powerful disincentive against upsetting the apple cart."

"Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down." "Zombie science is supported because it is useful propaganda. Zombie science is deployed in arenas such as political rhetoric, public administration, management, public relations, marketing and the mass media generally. It persuades, it constructs taboos, it buttresses some kind of rhetorical attempt to shape mass opinion. Indeed, zombie science often comes across in the mass media as being more plausible than real science."

Charlton, Bruce G. 2008. Zombie science: A sinister consequence of evaluating scientific theories purely on the basis of enlightened self-interest. Medical Hypotheses, Vol. 71, pp. 327-329.

Oh, and you STILL have not answered Robert's question. When are you going to stop ducking and weaving? Or is it that you *cannot* answer his question?

Stan said...

BobVong4 said:
“ However, we DO have an explanation now: regulatory genes. Look it up... “

First off, regulatory genes do not create all new, different, vastly more complex creatures out of prior creatures. Show an instance of objective, peer reviewed observation of that happening in actual real life. Regulating existing genes in a single cell creature will not produce the vast amount of new information which is necessary to create a single dinosaur, much less a huge variety of information laden creatures with thousands of new internal systems of organs – with each organ dependent upon control loops and communication feedback systems based in numerous different cogent codes, unless corresponding vast amounts of magic are also asserted.

You complain that biology is being ignored; it is not ignored, it is being used. The biology of the complete creatures found immediately after the sole existence of single cell creatures is precisely the issue.

First, I challenge you to prove, empirically, experimentally, based on a predictive hypothesis with an anticipated outcome, replication of that experiment without falsification, peer review and publication which demonstrates that regulatory genes do such things as create complexity such as was actually seen in the Cambrian Explosion.

Second, I challenge you to explain, empirically, why it happened just once and never again. Given the presence of those genes, and the assertion of their magical abilities, then where has the magic gone? Why are there not continuous explosions of ever more complex creatures, constantly?


The attribution of powers of creation of massive amounts of semantic, irreducible, non-algorithmic coded information in multivariate organs which are mutually dependent and balanced via separate coding of communication systems necessary and sufficient for their operation, as well as sexual reproduction for production of variability contained within separate genomes, that ALL of the new organic, biological features of flora and fauna are due to regulatory genes… is purely fabulist. It is fantasy. It is the assertion of magic, assertion of intellectual sleight of hand. As Stephen Jay Gould called such fabulism: it is a Just So Story, created in the fevered minds of those who desperately need explanations which they cannot generate scientifically, empirically, experimentally, objectively.

If you cannot do those two necessary things – and you cannot, except under fabulism – then you have only fantasy to support the assertion you have made for the Cambrian Explosion issue. The explanatory power of the magical abilities of creative genetics requires more fantasy than a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Try to step out of fantasy and into real biology, with real results of real experiments, under real science.

Finally, explain why you disagree with the conclusions of the expert evolutionary theorists to which you have been referred – the Altenberg 16 – who have declared all of the Modern Synthesis (Darwinian theory plus mutation) to be false. How did the magical regulatory genetics occur prior to the Cambrian period, if mutation is virtually entirely negative, as has actually been proven? Why do you accept magical propositions rather than biological science?

Stan said...

I need to add this: there are NO basic laws of evolution, contrary to the presupposition expressed by BobVong4. The premises of the Modern Theory - now rejected - are not laws in any sense of the word "law". There is no predictive power within any of the premises, which when taken as a law would produce a reliable output consequence of that law.

Evolution under the Modern Synthesis (Darwinian plus mutation) predicts everything and nothing, and therefore has no falsifiability, even with the claim of the pre-Cambrian rabbit. Such mixing of layers has been seen before and rationalized away by claiming landslides of upper layers into a lower spot, followed by subsequent landslides of lower layers onto the now-lowered upper layer. Anything can be rationalized away, in a system where actual physical testing for PROOF is not required.

Evolutionary stories are accepted fully because there is a century and a half history of Philosophical Materialism driving the acceptance. The stories are irrational, unprovable, without empirical content, and are believed credulously and without any critical examination. If a story is declared "plausible", a la Just So Story Telling, then it becomes Truth under the lax standards of Atheist Ideological attachment to a "liberating" set of fables.

Critical analysis is always met with fables which are declared to be Truth by the credulous evolution apologist. And indeed, the credulous evolution apologist is susceptible to self-deception in pursuit of the defense of his necessary ideological support system (ever more fables, stacked high, and called Mountains of Evidence).

Stan said...

Finally, this morning, I do applaud BobVong4 for stepping outside the evolution echo chamber long enough to read actual challenges to evolution from the perspective of objective, empirical science and objective deductive analysis.

BobVong4 said...

You still ignored the 1 basic point I made about biology, which has to be agreed upon, or denied, if we are to discuss anything, because as you said, until we get this basic part straight, there is no need to proceed. You actually, indirectly, denied it, when you said "there are NO basic laws of evolution", but without mentioning what I said. So do you, yes or no, accept the fact, the biological law, the evolutionary law, that every living organism born of the random combination of 2 parents, of parent genes, will inherit most of the parents' characteristics. The offspring is thus a new unique living thing, of the same species, as the parents.
?

This is essential, when discussing something like the Cambrian explosion, as with this,
"First off, regulatory genes do not create all new, different, vastly more complex creatures out of prior creatures. Show an instance of objective, peer reviewed observation of that happening in actual real life."
Not sure what you mean by "real life" (what about chicken born with teeth, like their dinosaurs' ancestor?), but yes, this is what developmental regulatory genes do. I did not specify 'development', but I should, since there are lots of types, of regulatory genes. These genes do create all new, different creatures, be it more or less complex, it does not have to go 1 way or the other.

So I can try an example of 1 big change that happen during the Cambrian explosion, maybe that will work. I found this page as a starting point: http://biologos.org/questions/cambrian-explosion, where the Chordata group is mentioned. Here's what we know. Before the Cambrian, we already had members of the Animalia kingdom, they were already relatively complex organism, being that all of them are, as Wikipedia puts it:

Animals are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia (also called Metazoa). Their body plan eventually becomes fixed as they develop, although some undergo a process of metamorphosis later on in their lives. All animals are motile, meaning they can move spontaneously and independently, at some point in their lives. All animals are heterotrophs: they must ingest other organisms or their products for sustenance.

But then, right after that definition, we already get to the example I am using:

Most known animal phyla appeared in the fossil record as marine species during the Cambrian explosion,

Ok, so what happened is that before the Cambrian we have Animalia members, but not Chordata members yet. Then, both gradually through small mutations, and suddenly through bigger jumps, at the regulatory genes level for example, we got to a first member of the Animalia family with a new feature: a notochord. This animal, being of the same species of its parents, was the beginning of an entire new Phyla of animals: the Chordata. It was not so different from its parents, it just happened to have a spinal-cord type of feature, a notochord. The descendants of this first Chordata are thus all Chordata members and Animalia members, while the cousins of that first Chordata, remained without it and went on to branch into other phyla.

To contrast this knowledge, we can read some more of your comment, "existing genes in a single cell creature will not produce the vast amount of new information which is necessary to create a single dinosaur" This is pleading ignorance, since you don't see how it could happen, you think it cannot, and what would be the alternative anyway, magic? The reality is that, it's possible, step by step, sometimes with big step because of changes in developmental regulatory genes.

BobVong4 said...

"it is not ignored, it is being used"
I do appreciate when you refer to biology, yes, you are doing it now, but still insert a lot of garbage, sorry to say, around your words. And you have friends, if I can call them like that?, who seem to do everything they can, to avoid biology.

"The biology of the complete creatures found immediately after the sole existence of single cell creatures is precisely the issue."
It's not, not immediately after, this is playing with words. 5 million years is hardly immediate, it's just faster than expected. Also, it's not single cell to dinosaur, or single cell to insanely more complex, it's much more gradual, as expected, as explained above. What we see appear are a few distinctive characteriscts within the Animalia kingdom. Before, and after, you still have multicellular, eukaryotic organisms. They use the same chemistry, the same cell walls, the same DNA encoding/decoding, the same cell division mechanisms, and so many other things.

BobVong4 said...

"First, I challenge you to prove, empirically, experimentally, based on a predictive hypothesis with an anticipated outcome, replication of that experiment without falsification, peer review and publication which demonstrates that regulatory genes do such things as create complexity such as was actually seen in the Cambrian Explosion."
It's the other way around, I am afraid, because we already know how things evolve, how genes work, how features can evolve, both slow and fast, etc... so we already know that developmental regulatory genes can do that. Every single paper out there supports that, you are the one who has a challenge: find a single one that support your views. Though 1 would not be enough obviously, you would need many more, to prove anything, or to disprove an entire field of study, should I say. Biology, as a whole, supports Evolution. It's time to embrace this fascinating knowledge we have.

" Finally, this morning, I do applaud BobVong4 for stepping outside the evolution echo chamber long enough to read actual challenges to evolution from the perspective of objective, empirical science and objective deductive analysis. "

Thanks! But the way I see it, I am sorry, but I am the one stepping into the echo chamber of online bloggers who pretend to be rational Christians when they deny the reality God put in front of them. Evolution is so elegant, so simple yet so complex, that I think only a omnipotent God could have created a universe that can sustain such a process. The Chemistry needed for Biology to happen is so unlikely to happen by chance that I think this is the best proof we have, as Theists, that God started the universe just the way it should be to yield planets, maybe we are not alone!, where life can flourish. If you want an example of another blogger embracing this more beautiful view, instead of the cynism presented here, you can visit:

BobVong4 said...

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/clues/evolution-vs-god

BobVong4 said...

(sorry for multiple posts, I was having issues with my second comment, because of the link maybe)

JBsptfn said...

Bob,

I think that you should check out the scienceagainstevolution.info site. Lots of good stuff on there.

Xellos said...

Allow me to do my part.

"It's the other way around, I am afraid, because we already know how things evolve, how genes work, how features can evolve, both slow and fast, etc... so we already know that developmental regulatory genes can do that. Every single paper out there supports that, you are the one who has a challenge: find a single one that support your views. Though 1 would not be enough obviously, you would need many more, to prove anything, or to disprove an entire field of study, should I say. Biology, as a whole, supports Evolution. It's time to embrace this fascinating knowledge we have."

We do know that genes carry information from parent to child. We do know that regulatory genes... regulate their expression during development. That doesn't mean they can, citing the challenge, "create complexity such as was actually seen in the Cambrian Explosion". You're equating development of species' characteristics with development of whole new phyla. These are vastly different claims.

Every single paper out there makes a guess. That's how the scientific world works - most people are fixated on some guesses too much.

That you haven't provided a single paper which actually replicates such an evolutionary jump seems clear enough.

Biology doesn't support evolution. It works just as well if we postulate living organisms as they are now, without thinking of how they came to be. Biology is a science - it can postulate existence of living organisms and study them as they are.

"But the way I see it, I am sorry, but I am the one stepping into the echo chamber [...]"

This is not how an echochamber works. To be precise, how it works is *hahaha* *insults* *banned/blocked*. Stan reacts here to a lot of internet stuff. You can actually post here and have a meaningful discussion, as long as you stay civil. In an echochamber, dissenting opinion is banned or dogpiled relentlessly. In here, you're met with disagreement, but it's not like it's rare for people to disagree on something.

"Evolution is so elegant, so simple yet so complex, that I think only a omnipotent God could have created a universe that can sustain such a process."

The key points why evolution and creation should be:
1. intelligent design?
2. the role of humans

I want you to quote at least the start of Gen:1:11, exactly worded (every word and even the way they're written is relevant).

Next, quote Gen:1:26. We'll continue on point 2. then :D

BobVong4 said...

(my comments keep being removed, trying again...)

Zellos, so you are not addressing the Cambrian explosion example at all I see, nor the law I presented, looks like that's the only thing I will get on this page...
"You're equating development of species' characteristics with development of whole new phyla. These are vastly different claims."
Sorry, but then, you don't understand what a phyla is... having a spinal cord, or not, is enough to put an animal in a different phyla. This can happen by, what we now understand to be, relatively small changes to genes.

"Biology doesn't support evolution." Please ask biologists... that kind of blanket statement in 2015 has been proven false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

"This is not how an echochamber works. To be precise, how it works is *hahaha* *insults* *banned/blocked*. Stan reacts here to a lot of internet stuff. You can actually post here and have a meaningful discussion,"
I am not sure you got the point, because I meant that, clearly, I am not the one who is stepping out of some "sect", or some "closed group", where people have their own "echochamber"; I am the one who is mainstream here, with science, with biologist, and extending a hand to fellow bloggers who, among themselves, convince each other that they are right, regardless of what the real world outside their "echochamber" really says.
As to Stan and his "friends" engaging in meaningful discussion, I am not so sure, did you even read the comments above, it's insult after insult, calling me an irrational atheists, labeling belief in evolution as atheistic dogmas, it takes patience, I think, to ignore that and my patience is running out.

It's unfortunate that you people choose to remain ignorant. Sorry, but that's what it is, you ignore God's world in favor of your own image of what God's world should be. I don't think I can help you more here, it's really up to you to take the next steps and stop confirming your own biases. Pretending to use the Bible when it suits you is, I don't know, words fail me, such hypocrisy.

BobVong4 said...

