|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/13/2008 9:34:15 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
Based on the theory of common descent and utilizing existing fossils classified in the phylogenetic tree, we can make predictions about what type of fossils will appear at certain locations in the strata. Not a post-diction at all. Evolution predicts that all of life would be classifiable in such a tree showing the converging lineages of all organisms.
Yes postdictions. There is no reason for evolution to predict any such thing. I have gone the reasons in other threads.
quote:
Gradualism and PE arent mutually exclusive, nor were they ever considered to be by the person who came up with PE, or anyone else.
Do you even know who came up with PE? Stop making things up.
quote:
No complex instinct can possibly be produced through natural selection, except by the slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable, variations.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-07.html
Now, look why Gould came up with Punctuated equilibrium (and I can quote him too, but I don't think it's necessary right now).
quote:
Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
Darwin was wrong, what he said was falsified. It did not falsify UCD because UCD is not falsifiable.
quote:
Either way, whether evolutionary changes remain constant, come in spurts, or happen before our eyes, UCD remains. Falsifying gradualism or PE is not a falsification of UCD. Why would you expect this?
This is a prediction by Darwin based on UCD presuppositions, and they were false.
quote:
You gloss over the most important aspect of life, that leads us down the path of common ancestry. Living organisms reproduce, adapt, and change over time. Inanimate objects don't.. bad analogies like this leads one to wrong conclusions.
So what? Just because living organisms do such things and share commonalities does not mean that they share a common ancestor. Polymorphic computer viruses share commonalities yet they do not all share a common ancestor.
quote:
Well we have a whole thread about them... I havnt really seen a convincing argument from anyone showing why evolutionists conclusions about them are incorrect.
Maybe not to your satisfaction (though I predict you haven't even read my refutations to begin with), but I have refuted them.
quote:
There's nothing that precludes vestigial organs from having any function, just as long as its secondary to what its prior primary use would have been. There is nothing wrong with this.
Darwin said that Vestigial organs would be useless or so close to useless that they are no longer subject to natural selection. We are finding out that this is not the case, that they are more useful than Darwin predicted.
quote:
Much the same way we can see common ancestry by ERV's, redundant pseudo genes provide similar insights.
Again, there is no reason why commonalities should mean common ancestor.
quote:
Of course it is. Years ago creationists where gabbing about how there are gaps in the fossil record and no real transitional fossils that met with their satisfaction. Now we have example after example and more are found every day. How many is going to be enough for you? We know the fossil record is always going to be incomplete, and as such there will always be gaps. Creationism 'predicting' gaps in the fossil record has to be the biggest post-diction of them all.
The fossil record still has gaps all over the place. Darwin himself attributed it to geological factors.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/13/2008 9:51:51 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Well, if you point out the obvious to me, I will see what you are talking about.
Unclemonkey already pointed it out, I don't think I need to point it out again. Go back and read his posts.
quote:
What I noted on this page is that when I spoke of descendants um responded as if I were speaking of ancestors, when I mentioned "other [i.e. non-sarcopterygian] fish" he asked about lobe-finned fish which are sarcopterygian, and when I stressed the way descendants conserve the unique features of their common ancestors, he thought I was saying they did not gain new features of their own.
I know what happened, you contradicted yourself. You don't have to believe it, it's apparent for everyone on these boards.
quote:
Yeah, sure. Scene: muddy footprints in alley, over-turned garbage cans, blood on the bricks on the wall, some broken teeth on the ground.
Is this evidence circumstantial or empirical? I say it is both. On what grounds would you say it is not?
Circumstantial evidence is more subject to interpretation. The existence of bones maybe empirical evidence that those bones exist. At best, it can only be circumstantial evidence of evolution (and, in the examples you provided, poorly interpreted evidence).
quote:
Citation please?
He would not feel compelled to as he had never heard of Popper. I do recall, however, that he offered a falsification of natural selection as it relates to complex organs, like the eye. But I don't recall that he offered a falsification for common descent.
Coming from someone who thought Darwin did not believe in UCD, you are trying to tell me he did not make predictions. ROFLOL.
Here are a few
quote:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html
No complex instinct can possibly be produced through natural selection, except by the slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable, variations.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-07.html
Again as in the case of corporeal structure, and conformably with my theory, the instinct of each species is good for itself, but has never, as far as we can judge, been produced for the exclusive good of others.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-07.html
If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html
Please go read Darwins book before you start making things up again.
quote:
Nowhere. Darwin did not know of the existence of DNA or have information on cell physiology, so he could not have provided possible falsifications from that basis of knowledge.
But it was only well accepted that evolution "predicts" any such thing after this was known/thought to be true. This isn't really a prediction, it's more of a postdiction.
quote:
So go ahead. Demonstrate that they are wrong.
They are not, but they are also not evidence for UCD.
quote:
A potential falsification has to arise from a logical consequence of the theory.
