Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, May 29, 2006

Evolutionism and the fossil record

Evolutionists commonly use the fossil record and evidnence for their "theory". However fossils canNOT tell us anything about a mechanism. Therefore in any debate pertaining to a mechanism, such as ID vs. evolutionism, the fossil record is totally useless. Not onlt is it useless it doesn't tell us what evolutionists want us to believe it tells us:

Exposing the Evolutionist’s Sleight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record

Marine inverts make up the bulk of the fossil record. Yet with these fossils we do NOT see any common descent or nested hierarchies. Why is that? Why is the richest part of the FR devoid of evidence for evolutionism?

The fossil record is just "I would not have seen it if I didn't already believe in it." Yet even the great zoologist Pierre-Paul Grasse, said the FR is the ONLY place where we "observe" evolution.

As a reminder- evolutionism is evolution #6:

The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education:

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

Evolutionism can be extended back to abiogenesis as if life did not arise from non-living matter via some "blind watchmaker-type" process then there is no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely via those type of processes.

43 Comments:

  • At 6:41 PM, Blogger Raevmo said…

    Were you drunk when you wrote this post?

    The fossil record came first, then came the realisation that life has evolved, then Darwin suggested an important mechanism.

    The link to a ludicrous creationist site doesn't support your claim at all.

    You said you support the IDers, but IDers don't deny evolution, they just invoke a designer as a causal mechanism of evolution. But here you claim that fossils don't support evolution. So how do you explain the fossil record, if not by evolution?

     
  • At 9:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Raevmo:
    Were you drunk when you wrote this post?

    No. But obviously you were drunk when you read it.

    Raevmo:
    The fossil record came first, then came the realisation that life has evolved, then Darwin suggested an important mechanism.

    No one knows how the fossil record was formed. And fossils cannot tell us anything about a mechanism.

    Raevmo:
    The link to a ludicrous creationist site doesn't support your claim at all.

    What claim is that? The article definitely supports my claim that the FR does NOT support evolutionism.

    Raevmo:
    You said you support the IDers, but IDers don't deny evolution, they just invoke a designer as a causal mechanism of evolution.

    I support ID and I am an IDist. IDer doesn't make any sense- are you an evolutioner?

    Raevmo:
    But here you claim that fossils don't support evolution.

    I said the fossil record doesn't support evolutionism. There is a huge difference between evolution and evolutionism.

    Raevmo:
    So how do you explain the fossil record, if not by evolution?

    A biological theory should explain the biological data FIRST. Once it does that to satisfaction only then should it even attempt to explain the fossil record. But to do that we need to figure out HOW it,the FR, was formed.

    Creationists explain the FR as the result of ecological zoning coupled with differential escape during catastrophies.

     
  • At 12:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    * Fossils can’t tell us anything about a mechanism.
    * Fossils can’t tell the difference between phenotypic plasticity and a mutation which causes a phenotypic change.
    * Fossils can’t tell us the difference between divergent and convergent evolution.
    * Fossils can’t tell us anything about how the species originated. Just that it existed.
    * Not every organism that has lived gets fossilized. IOW absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
    * Fossilization requires a rapid burial of the organism to protect it from scavengers and weathering.
    * Fossilization does not require millions of years.
    * Alleged intermediates in some alleged lineage should never be confused with a transitional form.
    * The FR should be littered with "failed experiments"- those which nature chose to cull-> The dino with a partially formed wing.

     
  • At 6:01 PM, Blogger Raevmo said…

    Who invented the word evolutionism? Is that word supposed to be the counterpart of creationism? A naieve reader would probably guess that the word means "the doctrine/ideology that evolution occured", without implying anything about mechanisms.

    Anyway. You are probably right that fossils contain little or no (but you never know) information about mechanisms of evolution. Strictly speaking they don't even prove that evolution occured, but they strongly suggest that it has.

    Are you a creationist?

    Fossils of feathered dinosaurs have been found, so their front legs can be considered "half formed wings". What are you trying to prove?

     
  • At 6:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Raevmo:
    Who invented the word evolutionism?

    I don't know but it fits.

    Raevmo:
    A naieve reader would probably guess that the word means "the doctrine/ideology that evolution occured", without implying anything about mechanisms.

    To me it means someone who believes in evolution #6. I say "believes in" at it has become obvious that there isn't any scientific data to support the premise.

    Raevmo:
    Anyway. You are probably right that fossils contain little or no (but you never know) information about mechanisms of evolution.

    They can't even tell us the difference between artificial and natural selection.

    Raevmo:
    Strictly speaking they don't even prove that evolution occured, but they strongly suggest that it has.

    They only "strongly suggest" to those already strongly biased towards.


    Raevmo:
    Are you a creationist?

    I am open to whatever the scientific data leads to. Right now the scientific data demonstrates only life begets life and bacteria always remain bacteria.

    Raevmo:
    Fossils of feathered dinosaurs have been found, so their front legs can be considered "half formed wings".

    Ummm, no. A feathered dino does not mean a "half-formed-wing". The fore-limbs (legs is a misnomer as the alleged dino- bird ancestor was bipedal) do not ever resemble wings, nor even come close.

    And what about those feathers? Scales to feathers in just one generation? Where are the proto-feathers?