Nature magazine, Science magazine, professional associations and more more more, and I even added links above already. I think I did my part... I doubt any of you will adress either (a) one rule of evolution, just 1!, there are many, and (b) simple explanations as to why the Cambrian explosion is not a problem, at all, in evolutionary biology but rather an example, 1 of many, of rapid evolution, because yes Stan, btw, it happened many times, the Cambrian is just probably the most relevant one, but every time there was a massive extinction, we see rapid evolution due to the space being open for new species, if the dinosaurs were still around, mammals may have never made it that way.

BobVong4 said...

http://www.nature.com/search?q=evolution&q_match=all&sp-a=sp1001702d&sp-m=0&sp-p-1=phrase&sp-sfvl-field=subject%7Cujournal&sp-x-1=ujournal&submit=go

https://www.project2061.org/publications/guides/evolution.pdf

http://assessment.aaas.org/topics
Pick 'Evolution and Natural Selection'

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9952-faq-evolution.html?full=true#.VT7KhSFViko

http://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/misc/webfeat/ardipithecus

http://www.aaas.org/news/evolution-front-line

Stan said...

BobVong4,
You are playing word games here, and I don’t play. If this juvenile statement regarding genetic variation by sexual reproduction, an obvious conclusion which is taught in 3rd grade, has some sort of importance for evolution, then get to the point. I claim that it does not have any bearing on evolution, and that claim is supported by the rejection of all of Darwin’s theories by the Altenberg 16 and many other professional evolutionary theorists. Therefore your claim that it is a LAW of evolution is false (further, there are no LAWS of evolution; there are only speculative proposals). There is no empirical relationship between genetic variations within an existing genome (micro-evolution) and the new information which is necessary but not sufficient for the development of new, functional organs with all their necessary, self-contained as well as external communication systems and feedback control systems. Those claims are specious, unproven and unprovable regarding the 5 mya (probably less) gap in the fossil record, re: Cambrian Explosion. Further, they are not causal explanations, they are speculated mechanisms and no more than that.

So make your complete case and quit playing games.

”So do you, yes or no, accept the fact, the biological law, the evolutionary law, that every living organism born of the random combination of 2 parents, of parent genes, will inherit most of the parents' characteristics. The offspring is thus a new unique living thing, of the same species, as the parents.
?”


Of course genetic variation exists due to sexual reproduction, as opposed to cell division. But it is not pertinent to evolution. Selection from within a set does not produce anything outside the set (mathematical fact about reality). The offspring of a human is always a human.

But let’s get one thing straight, before you charge off onto a path of suppositional claims. What you claim does not matter regarding objective knowledge; what matters is what you can prove, empirically, objectively, and causally. That is the Achilles Heel of evolution. There is no actual data regarding the actual events, and there never will be because observations of the events under discussion are historical, not experimental; they are removed in time by eons, and therefore they are not empirically testable nor are they falsifiable. They are individual historical factoids regarding animal and plant existence in geologic layers, and nothing more. Anything more is subjective opinion and fantasy storytelling about interpolated imaginings of occurrences between factoids – which are not observed.

Stan said...

”Not sure what you mean by "real life" (what about chicken born with teeth, like their dinosaurs' ancestor?),”

Show evidence of chicken teeth which is not fraudulent, or lab-created manipulation. The only instance I know of was lab-manipulation which did not produce teeth, it produced bumps on the bony structure. Teeth are not “bumps on bones”, they are completely separate, complex structures in their own right which require recesses in the bones, not bumps.

”but yes, this is what developmental regulatory genes do. I did not specify 'development', but I should, since there are lots of types, of regulatory genes. These genes do create all new, different creatures, be it more or less complex, it does not have to go 1 way or the other.”

Your following claim is a show stopper:

”It's the other way around, I am afraid, because we already know how things evolve, how genes work, how features can evolve, both slow and fast, etc... so we already know that developmental regulatory genes can do that.

I maintain that this claim is false, unless you produce the data for proof. There is no objective knowledge of “how things evolve” and if there were, the world of science would fill the media with it. And the role of regulatory genes is purely speculative and without any shred of actual empirical knowledge claim at all. The entire premise of your statement is contra-empirical science, unless and until you can provide empirical data to back up your claim. The standards and requisites for legitimate empirical testing of hypotheses have been given in this comment. If you have such, then produce it so we can see it.

Here is a summary statement of an example study of “regulatory gene expression evolution”:

”Our results suggest a neutral model with negative selection for gene expression evolution between humans and mice, and promoter evolution could have some effects on gene expression evolution.”

In other words, there is no data here which actually shows “regulatory gene expression evolution”, despite the title of the paper. And they make no knowledge claim for regulatory gene expression evolution.

Maybe you have better data? Then show it please.

Stan said...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2747126/

Here is a study regarding the inaccuracies of gene probing for testing regulatory genetic densities:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796969/

Here is a study which is filled with presuppositions which they take for granted as true.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130802080242.htm

Here is a study which refers to INFERENTIAL conclusions as if they are observed fact. The inference that IF regulator genes occur in separate but related organisms, THEN regulator genes cause evolution is purely inferential and based on no causal observation and no causal reasoning.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=regulator+gene+evolution+study&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=regulator+gene+evolution+study&sc=0-16&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=817c351477664d97a57ff5ad83508ecf

The inference that IF HOX genes attach to nonstandard genes, THEN regulator genes cause evolution is purely inferential and based on no causal observation and no deductive causal reasoning.

They do NOT “KNOW” how evolution occurred, despite their claims. They create fantasy stories around findings that are even questionable given the methodology available. This is the sad status of the “science” of evolution, and it has been this way ever since Darwin created story telling as the benchmark for the process of evolutionary science.

The facts are this: they do not KNOW anything about the process of evolution as it exploded through the Cambrian Era. They do not even KNOW that the immediate ancestors HAD HOX genes, nor the proper set of regulator genes to do the job.

Here’s what they KNOW: if they claim new knowledge of evolution, they will be published and add to their resume’s, and hopefully get new funding. Read the bottom conclusions – they always insist on the need for funding additional study.

Stan said...

I am not asking for words of imaginary explanation of an “imagine this” fantasy story; don’t bother me with that. I’m asking for objective empirical proof: rigorous empirical experimental attempt to falsify any evolutionary hypothesis which projects a specific effect produced by a specific cause – in this case evolution by regulatory genes - replicable and replicated objectively by non-interested parties, falsifiable and non-falsified, producing open data including experimental process design and implementation, which is peer reviewed and published. This is precisely what is demanded of challenges to evolution, and it is precisely what evolutionists project as the scientific status of evolution (i.e., on a knowledge par with physics). I charge that this image of evolution as having the status of objective knowledge produced by legitimate empirical intellectual processes is false, and that therefore such status comparable to legitimate empirical science is completely unwarranted.

So your statement has no objective meaning if you cannot produce the actual empirical science to back it up with objective causal observation. And you cannot, because evolution is completely historical and thus not observable – certainly not objectively.

I should stop here, but I’ll take this one more thing:

”To contrast this knowledge, we can read some more of your comment, "existing genes in a single cell creature will not produce the vast amount of new information which is necessary to create a single dinosaur" This is pleading ignorance, since you don't see how it could happen, you think it cannot, and what would be the alternative anyway, magic? The reality is that, it's possible, step by step, sometimes with big step because of changes in developmental regulatory genes.”

You have made several charges here.

1. Even if one can’t imagine X, one must believe that X is possible, if there are some good fantasy stories made up which magically bring X about (science fiction). That is “science” by today’s standards. That’s exactly the attitude of astrology, which, btw, has more identifiably valid proofs than does evolution. And that places evolution on a knowledge par with astrology, if you insist on blind belief in X without even a cogent hypothesis for X within the material realm.

And since when is science based on believing imaginary projections? Since Darwin.

2. Because one can’t imagine a Philosophical Materialist alternative to the fantasy story of science magic, then one is obligated believe the science fantasy stories of science magicians. If one insists on some proof, then one is charged with “ignorance”.

Stan said...

3. The specific magic trick is contained in Regulatory Genes which are imbued with powers of creation of vast amounts of new information, new information systems and codes, new communication feedback systems. All because regulator genes misfire somehow in some magically special way, and manage to create vast amounts of semantic, irreducible, multivariate codes AND the pertinent information being coded AND the modulate/demodulate/special channels which are necessary, even in prokaryotes, but are multiplied vastly by both form and function in eukaryotes and vastly again in form and function in subsequent phyla.

4. You have claimed a separate “reality” which involves the assertion of a “possibility” for which you have provided no empirical evidence to support. And yet I suspect that what you will propose, if we get that far, is not discernible from magic, since it cannot establish a clear set of conditions, or stimuli, or actual molecular cause and effect, and further cannot be either proved or disproved by legitimate empirical testing. It will undoubtedly be a science-fiction creation of the imagination, a fantasy built to fill a permanent gap. Or possibly you have an actual study for us to examine.

4 The consequence: Nothing more is needed, except blind faith in the magic trick story surrounding Regulatory genes.

This points to the following presuppostions which underlie the above charges:

1. The entire concept of the source for the genes which merely regulate other genes and which exist/existed in prokaryotes for no particular reason is of no interest (and an incomprehensible concept) and should not be discussed because it is not interesting enough. It should be interesting though, because its creation cannot be attributed to regulatory genes (itself), or to mutation (how did genes get selected before regulatory genes) or to selection of pre-existing genetics. The fact of the existence of these genes is paradoxical, when they are attempted to be understood using the restrictions of philosophical materialism and Darwinism/Modern Synthesis/Extended Synthesis.

2. Certainly there is no need for the ancient methods of generating objective knowledge empirically through disciplined attempts to falsify scientific hypotheses by experimental testing of those hypotheses under the rigors of empirical principles.

3. Since #2 actually is not even possible, then such objectivity requirements must be jettisoned in favor of subjective opinions (actually fatuous fantasmagorizing) which are grounded in Philosophical Materialism (which is paradoxical, itself). This will be called essential knowledge of evolution since there is currently no alternative Materialist theory.

4. And no matter what, evolution will be called both “science” and the “unifying theory of biology”, even though it cannot predict a single thing which is useful to modern biology being performed in laboratories, nor can it be used to design or test biological hypotheses using disciplined deductive experiments. Hence, it is both an inductive failure and a deductive failure. Therefore, evolution has no grounding in logical truths, or in actual science which depends upon logical principles.

BobVong4, these are the issues pertinent to demonstrating that evolution is a “science” and that evolutionist proclamations are actually objective knowledge.

So, go ahead with that task, if you choose to do so.

ADdendum: I will look at your links.

Stan said...

BobVong4
1. Your first link, below, is not to a specific study giving causal evidence for support of your assertions. I decline to follow it.

http://www.nature.com/search?q=evolution&q_match=all&sp-a=sp1001702d&sp-m=0&sp-p-1=phrase&sp-sfvl-field=subject%7Cujournal&sp-x-1=ujournal&submit=go

2. Your second link is not a study, it is a teacher’s guide. I decline to read it.

https://www.project2061.org/publications/guides/evolution.pdf

3. Your third link is not a study, it is a list. I decline to read it.

http://assessment.aaas.org/topics
Pick 'Evolution and Natural Selection'

4.Your fourth link is not a study, it is a magazine FAQ page. I decline to waste time there.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9952-faq-evolution.html?full=true#.VT7KhSFViko

5. Your fifth link – ironically named a “story” – is not a study. I decline to read it.

http://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm

6. Your sixth link is another magazine article with a list; it is not a study. I decline to pursue it.

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/misc/webfeat/ardipithecus

7. Your seventh link is yet another list, and is not a study; I decline to pursue it.

http://www.aaas.org/news/evolution-front-line

If you actually had a single study which supported your claims, you would produce it. This list of links forces the obvious conclusion that you do not have such a study. Therefore, your belief set is not based in actual causal data.

Feel free to prove otherwise by producing actual data regarding Cambrian evolution, or even first life, or the original development of regulatory genes – your choice.



Stan said...

BobVong4,
The great evolutionary seizure of thought has produced generations of sloppy thinking. By replacing factual premises which are grounded in first principles with imaginary inferential interpolations which are declared "fact", the entire basis of science (cause and effect) has been sullied. And that, in turn, has sullied the ability to think in valid, grounded, deductive thought structures.

This has been brought about because evolution needs to be declared TRUE in order to support a worldview bias which has no other support.

The idea that inferences produce Truth is logically flawed and is fatal to disciplined thought.

Yet that has been spread throughout western society as a Truth process, and the results are obvious if one demands actual observations of cause/effect rather than blindly accepting specious speculations as Truth Claims which are to be used in a worldview.

That is the thrust of the criticism of evolution and its consequences which you will find on this site. So that is what you will need to address, either with valid, grounded deductive logic for your case, or with valid empirical hypothetico-deductive experimental findings.

We are open to those presentations when they are made.

Robert Coble said...

No offense to anyone, but this exchange is beginning to mirror the progression given in the original post.

If you have not read it, I suggest Dr. Antony Flew's excellent book, There IS a God: How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind.

When a lifelong atheist like Dr. Flew (or the author of this blog) reverses positions held to be true, it bears investigating why.


Stan said...

When Dr. Flew viewed the evidence he developed a case for rejecting Atheism (and evolution iirc).