Exactly my point, and none of your alleged predictions arise from a logical consequence of UCD.
quote:
It is a falsifier for common descent, because descent implies inheritance, and we expect that if you inherit your cellular energy production system from your parents, it will be the same one as your parents used.
But if there is a different cellular energy system, what stops evolutionists from saying that mutation didn't cause it? There is much diversity between us and chimps, for instance, and mutations are said to be responsible for that. Clearly we didn't inherit the differences between us and chimps. The fact that there are differences does not falsify UCD in that respect, so why should differences in cellular energy production systems be any different?
quote:
Does creationism logically require that all life be based on RNA/DNA replication?
Evolution does not logically require any such thing either. If organisms could survive using something else, then it should be no problem for evolution if such a system evolved. If RNA did not exist, but only DNA (or vice versa), one could argue, "if something other than DNA is used, it would falsify UCD." But now that there is RNA, you are simply arguing, "if anything other than RNA or DNA is used, it would falsify UCD." Likewise, if there is something other than RNA and DNA, you could just add that to the list. Same thing with the 20 amino acids. If there are only 20 amino acids used, you can argue, "if one can show an organism using a different amino acid, it would falsify UCD." However, this would not have been the case. Likewise, there are 22 amino acids (two rare ones) and now one could argue, "if you can show an organism using another amino acid, it would falsify UCD." Again, just like in the last example, there is no reason for this to be the case.
quote:
It is a falsifier for common descent, because descent implies inheritance, and if you inherit your parents information molecule, we expect it to be the same one your parents used. Someone who used a different molecule must have inherited it from a different ancestor.
If we inherit our parents eyes, it should be the same one our parents used. Yet, our eyes and the eyes of squids are different. So the fact that we have different eyes does not falsify UCD. Likewise, there is no reason for an organism that uses a molecule besides ATP to falsify UCD either.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 5/13/2008 10:05:39 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/13/2008 10:55:58 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 667
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Unclemonkey already pointed it out, I don't think I need to point it out again. Go back and read his posts.
So, you have the same reading problems he does then.
quote:
quote:
Yeah, sure. Scene: muddy footprints in alley, over-turned garbage cans, blood on the bricks on the wall, some broken teeth on the ground.
Is this evidence circumstantial or empirical? I say it is both. On what grounds would you say it is not?
Circumstantial evidence is more subject to interpretation.
So, what makes you think empirical evidence does not require interpretation? Check out this definition of "empirical". Was anything I named above not derived from observation? Did I theorize about why this evidence was there?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical
quote:
The existence of bones maybe empirical evidence that those bones exist. At best, it can only be circumstantial evidence of evolution
That does not mean it is not empirical. Bones are observed to exist. Bones are empirical evidence. They are empirical evidence for evolution if they are consistent with the expectations of the theory.
quote:
quote:
Here are a few
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html
No complex instinct can possibly be produced through natural selection, except by the slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable, variations.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-07.html
Again as in the case of corporeal structure, and conformably with my theory, the instinct of each species is good for itself, but has never, as far as we can judge, been produced for the exclusive good of others.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-07.html
If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html
All of which refer to natural selection and none to common descent. Now where did Darwin make a false prediction concerning common descent? For that matter where did he make any prediction in reference to common descent?
quote:
Please go read Darwins book before you start making things up again.
Don't assume I haven't.
quote:
quote:
Nowhere. Darwin did not know of the existence of DNA or have information on cell physiology, so he could not have provided possible falsifications from that basis of knowledge.
But it was only well accepted that evolution "predicts" any such thing after this was known/thought to be true. This isn't really a prediction, it's more of a postdiction.
Maybe your problem is that you confuse scientific prediction with crystal ball gazing. Scientific prediction is not about revealing the secrets of the future. It is based on drawing out the logical consequences of a theory in order to determine what we ought to observe. Sometimes, we find that a theory tells us we ought to observe something we have already observed. (e.g. the theory of evolution tells us we ought to observe a nested hierarchy of species, something that had been observed in fact before the theory was published.) This is good and counts as support for the theory. It would be a real problem if the theory said we ought to observe something different from what we have already observed.
Sometimes a theory suggests we ought to observe something we have not observed yet. This is even better, because we can then devise a way to try and observe it. And those observations will either support the theory, suggest we need to revise it, or plainly falsify it.
quote:
quote:
So go ahead. Demonstrate that they are wrong.
They are not, but they are also not evidence for UCD.
The point was that they were possible falsifications of common ancestry. So you agree now that they are in fact genuinely possible falsifications.
quote:
quote:
It is a falsifier for common descent, because descent implies inheritance, and we expect that if you inherit your cellular energy production system from your parents, it will be the same one as your parents used.