    Raevmo:
    What are you trying to prove?

    I am just demonstrating the the alleged "evidence" for evolutionism is not really evidence at all.

    Did you know that someone roughly calculated the number of transitional/ intermediates there should be between land mammals and whales? The number is above 50,000. Yet all we have is maybe six. And still no one knows if such a transition is even genetically possible.

     
  • At 7:25 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    I don't feel you will convince anyone not already convinced. But, perhaps it is yet possible for you to learn.

    joe g: "Did you know that someone roughly calculated the number of transitional/ intermediates there should be between land mammals and whales? The number is above 50,000. Yet all we have is maybe six."

    Consider this question. Why do these transitionals exist at all?

    The Theory of Evolution predicts that whales and land mammals share a common ancestor. And when scientists have searched in specific strata, they have found transitionals, most recently in the wastelands of Pakistan.

    Imagine being able to predict the existence of organisms never before seen. Imagine molecular evidence from today's world predicting the shape of an ankle bone from a yet to be discovered organism that has been dead and buried in the rocks for millions of years.

    joe g: "And still no one knows if such a transition is even genetically possible."

    Sure they do. They have even identified the gene and how it affects development in the cetacean embryo.

    How Ancient Whales Lost Their Legs, Got Sleek And Conquered The Oceans

    Now consider the vantage point of a scientist who spends his life studying fossils and spends years in the desert looking in specific strata for evidence, or of a embryologist who spends his life unraveling the mechanism by which genes are expressed through development, meanwhile publishing in scientific journals for criticism by their skeptical colleagues; with someone on a blog waving his hands vigorously.

     
  • At 9:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ZAchriel:
    I don't feel you will convince anyone not already convinced. But, perhaps it is yet possible for you to learn.

    Funny I could say the SAME thing about you.

    joe g: "Did you know that someone roughly calculated the number of transitional/ intermediates there should be between land mammals and whales? The number is above 50,000. Yet all we have is maybe six."

    Zachriel:
    Consider this question. Why do these transitionals exist at all?

    They aren't really "transitionals" rather they could be considered intermediates. And they exist in the minds of those who want them to exist.

    Strata do NOT come with dates affixed to them. Dating of strata is pretty subjective.

    To become a cetacean requires much, much more than losing hund limbs.

    * The eyes are different
    * The "tail" is different
    * respiratory system is different

    Yada, yada, yada 50, 000 times- as in there are at least 50, 000 morphological changes and all you can do is tell us how they lost their hind limbs.

    And why would their hind limbs become useless? Why wouldn't they "evolve" into grasping mechanisms like simians have? Why wouldn't the fore limbs "evolve" into grasping mechanisms like our hands?

    "It's clear when ancient whales lost all vestiges of the limb it was probably triggered by loss of Sonic hedgehog," said Clifford Tabin, Ph.D., a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School who was not involved in the research. "But it's hard to say for certain because you're looking at events long after they occurred. As they suggest, there could have been a continual decrease in Sonic as the limbs reduced until the modern version of the animal arrived."

    IOW they don't know for sure but it makes sense to them. But you know what? They don't even know what makes a whale a whale other than a whale comes from the succesful mating of two existing whales.


    And just how did the breathing apparatus migrate from the tip of the snout to the top of the head?

    And you know what? The paper did not and cannot tell us whether or not the loss of limbs was due to random mutations or was it directed.

     
  • At 10:16 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    I note you didn't provide a valid answer to the question of why these interdiates exist at all, or how biologists knew they existed and where to look for them. Oh well.

     
  • At 12:14 PM, Blogger Steve said…

    Talk about slieght of hand. Talk origins has a link to evidence for marine invertebrate transistional fossils.

    http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html#trilobites

    Also, as I explain here,

    http://debunkers.org/intro/index.php?p=119

    A lack of evidence is not evidence against a theory. Logically the argument is flawed. Factually the argument is flawed. Hence the conclusions are wrong.

     
  • At 8:54 AM, Blogger Raevmo said…

    "And you know what? The paper did not and cannot tell us whether or not the loss of limbs was due to random mutations or was it directed."

    What a lousy paper it is then. Until those scientists find the fossilized *occurences* of every single *random* mutation that lead from land-dwelling mammal to blue whale, we know nothing about the evolution of whales.

     
  • At 11:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "And you know what? The paper did not and cannot tell us whether or not the loss of limbs was due to random mutations or was it directed."

    Raevmo:
    What a lousy paper it is then. Until those scientists find the fossilized *occurences* of every single *random* mutation that lead from land-dwelling mammal to blue whale, we know nothing about the evolution of whales.

    Thank you for confirming my point. Ya see in a debate about mechanisms fossils cannot help.

     
  • At 11:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Steve,

    Trilobites "evolving" into trilobites is NOT the type of change that helps evolutionism. That you would use such an example just further demonstrates the deception.

    Barnacles "evolving" into barnacles is just more of the same drivel. But I understand that is all that you have.

    Thanks.

     
  • At 11:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ZAchriel:
    I note you didn't provide a valid answer to the question of why these interdiates exist at all, or how biologists knew they existed and where to look for them. Oh well.

    I noticed you haven't provided any valid scientific data that shows these alleged intermediates are just that and not just a figment of your imagination.