This was met with raucous, vicious Ad Hominem Abusive attacks on the person of Flew, not on his reasoning. Essentially he was reclassified by changing his identity from the highest of elites to treasonous, treacherous, deluded elderly fool.

The narrative may NOT be addressed in any manner short of total fealty; it must be defended with as much brutality as is necessary. It is, in fact, a religious cult in the most onerous sense of the word.

JBsptfn said...

Bob, you really need to check this site out:

Science Against Evolution

David has been at this for almost 20 years. If you have any questions, e-mail him.

Stan said...

My favorite post at that site is the "We Dug Dinos" article. he describes his experience digging for dinosaur eggs, finding them to be not fossilized, and how the hierarchy dealt with that.

JBsptfn said...

Just checked that out, Stan. It's ashame how Mary Schweitzer was treated because she swayed from their ideology.

BobVong4 said...

Stan, the links were not to address your so-called "challenges", the point was to reply to JPsptfn who posted 1 link, and just did it again, to a ridiculous website, Science Against Evolution, which pales in comparison to websites I linked to, actual science journals, actual science magazines, actual science association, you know, the people who actually know what they are talking about. What's next, the moon landing was a hoax? You know there are websites about that too, and yes, yes, they have been doing it for over 20 years as well.

But I will give this 1 more chance, because knowledge is important, and I think I now understand that this is really the problem, why it looks so much like dogma, for you. Because this is not something we can unlearn, evolution is knowledge that sticks, it accounts for all of biology. It is the causal explanations you are looking for, it is not magic, it is not based on wishful thinking, it is not just stories, it actually explains things. Most of what you write is just complaining that it's not science, but without ever saying which part is wrong. I am merely trying to help you understand what actual scientists, biology specialists not cult leaders, say about evolution, about the Cambrian explosion, and what we know. There is no conspiracy, just people doing science.

So going back to your last set of comments, I have to ask you to clarify what you are looking for. You wrote it already, sorry to make you repeat, but I really don't get which part you are confused about, which part does not make sense to you. You wrote just too much... can you be more precise in what makes no sense to you? I mean... you compare evolution to astrology, this tells a lot more about how little you know about evolution than you think... So what exactly in the Cambrian explosion do you find unbelievable? Don't say everything! Which explanation is lacking? Don't say there are none! Which natural process could not have been a natural process? Don't say it's all magic! Do you not understand how genes yield entirely new structures? New organs? New information? New species? Or perhaps, what's the alternative you think has been proven and contradicts evolutionary theory?

And again, the 1 law (yes it's a law) is neither juvenile nor useless, you mentioned it only to display your ignorance of what it means: "Of course genetic variation exists due to sexual reproduction, as opposed to cell division. But it is not pertinent to evolution. Selection from within a set does not produce anything outside the set (mathematical fact about reality). The offspring of a human is always a human." This has a lot to do with evolution. Because you are asking for evidence that would directly violate that law, it seems, but I am not sure, that's why I am asking to clarify. Because it seems that you are asking for examples of humans giving birth to something so different, with a completely different set of genes that it would not be a human, and then you would see 'that' as an example of evolution, when it would disprove it! What we do see is small variation leading to completely new set of information, because yes, it can produce things outside its current set. Your statement, using mathematic, is actually not a bad analogy, but that you are misusing, since you can take the set of even numbers, let's say, and yield odd numbers by adding 1 to any member. Same with evolution, the kingdom animalia spawn chordata and non-chordata, as explained above. Sorry, again, if you have to repeat some stuff, but just saying that it's all non-sense, all irrational, all a big conspiracy, and even lump atheists thinking in it, is just not helping, it's plugging your ears and saying lalalalala. Why would anyone do that? Please point to exactly which part makes no sense to you. If it's the whole thing again, then there is not much I could do I am afraid, evolution will remain a big scary black box for you...

JBsptfn said...

How do you know it's ridiculous? Have you checked out a fair amount of the articles on the site?

Stan said...

BobVong4:
I’ll try to shorten this up, but responding to your comments takes some explanation, and I try to be complete.

” Because this is not something we can unlearn, evolution is knowledge that sticks, it accounts for all of biology. It is the causal explanations you are looking for, it is not magic, it is not based on wishful thinking, it is not just stories, it actually explains things.”

It actually IS just stories, even though it has a current biological content. There is no proof of what happened, and there never will be. Historical events are not addressable via actual science. And the level of “explanation” does not rise to actual science just because it uses biological terms. It cannot rise to the level of objective knowledge –ever- because it is all speculation (with biological terminology and features). I’ll give an example of Just So Storytelling regarding developmental regulatory genetics in an upcoming ariticle.

Ptolemaic epicycles were “explanatory” but wrong. Astrology is explanatory, too. Explanations without proof are empty of knowledge value, unless the probability of false knowledge is acceptable. Plausibility is not a path to fact, prime example being that that was the basis for Kipling’s Just So Stories: plausible but wrong.

What is actually known with scientific contingency is modern biological knowledge in the absence of evolution. In no manner was evolution essential to the comprehension of developmental regulatory genetics. It is the exact opposite – the knowledge of developmental regulatory genetic information systemics is being extended beyond actual knowledge in order to accommodate evolution.

In other words, the actual current biological knowledge is being taken beyond its knowledge boundaries in order to force fit it to evolutionary needs.

Your statement, above, is not an empirical statement, it is a faith statement.

” Most of what you write is just complaining that it's not science, but without ever saying which part is wrong. I am merely trying to help you understand what actual scientists, biology specialists not cult leaders, say about evolution, about the Cambrian explosion, and what we know. There is no conspiracy, just people doing science.”

Your condescension is unbecoming and is misdirected. You presume superior knowledge because you accept and indulge in Appeal to Authority. I have given you counter information from highly respected evolutionary theorists, and you have ignored it as if it were not even there. And you put out links to magazines, not studies. I have given you studies.

And I have been specific about the logic errors, which you also ignore, and choose to presume that I am ignorant, because how else could anyone reject your set of authorities? Refute the logic errors which consume the underlying basis for evolution, which I have outlined.

And this: when people “do science”, they attack physical effects which are observable objectively. They do it by developing hypothetical causes which can be tested by creating experiments which could falsify the hypothesis if it is incorrect in its choice of causes. That’s how biology is done. That’s NOT how evolution is done. Evolution has no empirical claims that are testable; it predicts everything and nothing; it is not falsifiable (and that’s why some think it can’t be unlearned: it is not empirical fact – it is a blind belief).

So: refute that. The endeavor of evolution is not a science and is not objective knowledge. Unless you can prove otherwise nothing you claim under the banner of evolution has any knowledge content because it is all, 100%, inferential opinion.

You don’t want to hear that? Then disprove it. It is obvious that this charge against evolution is fatal to it, before it makes any inferences at all. So its inferences are of no value, until the value of the endeavor is established in terms of objective knowledge.

Stan said...

” but I really don't get which part you are confused about, which part does not make sense to you. You wrote just too much... can you be more precise in what makes no sense to you? I mean...”

I am not confused; your presumption of me frankly is obtuse. You seem not to be capable of comprehending the challenge of the underlying logic of basic empiricism and its requirements in order for its declarations to be considered objective knowledge. (It’s outlined below)

Do you not understand how genes yield entirely new structures? New organs? New information? New species?””

Do you not understand that these claims are not based in empirical fact, that they are based in presumptions and extensions of actual fact? Those claims take knowledge of developmental systems which in actuality produce variation within a genome – not outside the genome – and then extend beyond that knowledge to presume “new knowledge” which is not actually knowledge it is speculation. It is pure presumption: interpolative inference, outside the boundaries of actual known biological facts.

The issue of knowledge and its uses/abuses seems to elude you in this conversation. Too many words? Then:

I will simplify for you.

1. Knowledge is not objective if it is subjective, i.e., not available to other parties except as opinion, inferences, personal declarations. This is too basic to even simplify further.

2. Science was developed to create a mechanism to separate objective knowledge of the physical realm from subjective knowledge of the physical realm. (It’s historical and uncontroversial).

3. The Scientific Method which was developed to achieve #2 is the empirical science system.

4. The empirical method requires that the cause/effect hypothesis of #3 for physical phenomena be objectively repeatably observable by outside, disinterested parties, AND that the objective repetition produce the same identical effect as the original investigation produced.

5. This produced the following scientific discipline:

(a) induction of observations;

(b) formulation of a rule regarding observations;

(c) Creation of a testable hypothesis for the rule in #3, regarding cause and effect.

(d) Creating an experiment for the hypothesis in #4, which has the ability to falsify the hypothesis and the ability to be replicated at will by use of the documentation of the process.

(e) Disciplined performance of the experiment, and complete documentation of results.

(f) Release of all documentation and claims made for the rule and its test results.

(g) Replication by outside, disinterested parties, with the same conclusion.

(h) Peer Review;

(i) Publication in appropriate professional journal.

(j) This type of science is exactly what is demanded of competing theories, therefore it must also apply to evolution. Otherwise, evolution survives on the Fallacy of Special Pleading.

This science discipline is the ONLY way to produce objective knowledge for phenomena in the physical realm. Historical claims, inferential and probabilistic claims, religious claims, non-physical claims, etc. are not falsifiable, not reproducible, not objectively verifiable, and therefore are NOT approachable by empirical science.

I’ll stop here, so as not to overly complicate the issue. I realize I have not addressed all your issues with this comment.

Stan said...

One pertinent comment here:
the famous Kitzmiller v Dover US District Court judge declared that ID (intelligent design) is not a science. Informed by philosophers of science, Michael Ruse, Rob't Pennock and others, Judge Overton used the following demarcation principle to mark the boundary between science and not science:

1. Science is guided by natural law;

2. Science is explanatory by reference to natural law;

3. Science is testable against the empirical world;

4. Its conclusions are tentative;

5. It is falsifiable.

On the basis of this (now legal precedent) view of science, Judge Overton found that intelligent design is not science. The court decision stopped there, and did not decide whether evolution could pass these criteria, and could be considered a science.

However, it is obvious that evolution fails these criteria for the exact reasons that ID fails: it is not testable, it is not falsifiable.

Had the court been asked the correct question,

"Is EITHER evolution OR intelligent design a science?",

both evolution and ID would fail criterion 3 and criterion 5, and neither would be taught in middle Pennsylvania schools.

Stan said...

”Because you are asking for evidence that would directly violate that law, it seems, but I am not sure, that's why I am asking to clarify. Because it seems that you are asking for examples of humans giving birth to something so different, with a completely different set of genes that it would not be a human, and then you would see 'that' as an example of evolution, when it would disprove it!”

You claim that there are “Laws” for evolution. Please support that claim by directing us to the “laws” and the website of the “lawgiver” who has the authority to declare such proclamations as “Law”.

As far as I can tell, there is no event, including the proverbial PreCambrian Rabbit, which would actually disprove evolution. But one must have the Laws first.

”What we do see is small variation leading to completely new set of information, because yes, it can produce things outside its current set.”

You make this claim with no empirical evidence; it appears to be a faith claim, declaring faith in the non-empirical speculative explanations which you imbue with truth. Failure of an enable/disable function cannot produce new features; it can however, produce distortions and exaggerations of existing features. That will not produce a liver or spleen or sexual reproduction or any non-metazoan, multicellular animalia when the genetic switch operates on genes from a single cell prokaryote or eukaryote.

Your statement must be considered false, since you present it without any sort of empirical evidence.

” Your statement, using mathematic, is actually not a bad analogy, but that you are misusing, since you can take the set of even numbers, let's say, and yield odd numbers by adding 1 to any member.”

Adding 1 to the set of even numbers is not a function allowed when selecting members of the set. False Analogy you’ve drawn.

” Same with evolution, the kingdom animalia spawn chordata and non-chordata, as explained above."

Making an assertion about science without proof, in this case empirical proof, is futile; it is not knowledge, it is just an assertion, until you provide objective proof and provability.

”Sorry, again, if you have to repeat some stuff, but just saying that it's all non-sense, all irrational, all a big conspiracy, and even lump atheists thinking in it, is just not helping, it's plugging your ears and saying lalalalala.”

And that is bullshit. You have had several days’ worth of opportunity to provide the standard type of scientific proof for your assertions and you have not. You have avoided addressing the actual case being made against evolution. So who is doing the lalalala-ing here?

”Why would anyone do that?”

Indeed. Where is your experimental falsifiable (etc.) empirical data? Where is your proof? Where is your science? Where is your Law Book? Where/who is your Law Giver? You have provided nothing but your beliefs. You apparently cannot believe that your own beliefs are faulty.

”Please point to exactly which part makes no sense to you. If it's the whole thing again, then there is not much I could do I am afraid, evolution will remain a big scary black box for you...”

This is so far off base that it makes it clear that you have neither the intention nor the ability to comprehend the argument being made. (nor to provide a single shred of empirical evidence for support of what are now obviously blind beliefs).

Evolution doesn’t scare me. Blind Believers do, however, scare me in the sense that they are willing to believe anything in the name of “science”, no matter how unfalsifiable, untestable, non-credible it might be. That sort of credulousness leads to authority worship and cult-like groupthink.

Phoenix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phoenix said...