But if there is a different cellular energy system, what stops evolutionists from saying that mutation didn't cause it? There is much diversity between us and chimps, for instance, and mutations are said to be responsible for that. Clearly we didn't inherit the differences between us and chimps. The fact that there are differences does not falsify UCD in that respect, so why should differences in cellular energy production systems be any different?
Actually there is very little diversity between us and chimps. Only about 2%.
A cellular energy system is not a DNA molecule that mutates. It is part of the physiology of the cell, part of its metabolic activity. It probably could not be changed by mutation without shutting down the energy processing system and killing the cell.
Common descent implies that something as fundamental to life as the ATP system will be inherited, and even that it will be strongly conserved (when mutations affect it the cell dies, so only cells that keep ATP have descendants).
Since creationism suggests more than one ancestor, different ancestors could have been given other chemicals than ATP for the same function. And in each case, because it is so fundamental to life, it would be inherited with strong conservation.
Since common descent implies only one common ancestor, we logically expect the form of energy processing used by the common ancestor to be found in all descendants.
Finding otherwise would suggest more than one ancestor and so falsify common descent.
quote:
quote:
Does creationism logically require that all life be based on RNA/DNA replication?
Evolution does not logically require any such thing either. If organisms could survive using something else, then it should be no problem for evolution if such a system evolved.
You are right. Evolution does not logically require any such thing. If, as in some creationist scenarios, there were several original creations with each evolving into a group of today's species, each could have a different nucleic acid. Or even if they all used DNA, they could use different codes.
However, common descent from one ancestor does require that the genetic information molecule and the specific code used by that ancestor be the one used by its descendants. A group of species storing genetic information on a different molecule or using a different code would have to inherit it from a different ancestor.
So, you are right, it is not falsification of evolution. It is a possible falsification of common descent. Don't get them confused, because theoretically evolution can exist without universal common descent.
quote:
quote:
It is a falsifier for common descent, because descent implies inheritance, and if you inherit your parents information molecule, we expect it to be the same one your parents used. Someone who used a different molecule must have inherited it from a different ancestor.
If we inherit our parents eyes, it should be the same one our parents used. Yet, our eyes and the eyes of squids are different.
So we know that the ancestor we inherited our eyes from was not an ancestor of squid and vice versa. With ATP and DNA we are looking at the very earliest forms of life, for these characteristics are found in all living things without exception.
With eyes, we are looking at something that came much later. Our eyes are vertebrate eyes. So they first appeared in a vertebrate (or possibly a chordate). And all vertebrates have inherited the same basic eye. But insect eyes and squid eyes have different origins because they are not descendants of vertebrates.
The common ancestor we share with insects and squid did not have eyes. If it did, we all would have inherited the same eye.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/13/2008 11:17:22 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
So, you have the same reading problems he does then.
Yeah, the problem is I know a contradiction when I read one.
quote:
So, what makes you think empirical evidence does not require interpretation? Check out this definition of "empirical". Was anything I named above not derived from observation? Did I theorize about why this evidence was there?
You are playing definition games here. I guess evolutionists have no choice. There is no empirical evidence for UCD and the most they have is poorly interpreted circumstantial evidence, so they must redefine circumstantial to mean empirical in the case of evolution.
Again, the fact that the bones exist maybe empirical evidence that they exist, but, at best, they are circumstantial evidence for UCD.
quote:
That does not mean it is not empirical. Bones are observed to exist. Bones are empirical evidence. They are empirical evidence for evolution if they are consistent with the expectations of the theory.
The bones maybe empirical evidence of their existence. At best, they are only circumstantial evidence of UCD, even if consistent with the hypothesis. Empirical evidence for UCD would be directly observing such a thing (or at least directly observing evolution create new limbs, organs, body plans, organ systems, etc... since evolution claims to be responsible for such thing).
quote:
All of which refer to natural selection and none to common descent. Now where did Darwin make a false prediction concerning common descent? For that matter where did he make any prediction in reference to common descent?
Again, Darwin's book is based on the assumption that UCD is true.
quote:
Don't assume I haven't.
I didn't assume you haven't. What I quote from you suggests you either haven't read his book or you aren't understanding him correctly.
quote:
Maybe your problem is that you confuse scientific prediction with crystal ball gazing. Scientific prediction is not about revealing the secrets of the future. It is based on drawing out the logical consequences of a theory in order to determine what we ought to observe. Sometimes, we find that a theory tells us we ought to observe something we have already observed. (e.g. the theory of evolution tells us we ought to observe a nested hierarchy of species, something that had been observed in fact before the theory was published.) This is good and counts as support for the theory. It would be a real problem if the theory said we ought to observe something different from what we have already observed.
I see no reason for evolution to make the alleged predictions you claim it makes.
quote:
The point was that they were possible falsifications of common ancestry. So you agree now that they are in fact genuinely possible falsifications.
