A deal for Zachriel (or any anti-IDist)
Seeing that want an IDist to tell you about the designer and the process(es) used I will make a deal with you.
When you tell us what mutations were responsible for differences we see between chimps and humans I will tell you everything that I have found out about the designer and the process(es). But until you do I suggest you hold off on continuing your the double-standards.
To refuse this deal will be to expose your intellectual cowardice. You will not be able to post to any other thread until you accept this deal- unless you refuse this deal by admitting your request is illogical and unreasonable.
This is NOT an unusual request. Evolutionitwits have had many decades to figure out what mutations caused what changes. And yet today after all those years of alleged scientific investigation they cannot even tell us whether or not mutations can allow for the changes required if all of life's diversity owed its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms (that just happened to have the ability to asexually reproduce).
Yet they expect IDists to have all the answers before ID will be accepted. Even answers to questions that are irrelevant to ID.
Just what can one say about the Wright brothers just by studying the airplanes & jets of today? Just what can one determine about the process the Wright brothers used just by studying the airplanes & jets of today?
When you tell us what mutations were responsible for differences we see between chimps and humans I will tell you everything that I have found out about the designer and the process(es). But until you do I suggest you hold off on continuing your the double-standards.
To refuse this deal will be to expose your intellectual cowardice. You will not be able to post to any other thread until you accept this deal- unless you refuse this deal by admitting your request is illogical and unreasonable.
This is NOT an unusual request. Evolutionitwits have had many decades to figure out what mutations caused what changes. And yet today after all those years of alleged scientific investigation they cannot even tell us whether or not mutations can allow for the changes required if all of life's diversity owed its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms (that just happened to have the ability to asexually reproduce).
Yet they expect IDists to have all the answers before ID will be accepted. Even answers to questions that are irrelevant to ID.
Just what can one say about the Wright brothers just by studying the airplanes & jets of today? Just what can one determine about the process the Wright brothers used just by studying the airplanes & jets of today?
posted by Joe G @ 9:35 AM
11 Comments:
At 1:34 PM,
Thought Provoker said…
Joseph,
Based on our exchanges at Uncommon Descent, I am interested in continuing our discussions here.
I did quickly respond to your last post where you were explaining/defending your definition for the term "evolution", but my comments didn't show up. If you are interested we can repeat the discussion here and I will repost my last comments.
I think this would even be topical to this thread because it directly deals with avoiding double standards. One of the biggest double-standard that exists envolves defining the terms of the debate (what is "science", what is "Intelligent Design", what is "Evolution")
For the record, I am more the happy to debate this topic on a level playing field.
Deal?
At 7:36 AM,
Joe G said…
Deal. I will start a thread that aks "What is evolution?"
I already have a blog titled ID 101, that I can re-visit (by bringing it back to the top), and I can also start a thread on "What is science?"...
At 8:42 PM,
Steve said…
What a load of nonsense. So those who thing the theory of eovlution is the best explanation have to provide a step by step description of each and every mutation.
The IDist simply have to say who they think the designer is.
Talk about double standards and hypocrisy.
At 9:09 AM,
Joe G said…
Steve:
What a load of nonsense.
Yes it is a load of nonsense that IDists have to provide a level of data that evolutionitwits never have.
Steve:
So those who thing the theory of eovlution is the best explanation have to provide a step by step description of each and every mutation.
Only if they reject ID for not doing the same, which appears to be what is happening.
Steve:
The IDist simply have to say who they think the designer is.
Perhaps you should read the OP again. Also this isn't about who we think the designer is. Anti-IDists want absolute proof.
Steve:
Talk about double standards and hypocrisy.
That is my point! Evolutionitwits want all the answers from IDists BEFORE allowing ID entry but they cannot even give us any detail whatsoever.
And again:
This is NOT an unusual request. Evolutionitwits have had many decades to figure out what mutations caused what changes. And yet today after all those years of alleged scientific investigation they cannot even tell us whether or not mutations can allow for the changes required if all of life's diversity owed its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms (that just happened to have the ability to asexually reproduce).
At 9:36 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "And yet today after all those years of alleged scientific investigation they cannot even tell us whether or not mutations can allow for the changes required if all of life's diversity owed its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms (that just happened to have the ability to asexually reproduce)."
That is incorrect. The predictions from theory is that observed rate of morphological change due to genetic evolution must be greater than or equal to the changes seen in the fossil record. This has been confirmed in various ways, including Gingerich 1983 and Reznick 1997.
At 9:15 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "And yet today after all those years of alleged scientific investigation they cannot even tell us whether or not mutations can allow for the changes required if all of life's diversity owed its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms (that just happened to have the ability to asexually reproduce)."
Zachriel:
That is incorrect.
Then show us the biological data which supports your claim. Show us the mutations which afforded upright bipedal walking.
Zachriel:
The predictions from theory is that observed rate of morphological change due to genetic evolution must be greater than or equal to the changes seen in the fossil record.
The observed morphological change demonstrates variations oscillate, as opposed to accumulate.
The bulk of the fossil record is made up of marine inverts. In that bulk we do NOT see what you say we do.
There isn't any genetic/ biological data that demonstrates that inverts can "evolve" into verts. Only wishful thinking.
There isn't any genetic/biological data that demonstrates that bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria. Only wishful speculation.
Ya see Zachriel it is easier for me to accept that the biological/ genetic data is indicative of reality and therefore any alleged succession in the fossil record is illusory- a manmade construct based on a worldview.
THAT is how a biological theory should work- explain the biological data FIRST, then try to make sense out of the fossil record and other secondary evidence.
You see in the fossil record what you want to see...
At 10:49 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Then show us the biological data which supports your claim."