Bob

These "laws of evolution" that you speak of,do they compliment the laws of physics are contradict them?
Stan once said that evolutionists love to piggy back the real sciences.Now let's see if evolution is just parasitic or an actual science?Or perhaps evolution can be relegated to a social science.

Robert Coble said...

@BobVong4:

Part I:

I know I risk being charged with taking your following statement out of context, but I would like for you to elucidate it, please:

"Of course Darwin was wrong on a lot of things, but his research and data gathering remain a wealth of knowledge that we benefit from today."

Would you care to expound on the "lot of things" that Darwin got WRONG?

I’m just curious to see if those WRONG things turn out to be the very things that Stan has written about, or if there are a "lot of things" WRONG with Darwinian theory in addition to those described by Stan.

Two wrongs may not make a right, but three wrongs definitely will make a left (or is that "Leftist"?) turn.

Perhaps we are to the point in this series of arriving at two (or more) WRONGS making a RIGHT (but not one that is Constitutional). Perhaps not, but it's worth a try. ;-)

Since I am making the suggestion for demonstrating the things (a “lot of things”?) that Herr Darwin got WRONG, I'll give an example from Dr. Flew's book, previously cited. In the interest of conveying Dr. Flew's rather dry acerbic wit, I will refrain from commenting; it is sufficiently concise without my feeble attempts to make it clearer (if that is even possible for this mere mortal).

(I am posting this as separate posts merely due to the size limitations of Blogger.)

Robert Coble said...

Part II:

There IS a God, pp 78-80:

DUELING WITH DAWKINS

In addition to my public debates, I have engaged in various polemical discussions in writing. One prominent instance of such discussions is the exchanges I have had with the scientists Richard Dawkins. Although I commended his atheist works, I have always been a critic of his selfish-gene school of thought.

In my book Darwinian Evolution, I pointed out that natural selection does not positively produce anything [emphasis added]. It only eliminates, or tends to eliminate, whatever is not competitive. A variation does not need to bestow any actual competitive advantage in order to avoid elimination; it is sufficient that it does not burden its owner with any competitive disadvantage. To choose a rather silly illustration, suppose I have useless wings tucked away under my suit coat, wings that are too weak to lift my frame off the ground. Useless as they are, these wings do not enable me to escape predators or gather food. But as long as they don’t make me more vulnerable to predators, I will probably survive to reproduce and pass on my wings to my descendants. Darwin’s mistake in drawing too positive an inference with his suggestion that natural selection produces something was perhaps due to his employment of the expressions “natural selection” or “survival of the fittest” rather than his own ultimately preferred alternative, “natural preservation.”

I went on to remark that Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene was a major exercise in popular mystification. As an atheist philosopher, I considered this work of popularization as destructive in its own ways as either The Naked Ape or The Human Zoo by Desmond Morris. In his works, Morris offers as the result of zoological illuminations what amounts to a systematic denial of all that is most peculiar to our species contemplated as a biological phenomenon. He ignores or explains away the obvious differences between human beings and other species.

Dawkins, on the other hand, labored to discount or depreciate the upshot of fifty or more years’ work in genetics—the discovery that the observable traits of organisms are for the most part conditioned by the interactions of many genes, while most genes have manifold effects on many such traits. For Dawkins, the main means for producing human behavior is to attribute to genes characteristics that can significantly be attributed only to persons. Then, after insisting that we are all the choiceless creatures of our genes, he infers that we cannot help but share the unlovely personal characteristics of those all-controlling monads.

Genes, of course, can be neither selfish nor unselfish anymore than they or any other nonconscious entities can engage in competition or make selections. (Natural selection is, notoriously, not selection; and it is a somewhat less familiar logical fact that, below the human level, the struggle for existence is not “competitive” in the true sense of the word.) But this did not stop Dawkins from proclaiming that his book “is not science fiction; it is science…. We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.” Although he later issued occasional disavowals, Dawkins gave no warning in his book against taking him literally. He added, sensationally, that “the argument of the book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes.”
If any of this were true, it would be no use to go on, as Dawkins does, to preach: “Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.” No eloquence can move programmed robots. But in fact none of it is true—or even faintly sensible. Genes, as we have seen, do not and cannot necessitate our conduct. Nor are they capable of the calculation and understanding required to plot a course of wither ruthless selfishness or sacrificial compassion.

Robert Coble said...

Correction to the following statement:

Nor are they capable of the calculation and understanding required to plot a course of wither ruthless selfishness or sacrificial compassion.

should read:

Nor are they capable of the calculation and understanding required to plot a course of either ruthless selfishness or sacrificial compassion.

Mea culpa for the "fat fingers"; my genes programmed me for that.

BobVong4 said...

Stan,
You referred to belief again,
"Blind Believers do, however, scare me in the sense that they are willing to believe anything in the name of “science”, no matter how unfalsifiable, untestable, non-credible it might be",
but this is about what we can know, and how much we know, what parts are known, which ones are not, etc... there is very little in terms of beliefs, but you insist it's just blind belief, which brings me to the second main thing we learn from this exchange, all you go is generalize, again and again, with tons of empty sentences that essentially mean 1 thing, the theory of evolution has nothing, from your point of view, which shows how far from the truth you are, completely oblivious to the knowledge we have, just because it does not fit what you want to believe. From the last long set of comments alone, we see things like
"It actually IS just stories,", "There is no proof of what happened, and there never will be.", " It cannot rise to the level of objective knowledge –ever- because it is all speculation"
Such strong statements about knowledge we already have tells a lot about you, about how you misunderstand the science, about where "stories" start and end, which parts are known or not. Because yes, there are stories, but there are also objective facts that you refuse to address, what I tried labeling 'laws' since they are so strong that nothing will ever make us forget them:
- All living things have offspring of their own species
- Living things, species, come and go, species always change a little over time
- Common descent is a fact; all living things share common ancestors, the close they are the closer the ancestor
- Evolution never runs backward, you cannot have the great-grand-children turn into an ancestor with exactly the same genes/DNA

You still reject that evolution has mechanisms, and instead attack it as if it was just stories, as if you could make arguments, use philosophy alone, to disprove years of scientific inquiries in the world of living things. The level of arrogance here is beyond words. You reject simple ideas that evolution depends on both random and non-random processes, mutation (random), natural selection (non-random) and genetic drift (random), which are all observed now, today, without any need to infer "stories" as you like to call them.

You reject predictions made by evolution, hiding yourself from the truth, and refusing to accept that the tree of life can be drawn, compared and thus predicted among different fields, while yielding the exact same results. The study of Anatomy, Fossil Record, Embryology, Genetics, Molecular Biology, ERV's, ALL yield the same tree of life, independently. This is not a story, this s a fact. Evolution has been tested, proven, re-tested, refined, explained and always always confirmed.

BobVong4 said...

You also accept statements that virtually all biologists, and specialist of many cousin fields, would reject: "What is actually known with scientific contingency is modern biological knowledge in the absence of evolution." You cannot remove evolution, the knowledge of evolution, from fields such as Embryology, Ecology, Genetics, Medicine, Paleontology, Immunology, Anthopology, Anatomy and of course, all sub-set of biology, biochemistry, cellular biology, physiology... If you remove evolution from the picture, you remove the bridge, the unifying theory, the main thing that relates to all of these fields. And you think you can do so, from your computer, writing blogs and referring to sites by unrecognized bloggers, instead of referring to actual papers, actual scientists, to universities around the world who study evolution.

You are also cynical and falling into conspiracy theory, thinking that all of these individuals who do science have an evil agenda, "being taken beyond its knowledge boundaries in order to force fit it to evolutionary needs" when you are the one, clearly, with an evil agenda, trying to make people doubt well know facts, promoting ignorance over knowledge. The main thing you insist the most is that we 'don't know' and never ever offer alternatives, at least that would be honest, but you are not, you promote lies and doubts, instead of the knowledge we already have. You are the one who presumes superior knowledge, I am merely submitting myself to the best scientists, who have worked for decades on these topics. Your arrogance is the one shining here, not mine. You throw random useless challenges that have nothing to do with evolution, and all to do with your own incomprehension. You must feel so superior when I don't address your claims directly, but it would only give you more of that false importance if I were to directly address ridiculous pseudo-philosophical claims, that you make, wrongly.

Please, I urge you to learn what we, other human beings who actually care, know about biology.
Watch these at the very least, read more in actual magazines, as I linked above, would be even better:
http://www.cassiopeiaproject.com/vid_courses3.php?Tape_Name=Biology
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3EED4C1D684D3ADF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Some_of_the_Things_That_Molecules_Do (sorry no video link)

Stan said...

bobVong4,
says:
” the theory of evolution has nothing, from your point of view, which shows how far from the truth you are, completely oblivious to the knowledge we have, just because it does not fit what you want to believe”

That is false.
First, I have requested that you produce empirical evidence for your claims. You have not. Repeatedly.

Second, I have pointed to the purpose and process of science, which you ignore completely.

Third, you make claims regarding “the knowledge we have”, yet you produce nothing of the sort.

Fourth, You are all talk, no substance. You have produced nothing which is not rhetoric in support of what you believe.

” Such strong statements about knowledge we already have tells a lot about you, about how you misunderstand the science, about where "stories" start and end, which parts are known or not”

Where is the data?

Where is the data?

Where is the data?

All you produce is beliefs. So: WHERE IS THE DATA?

” Because yes, there are stories, but there are also objective facts that you refuse to address, what I tried labeling 'laws' since they are so strong that nothing will ever make us forget them:

- All living things have offspring of their own species
- Living things, species, come and go, species always change a little over time
- Common descent is a fact; all living things share common ancestors, the close they are the closer the ancestor
- Evolution never runs backward, you cannot have the great-grand-children turn into an ancestor with exactly the same genes/DNA”


The first two do not relate to evolution. The first one is false, considering hybridization.

The second is totally irrelevant for the following reason: it does not entail evolution, and no deduction can be made from that claim which is necessary or sufficient to prove evolution. Also, it is purely inductive and subject to the Inductive Fallacy.

The third is false; there is zero proof in either the fossil record or in experimental proofs. This is opinion, only.

The fourth is demonstrably false. Evolution is defined as being non-teleological, without direction. That means that there is no forward and no backward – even under evolutionary theory. And in actuality also, evolution, as currently defined by actual experts, can run “backwards” as deleterious mutations are created, and are selected against; also, by the same mechanism you claim – developmental genetic switching – which has no direction, but could be considered backward if its error –creation is in the direction of previous existence is as probable as is new existence, and even more probable under Bayesian calculations.

But more to the point: You do BELIEVE all these claims you make, uncritically, so:

WHO MADE UP THESE LAWS? WHERE IS THEIR EMPIRICAL PROOF?

Here’s what Lewontin said about the subject:
”It is not, within the problematic of population genetics to discover the basic biological phenomena that govern evolutionary change, as it was for nuclear physics to discover universal forces between nuclear particles”
Lewontin; (2000, 192)


And Here’s Mayr:
”Following Ernst Mayr, 'I take it that not only biology itself but also its history is not so much a history of lawful theories (let alone facts) as it is one of concepts or “principles” which are taken to be more flexible and heuristically more fruitful than laws'”
Mayr (1982: 43); Callebaut (2010: 448).


And here’s Wilson:
”A respectable number of new idea had been generated that constituted an extensive, albeit untested, framework on which a mature science might have been built… (but that) did not and could not proceed in this straightforward manner. (The Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory) created very little theory in the strict sense”
Wilson, (1975: 63) ; Callebaut, (2010: 448)

In other words, there might be guiding directions inferred, but NO Laws… because the theory (variation, mutation, selection, common ancestor) was too vague and unprovable.

Stan said...

” You still reject that evolution has mechanisms, and instead attack it as if it was just stories, as if you could make arguments, use philosophy alone, to disprove years of scientific inquiries in the world of living things.”

I don’t have to reject it, the evolutionary theorists reject it.

Read Lewontin et. al., above, again.

Here you are denying that you have any knowledge of the Philosophy of Science, which is a precursor to science and produces the logic, rigor, and processes which are necessary for an endeavor to achieve the vaunted level of the elite intellectual pursuit called “science”. You also are demonstrating your ignorance of any demarcation between “science” and “non-science”, a demarcation which is produced not by science, scientists, or scientific procedures and conclusions, but is produced by Philosophers of Science who have over the centuries come to agree (somewhat) on what necessary and sufficient characteristics to differentiate legitimate science from non-objective claims.

If you continue to refuse to acknowledge this, then I can continue to see that your contributions here are those of a true believer, who needs no logical grounding in order to believe a thing, certainly if that thing conforms to your prejudices. That is not an attitude which is accepted in actual science.

Most of the rest of us here demand evidence for a claim, before we deem a claim to be even contingently held. Yes, all science is contingently held, and no more. That’s because although it is objective when done correctly, it is also inductive and cannot avoid the issue of inductive probability.

If evolution had something which is necessary and sufficient for being considered objective knowledge (which you have not produced) it still could not be the type of unquestionable law you claim, because all science is contingent. If you do not accept that scientific findings are always contingent, then you are confirmably a Scientismist who is fully under the control of ideology, not fact.

Stan said...

” The level of arrogance here is beyond words. You reject simple ideas that evolution depends on both random and non-random processes, mutation (random), natural selection (non-random) and genetic drift (random), which are all observed now, today, without any need to infer "stories" as you like to call them.”