    Nor have you provided any scientific data that demonstrates the mechanism for the alleged changes.

     
  • At 11:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Steve,

    I read your post @ http://debunkers.org/intro/index.php?p=119

    I just want to say that you are so wrong and so FOS it is pathetic. Obviously you don't understand the debate and choose to conflate rather than investigate.

    Oh well.

     
  • At 4:42 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    I note you didn't provide a valid answer to the question of why these intermediates exist at all, or how biologists knew they existed and where to look for them. Oh well.

     
  • At 6:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    I note you didn't provide a valid answer to the question of why these intermediates exist at all, or how biologists knew they existed and where to look for them. Oh well.

    I take it repeating yourself is the best you can do. As if that makes it a valid point. Oh well.

    Ya see Zach we don't know if they are intermediates or not. We only have a little data to go by. Pakicetus is considered some sort of "intermediate"- I have even seen it listed as a cetacean. However the real scientific data demonstrates it was fully terrestrial, about the size of a wolf.

    So ya see Zach, circumstantial evidence is what YOU make it out to be.

    Biologists "knew" they existed because their faith requires their existence. That they are found on dry land tells me quite a bit that I bet it doesn't tell you. Oh well.

    That no one knows HOW the whales got there just adds to the speculation.

    And then there is the mechanism- which is what the topic is all about. Why do you keep avoiding the topic?

     
  • At 6:58 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "We only have a little data to go by."

    The fossils don't disappear because you find them to be "little data".


    joe g: "Pakicetus is considered some sort of "intermediate"- I have even seen it listed as a cetacean."

    It is a cetacean, an archaeocete with a narrow braincase, a high, prominent lambdoidal crests and a narrow sagittal crest, but is missing tympanic bullae that only appear in later cetaceans.

    Though you wave your hands at Pakicetus, there is also Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and Dorudon, each providing intermediate features between land and sea mammals as would be expected by the Theory of Evolution.

    You can offer no explanation for their existence, much less their existence in specific strata and why scientists know where to look for them.

     
  • At 7:01 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "And then there is the mechanism- which is what the topic is all about. Why do you keep avoiding the topic?"

    Unless you accept that populations are subject to change over geological time, there is little reason to discuss a mechanism of that change.

     
  • At 7:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "We only have a little data to go by."

    Zach:
    The fossils don't disappear because you find them to be "little data".

    Spoken like a true butthead. I never said nor implied anything disappears.

    joe g: "Pakicetus is considered some sort of "intermediate"- I have even seen it listed as a cetacean."

    Zach:
    It is a cetacean, an archaeocete with a narrow braincase, a high, prominent lambdoidal crests and a narrow sagittal crest, but is missing tympanic bullae that only appear in later cetaceans.

    Wrong. It is a fully terrestrial organism. No amount of handwaving will change that fact.

    Zach:
    Though you wave your hands at Pakicetus, there is also Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and Dorudon, each providing intermediate features between land and sea mammals as would be expected by the Theory of Evolution.

    Basi is considered a "dead end". It is also fully aquatic. And again the fossils don't tell us about a mechanism therefore cannot be evidence for the ToE. The fossils are consistent with theistic evolution. Perhaps we should teach that too.

    And finding 6 possibilities out of the 50,000 that must have existed is pretty lame.

    Zach:
    You can offer no explanation for their existence, much less their existence in specific strata and why scientists know where to look for them.

    That has been done. That you choose to ignore the explanations just further exposes your anti-science agenda.

     
  • At 7:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "And then there is the mechanism- which is what the topic is all about. Why do you keep avoiding the topic?"

    Zach:
    Unless you accept that populations are subject to change over geological time, there is little reason to discuss a mechanism of that change.

    I accept what the scientific data affords. Populations do change. That is perfectly consistent with the YEC PoV on biological evolution.

    Your ONLY hope is to take a little variation and add time to it. However THAT is NOT scientific and it also happens to be wrong.

    Also I understand your reluctance to discuss a mechanism- you don't have anything to discuss.

     
  • At 10:59 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "It is a fully terrestrial organism."

    It's a terrestrial cetacean. Think real hard about this.

    And you never answered the question as objective readers can determine for themselves.

     
  • At 12:56 AM, Blogger Steve said…

    Trilobites "evolving" into trilobites is NOT the type of change that helps evolutionism. That you would use such an example just further demonstrates the deception.

    You asked for transitional fossils, I provided a link that showed transitional fossils. Now you want to worm around on semantics? Fine, but I find goal post moving boring.


    I just want to say that you are so wrong and so FOS it is pathetic. Obviously you don't understand the debate and choose to conflate rather than investigate.


    So you can't refute the post so you go insulting. Fine by me, but it highlights the bankruptcy of your own position.

    For example, you apparently have no answer for the point that a lack of evidence is not evidence against a thoery. My guess is becuause you don't understand the topic and hence just can't respond.

     
  • At 8:27 AM, Blogger Raevmo said…

    Joe,

    How do you explain that phylogenetic trees based on fossil evidence agree to a large extent (not entirely of course) with trees based on molecular analysis (e.g. the degree of DNA sequence diverge)? A remarkable coicidence?