I provided cites.
joe g: "The observed morphological change demonstrates variations oscillate, as opposed to accumulate."
Cites you didn't bother to read.
joe g: "The bulk of the fossil record is made up of marine inverts. In that bulk we do NOT see what you say we do."
That is incorrect. The succession of fossils doesn't go away because you wave your hands. Micropaleontology is an active field of study. The succession of fossils can be seen by even a cursory examination of strata, including chalk formations which present an excellent view of plankton evolution.
joe g: "THAT is how a biological theory should work ..."
The way to test a theory is by proposing specific predictions then testing those predictions. Common Descent leads to specific predictions of new empirical observations, in everything from genomes to the content of rocks. That's why all those paleontologist spend all their time looking at rocks in the wilderness. That's how John Horner knew where to look for dinosaurs nests.
At 9:40 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Then show us the biological data which supports your claim."
Zachriel:
I provided cites.
But not one of your cites demonstrates what I asked for. IOW no one can demonstrate bacteria "evolving" into anything but bacteria. Single-celled organisms remain single-celled organisms.
joe g: "The observed morphological change demonstrates variations oscillate, as opposed to accumulate."
Zachriel:
Cites you didn't bother to read.
The beak of the finch is a perfect example that supports my claim.
joe g: "The bulk of the fossil record is made up of marine inverts. In that bulk we do NOT see what you say we do."
Zachriel:
That is incorrect.
Reality demonstrates that I am correct. I would love for you to try to demonstrate otherwise.
Zachriel:
The succession of fossils doesn't go away because you wave your hands.
And it doesn't exist just because you wave yours.
Zachriel:
The succession of fossils can be seen by even a cursory examination of strata, including chalk formations which present an excellent view of plankton evolution.
LoL! It shows, wait for it, plankton "EVOLVING" into plankton!
joe g: "THAT is how a biological theory should work-explain the biological data FIRST, then try to make sense out of the fossil record and other secondary evidence."
Zachriel:
The way to test a theory is by proposing specific predictions then testing those predictions.
There is a huge difference between actual predictions- real science and post hoc accomodations of the data- evolutionism.
Now perhaps some day evolutionitwits will explain the differences that we see in allegedly closely related populations. As of today they can't even do that with chimps (are alleged closest diverged relative) and humans. And the way the sequencing data is going there may not have been enough time/ generations to account for the genetic diferences. That is without invoking some miracle of mutations becoming fixed in the population each generation.
At 11:06 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: " IOW no one can demonstrate bacteria 'evolving' into anything but bacteria."
Strawman, as already pointed out repeatedly. Common Descent may not apply to bacteria, nor would we expect bacteria to evolve into Great Danes during the normal course of human observation.
joe g: "The beak of the finch is a perfect example that supports my claim."
Yet, the scientists who spent years studying the finches strongly disagree with your conclusions. I've cited this before, but you didn't bother to try and learn anything about them or their studies.
Not that it matters. You handwaved away evidence from other observations that reveal ongoing evolution.
joe g: "There is a huge difference between actual predictions- real science and post hoc accomodations of the data- evolutionism."
Yes. How did scientists know where to find fish with limb bones? Or hominids? Or dinosaur eggs?
At 8:45 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: " IOW no one can demonstrate bacteria 'evolving' into anything but bacteria."
Zachriel:
Strawman, as already pointed out repeatedly.
Only IF reality is a strawman- as pointed out repeatedly.
Zachriel:
Common Descent may not apply to bacteria,
Really? Then what was (were) the original population(s) if not bacteria? Isn't that what your precious fossil record tells us was first?
Zachriel:
... nor would we expect bacteria to evolve into Great Danes during the normal course of human observation.
Any thing OTHER than bacteria would do. You can't even demonstrate that. IOW with evolutionism and common descent you really can't demonstrate anything.
joe g: "The beak of the finch is a perfect example that supports my claim."
Zachriel:
Yet, the scientists who spent years studying the finches strongly disagree with your conclusions.
Then let them provide the data that supports their claims and refutes mine. Until then the data shows that population variation oscillates. We see it in the finch, we see it in the moths. Either that or there is almost complete stasis.
Why would anyone predict that fish would leave the water other than a preconceived bias that the fish did leave the water? What would the first fish to do so eat?
What- the first fish to climb out of water just happened to do so in "walking" distance of food? What the heck (on land) would satisfy Tiki's hunger?
At 10:32 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Only IF reality is a strawman- as pointed out repeatedly."
A strawman argument occurs when someone argues a different point than that which has been presented. It may be true that you defeated the strawman, but you ignored the actual argument.
That you continue to insist it is "reality" shows that you do not understand that a strawman is a fallacy of irrelevance, a diversion, ignoratio elenchi.
In this case, the Theory of Evolution does not predict that we should directly observe bacteria or invertebrates 'evolve' into verts. If we did, then it would be substantial evidence *against* the Theory of Evolution. That makes your constant refrain a strawman argument.
joe g: "Really? Then what was (were) the original population(s) if not bacteria? Isn't that what your precious fossil record tells us was first?"
Extant bacteria are the result of billions of years of evolution. There is limited evidence of the origin of cellular life, however, microbiological and genomic evidence points to an endosymbiotic origin of eukarotes from proto-cellular life. Whether this proto-cellular life resembles modern bacteria is doubtful.
joe g: "What- the first fish to climb out of water just happened to do so in "walking" distance of food? What the heck (on land) would satisfy Tiki's hunger?"
You might want to educate yourself somewhat on paleo-biology before reaching (and especially before espousing) your conclusions. Tetrapods were not the first terrestrial organisms.
Post a Comment
<< Home