I have referred you to the new, “Extended Synthesis”, which is not my endeavor- it is the conclusion of 16 of the most elite evolutionary theorists. That is their conclusion which you reject as arrogant. You know nothing about them or their conclusions. Your charge of arrogance is one of massive ignorance of the actual status of evolutionary thought, and represent your own arrogant condemnations of ideas outside your very own.

” You reject predictions made by evolution, hiding yourself from the truth, and refusing to accept that the tree of life can be drawn, compared and thus predicted among different fields, while yielding the exact same results.”

Again your ignorance is being demonstrated with nearly every sentence. The “tree” of life has been abandoned (in steps) for a “bush”, a “grid”, a “fabric” and a spaghetti bowl. All this has been done as modern biology has progressed in its knowledge without any help or need to reference evolution. Conclusion: there is no rational reason to make the claim that a tree of life is an empirical prediction which validates evolution. It is not.

More from Lewontin:
“(The biological realm) knows only one law: that there aren’t any.”
Lewontin; 2007, personal communication with Callebaut.


And as always, you make claims (absurd ones) without a shred of empirical evidence. Not a SHRED.

” The study of Anatomy, Fossil Record, Embryology, Genetics, Molecular Biology, ERV's, ALL yield the same tree of life, independently. This is not a story, this s a fact. Evolution has been tested, proven, re-tested, refined, explained and always always confirmed.”

That statement is completely false, and no actual expert, or even one casually familiar with evolutionary theory, would make such a statement. (Again, made without any reference to empirical data – none, not a SHRED).

From Dupre, via Callebaut:
Dupre is convinced that if science were unified, then the legitimate projects would be (only) those that formed part of that unified whole. On his view, only a society with homogeneous, o at least hegemonic, political commitments and shared assumptions could expecta unified science. Unified science, he concludes, would require Utopia or totalitarianism.”
Dupre, 1993; Callebraut (2010, 465).

Stan said...

Re-read the comment from Dupre, just above. That is the exact tack you have taken here: it is immoral to question and/or demand evidence for claims about evolution. This is part of the political correctness, SJW warfare on dissent which is currently underway. One is not allowed any thought other than the approved groupthink. Certainly rational analysis using known principles of disciplined logic are to be scorned. And that is your position, so I assume that you are part of that political mindset. Your final statement is definitely in the groupthink arena:

"Please, I urge you to learn what we, other human beings who actually care, know..."

If I disagree, then I can't be as "caring" about truth and science as are you, who has no capability of providing anything other than moral shaming - certainly not any actual data-bearing evidence - for your beliefs.

Robert Coble said...

Well.

I suppose after the flawless demonstration of Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive), Argumentum ad Populum, Argumentum ad Verecundiam, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, Operat ergo veritat, and assorted Red Herrings, I am left waiting breathlessly for the Argumentum ad Baculum to settle the issue once and for all.

(Which logical fallacies did I overlook?)

Stan, admit your sins against the One True Holy Church of Evolution, or you are in peril of burning forever in the eternal flames of Global Climate Warming, as prophesied by His Holiness, the Prophet AlGore (PBUH)!

Or - NOT.

I'm still waiting for the "lot of things" list that Darwin got WRONG. I guess I can stop holding my breath in anticipation. . .

I wonder what it must be like to have "feelings" that trump "logical thinking" in any and all circumstances. Sadly, it seems I will never find out by studying logical argumentation.

DAMN REASON for being so logical!

Phoenix said...

Yes,Bob has so far not been able to demonstrate any logical consistency in his arguments for Evolution,as Robert has pointed out.I'll even go as far as stating that Bob has also failed to provide any empirical evidence for Evolution as Stan has exposed.But something tells me Bob is not like other Evolutionists or Bobs for that matter.This guy has an ace up his sleeve and at the last moment when no ones looking Bob will attempt the unthinkable,without resorting to gish galloping by providing numerous links,he will simply divulge a secret that even most Evolutionists are unaware of,straight from the classified archives,he (Bob of course) will provide actual experimental verification for Evolution.Just you wait and see Stan.Anytime now,anytime...

Robert Coble said...

On a different note (playing Devil's advocate; you can wish me into hell at any time):

There are (at least) two different "scientific" methods.

(Ref.: Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking, chapters 9-10, Geisler, N. L. and Brooks, R. M., Baker Books, Copyright 1990, ISBN: 0-8010-3836-7)

(1) Operations science, most commonly referred to as empirical science. It deals with repeated (and repeatable) events in the present. Its primary principles are repetition and observation. It is the method often referred to as THE scientific method, i.e., the experimental, hypothetico-deductive-cause/effect step-by-step process.

(2) Origin science, also referred to as historical or forensic science. It deals with past events which are unobservable and unrepeated (and at least in principle, unrepeatable). Its primary principles are causality, uniformity of experience (or analogy between present and past), comprehensiveness, and consistency. [My take on it: It is an inductive process, and operates on an inference to the best explanation.]

Perhaps in this current topic we have a problem of equivocation on the meaning of "scientific method."

Just as we have the usual equivocation about "evidence" (is it only physical or can it be non-physical, i.e., metaphysical?) regarding the existence or non-existence of God, are we having a hidden issue of equivocation about the "scientific method" (is it operations or origin science?) vis-a-vis evolution?

Just as it would be rather illogical (you think?!?) to demand PHYSICAL evidence for the axiomatic NON-PHYSICAL unactualized Actualizer (otherwise referred to as the unmoved Mover, the uncaused Cause, or even [GASP! NO! NOT T-H-A-T HYPOTHESIS!] G-d), is it illogical to demand that the method of operations science be used to investigate an unobserved and unrepeated (unrepeatable) past event falling within the purview of origins science? Or vice versa: is it illogical to claim that operations science provides the answer to ALL questions, including those concerned with unobserved and unrepeated (unrepeatable) past events?

Hmmm. . .

It seems we have (at least) four possibilities:

(1) Operations science
(2) Origins science
(3) Present events
(4) Past events that are unobservable and unrepeated (and unrepeatable)

It seems clear (in my clouded mind) that (1) and (3) MUST be paired, and that (2) and (4) MUST be paired.

It also seems (again, to my clouded mind) that attempting (1) with (4), or (2) with (3) is a misapplication of the respective method, attempting to do what that method is not designed to do.

I'm confused. (So, what's new about THAT?!?)

Would anyone care to help me avoid digging this hole any deeper?

Stan said...

I was informed, years ago, that forensics is a term which applies only to legal pursuits, such as policing crime. I used it anyway, for a while, but finally converted over to the term used by philosophers of science - at least the ones who I read: historical science.

It is clear that historical science produces evidence from which conclusions are inferred; the more evidence, the more probable that the inference is accurate. But the probability is never p = 1.0... at least until the advent of ubiquitous event recorders (video cameras), where an event might be recorded in its entirety.

Even then there is no cause/effect certainty or even knowledge at all. Cause must be assumed and cannot be addressed with hypothico-deductive experimental non-falsification. In criminal investigation, cause is called "motivation", and is assumed due to findings of incentives to excite greed, jealousy, envy, lust, etc. Still, motives do not prove actions, and the connection must be inferred.

There is no incorrigible, immutable Truth involved in historical investigations.

In evolution, historical events are not recorded; only historical existences are partially recorded by finding bones (not organic matter) in various layers of geologic strata.

There are no other fossil/geologic facts. All other conclusions are inferentially drawn, and then relationships are inferred based on these partial remains.

These inferences are subject to misuse by irrationally being called Truth, and are plugged into insidious worldviews as supporting "axioms", which, of course, they are logically not.

That is (almost purposefully) irrational. And it appears that that is what has consumed the mind of BobV.

Robert Coble said...

Just to be clear on the distinction between axiom and scientific law:

Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

Scientific law: a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.

As an example, the First Principles of logic are established, accepted, and self-evidently true.

It seems to me that evolutionary theory MIGHT get to the level of axiom, but never to the level of scientific law, based on these definitions.

Evolutionary theory certainly is regarded as being established and accepted, albeit NOT necessarily self-evidently true. That limitation is inherent in the origins (or historical) science method. That any and all alternative theories are dismissed without consideration is a tell-tale sign that those claiming more than the evidence supports are engaged in a faith-based ideology.

On the other hand, evolutionary theory does NOT rise to the level of "scientific law" simply because it cannot (even in principle) be based on REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL OBSERVATIONS that describes some aspects of the universe, given that the events in question are unobservable and unrepeated (unrepeatable), and that the origins (historical) science method does not and cannot use the experimental, hypothetico-deductive-cause/effect step-by-step process which is the foundational basis of operations science.

Perhaps the problem is that for so many years, those engaged in popularizing and promulgating evolutionary theory as "scientific law" have been guilty of equivocation between the two methods, using the terminology as if they were engaged in operations science while actually doing origins science.

It would appear that there is an underlying ideological agenda driving the mis-application of terminology, so that the innocent and unsuspecting observer is led to assume that the respected authorities on evolutionary theory are engaged in operations science rather than origins science.

"The science is settled. The debate is over." (Please ignore the contingent nature of the "truths" discovered by science in general.)

That the said observer swallows all assumptions without question or reservation or independent investigation about either the assumptions or the respective authorities does not speak well of the observer as someone interested in searching for the truth, following the evidence wherever it leads.

BobVong4 said...

Stan, let me take a step back, and write something much more focused, to clarify the few points, fundamental points, which you get wrong. You say things, many many things, like the following, quote:

"there is no common ancestor fossil found", "there is zero proof in either the fossil record", " no common ancestral precursor is known to actually have existed, except in the minds of evolutionary believers", "The fossil record does not show evolution", "which is necessary or sufficient to prove evolution", "Macro-evolution is a mathematical and logical error, AND there is no objective evidence to support it", "there is no known, proven mechanism that creates the creatures, as found, in the fossil record"
,or from your so-called course, linked on the side, we see,
"...fossil record, and genetics. Neither, however, is conclusive objective evidence for evolution", "no valid theories exist to support the claim of evolution, save the subjective and inductive-only fossil record.", "The idea that a single communication grouping evolved by accidental mutations, ..., from changes in DNA cannot be justified outside of an ideological necessity, ..., It is logically absurd.", "reduces the already impossible deterministic theories to be even more conclusively impossible", "Cambrian Explosion. The jump in complexity from single cells and sponges to all the phyla (except one) in the 50 million years or so in the fossil record requires an impossibly steep aquistion of new information being added to a “common ancestor”.", "Because it cannot be falsified, it is not science, so calling it science is false. Totally false.", "the unfalsifiable proposition is not a candidate for empirical science and cannot be deemed a valid or objectively true feature of physical reality. Evolution and common descent fail this requirement",
"Conclusion
It cannot be rationally said that "evolution is true", nor that "if you understood it you would know it is true" for the reasons given above.
The fossil record, in spite of its ever-changing findings and promotions/demotions of fossils into categories of evolutionary "significance", is not objective proof of evolution",
"Evolution is not an empirical science, it is an exercise in story telling based on changing fossil records."

BobVong4 said...

This, I believe, makes it clear, that you are completely rejecting Evolution, as a significant scientific Theory, which accurately describes the origin of life's diversity, over the past few billion years. You reject, then, for no good reasons, the following facts:
- Common descent is a fact
- The mechanisms of evolution, Mutation, genetic drift and natural selection, cause species to change over time, and come and go, which includes new features, new limbs, organs, systems, etc...
, summarized by the same CassioPeia project I linked to, before:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43SskX-pEqA
or this 2-min summary, that happened to be in related videos,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ksdV9HPwBY

Yet, you pretend you know best, that these facts are irrational beliefs, and you even wrote a guide about them, voicing how evolution has nothing, but you have philosophy, and logic, and evidence, on your side. What you miss is that the details, that the specialists argue about, the ones you quoted, have nothing to do with these facts. These scientists, these biologists, evolutionary biologists, all agree with the above facts, they are true. Why do you deny them? That's why I ignore a lot of what you say, because you write complete non-sense that has nothing to do with the basic facts. You pretend that these people who mention point out flaws in evolution, as a whole, but they don't. Stephen Jay Gould, just to name him for now, fought loud and clear against Creationism and Intelligent Design, he was a strong defender of Evolution, of the Theory of Evolution, which you clearly reject.

Or, was this never about evolution being true, but about the balance, the details, of its mechanism? That would be great, it would be a mere disagreement, on terms, on how evolution works, not "if" it does, over billions of years. But, it's clear it's not that, so why not be honest Stan, why not concede that these people you quote, they are not on your side, they would disagree with your views, on evolution, on what we know, scientifically, about evolution.

To address some of what you said, in the last comment, for example, we can see where your ignorance and misunderstanding shines. You said:
" The “tree” of life has been abandoned (in steps) for a “bush”, a “grid”, a “fabric” and a spaghetti bowl. All this has been done as modern biology has progressed in its knowledge without any help or need to reference evolution. Conclusion: there is no rational reason to make the claim that a tree of life is an empirical prediction which validates evolution. It is not."
,but no, your conclusion is WRONG. You do not understand what you are talking about. This does not, in any way, contradict what I wrote, what I say about common descent, because it's still a fact that all 'felines' members have a 'feline' common ancestor.

BobVong4 said...