    Although trees based on fossils tell us very little about mechanisms of evolution (although the estimated speed of evolution based on the fossil record might tellus something), trees based on molecular data can and do.

     
  • At 9:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "It is a fully terrestrial organism."

    Zach:
    It's a terrestrial cetacean. Think real hard about this.

    LoL! Terrestrial cetacean is an oxymoron. The ONLY reason to classify Paki as a cetacean is the belief it is part of the lineage that led to cetaceans.

     
  • At 9:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Trilobites "evolving" into trilobites is NOT the type of change that helps evolutionism. That you would use such an example just further demonstrates the deception.

    Steve:
    You asked for transitional fossils, I provided a link that showed transitional fossils. Now you want to worm around on semantics? Fine, but I find goal post moving boring.

    Then you bore yourself as it is you who is moving the goalposts. A trilobite "evolving" into a trilobite is not considered a transitional. You do know what a transitional is- don't you? Obviously not.

    The context of the debate is NOT whether or not trilobites can "evolve" into trilobites. Trilobites "evolving" into trilobites does NOT support evolutionism. Therefore using that as an example just exposes your intellectual dishonesty, as well as your inability to follow a discussion.

     
  • At 9:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Raevmo:
    How do you explain that phylogenetic trees based on fossil evidence agree to a large extent (not entirely of course) with trees based on molecular analysis (e.g. the degree of DNA sequence diverge)?

    Common design (or design with a common plan).

    And just how can trees based on molecular data tell us the difference between random variations culled by NS and populations designed to evolve?

     
  • At 10:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Just for the record (and evidence that Steve cannot follow along) the following is what I posted in this OP:

    Marine inverts make up the bulk of the fossil record. Yet with these fossils we do NOT see any common descent or nested hierarchies. Why is that? Why is the richest part of the FR devoid of evidence for evolutionism?

    IOW I did NOT ask for any transitionals. I aksed for data that would demonstrate common descent. AND taken in context, something else that Steve obviously cannot do, it would mean transitionals that demonstrate all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms via some blind watchmaker-type processes.

     
  • At 11:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It would also have been prudent for Steve to read the article I linked to in the OP. It is obvious he did not. If he had he would have read that his "trilobites evolving into trilobites" is sheer nonsense when discussing evidence for evolutionism. And not only that even his trilobite succession can't tell us anything about a mechanism- which further confirms my point.

     
  • At 3:30 PM, Blogger Steve said…

    Trilobites "evolving" into trilobites does NOT support evolutionism.

    Sure it does. Evolutionary theory says that we should observe new species evolving from previous species, and one trilobite species evolving into another trilobite species is just that. Evidence in favor of evolutionary theory.

    Therefore using that as an example just exposes your intellectual dishonesty, as well as your inability to follow a discussion.

    I think it is fair to say that you wouldn't know what intellectual dishonesty was if it came up and bit you on your posterior.

    Marine inverts make up the bulk of the fossil record. Yet with these fossils we do NOT see any common descent or nested hierarchies. Why is that? Why is the richest part of the FR devoid of evidence for evolutionism?

    And as I just noted it isn't devoid of evidence and even it is was devoid of evidence that lack of evidence isn't the same as evidence against a theory. Don't worry, the rest of us get this, and someday you might too.

    IOW I did NOT ask for any transitionals. I aksed for data that would demonstrate common descent.

    Transitionals are evidence of common descent.

    It would also have been prudent for Steve to read the article I linked to in the OP. It is obvious he did not.

    Oh I read that nonsense. As I noted, a lack of evidence is not the same, logically speaking, as evidence against a theory. You, and the author of that screed, think this is not so, but logically you don't have a leg to stand on. I've demonstrated rigorously how wrong you are, but you keep ignoring it and screeching about the difference between intermediary and transitional fossils (tells did you make up definitions for these two things so you can call other people stupid?).

    If he had he would have read that his "trilobites evolving into trilobites" is sheer nonsense when discussing evidence for evolutionism.

    Okay, lets run through this real slow for ya':

    1. Evolutionary theory predicts that intermediary fossils would exist.
    2. The trilobites at the site I linked to show such intermediaries.
    3. This confirms the theory of evolution.

    You see, when a theory makes a prediction that the evidence bears out as being true, then that confirms the theory, and undermines those thoeries that don't make such predictions.

    And not only that even his trilobite succession can't tell us anything about a mechanism- which further confirms my point.

    Again, not true. We have a theory, and from that we derive testable hypotheses/predictions. If those hypotheses/predictions bear out, then the theory in general is confirmed (conditionally). Thus, the mechanisms are also confirmed.

    Sure this is "circumstantial evidence", but guess what? Circumstantial evidence is...wait for it...still evidence. Shocking I know, but there it is.

     
  • At 7:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Trilobites "evolving" into trilobites does NOT support evolutionism.

    Steve:
    Sure it does.

    Absolutely not. And IF you have to rely on that to demonstrate evidence for your faith then it is obvious you don't have anything but faith.

    When people talk about common descent in the context of evolutionism they are talking about all of life's diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms via some blind-watchmaker-type process.. Therefore the evidence has to fit that premise.

    Trilobites "evolving" into trilobites via some unknown mechanism does NOT fit the bill. However it does demonstrate the desparation of your position to have to trot out such nonsense.