No. I see no reason for evolution to predict this is what we ought to see.
quote:
Actually there is very little diversity between us and chimps. Only about 2%.
So?
quote:
A cellular energy system is not a DNA molecule that mutates. It is part of the physiology of the cell, part of its metabolic activity. It probably could not be changed by mutation without shutting down the energy processing system and killing the cell.
I see no reason why lack of mechanism is a problem for UCD. Evolution has never been observed to produce new limbs, appendages, organs, body plans, flagella, organ systems, etc... or the DNA sequences for them independently of design, and it doesn't seem to be a problem in this regard. Neither has evolution been able to produce microbe to man evolution (and I don't mean human development). So if there is an organism that uses something other than ATP, I see no reason why lack of mechanism should be a problem here either.
quote:
Common descent implies that something as fundamental to life as the ATP system will be inherited, and even that it will be strongly conserved (when mutations affect it the cell dies, so only cells that keep ATP have descendants).
Again, there is no reason for this to be the case. It is only asserted to be the case after it is known/thought that ATP is universal. If there are other energy currencies that are just as effective as ATP, evolution should not care to preserve ATP.
quote:
Since creationism suggests more than one ancestor, different ancestors could have been given other chemicals than ATP for the same function. And in each case, because it is so fundamental to life, it would be inherited with strong conservation.
Biblical creationism does not suggest more than one creator. We believe in one God.
quote:
Since common descent implies only one common ancestor, we logically expect the form of energy processing used by the common ancestor to be found in all descendants.
Finding otherwise would suggest more than one ancestor and so falsify common descent.
Again, I see no reason to believe this. The only reason to claim this is to be expected is because it is what exists.
quote:
You are right. Evolution does not logically require any such thing. If, as in some creationist scenarios, there were several original creations with each evolving into a group of today's species, each could have a different nucleic acid. Or even if they all used DNA, they could use different codes.
Most Biblical creationists are monotheistic.
quote:
However, common descent from one ancestor does require that the genetic information molecule and the specific code used by that ancestor be the one used by its descendants.
I see no reason why this should be required.
quote:
A group of species storing genetic information on a different molecule or using a different code would have to inherit it from a different ancestor.
Or, code could change over time. We do not use all the same code as bacteria, yet you allege we share a common ancestor. So clearly, it's possible for code to change over time.
quote:
So, you are right, it is not falsification of evolution. It is a possible falsification of common descent. Don't get them confused, because theoretically evolution can exist without universal common descent.
I am specifically referring to UCD. My contention is that UCD is unfalsifiable.
quote:
With ATP and DNA we are looking at the very earliest forms of life, for these characteristics are found in all living things without exception.
So what? If there were exceptions, I do not see why it would be a problem for UCD. There are exceptions in other examples (ie: the amino acid example) and it didn't falsify UCD.
quote:
With eyes, we are looking at something that came much later.
That allegedly came much later.
quote:
Our eyes are vertebrate eyes. So they first appeared in a vertebrate (or possibly a chordate). And all vertebrates have inherited the same basic eye. But insect eyes and squid eyes have different origins because they are not descendants of vertebrates.
You are assuming UCD to be true, but you still haven't provided evidence.
quote:
The common ancestor we share with insects and squid did not have eyes. If it did, we all would have inherited the same eye.
If we did have the same eyes, it would not falsify UCD.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 5/13/2008 11:29:31 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/13/2008 11:33:40 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
I'll quote the contradiction for gluadys just to give him another chance at seeing it (I'm pretty sure most others can see it).
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Incorrect. The production of uniquely non-fruit-fly characteristics in descendants of fruit-fly populations would falsify the TOE not support it. Your criterion is based on a gross misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
But let’s get down to the nitty-gritty. According to TOE humans have a microbe at the base of our family tree. Are you claiming humans don’t have any characteristics not found in microbes.
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Still getting the TOE backwards about. Of course, humans have new characteristics not found in microbes.
The contradiction is obvious. Presumably, humans have acquired new characteristics that their alleged microbe ancestors did not have. But I don't expect gluadys to actually admit that he obviously contradicted himself. That would be asking too much.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 5/13/2008 11:48:16 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/14/2008 8:44:40 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 667
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I'll quote the contradiction for gluadys just to give him another chance at seeing it (I'm pretty sure most others can see it).
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Incorrect. The production of uniquely non-fruit-fly characteristics in descendants of fruit-fly populations would falsify the TOE not support it. Your criterion is based on a gross misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
But let’s get down to the nitty-gritty. According to TOE humans have a microbe at the base of our family tree. Are you claiming humans don’t have any characteristics not found in microbes.
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Still getting the TOE backwards about. Of course, humans have new characteristics not found in microbes.
The contradiction is obvious. Presumably, humans have acquired new characteristics that their alleged microbe ancestors did not have. But I don't expect gluadys to actually admit that he obviously contradicted himself. That would be asking too much.