Which brings another misconception, when you said
"The first two do not relate to evolution. The first one is false, considering hybridization."
When referring to offspring being of the same species as their parent. Take a lion and a tiger, they can have an offspring, an infertile offspring, which, you are righ, is neither lion nor tiger, it's a dead end, not even a viable species, but the fact remain that it's still a feline, just like its parents. Common descend still applies. Variation of species still apply. Next, you also showed ignorance regarding 'direction', when you said
" Evolution is defined as being non-teleological, without direction. That means that there is no forward and no backward – even under evolutionary theory."
again, here, the problem is that you 'think' you understand some aspects of evolution but you don't, because you mix things up. Evolution has no goals, no purpose, no direction in that sense, but that's not what I was talking about, you completely misunderstand because you don't even seem to try to understand. I was not talking about the fact, yes fact, that descendants will never evolve back to be identical to their ancestors. Read that again. Does that imply a specific 'direction' like what you implied? No. Try to understand this, again, you cannot, ever, have an animal evolve back to become exactly what its ancestors were. It can lose limbs to look more like them, it can change color to look more like them, and a lot of things, but it will never ever be exactly like the ancestor with exactly the same genes coding for exactly the same proteins in exactly the same way. But the other way around is true, which is how we evaluate common descent. Another mistake you made, when you complained about the tree of life being predicted. 1 example are ERVs, which get inserted in the genome of an infected individual. This code remains in place throughout the lineage of that individual and is definite proof that common descent is a fact, you can trace that ERVs down the line.

BobVong4 said...

Let me remind you of a few things about the people you quote:

- Lewontin, Richard Charles "Dick" Lewontin (born March 29, 1929) is an American evolutionary biologist, geneticist, academic and social commentator. A leader in developing the mathematical basis of population genetics and evolutionary theory, he pioneered the application of techniques from molecular biology, such as gel electrophoresis, to questions of genetic variation and evolution.

- Ernst Walter Mayr (/ˈmaɪər/; July 5, 1904 – February 3, 2005)[1][2] was one of the 20th century's leading evolutionarybiologists. He was also a renowned taxonomist, tropical explorer, ornithologist, and historian of science.[3] His work contributed to the conceptual revolution that led to the modern evolutionary synthesis of Mendelian genetics, systematics, and Darwinian evolution, and to the development of the biological species concept.
n his book Systematics and the Origin of Species (1942) he wrote that a species is not just a group of morphologically similar individuals, but a group that can breed only among themselves, excluding all others. When populations within a species become isolated by geography, feeding strategy, mate selection, or other means, they may start to differ from other populations through genetic drift and natural selection, and over time may evolve into new species. The most significant and rapid genetic reorganization occurs in extremely small populations that have been isolated (as on islands).

- Stephen Jay Gould (/ɡuːld/; September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist,evolutionary biologist and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation.[1] Gould spent most of his career teaching atHarvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In the later years of his life, Gould also taught biology and evolution at New York University.
Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which he developed with Niles Eldredge in 1972.[2] The theory proposes that most evolution is marked by long periods of evolutionary stability, which is punctuated by rare instances ofbranching evolution.
In evolutionary theory he opposed strict selectionism, sociobiologyas applied to humans, and evolutionary psychology. He campaigned against creationism and proposed that science and religion should be considered two distinct fields (or "magisteria") whose authorities do not overlap.

Edward Osborne "E. O." Wilson FMLS[1] (born June 10, 1929) is an American biologist, researcher (sociobiology,biodiversity, island biogeography), theorist (consilience, biophilia), naturalist (conservationist) and author. "The evolutionary epic", Wilson wrote in his book On Human Nature, "is probably the best myth we will ever have." Wilson's intended usage of the word "myth" does not denote falsehood—rather, a grand narrative that provides people with placement in time—a meaningful placement that celebrates extraordinary moments of shared heritage.[15] Wilson was not the first to use the term, but his fame prompted its usage as the morphed phrase epic of evolution.[5]
Wilson explained the need for the epic of evolution:[16]
Human beings must have an epic, a sublime account of how the world was created and how humanity became part of it...

Does this sound like these people would agree with you, with you saying "It cannot be rationally said that "evolution is true""? This is absurd, ridiculous, they would laugh at such ignorant statement. These people certainly agree that evolution is true, certainly agree that common descent is a fact, and certainly would find your contributions to the topic to be utter non-sense.

BobVong4 said...

Let me add that I think Robert Coble is on to something. There are different kind of sciences, and you are mistaken to conclude that only 1 yields knowledge, we certainly have historical knowledge of a lot of things. It's not crazy to claim that we 'know' something like the Big Bang happen, we know the universe is more than 13 billion years old, we know the Sun, Earth, are more than 4 billion years old, we know tectonic plates move, we know life evolved over billion of years, we know it shares common ancestors, and so on... this is all knowledge, all base on TODAY's observations but still yielding facts about the past. It's not just beliefs, it's KNOWLEDGE.

And Robert, 1 thing Darwin got wrong was Ernst Haeckel's view of embryos, which they taught reflected past evolution. Darwin was skeptical but seemed to think it was right. That was proven wrong, and Haeckel had actually committed fraud. Google if you want more examples, it's just details like that, nothing completely wrong, about evolution as a whole,

Robert Coble said...

So, we conclude that:

Facts ARE facts.

Authorities that I respect are in agreement that facts are facts.

Anyone who disagrees with the authorities is an ignoramus, because facts are facts.

That's a fact, Jack.

Turning to that source of impeccable and inerrant FACTS, Wikipedia, we find:

(Argument from authority)

Argument from authority:

General

The argument from authority can take several forms. As a syllogism, the argument has the following basic structure:

A says P about subject matter S.

A should be trusted about subject matter S.

Therefore, P is correct.


The second premise is NOT accepted as valid, as it amounts to an unfounded assertion that leads to circular reasoning able to define person or group A into inerrancy on any subject matter.

Dismissal of evidence

The equally fallacious counter-argument from authority takes the form:

B has provided evidence for position T.

A says position T is incorrect.

Therefore, B's evidence is false.


This form is fallacious as it does NOT actually refute the evidence given by B, merely notes that there is disagreement with it. This form is especially unsound when there is no indication that A is aware of the evidence given by B.

. . .

However, it is a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered. As an appeal to a perceived lack of authority, it is fallacious for much the same reasons as an appeal to authority.

What can be concluded?

That BobVong4 is totally unaware that his continued appeals to authority and dismissals of Stan's arguments on the basis of lack of authority are logically fallacious.


Suggestion to BobVong4:

Perhaps you could make some progress by attempting to answer the specific questions that have been posed to you, rather than continually appealing to the authority of others (THESE PEOPLE ARE SCIENTISTS!) to create and carry an argument for you.

Please note that there is a distinct difference between merely appealing to a group of authorities (without any logical argumentation), and citing what some authorities have said on a particular subject, and then addressing it logically.

Dr. Flew addressed this question of scientific authority thus:

"You might ask how I, a philosopher, could speak to issues treated by scientists. The best way to answer this question is with another question: Are we engaging in science or philosophy here? When you study the interaction of two physical bodies, for instance, two subatomic particles, you are engaging in science. When you ask how it is that those subatomic particles—or anything physical—could exist and why, you are engaged in philosophy. When you draw philosophical conclusions from scientific data, then you are thinking as a philosopher. . . . Of course, scientists are just as free to think as philosophers as anyone else. And, of course, not all scientists will agree with my particular interpretation of the facts they generate. But their disagreements will have to stand on their own two philosophical feet. In other words, if they are engaged in philosophical analysis, NEITHER THEIR AUTHORITY NOR THEIR EXPERTISE AS SCIENTISTS IS OF ANY RELEVANCE."

The original post concerned a sequence of philosophical statements, used in the form of an argument, without support, which contradicted itself. It requires no appeals to biology or the authorities of biology in order to demonstrate its absence of truth value by virtue of its incoherence.

Somehow, you keep missing (or intentionally ignoring?) that point.

Robert Coble said...

BRAVO! At last we get an example!

Thank you!

Robert Coble said...

Here is a prime example of equivocation:

"It's not crazy to claim that we 'know' something like the Big Bang happen, we know the universe is more than 13 billion years old, we know the Sun, Earth, are more than 4 billion years old, we know tectonic plates move, we know life evolved over billion of years, we know it shares common ancestors, and so on... this is all knowledge, all base on TODAY's observations but still yielding facts about the past. It's not just beliefs, it's KNOWLEDGE."

This statement begins with statements derived from operations science, and then switches directly into origins science, claiming that the results of operations science applies to the entire thing. IT DOES NOT.

There is a distinct difference between calculating the age of the universe, the Sun and the earth based on empirical observation and measurements, observing and measuring tectonic plate shifts contrasted with inferring to the best (and only allowed) explanation of how life evolved (if it did), shares common ancestors, etc. It is that categorical difference that makes all the difference in the world. It cannot be subsumed into a single category as just KNOWLEDGE under the general (undistinguished) term SCIENCE.

Gotta go earn a living. BYE!

BobVong4 said...

Robert, yes facts are facts, when they have been analyzed, tested, confirmed, and reconfirmed, over and over again, for 100+ years since Darwin. My claims are simple, not controversial, perhaps beside the word 'law'? Oh my oh my, what a terrible mistake that was, using a word you guys dislike, in that context.... so forget that word, and ask valid questions about facts, if you have any, because I don't see that, I see no intelligent questions. I answered 1 of yours, but, it was still a red herring, nothing disproving, nor confirming, the fundamental facts of evolution.
Do you also deny these facts Robert?
Do you also pretend that all these evolutionary biologists somehow agree with Stan, that evolution is not true??

BobVong4 said...

Actually, you said
"explanation of how life evolved (if it did), shares common ancestors, etc. It is that categorical difference that makes all the difference in the world. It cannot be subsumed into a single category as just KNOWLEDGE under the general (undistinguished) term SCIENCE."
So you do doubt the facts, for no reason, you reject knowledge of evolutionary history, based on today's observations, knowledge which is no different than any other scientific knowledge.

BobVong4 said...

Btw, I was curious to read more about the usage of the word 'law' in biology. There are lots of interesting things to read...

http://www.amazon.com/Biologys-First-Law-Complexity-Evolutionary/dp/0226562263
http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24573-biology-s-first-law-the-tendency-for-diversity-and-complexity-to-increase-in-evolutionary-systems
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18310184/evolutionary-theory/vol-01/Vol.1%2CNo.1%2C1-30%2CL.%20Van%20Valen%2C%20A%20new%20evolutionary%20law..pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Van_Valen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollo%27s_law_of_irreversibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance#Mendel.27s_laws

But, I do concede, it's simpler to just mention 'facts', or 'Theory', when we talk about groups of facts, contingent on new findings but so strong that it will not change our fundamentals views of the Theory of Evolution. Common Descent, again, for example...

Robert Coble said...

Part I

@BobVong4:

Please note this from YOU:

"So you do doubt the facts, for no reason, you reject knowledge of evolutionary history, based on today's observations, knowledge which is no different than any other scientific knowledge."

You specify "for no reason" and yet you have been given reasons why it is rejected.

You have been given the definitions of two totally different scientific methods, yet you persist in the fallacy of equivocation between those two methods. They do NOT produce "knowledge" that is equivalent!

I do not have any knowledge (in the empirical sense) of evolutionary history; neither does anyone else, no matter what authority is attributed to them, nor do you.

Evolutionary history, being historical, cannot be based on today's observations, and cannot even in principle be tested and verified in present time. The putative process of evolution is NOT OBSERVABLE IN PRESENT TIME. That is why operations science CANNOT be used to support evolutionary theory. It requires origins (historical; forensic) science to postulate evolution.

Knowledge gained via these two totally different scientific methods is completely different.

Operations science produces theories which are predictive; once captured in a theory, it can predict that the same results will occur if the same process is repeated using the same data as the original experiments. Nothing postulated by origins science is predictive in any sense.

For example, Charles Darwin is on record that the fossil record would amply bear out his evolutionary theory; sufficient intermediate forms would be found to support the theory beyond a reasonable doubt. 150 years later, NO UNAMBIGUOUS INTERMEDIATE (TRANSITIONAL) FORMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. That is a FACT, an "inconvenient truth" of evolutionary theory.

Robert Coble said...

Part II

Operations science produces contingent factoids that can be observed in present time, and are repeatable by anyone wishing to replicate the appropriate process using the collected data. I state that it is contingent, presuming that no other information has been discovered that invalidates the currently accepted theory. As an obvious example, think of the Ptolemaic geocentric model and the subsequent Copernican heliocentric model which forever displaced it. A thousand epicycles were insufficent to salvage the theory in the face of the Copernican model. (That did not stop the Ptolemaens from attempting to derail the Copernican revolution.)

Origins science is predicated on informed speculation in the form of inferences to the best explanation (provided, of course, that alternative explanations which may be proposed are not ruled out a priori by fiat). It is not based on present day experimentation and is NOT empirical science. The knowledge gained by this process can NEVER reach certainty (probability p = 1). It cannot be empirically tested and is not repeatable. You simply cannot create an experiment, run it to conclusions and have a theory that predicts similar results if the process is repeated.

One of the things I learned through experience that models, ALL MODELS, incorporate certain things and leave out certain things. The actual value of a model is crucially dependent on what is left out, not what is included.