    TRilobites evolving into trilobites is also data for the Creation theory of biological evolution, as well as theistic evolution and IDE. I take it you don't have a clue as to what is being debated so you just make stuff up as you go. Oh well.

    And just how can we test or verify the premise that whales "evolved" from land animals via some blind-watchmaker-type process? It can't be done. To say otherwise is just a lie.

    Steve:
    Sure this is "circumstantial evidence", but guess what? Circumstantial evidence is...wait for it...still evidence. Shocking I know, but there it is.

    Already addressed in another post:

    “Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances.” Henry Schaeffer, director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia

    “Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing; it may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different.” Sherlock Holmes

    “Change the way you look at things and the things you look at change.” Unknown


    DEnnett tells us there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time. Basically that means that evolutionism does not make any useful predictions.

     
  • At 7:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Steve:
    I think it is fair to say that you wouldn't know what intellectual dishonesty was if it came up and bit you on your posterior.

    I know it is fair to say your posts fit the bill of intellectual dishonesty. I am also very sure you couldn't make an honest effort to understand the debate if your life depended on it.

     
  • At 7:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It would also have been prudent for Steve to read the article I linked to in the OP. It is obvious he did not.

    Steve:
    Oh I read that nonsense. As I noted, a lack of evidence is not the same, logically speaking, as evidence against a theory.

    The "nonsense" swings both ways. IOW what you post also means that humans could have lived in the Jurasic and before. I have covered this in other posts- "Absence of eviokdence is not evidence of absence". Perhaps you should do a little research BEFORE jumping into the middle of something.

    Also the article was not used as evidence against the ToE. Rather it was used exactly as its title states- that evolutionitwits misrepresent the reality of the FR to suit their faith. Anyone with at least a Forrest Gump IQ understands that.

     
  • At 1:31 PM, Blogger Steve said…

    Absolutely not. And IF you have to rely on that to demonstrate evidence for your faith then it is obvious you don't have anything but faith.

    *sigh*

    Joe,

    This is getting tiresome. If a theory makes a prediction, and that prediction turns out to be true, then that fact (the prediction being true and derived from the theory) confirms the theory. This is a basic tennet of logic via probabilistic reasoning. The conclusion is inescapable. You are basically arguing that because you don't think the Pythagorean theorem is true it isn't true.

    For example, you keep harping on the notion of common descent. That is but one aspect of evolutionary theory, and admittedly one that hasn't been subject to much rigorous testing. Still, the fact that there is little evidence in favor of this aspect of the theory does not invalidate the theory. Seriously, this can be proven mathematically.

    Your constant use of this kind of tactic is a type of red herring. You keep trotting it out in the expectation that it will lead people off on some nonsense that you want them to believe.

    You are quite simply horrendously wrong here. You clearly don't understand how the process of inference works. I'd suggest a bit more time reading some philosophy science, particularly on confirming hypotheses/theories than reading IDC literature.

    For example,

    The "nonsense" swings both ways. IOW what you post also means that humans could have lived in the Jurasic and before.

    This is just staggering. We do have evidence that humans are a recent type of animal. We have evidence suggesting that they evolved over say, the last 5 million years (to be generous). This evidence supports the hypothesis that man is a recent animal and wasn't alive in the Jurassic.

    So what I wrote, in now way implies the above. Only a complete misapphrension on what I've written would allow somebody to come to this conclusion.

    I have covered this in other posts- "Absence of eviokdence is not evidence of absence". Perhaps you should do a little research BEFORE jumping into the middle of something.


    Right, but the article you link to makes precisely this mistake. It notes a lack of transitional/intermediary fossils for a specific class of fossils and hence pronounces evolution false, debunked, wrong. But as you've just pointed out, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This follows from Bayes theorem as I noted in my post. Further, there is evidence of transitional/intermediary fossils for vertebrate animals as far back several hundred million years. This argues in favor of evolutionary theory.

    As for the article not implying evolutionary theory is wrong here is the final sentence of the article,

    "The only reasonable conclusion that remains is clear and undeniable: The fossil record sharply and powerfully contradicts evolution."

    Seems pretty clear that the intent of the article is to debunk evolutionary theory and try to use the fossil record to do so.

    Hence the article is totally worthless.

     
  • At 7:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Steve:
    For example, you keep harping on the notion of common descent.

    That IS the topic. If you don't like it, leave. No one is forcing you to waste my time and bandwidth trying to explain to you what is being debated.

    Steve:
    That is but one aspect of evolutionary theory, and admittedly one that hasn't been subject to much rigorous testing.

    Thank you for confirming my point.

    Steve:
    Still, the fact that there is little evidence in favor of this aspect of the theory does not invalidate the theory.

    I just want people to be able to openly question the "theory". Also anything other than full -blown CD is OK by even YECs

    Steve:
    You are quite simply horrendously wrong here. You clearly don't understand how the process of inference works.

    You are FoS. You clearly don't understand the debate and instead use deception and false accusations to "support" your nonsense.


    The "nonsense" swings both ways. IOW what you post also means that humans could have lived in the Jurasic and before.

    Steve:
    This is just staggering.

    What that your nonsense is so easily exposed?