Humans have specifically human characteristics not found in microbes. Humans also have characteristics which are found in microbes. No descendants of human lack the specific characteristics of humans. No descendants of microbes (including humans) lack the characteristics of microbes e.g. cellular organization, DNA based replication.
Fruit flies have characteristics specific to fruit flies not found in other flies. There is no problem with developing new unique characters. But what unclemonkey was asking for were descendants of fruit flies that did not have the characteristics of fruit flies. That TOE does not provide for. All descendants of fruit flies will have the characteristics of fruit flies.
So it is a matter of deciding whether one is comparing a species to its ancestors or to its descendants. Compare a species to its ancestors and you will find new characteristics specific to the species. But compare the species to its descendants and all descendants will have at least vestigial remnants of the characteristics of the ancestral species. They never become something totally alien to their ancestry.
No contradiction, only a lack of comprehension among creationists as to what nested hierarchy means.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/14/2008 9:46:32 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
But what unclemonkey was asking for were descendants of fruit flies that did not have the characteristics of fruit flies.
I know what unclemonkey was asking. You contradicted yourself.
quote:
No contradiction, only a lack of comprehension among creationists as to what nested hierarchy means.
Yes contradiction, you contradicted yourself. See, this is the kind of thing that evolutionists must resort to in order to promote their hypothesis. Bad logic and then insisting that they are not resorting to bad logic.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/14/2008 9:56:05 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 667
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Empirical evidence for UCD would be directly observing such a thing (or at least directly observing evolution create new limbs, organs, body plans, organ systems, etc... since evolution claims to be responsible for such thing).
Empirical evidence is that which is directly observed. Bones, footprints, differences in DNA are directly observed. Yes, this empirical evidence is circumstantial evidence for evolution over the long-term. The fact that it is circumstantial does not mean it is not empirical.
What you want is long-term direct observation of a process over many generations. Stick around long enough and you may get it. We have direct observation of the process within the time-frames of a human life-span. A few centuries from now, we will likely have direct observation of the process for longer than a human life-span, and who knows what a millennium from now?
Lack of direct observation of the process however should not be called lack of empirical evidence. Any and all directly observed evidence is empirical whether or not it is also circumstantial.
quote:
Again, Darwin's book is based on the assumption that UCD is true.
I still disagree with this, but you also said he made a prediction (now falsified) relative to UCD. You have failed to provide that prediction.
quote:
I see no reason for evolution to make the alleged predictions you claim it makes.
Then I have to assume that you do not understand the meaning of genetic inheritance. You claim to know Darwin. But you don't appear to know Mendel.
quote:
So if there is an organism that uses something other than ATP, I see no reason why lack of mechanism should be a problem here either.
It is not the mechanism that is at issue. Common descent implies a common inheritance. If you don't understand inheritance, I don't know what to say. Just what do you expect a descendant to inherit if not the characteristics of its ancestor?
quote:
quote:
Since creationism suggests more than one ancestor, different ancestors could have been given other chemicals than ATP for the same function. And in each case, because it is so fundamental to life, it would be inherited with strong conservation.
Biblical creationism does not suggest more than one creator. We believe in one God.
I spoke of different ancestors, not of a plurality of Gods. Is the creator not capable of creating more than one kind of life?
quote:
quote:
Since common descent implies only one common ancestor, we logically expect the form of energy processing used by the common ancestor to be found in all descendants.
Finding otherwise would suggest more than one ancestor and so falsify common descent.
Again, I see no reason to believe this. The only reason to claim this is to be expected is because it is what exists.
A good theory-based prediction is supposed to agree with what is observed. It provides an explanation for why the observation exists. IOW, we observe the commonality of ATP and explain it through common descent.
Creationism does not provide this explanation for there is no logical reason in creationism that ATP should be common to life-forms with potentially separate origins.
Of course, the creator is also free to use ATP in all created life-forms, so the universal existence of ATP does not tell us whether it was inherited from a common ancestor or created in every separately created life-form. The difference is that if we found a variety of the crucial energy processing molecule in different categories of life forms, that would not falsify separate creation, but it would falsify common descent. How could descendants not inherit the mechanism that existed in their ancestor?
quote:
quote:
You are right. Evolution does not logically require any such thing. If, as in some creationist scenarios, there were several original creations with each evolving into a group of today's species, each could have a different nucleic acid. Or even if they all used DNA, they could use different codes.
Most Biblical creationists are monotheistic.
So am I. Did you confuse "creations" with "creators"? Or do you think one creator cannot be responsible for several separate creations?
quote:
We do not use all the same code as bacteria, yet you allege we share a common ancestor. So clearly, it's possible for code to change over time.