In the case of evolutionary theory, it is impossible to set up an empirical experiment and repeat what has supposedly occurred in the evolutionary process. In the first place, it would require a duplicated planetary system replicating the conditions existing at the time of the first advent of life. It would have to "evolve" under observation over deep time-billions of years. I think it should be obvious even to a "true believer" that this kind of one-to-one model is simply impossible to create and execute.

I leave out Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as it would be applied to such a model. One has no way of knowing (or even guessing) what impact the presence of observers would be on such a model. We have no way of observing without impacting the experiment which supposedly occurred prior to our existence as observing beings. Time travel appears to be out of the question.

There SWAGs and there are WAGs. I'll leave it as an exercise as to which is produced by operations science and which is produced by origins science.

BobVong4 said...

"They do NOT produce "knowledge" that is equivalent!"
Who said equivalent? It's still knowledge, science based knowledge.

"150 years later, NO UNAMBIGUOUS INTERMEDIATE (TRANSITIONAL) FORMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. That is a FACT, an "inconvenient truth" of evolutionary theory."
Lies, Plain and simple, you need to shut yourself from all the museum of natural history, worldwide, and from all the biologists, paleontologists, geologists, and many more fields' specialists, who can explain to you why this is wrong. Need examples or you get Google yourself?
As for part II, just posted, it's just, again, a complain regarding how we do science. I am not saying you're wrong, but it's irrelevant, it doesn't change what we do know, about evolutionary biology. In other words, you seem to do the same thing as Stan,ignore facts, and conclude we know nothing about evolution, nothing about common descent, even if it's been proven, not debunked, over the past 150 years since Darwin. Details on how it works are questioned, and studied, rightly so, but it makes your statement above false,no matter how you approach it.

Robert Coble said...

Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide ONE example of an undisputed unambiguous intermediate transitional form between two different species from the myriad examples enshrined in museums? Sorry, but speculative artistic drawings (as are typically shown in biology books) do NOT count as "evidence" in the scientific sense, no matter how many textbooks have those drawings.

You continue to assert "Facts! Facts! I'm the only one with facts!" without providing either actual logical argument or physical evidence for your position. If your theoretical evolutionary world is populated with "facts," then by all means, demonstrate them.

Appeals to authority are NOT facts in the relevant sense. Calling someone a liar without demonstrating the lie is nothing but Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive); it would be nice if you would find a different fallacious way to try to argue.

Before I provided the definitions of two totally different methods of science, you were quite content to persist in your unsubstantiated opinion that "science" meant operations science based on THE scientific method. You still persist in conflating the results of the two scientific methods as equivalent kinds of knowledge; they demonstrably are not.

I'm merely curious: WHY?

Perhaps you could provide us ONE example of an empirical scientific experiment confirming evolutionary theory (macro evolution) in present time, which has predictive power and can be replicated by any unbiased observer.

Phoenix said...

Now Bob might or might not be an Atheist but his undoubted reverence to the Atheist's sacred tenet (ie.ToE) has caused him to adopt their logic wich differs from standard western logic.In Atheist logic,all propositions have been defined a priori as tautologies,unlike Aristotelian logic where the proposition indicates what might be possible.

A typical example of an Atheist logical "deduction":

P1.If its a fact then it's a fact
P2.It's a fact
C.Therefore it's a fact.

Just like Bob,the Atheist (devout Evolutionist by default) does not need to provide any evidence when pressed because a) he said it's a fact,so it must be a fact (b)Google the evidence yourself and (c) If you do happen to google counter examples that refute his "facts",just ignore them or you'll be labeled a creationist.

It's a win,win,win for the Evolutionist.

BobVong4 said...

I didn't call you a liar, don't be offended my friend,but what you said IS a lie, but i understand it's not on purpose.
Regarding your requests, not sure what you want, after all these comments, and links, and how i mentioned that silly questions don't deserve attention, and your "challenges",just like Stan's, are silly, only indications of your misunderstanding, I I'm afraid. Transitional species are so plenty it's hard to sort them, and we now understand how everything is a transition, being in evolution. But my favorite example would be Tiktaalik
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html
Because it was also a great predictions, if you read the context, it was found right where expected, great find. As for experiments for macro evolution, I am not sure what you mean, but speciation has been observed in labs, is that what you mean? Google that if you want... but i feel nothing will satisfy the criteria you impose on the field, it needs to suit you, apparently, instead of you understanding it. And if you want to reproduce very long term evolution, in the lab, to prove how dogs, and cats, let's say, share an ancestor, well that is obviously not possible, even if we know that all mammals, all, must share a common mammal ancestor.
More readings on macro evolution:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_48

BobVong4 said...

Phoenix, I pointed out, above, that I am not an atheist, and I find it particularly annoying that people here try to insult me,using that. It's a science issue, and this blog, analyzing atheism, would do a much better job,if it were to use science against atheism, instead of against itself. Go read above, I explained how evolution is, actually, evidence more for theism, than atheism, in my opinion.

Stan said...

BobVong4:
”This, I believe, makes it clear, that you are completely rejecting Evolution, as a significant scientific Theory, which accurately describes the origin of life's diversity, over the past few billion years. You reject, then, for no good reasons, the following facts:
- Common descent is a fact
- The mechanisms of evolution, Mutation, genetic drift and natural selection, cause species to change over time, and come and go, which includes new features, new limbs, organs, systems, etc...
, summarized by the same CassioPeia project I linked to, before:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43SskX-pEqA
or this 2-min summary, that happened to be in related videos,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ksdV9HPwBY

Yet, you pretend you know best, that these facts are irrational beliefs, and you even wrote a guide about them, voicing how evolution has nothing, but you have philosophy, and logic, and evidence, on your side. What you miss is that the details, that the specialists argue about, the ones you quoted, have nothing to do with these facts. These scientists, these biologists, evolutionary biologists, all agree with the above facts, they are true. Why do you deny them?


I have repeated asked you for objective knowledge, not your opinions. You produce videos this time. Videos! I have asked you for studies, for data, for peer reviewed reports which prove your claims. What do you produce? Nothing of the sort.

What you produce is consistently blind belief in your Appeal to Authority, an appeal to no one in particular, but to an amorphous pool of expertise – “These scientists, these biologists, evolutionary biologists” – about which you make claims for their “beliefs”.

Further you claim that those beliefs are FACTS. You provide no proof for either of these assertions:

1. That those claims are substantiated or substantiable under the purview of empirical science.
2. That those claims are deserving of FACT status.
3. That FACT means incorrigible, immutable Truth, as you appear to believe.
4. That these scientists as a group or as individuals believe, as you appear to believe, that these claims conform to 1, 2, and 3.

Again, you provide NO PROOF. You provide only your opinion, and you couch it in terms of morality. That, then, removes you from the arena of empirical science, and places you into the arena of Fraud, and even worse, self-delusion.

Stan said...

” That's why I ignore a lot of what you say, because you write complete non-sense that has nothing to do with the basic facts. You pretend that these people who mention point out flaws in evolution, as a whole, but they don't. Stephen Jay Gould, just to name him for now, fought loud and clear against Creationism and Intelligent Design, he was a strong defender of Evolution, of the Theory of Evolution, which you clearly reject.”

Here’s what I reject. Try to get this straight, because I’m tired of repeating it, and I’m tired of trying to deal with your rejection of logic and rational processes. I reject any claims for science that are held to be incorrigible, immutable, unchangeable TRUTH. No responsible scientist would make the claims you make for the TRUTH of any scientific claim, no matter what it is. Further, no responsible scientist would make moral claims regarding dissent from current hypotheses, ESPECIALLY those hypotheses which cannot be replicated for potential falsification.

So I reject everything which you claim under the banner of absolute truth (as you misuse the term “fact”), because you have no absolute TRUTH – What you have is absolute BELIEF WITHOUT PROOF.

Here’s an example of your latest BELIEF claim, which you believe to be TRUE/FACT, but which is not either true nor fact:

” Transitional species are so plenty it's hard to sort them, and we now understand how everything is a transition, being in evolution. But my favorite example would be Tiktaalik”

Your claim that Tiktaalik is transitional is not true. In your terms, it is a lie, although not intentional. Tiktaalik was replaced by Panderichthys (in a battle of cross-accusations), and Panderichthys was replaced by pre-existing tetrapod footprints found in Zachemie, Poland which pre-date the Elpistostegalia fish by 20 million years. This is reported in Nature:
(Philippe Janvier & Gaël Clément, "Muddy tetrapod origins," Nature Vol. 463:40-41 (January 7, 2010).)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/463040a.html

Both Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are viewed by many experts as negatively mutated creatures which can hardly either swim or walk. The “prediction” which you and others crow about is merely predicting the finding of negatively mutated creatures in certain layers – and no more than that.

You are out of date with actual science, just as you are out of date with the opinions of evolutionists on Darwinian mechanisms by at least half a decade. Also you attribute belief sets to scientists which they do not hold regarding the immutability of their claims.

Most egregiously, you make assertions which don’t hold up to even the slightest scrutiny.

”As for experiments for macro evolution, I am not sure what you mean, but speciation has been observed in labs, is that what you mean? Google that if you want... but i feel nothing will satisfy the criteria you impose on the field, it needs to suit you, apparently, instead of you understanding it.”

This is an excuse, not an attempt at rational conversation by providing actual data for all new organs or new sematic information for creating multi-level communication systems and codes – as is required for all new “evolved” features. Instead of providing information in your defense, such as the empirical data requested, you attack attitude which you misrepresent.

You believe without evidence and what (failed) evidence you do acknowledge, you accept blindly and uncritically. Then you come here and make accusations of “lies” and unwillingness to pursue – the exact intellectual dishonesty which you display constantly – pure projection. This is the exact intellectual dishonesty of an ideological belief in the form of a religion, complete with moral piety and moral condemnation.

In short, it is abundantly clear that you are an intellectual FRAUD.

Stan said...

Folks,
Here is my position on this issue:
The entire purpose of science is to discover causes for physical effects.

Those causes are not considered to be known, even contingently, until they are reproducible, experimentally, replicably, falsifiably, with open data for objective replication, and in modern science peer review and publication in professional journals for information dissemination to other people.

Science produces ONLY contingent factoids, which are always and forever subject to being overturned by future findings.

The findings of science, being physical cause/effect contingent factoids, have no moral content.

Science progresses not by consensus but by critical analysis of theories that are currently in stasis. If that is not done, then science is over.

Ignoring any of the above components of science leads to falseness, both of physical cause and effect, and ideology.

I'm open to discussion of any or all of these. I can document many evolutionary scientists who support these positions.

Stan said...

And here is my position on "historical science":

Historical science is not empirical, it is inferential. Inference is subjective, not objective. Thus, historical science is not even contingent; it is inferred relationships which are not found but which are declared, based on found historical factoids. Being declared, it is not truth, but it frequently becomes dogma. Dogma tends toward hegemony and the use of moral shaming.

This sequence is not a necessary feature, and is eschewed by responsible historians, but it is common, especially when it is adopted as a support structure for a popular ideology.

Much of what is called "science" today is actually historical philosophy. One notable event was the removal of the term "science" from the description of Sociology by their professional organization.

Still, the Appeal to Science, when used for unprovable inferred contextual relationships which cannot be demonstrated or proven in any substantive fashion, is a false use of the respectable pursuit of empirical science.

Stan said...

Correction:
Anthropology, NOT Sociology.

http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2010/12/anthropology-drops-its-claim-to-science.html

Robert Coble said...

Repeated assertion of "facts" without proof or actual argument, assertion of superiority of viewpoint based on appeal to the authority of "scientists," various moral attacks on anyone who does not accept the foregoing method as valid argumentation - lather, rinse, repeat, ad nauseum. All "Sturm und Drang" with threats of ecclesiastical lightning, but nothing enlightening to a rationalist.

Why do I continue to have this uneasy intuition that we are being trolled?

I tried to pack a parachute (introducing two different methods of science) for a bailout, but the participant seemed to prefer to make a free fall jump without it. He picked it up, acknowledged its existence and purpose and applicability to the exercise at hand - and then promptly jumped out the door without it.

I'll meet you back on the ground when the plane lands.

I, for one, have had enough to determine that progress appears to be impossible.

Thanks for the pleasure of the mental exercise.

Phoenix said...

Bob

If you're going to offer video clips as evidence,why not use the X-men franchise? After all,no other movie focuses as much on genetic mutation.It's the magic of evolution combined with cool costumes.Plus X-men is a huge favorite amongst trannies.Why? because they also identify themselves as X-Men.

BobVong4 said...

"Why do I continue to have this uneasy intuition that we are being trolled?"
This is MY feeling! I am talking to people who reject evolution, completely, ask silly questions about macro vs micro, ask for studies with 20 conditions to suit THEIR preference, not Biology's preference, I show 12 quotes from Stan clearly rejecting Evolution as true, yet, evolutionary biologists are quoted to support YOUR views, it's all about word games, what can really really be true vs just kind of true today, Tiktaalik is not a good option because it was replaced by BETTER options, what on Earth is going on!? Do you guys agree that evolution, micro and macro, occured and continue today, do you agree that common descent is a fact, all mammals for example share a first mammal ancestor, do you agree that the mechanisms of evolution CAN create entirely new species, new phila, entire new groups of animal. i.e. just take the very last link I posted and ask yourself: is Berkeley university wrong to have a page teaching evolution, and if yes, what's wrong with it? Why do you think you know better than people who created theses pages? Or what about the dozens of other pages like Berkeley's? or people who create exhibits at natural history museums around the world? Are they ALL wrong and YOU are right? You are right to reject evolution's basic principles, basic facts, because of word play on some philosophical truth statements?
I swear, i am the one being trolled here, by at least 4-5 people in this thread over several days, people who reject fundamentals of EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, a real discipline with real results, real facts and real Theories.