    Steve:
    We do have evidence that humans are a recent type of animal.

    But you just agreed that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Now you want it only your way.

    Steve:
    This evidence supports the hypothesis that man is a recent animal and wasn't alive in the Jurassic.

    But absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. So what is your problem?

    You can't say that missing transitionals, the 50 thousand missing from the cetacean line alone, aren't an issue then point to the fact that humans are missing from the Jurassic as evidence they were never there.

    Steve:
    Further, there is evidence of transitional/intermediary fossils for vertebrate animals as far back several hundred million years. This argues in favor of evolutionary theory.

    Which evolutionary theory? Theistic evolution? Intelligent Design evolution? Or progressive creation (OECs)? Or the one which states the variations are random, unguided events culled by nature?

    The fossils cannot tell us. And what we do know about the variations we do observe, those mechanisms cannot account for the changes required. And genetics pretty much slams the door on evolutionism.

     
  • At 2:00 AM, Blogger Steve said…

    That IS the topic. If you don't like it, leave. No one is forcing you to waste my time and bandwidth trying to explain to you what is being debated.


    That is but one facet of evolutionary theory. Your post dealt with the fossil record, not common descent. The two are related, but they aren't identical.

    Thank you for confirming my point.

    I'm sorry, but I thought your point was that evolutoinary theory was not supported by the fossil record. This is but one aspect of evolutionary theory and it is indirect evidence in favor of common descent, although more should be done to test this.

    You are FoS.

    Your master of debating tactics is quite stunning. When confronted with something you don't understand you accuse your interlocutor of being FoS. Excellent move. You really showed me. Put me right in my place.

    Now, care to try a substantive response, or you just going to hurl more invective?

    The "nonsense" swings both ways. IOW what you post also means that humans could have lived in the Jurasic and before.

    Uhhhm, no, it does not.

    You see, we have evidence that points to humans being a recent animal. Hence the probability of humans living during the jurassic is minutely small. You can go with that theory if you want, but logically you'd be daft to do so.

    But you just agreed that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Now you want it only your way.

    The evidence isn't absent for man being a relatively recent animal, hence this does not apply.

    You can't say that missing transitionals, the 50 thousand missing from the cetacean line alone, aren't an issue then point to the fact that humans are missing from the Jurassic as evidence they were never there.

    I double dog dare you to quote the section of any of my posts where I wrote: "There is no evidence man lived in the Jurassic." What I did write is that there is evidence that man is a recent animal, hence the hypothesis that man lived in the Jurassic is undermined.

    You do realize we have two hypotheses here, right?

    H1: Man lived in the Jurassic.
    H2: Man lived during the last 5 million or so years.

    Then we look at

    Prob(H1|Data), and
    Prob(H2|Data).

    To evaluate these we use Bayes theorem.

    [Prob(Data|Hi)Prob(Hi)]/Prob(Data)

    In fact, since both hypotheses have the same denominator we can ignore it and look at just the numerators,

    Prob(Data|H1)Prob(H1) vs
    Prob(Data|H2)Prob(H2).

    Further, if we use a "uninformative prior" then P(H1) = P(H2) = 0.5, and we can look at just,

    Prob(Data|H1) vs.
    Prob(Data|H2).

    So, which is higher? That is how many animals from the Jurassic have we found with in the last 5 million years geologically? Damn few. That is there weren't that many Allosaurs and Stegosaurs back then. That is Prob(H1|Data) << Prob(H2|Data). Hence, we are on pretty safe ground saying that humans weren't around during the Jurassic.

    However, if we did find a fossilized humans in Jurassic rock, that would be pretty damned devastating for evolutionary theory.

    You know, it is quite amusing. You and I agree on this point, but for some reason you desperately want to show that I'm wrong...and by extension that you yourself are wrong.

     
  • At 8:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Steve continues to demonstrate his lack of reading comprehension:

    That IS the topic. If you don't like it, leave. No one is forcing you to waste my time and bandwidth trying to explain to you what is being debated.

    Steve:
    That is but one facet of evolutionary theory. Your post dealt with the fossil record, not common descent. The two are related, but they aren't identical.

    Ummm reality demonstrates my OP deals with "Evolutionism and the fossil record", with evolutionism defined in that OP.

    Thank you for confirming my point.

    Steve:
    I'm sorry, but I thought your point was that evolutoinary theory was not supported by the fossil record.

    Don't think. Just read my OP.

    Steve:
    Your master of debating tactics is quite stunning. When confronted with something you don't understand you accuse your interlocutor of being FoS.

    Wow, more false accusations. Go figure. I understood your point well enough to know you are FoS.

    The "nonsense" swings both ways. IOW what you post also means that humans could have lived in the Jurasic and before.

    Steve:
    Uhhhm, no, it does not.

    Absolutely! Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence! What part of that don't you understand?

    Steve:
    However, if we did find a fossilized humans in Jurassic rock, that would be pretty damned devastating for evolutionary theory.

    I disagree.

     
  • At 10:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Steve:
    As for the article not implying evolutionary theory is wrong here is the final sentence of the article,

    "The only reasonable conclusion that remains is clear and undeniable: The fossil record sharply and powerfully contradicts evolution."

    Seems pretty clear that the intent of the article is to debunk evolutionary theory and try to use the fossil record to do so.