Yes, we do use the same code as bacteria. The DNA sequences which produce leucine, valine, alanine or glycine are the same in bacteria as in all other forms of life. This Wikipedia article talks about the very few variations found.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code#RNA_codon_table
quote:
quote:
The common ancestor we share with insects and squid did not have eyes. If it did, we all would have inherited the same eye.
If we did have the same eyes, it would not falsify UCD.
Indeed it would not. But it would falsify common descent if we apparently inherited different eyes from the same common ancestor.
Don't confuse "common ancestor" with "universal common ancestor". There can be many common ancestors (one in fact for each pair of species), but only one universal common ancestor.
We do not inherit all our characteristics from the last universal common ancestor. We inherit many of them from more recent common ancestors, who are not universal common ancestors.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/17/2008 1:10:22 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Empirical evidence is that which is directly observed. Bones, footprints, differences in DNA are directly observed. Yes, this empirical evidence is circumstantial evidence for evolution over the long-term. The fact that it is circumstantial does not mean it is not empirical.
Bones, footprints, differences in DNA, etc... maybe empirical evidence for the existence of such things, but it's not empirical evidence for UCD. You are still confusing the two.
quote:
What you want is long-term direct observation of a process over many generations.
What I want is empirical evidence. You have not provided any.
quote:
Stick around long enough and you may get it.
A faith based statement.
quote:
Lack of direct observation of the process however should not be called lack of empirical evidence. Any and all directly observed evidence is empirical whether or not it is also circumstantial.
Not all circumstantial evidence is empirical. There is a difference. Circumstantial evidence maybe empirical evidence for the existence of the evidence, but it's only circumstantial evidence for the inferences made as a result of that evidence.
quote:
I still disagree with this,
It doesn't matter. Most people of his time understood it that way and most still understand it that way. That's how he understood it
quote:
A theory of universal common descent based on evolutionary principles was proposed by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species (1859), and later in The Descent of Man (1871).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent
and I gave many quotes from Darwin showing this.
quote:
but you also said he made a prediction (now falsified) relative to UCD. You have failed to provide that prediction.
I already told you. He predicted gradualism, that turned out to be false. He used the appendix and many other organs that he thought were useless (or so close to useless that they are no longer subject to natural selection) as evidence for his hypothesis, and now we are finding out that many of these organs are far more useful than he had thought. He said that natural selection is responsible for adding diversity and we are finding out the opposite. He was wrong on a lot but it didn't falsify UCD because UCD is unfalsifiable.
quote:
You have failed to provide that prediction.
No I didn't.
quote:
Then I have to assume that you do not understand the meaning of genetic inheritance. You claim to know Darwin. But you don't appear to know Mendel.
I do understand Mendel. I see no reason for evolution to make the alleged predictions you claim and I have explained why. I also go into more detail in other threads.
http://forums.wfil.com/m_2209111/mpage_2/tm.htm
http://forums.wpitam.com/m_2387149/mpage_3/tm.htm
quote:
It is not the mechanism that is at issue. Common descent implies a common inheritance.
Evolution can allegedly account for the acquisition of new traits and the maintenance and loss of existing ones. There is no reason why your alleged predictions are a necessity consequence of UCD.
quote:
If you don't understand inheritance, I don't know what to say.
I understand inheritance.
quote:
Just what do you expect a descendant to inherit if not the characteristics of its ancestor?
Do you know what congenital means? Have you ever heard of CIPA? An ancestor does not need to necessarily have a mutation within all their cells in order for their offspring to have that mutation. As in the case of domesticated dogs, organisms can lose traits over time and evolution claims to account for the acquisition of new traits over time as well. Indeed, humans have traits that our alleged microbe ancestors did not have, so somewhere along the line we allegedly acquired those traits.
quote:
I spoke of different ancestors, not of a plurality of Gods. Is the creator not capable of creating more than one kind of life?
I'm sure He is, but I think that one kind of life resists naturalism more strongly. Natural selection does not care to maintain only one kind of life if multiple kinds of life can survive just as well, it only cares to produce anything that can survive. I also think that these commonalities either point to a single designer or a group of designers working together or who are familiar with each others work. If these commonalities did not exist, it would be easier to argue for multiple designers.
quote:
A good theory-based prediction is supposed to agree with what is observed. It provides an explanation for why the observation exists.
I agree.
quote:
IOW, we observe the commonality of ATP and explain it through common descent.
Again, I see no reason for this.
quote:
Creationism does not provide this explanation for there is no logical reason in creationism that ATP should be common to life-forms with potentially separate origins.
To show one designer (or at least multiple designers working together or who are familiar with each others work). It is unlikely that multiple designers working independently of each other (and each others work) would all choose ATP unless ATP somehow provides an advantage.