Stan said...

BobV,

Here's what I am talking about.

" Do you guys agree that evolution, micro and macro, occured and continue today, do you agree that common descent is a fact, all mammals for example share a first mammal ancestor, do you agree that the mechanisms of evolution CAN create entirely new species, new phila, entire new groups of animal."

It is clear that you cannot believe that anyone could possibly demand necessary and sufficient proof for claims, so you insist that I must agree with the FACT of the unproven and unprovable claims listed. I have repeated over and over that legitimate, provable, and disprovable scientific evidence is required for objective knowledge of a thing, SO WHERE IS YOUR OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE? All you give is your intense belief that it is true and incredulity that proof is needed, and that THEREFORE everyone else must accept it, on your word.

Your position is purely religious, based in belief without anything other than stories which are made up to feign plausibility to satisfy the Materialistically impaired.

There is nothing more to be said to you on this subject. Your belief is as absolute as any Islamic belief demand, including your moral high ground.

"…ask yourself: is Berkeley university wrong to have a page teaching evolution, and if yes, what's wrong with it? Why do you think you know better than people who created theses pages? "

Ask yourself: "Why am I unable to refrain from Appeal to Authority, and why am I unable to even address thoughts which fall outside the accepted zone of ideological cant?" AND, “Why am I unable to provide objective evidence for the support of my dearly held belief system?”

That is a truly sorry intellectual state to be in.

"You are right to reject evolution's basic principles, basic facts, because of word play on some philosophical truth statements?"

Why are you unable to defend the presupposition of "basic facts" with actual evidence for their support? Here's why: you don't have any actual evidence. That is not wordplay. What you do have is complete faith, blind faith and nothing else. And when you are able to understand fundamental logic principles and care enough to stop using the same logic fallacies over and over and over, then you have an intellectual right to produce conversation cum evidence. But not until. Your position is rationally illegitimate, i.e., there is no rational basis being presented outside Appeals to this and that; no actual evidence. I repeat: you are an intellectual fraud.

"I swear, i am the one being trolled here, by at least 4-5 people in this thread over several days, people who reject fundamentals of EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, a real discipline with real results, real facts and real Theories. "

Produce the empirical evidence which supports the factually unsupported hypotheses which you constantly and ignorantly mislabel as "facts". DO IT. Or just go away.

DO IT. DO IT. Either do it or admit you cannot do it.

Your consistent failure to do it is substantive proof that you cannot, and that you are the fraud as charged.

BobVong4 said...

Stan, you are right, it is an appeal to authority, and you are also right, my opinion is irrelevant, if that's what you imply. Nothing I say, none of my words, are particularly relevant. What I am trying to do, and failing at miserably, is making you realize that you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with biology, with science, with the same people you quote. So reread everything I wrote here, but forget me, and the situation won't change: you reject what scientists, experts in their field, explain to us, the public. Somehow, you think I, personally, should explain what they believe, what they have been working on for years. So, again, forget me, and try to answer the questions, why do you reject the Theory of Evolution that universities around the world teach, why do you reject 'Evolution is true' as fact, why do you reject common descent, speciation, macro evolution, or whatever you feel is wrong. These things don't come from me, again, I make no strong claims, show no unusual beliefs, you do. You are at odds with the scientific biology community, and somehow think your statements on your blog hold great value, show great insight that only materialists would reject, when you, in reality, is the uber skeptic, just like all those irrational atheists who reject God despite the evidence. I agree I have nothing more to present, I never intended to try to prove anything to you, I have been repeatedly pointing out your misunderstandings, your inconsistencies, what doesn't fit the real world of biology, which you reject because of ideology, not rational application of science. You throw challenges after challenges instead of observing your own flawed statements, your own rejection of evolutionary biology, while simultaneously quoting the people behind that science. This kind of delusional approach got way more attention already than anyone, anyone at all, should ever give you.

Just try it: try discussing your so-called evolution course with biologists, just try and report on it. Oh wait, you won't do that, you prefer blogging, and if you hit disagreement, it will be because THEY are philosophically bankrupt people, unlike you, the light of reason on the Internet, the great Stan of Atheism analyzed who knows biology, science, the limits of science, better than anyone else. I just wish you would actually fight against the actual false claims of Atheism, instead of the real science of Evolution, you would help ur cause instead of hurting it, you're the one who's a fraud.

As for your demand for proof, again and again, you still don't realize how silly it makes YOU look. You are asking for proof against YOUR claims, this is irrational, you are the odd ball here, not me, i just refer to scientific knowledge, which i didn't produce. But you produce YOUR content, your blog, your ideas. I am not making appeals to authority to make an argument, i am pointing to THEIR arguments. Again, loom at Berkeley's site, to use that 1 example, why should I prove their claims? Why cant you read their views and explain why yours are better? You're hiding, pretending to ask for proof when you don't care, you just block yourself. And I cant help you with that.

Stan said...

BobV:

This is BS and you know it. I’ve given you what they say, references to their works, you ignore that.

“…you are arguing with biology, with science, with the same people you quote.”

Here’s your same old excuse for not providing any science whatsoever for your beliefs:

” . Somehow, you think I, personally, should explain what they believe, what they have been working on for years.”

You don’t read what I say, as this proves; so you are right: you are irrelevant.

” try to answer the questions, why do you reject the Theory of Evolution that universities around the world teach, why do you reject 'Evolution is true' as fact, why do you reject common descent, speciation, macro evolution, or whatever you feel is wrong.”

I’ve answered that, maybe a dozen times – to no avail. You either don’t or can’t read for comprehension.

Useless conversations with someone who won't address the issues of actual legitimate empirical science is a waste.

I’ll not waste another computer cycle on your nonsense. If the others wish to waste their time on you, that's up to them. I'll not be reading your drivel any longer.

BobVong4 said...

Your avoidance of the issue is dully noted.

You have not, ever, justified your position, you only attacked weird philosophical nonsense about what knowledge really is, which I never argued for, nor against. You quoted people who would disagree with you, on basic FACTS of evolution, but use them to support your points, weirdly, and now pretend you explained why THEY are wrong, not you. Where are these justifications? Nowhere. You made dozens of statements dismissing evolution, completely, as noted above, yet you again pretend you explained why YOU are right, and THEY are wrong. They would all agree we KNOW evolution is true, but you keep denying that, you keep fighting for what science means, what types of science we can do, and so on, never realizing that it's your quotes, the dozens of quotes regarding evolution being false, which are the problem.

Will you ever explain why we should believe you instead of U.C. Berkeley, no, will you ever acknowledge that scientists you quoted all agree with basic facts of evolution, no, will you ever stand by your own quotes, looks like no, again. I will never understand that, quoting people who clearly disagree with you to support your views. But I am not a teacher, and you need education, so of course, there is nothing more to discuss.

Stan said...

Folks,
I'm slow on the uptake sometimes, but I finally realized that BobVong4 is actually Hugo doing one of his sockpuppets.

The M.O. is identical: Taking a hard position which is indefensible; using the exact same fallacies over and over even after being repeatedly called out; inserting morality to support his position; ignoring all statements and evidence which go counter to his current narrative; refusing to stop, ever, no matter how obviously obtuse his current position might be. Classic Hugo hectoring. If BobV is not Hugo, then he is Hugo's doppelganger. Hugo has admitted to coming here under sockpuppets from time to time, just for his own entertainment. He is one of those sad individuals for whom disruption is his only pleasure - a vandal.

I allow too much leniency in stopping the Hugo abuse. Hugo knows that and declares it to be his entertainment.

Hugo: adios.

BobVong4 said...

What is this, now, who is Hugo and why would I be him? The length you go through, to avoid facing your inconsistencies, this is reaching levels I couldn't imagine. Let me guess, you are accusing me of being an Atheist again... It's ad hominem all the way here, if not X-MEN ridiculous comparison, or red herring on philosophy of science. How can you write so much on something, not that special, biology, and mix up all these things, just to avoid facing the truth, the facts your reject, about evolution? you really have something to show, to prove, I wonder what, or why, why lie so much.

BobVong4 said...

There might be nothing more, at least from your point of view, to say on the issue, but I am certainly not content with the, wrong, idea that this is just entertainment. Education is serious, and so is promoting false ideas. Nobody replied to my questions, above, about whom Hugo is, so I searched using the box, on top of the blog. 2 threads came up, from March 2015, with this name. The older ones are older, 2014, with Hugo Chavez, so, I assume, this is not who you think I am, obviously.

Going over to the first thread, the context is hard to follow, but I would agree with Stan, on pretty much everything I see. The first points are clear, and I don't know Hugo's position, so I can only agree with the value of rational principles, discipline of logic, and how Atheists pretend that theist propositions have been invalidated, based on caricatures of theism, which are necessarily, false. Reading the whole thing seems way too long, though, as it goes on and on, and nothing seem to be related to evolution, which I came here to discuss. So, searching for that keyword, we get a few hits,

The first one, "Atheists love to use the analogy of accepting gravity despite the undefined source for gravity to explain their inability to provide any evidence for evolution." is clear, and yes Atheists say that. They take the truth, yes truth, the facts, of evolution to conclude, wrongly, that it does not require an agent, and show that God must not be involved. This is wrong, as we, humans, evolved just like any other animal, but were blessed by God with a non-material soul, which cannot be accounted for, by evolution alone. No materialist theory explain, successfully, intentions, to name that 1 example.

The second hit, much lower, jumps to the comments section. "Last, explain in detail why any theist would reject his own ability to use (1) Aristotelian logic, (2)objective empirical science, or (3) currently held factoids based on either Aristotelian logic or objective, empirical science – because of fear of a deity. To make it interesting, go ahead and try to use either/both evolution and global warming. Or any other “science” or logic or whatever you choose." The context is lost on me here, and since I may be wasting my time, already, there is no point in going above, and reading tons of lines of comments. So it seems here that, with just that short quote, I may agree with Hugo on 1 more thing, Climate Change. I know that because, here, on the blog, there is another more recent post on it. Stan posted a ridiculous tweet about historically cold winter, confusing season with climate, versus hottest year in history, a worldwide phenomenon. Here, again, the science is clear. Humans are influencing the Climate, more than just natural processes alone. It's our responsibility, and heartless Conservatives want to rid the planet of its resources, purely because of greed, and the fear of hurting their sacred cow of Capitalism. John Rhue, in the comments, said something clever "Winter is a local and a season. There is more than one season in a year.
God has made us on the world as trustees and we are to look after the world as part of our love of God." Though, he quoted the Quran, I would prefer to quote Christian holy men:
"Christians, in particular, realize that their responsibility within creation and their duty towards nature and the Creator are an essential part of their faith." - John Paul II
"At its core, global climate change is not about economic theory or political platforms, nor about partisan advantage or interest group pressures. It is about the future of God's creation and the one human family." - US Catholic Bishops, Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good, 2001
I also find it interesting that Robert Coble, acting as a copycat of some sort, again agrees with Stan on Climate Change, just like he did here, with Evolution. You called that Hugo my doppelganger, I guess Robert is Stan's.

BobVong4 said...

The third and fourth hit now go to Hugo's comments, where, again, the context is lost on me. I do agree with the part mentioning the "course" on Evolution, of course, as I already pointed out, about how horrible it is. Being a liberal Christian myself, I might agree with him on a few more things, but only on the surface. The comments on Feminism, for example, are really strange and disconcerting, why is he mentioning "Feminists are insane bitches who think every heterosexual act is rape" or "P in the V is rape", I did not see that here, he sounds strange, and I did not perceive you as being that strange. I might understand why you had issues with that person. That's all I could find,

Therefore, to reaffirm, again, my statements stand, regarding Evolution. I saw no one, here, try to address the basic facts of Evolution. Instead, it's red herring after red herring, ad hominem about me being an Atheist, just because I disagree with your, false, views on Evolution. I showed 10+ more quotes of Stan, literally, denying that Evolution happens, denying that it's true, completely rejecting it. Then, Stan uses evolutionary biologist, history of science, and other non-sequitur regarding philosophical statements, instead of addressing the core facts, the real facts, of Evolution. This latest attack on my identity was strange, and unwarranted. Of course, 'Bob Vong' is not my real name, and I don't see the point of using it, but that should not matter. The only thing I saw, when looking a bit lower on the third hit, is that he posted a link, to a YouTube video. This point to the CrashCourse channel, which I also reference in 1 of the may links, I posted above. Is that the conspiracy Theory you are going after? 1 link, in common, to one of the most well-known channel on YouTube?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_Course_(YouTube)
Why not actually watch their videos, as I cannot teach, but they could, if you take the time.

Stoogie said...

A fascinating discussion. I'm more reassured than ever of the truth of a comment I heard from talk radio personality Dennis Pager:

"Without God, man is insignificant."