    One must follow the data. And if one looks at the FR objectively it can be seen that it contradicts the theory for the very reasons provided in the article. However if one chooses to look at the data selectively then the ToE can accomodate the FR.

    and this gem:

    Steve:
    Hence, we are on pretty safe ground saying that humans weren't around during the Jurassic.

    Which also means we are on pretty safe ground that the alleged transitionals and intermediates never existed.

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And you can't just use that to suit your agenda. Either it is true across the board or it isn't true at all.

     
  • At 1:14 PM, Blogger Steve said…

    Ummm reality demonstrates my OP deals with "Evolutionism and the fossil record", with evolutionism defined in that OP.

    Yes, and you defined several aspects of "evolutionism". Sorry, but the facts and your own post contradict you.

    Wow, more false accusations. Go figure. I understood your point well enough to know you are FoS.

    No you don't, you keep misrepresenting what I have written. For example, the humans in the Jurassic. I have not once referred to the lack of evidence, but the evidence that we do have. Then there is the stuff about the 4th law of thermodynamics by Dembski. Again, you conflate this into my position. This is also wrong. I've told you my actual position, but you keep refusing to admit your error.

    Absolutely! Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence! What part of that don't you understand?

    I have never made any such claim and in fact I agree with the claim that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." You keep saying I don't agree with this when I have repeatedly writtent that I do.

    One must follow the data. And if one looks at the FR objectively it can be seen that it contradicts the theory for the very reasons provided in the article. However if one chooses to look at the data selectively then the ToE can accomodate the FR.

    Well there you go contradicting yourself. Earlier you wrote,

    "Also the article was not used as evidence against the ToE."

    Now you are saying that the article was arguing against evolutionary theory. I tell ya' this is great. There you are saying "Is NOT!!" then you turn around and two posts latter say, "Is TOO!!" ROFL.

    Which also means we are on pretty safe ground that the alleged transitionals and intermediates never existed.


    I didn't say that. I said that given the evidence we have so far, the probability that Jurassic animals and mankind living together is very small. Hence man did not live during the Jurassic and Jurassic animals have not lived within the last 5 million years. It isn't the absence of evidence, but the evidence that we do have that allows us to make this inference.

    You constantly try to put words in the mouth of those who disagree with you. A rather dishonest and lazy form of arguing. I'd work on that if I were you.

     
  • At 1:15 PM, Blogger Steve said…

    Joe,

    I'd suggest you stop putting words in other people's mouth as it totally shows your dishonesty and intellectual laziness. I never argued that man didn't live in the Jurassic based on the lack of evidence, but based on the evidence we have to date.

     
  • At 8:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ummm reality demonstrates my OP deals with "Evolutionism and the fossil record", with evolutionism defined in that OP.

    Steve:
    Yes, and you defined several aspects of "evolutionism".

    Wrong again. Only ONE definition is "evolutionism". Thatnks for continuing to prove you cannot read or cannot comprehend what is posted.

    Steve:
    Sorry, but the facts and your own post contradict you.

    Sorry but that is also a lie.

    Wow, more false accusations. Go figure. I understood your point well enough to know you are FoS.

    Steve:
    No you don't, you keep misrepresenting what I have written. For example, the humans in the Jurassic. I have not once referred to the lack of evidence, but the evidence that we do have.

    And again the ONLY evidence we do have that humsn did not live in the JUrassic is a lack of evidence for their existence. That is a fact.

    Steve:
    Then there is the stuff about the 4th law of thermodynamics by Dembski.

    And you are wrong about Dembski. That is evidenced by the FACT you refuse to produce any evidence to support your claim. All you have are bald assertions. Go figure.

    Which also means we are on pretty safe ground that the alleged transitionals and intermediates never existed.

    Steve:
    I didn't say that.

    You don't have to say it. That follows from what you have written about humans not living in the Jurassic. That is because the "evidence" humans didn't exist in the Jurassic is a lack of evidence for their existence! So if you can say humans didn't exist in the Jurassic because there isn't any evidence for their existence then it can be said that the allged thousands of intermediates and transitionals that had to have existed if the ToE is coreect never existed because there isn't any evidence for their existence.

     
  • At 8:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Steve:
    I never argued that man didn't live in the Jurassic based on the lack of evidence, but based on the evidence we have to date.

    Right and the "evidence" we have to date is a lack of evidence they existed in that era.

    What is your problem? Can't you understand English?

    It is obvious that Steve has issues with reality. Typical for an evo trying to defend an indefensible position.

     
  • At 4:37 PM, Blogger Steve said…

    Wrong again. Only ONE definition is "evolutionism". Thatnks for continuing to prove you cannot read or cannot comprehend what is posted.

    For crying outloud. I didn't say you posted several defnitions of evolutionism, but that your definition had multiple parts.

    Sorry but that is also a lie.

    Uhhhmmm no it isn't. You posted this about evolutionism:

    6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

    Let me see we have,

    1. Common ancestry.
    2. Natural selection and random mutation.
    3. You mention other possible naturalistic mechanisms (I assume you are referring to things like gene flow, genetic drift, endosymbiosis, etc.)
    4. You assert that these processes are naturalistic and unquided.