There is no reason why nature should care to maintain one energy currency if others work just as well.
quote:
Of course, the creator is also free to use ATP in all created life-forms, so the universal existence of ATP does not tell us whether it was inherited from a common ancestor or created in every separately created life-form. The difference is that if we found a variety of the crucial energy processing molecule in different categories of life forms, that would not falsify separate creation, but it would falsify common descent. How could descendants not inherit the mechanism that existed in their ancestor?
Again, it would not falsify UCD, there is no reason for it to. You keep asserting that it would but I can just as easily assert that a purple sky would falsify creationism or UCD. All organisms using the same energy currency is not a necessary consequence of UCD.
quote:
So am I. Did you confuse "creations" with "creators"? Or do you think one creator cannot be responsible for several separate creations?
Sorry, I thought you said creators. But you even admit that evolution does not require any such thing. So you admit that all organisms using ATP (for instance) is not a necessary consequence of UCD.
quote:
Yes, we do use the same code as bacteria. The DNA sequences which produce leucine, valine, alanine or glycine are the same in bacteria as in all other forms of life. This Wikipedia article talks about the very few variations found.
I never said that none of our genetic makeup is not the same. I said that we do not use "all" the same code as bacteria. In other words, our genetic makeup is different than bacteria relative to another human.
quote:
Indeed it would not. But it would falsify common descent if we apparently inherited different eyes from the same common ancestor.
and how would any such thing be apparent? If two organisms had two completely different eyes, evolutionists could claim that they did not inherit them from the same common ancestor. How would they know the difference if the alleged ancestor has been dead for thousands of years. I mean, seriously, if we "apparently" (however we can determine this) inherited completely different eyes from the same common ancestor, how would we know? That would also seem to defy creationism. Also, evolutionists could claim that we inherited similar primitive eyes from the same common ancestor and they changed over generations. What you are asking for is, basically, a miracle, to disprove common ancestry. But even your alleged miracle should not disprove common ancestry. If one set of parents had an offspring with one type of eyes and the same parents had another offspring with a completely different type of eyes, that does not mean that both offspring do not share a common ancestor. The eyes of two brothers are slightly different and they come from the same common ancestor.
quote:
Don't confuse "common ancestor" with "universal common ancestor". There can be many common ancestors (one in fact for each pair of species), but only one universal common ancestor.
We do not inherit all our characteristics from the last universal common ancestor. We inherit many of them from more recent common ancestors, who are not universal common ancestors.
Most of this is speculation.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 5/17/2008 1:24:27 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/17/2008 1:54:02 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to present some empirical evidence for UCD. Someone, anyone. ........
(Cricket, cricket, cricket).
Unclemonkey, so far no one has presented any empirical evidence for UCD. If anyone does, be sure to let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/17/2008 10:16:32 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 667
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Bones, footprints, differences in DNA, etc... maybe empirical evidence for the existence of such things,
No, bones are not empirical evidence for bones; footprints are not empirical evidence for footprints; DNA differences are not empirical evidence for DNA differences. These ARE empirical evidence PERIOD. They are directly observable to the senses. That is why they are called "empirical" evidence.
quote:
but it's not empirical evidence for UCD. You are still confusing the two.
Yes, empirical evidence is empirical evidence and when it is supportive of UCD it is empirical evidence for UCD. No such evidence falsifies UCD; therefore it is supportive of UCD.
What it is not, (and what science never provides) is hard and fast proof of UCD. However, the weight of the evidence makes UCD the most probable explanation of the evidence.
Note that I refer here to one of the key characteristics of a theory: a theory explains why we observe what we do. And it explains all relevant observations.
The basic problem with creationism is that it either provides no explanation, or only covers some evidence or even covers different lines of evidence with different and contradictory explanations.
quote:
What I want is empirical evidence.
I and many others have provided plenty of empirical evidence. You just want to limit empirical evidence to one form: direct observation of process over a long term. Well, we already have direct observation of process over decades. We certainly will have, eventually, direct observation of process over centuries. Direct observation of process over millennia is not likely and over hundreds of millions of years, highly improbable.
If that is the one and only form of empirical evidence you recognize, I agree, it has not been provided and probably never will be. But it is incorrect to limit the meaning of "empirical" to this one form of observation.
Bones, footprints, differences in DNA, etc. are empirical evidence too. Sure they need to be analyzed and interpreted. But that doesn't mean they are not empirical.
quote:
Not all circumstantial evidence is empirical.
Example?
quote:
He predicted gradualism, that turned out to be false.
Gradualism is not a prediction of universal common descent. And he was only partially wrong. Darwin used "gradual" in two senses. First, he insisted that complex features had to be built up by small incremental changes. This has never been falsified. Second, he assumed that all evolutionary change occurred steadily and slowly. This has been partially falsified. Much evolutionary change is indeed slow and steady, just as he visualized, but not all. Sometimes, evolutionary change occurs rapidly and in spurts (Punctuated equilibrium). It is important to know that although PE shows differences in the rate at which evolution occurs, it does not violate the first sense of "gradual". Even when occurring rapidly, evolutionary change still occurs as an accumulation of small, incremental changes.