    That looks like at least 4 aspects to what you call "evolutionism". Hence, you defined evolutionism as having multiple parts to it. Bottomline, I'm right on this, and your own words bear this out.

    And again the ONLY evidence we do have that humsn did not live in the JUrassic is a lack of evidence for their existence. That is a fact.


    I have not once pointed to this kind of nonsense. You have, and that is the only way you can respond to my statements, making up untrue versions of what I've written. The evidence we have points to hominids being a recent animal. Some of the oldest go back no more than 5 million years. Hence the probability that hominids were around prior to this is very low (not zero as you are implying).

    You keep trying to conflate this with my claiming there is no evidence of hominids in the Jurassic. This is patently untrue and demonstrates that you have no integrity.

    And you are wrong about Dembski. That is evidenced by the FACT you refuse to produce any evidence to support your claim. All you have are bald assertions. Go figure.


    What evidence? It isn't my theory/views so I don't have to defend them. Dembski does. I am merely pointing out the implications of what Dembski has written for some of the nonsense you've written--that you don't understand IDC nearly as well as you claim.

    As for Dembski's Law of Conservation of Information, you are hopelessly wrong here. Here is Dembski's own words,

    "The point, after all, of the Law of Conservation of Information is to characterize physical processes happening in nature and their inability to generate specified complexity."

    Link:

    http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.08.Erik_Response.htm

    Humans are part of nature. Humans do things that are specified and complex. Hence specified complexity happens via nature/natural process. Further, the way Dembski describes information is very similar to entropy in Shannon's theory of information. However, entropy can increase locally, hence Dembski's claim is false.

    You don't have to say it. That follows from what you have written about humans not living in the Jurassic. That is because the "evidence" humans didn't exist in the Jurassic is a lack of evidence for their existence! So if you can say humans didn't exist in the Jurassic because there isn't any evidence for their existence then it can be said that the allged thousands of intermediates and transitionals that had to have existed if the ToE is coreect never existed because there isn't any evidence for their existence.

    There are at least two problems here.

    1. As I've noted repeatedly, my views on humans living in the Jurassic isn't based on a lack of evidence, but the evidence we do have.

    2. Even if the above is true, you can't use it as an argument because it contradicts your earlier position that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So either you were lying then or you are lying now, which is it?

    Right and the "evidence" we have to date is a lack of evidence they existed in that era.

    What is your problem? Can't you understand English?

    It is obvious that Steve has issues with reality. Typical for an evo trying to defend an indefensible position.


    No. I have written multiple times in this thread tha at the evidence to date makes the probability that hominids lived in the Jurassic very small. The reason for this is that the current evidence points to the most primitive hominids being very recent (in geological terms) and hence the probability that we'd find them in rock from hundreds of millions of years ago is very, very small. It isn't the lack of evidence that is used in the inference, but the evidence that we do have.

    I've written this multiple times and that you keep trying to distorit shows exactly how lacking you are in integrity and intellectual honesty. You can't take on your opponents views because apparently you don't have the intellectual capacity to do so.

     
  • At 10:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Steve:
    As for Dembski's Law of Conservation of Information, you are hopelessly wrong here. Here is Dembski's own words,

    "The point, after all, of the Law of Conservation of Information is to characterize physical processes happening in nature and their inability to generate specified complexity."

    Here is Dembski refuting your nonsensical misreoresentation:

    From page163 of “No Free Lunch”:

    “The Law of Conservation of Information is not saying that natural causes in tandem with intelligent causes cannot generate CSI but that natural causes apart from intelligent causes cannot generate CSI.”


    Steve:
    Humans are part of nature. Humans do things that are specified and complex. Hence specified complexity happens via nature/natural process.

    More misrepresentation. You should probably crawl back under you rock as that seems like the best place for you. Ya see you have yet to take anything IN CONTEXT. Debski explained what he meant by natural causes, ie "physical processes in nature", and human interaction is not listed. He lists chance, necessity and a combination of the two as natural causes.

    I take it it is easy to misrepresent someone if you haven't read their work. However seeing that I own and have read a few of his books AND can email him when I have to, you can't get away with your stupidity here.

    natural causes:
    insurance, natural causes means an unpredictable or extreme act of nature caused without human intervention or agency.

    IOW he uses the standard definition- meaning natural causes are nature acting alone. As in nature acting alone could not produce an automobile.

    Steve:
    Further, the way Dembski describes information is very similar to entropy in Shannon's theory of information.

    That is false. You haven't read "No Free Lunch", have you? In it he states that Shannon's theory is pretty useless when it comes to content and meaning. IOW Shannon information doesn't go far enough to be of any use because all we care about is content and meaning.

    Steve:
    1. As I've noted repeatedly, my views on humans living in the Jurassic isn't based on a lack of evidence, but the evidence we do have.

    And as I have repeatedly responded the evidence we do have is a lack of evidence that humans existed in that era. YOU have done nothing to refute that.

    Steve:
    2. Even if the above is true, you can't use it as an argument because it contradicts your earlier position that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So either you were lying then or you are lying now, which is it?

    In reality what I post is only a contradiction in your bitty, twisted mind.

    Perhaps you should read "Forbidden Archeology" to see what data we do have on hominids living before they were "supposed" to.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home