None of this refers to universal common descent. Ordinary common descent, yes, but not universal common descent. Your failure to differentiate between common descent and universal common descent means you assume that evidence for the former is also evidence for the latter. Not so.
quote:
He used the appendix and many other organs that he thought were useless (or so close to useless that they are no longer subject to natural selection) as evidence for his hypothesis, and now we are finding out that many of these organs are far more useful than he had thought.
Whether they are more useful than he thought is irrelevant. They are still vestigial in comparison to their homologues in related species. And again, while this implies descent from a common ancestor, it does not imply universal common descent.
quote:
He said that natural selection is responsible for adding diversity and we are finding out the opposite.
Again, the latter is irrelevant ( and speculative), but while natural selection implies some degree of common descent, it does not imply universal common descent.
IOW, all of your examples refer to Darwin's main interest: to show that not every species was separately created, but that some species were modifications of earlier species. This, of course, demands that there be some degree of common descent. And that common descent to this degree exists is now agreed to even by most creationists. The whole notion of "kinds" as original ancestors of many related species depends on common descent. But it repudiates universal common descent.
Did Darwin speculate that we could press common descent back to a single common ancestor? Yes, indeed he did. I have never denied that. But for lack of evidence he did not insist on it. He dares to speculate that all animal species could have been derived from as few as six original creations. And he concludes with a vision of the creator breathing life into "a few forms or into one". This is the only place he suggests a single common ancestor in Origin of Species. And he does so in the most speculative and tentative of terms. Most of his work is directed toward the more modest goal of establishing that common descent (not universal common descent) is a reality.
Of course, we now do affirm both common descent and universal common descent, because the latter is no longer speculative. It is a concept well-supported by a plethora of evidence. And it is falsifiable.
quote:
I do understand Mendel. I see no reason for evolution to make the alleged predictions you claim and I have explained why. I also go into more detail in other threads.
http://forums.wfil.com/m_2209111/mpage_2/tm.htm
http://forums.wpitam.com/m_2387149/mpage_3/tm.htm
bvz is right. Before you can speak to the issue, "It is very important that you understand what a nested hierarchy IS". Clearly, you don't.
quote:
quote:
It is not the mechanism that is at issue. Common descent implies a common inheritance.
Evolution can allegedly account for the acquisition of new traits and the maintenance and loss of existing ones. There is no reason why your alleged predictions are a necessity consequence of UCD.
You have it backwards about. It is not that these things are necessarily a consequence of UCD. It is UCD that is the consequence. The evidence only makes sense in the case where UCD exists.
Start thinking of UCD as the logical consequence and you may start getting a better perspective on the significance of the evidence. How do you explain the evidence without common descent?
quote:
Do you know what congenital means?
Yes, it means to be born with a certain condition---often applied to disorder of some kind. Although, of course, we are all born with certain conditions. good and bad. The disorder is not necessarily genetic. Children are born with HIV because they acquired it in the womb. Same applies to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. These are congenital disorders.
quote:
An ancestor does not need to necessarily have a mutation within all their cells in order for their offspring to have that mutation.
In fact, in the case of a mutation, we expect that the ancestor does NOT possess it. That is what a mutation is, a changed form of the DNA not found in either parent.
Obviously, this does not change the fact that by far the most part of DNA is inherited from one or the other parent. (One in the case of cloning/a-sexual reproduction). Note that the grandchildren of the ancestor, descended from the offspring with the mutation, will inherit it from their parent. For them, it is not a new mutation, but part of their heritage.
quote:
I'm sure He is, but I think that one kind of life resists naturalism more strongly.
Whether or not it does is beside the point. One creator does not necessarily mean only one kind of life. UCD does necessarily mean one kind of life. Therefore, a creator is consistent with both one kind of life and many kinds of life. But UCD is consistent with only one kind of life. That is why a different kind of life would be a falsification of UCD.
quote:
Natural selection does not care to maintain only one kind of life if multiple kinds of life can survive just as well,
True, but you have to show that there are multiple kinds of life to begin with. To use the language of baramins, you have to show that there is no relation of one baramin to another and that each is a separate creation.
If all life known to us is of one kind, and relationships can be established among all forms of life, then there is only one kind of life for natural selection to maintain. That is what we observe.
quote:
it only cares to produce anything that can survive. I also think that these commonalities either point to a single designer or a group of designers working together or who are familiar with each others work. If these commonalities did not exist, it would be easier to argue for multiple designers.
The number of designers is irrelevant so long as a single designer can produce a multiplicity of designs. A designer, of course, could choose to produce only one design and modify it in many ways. And there is no way of distinguishing the work of such a designer from UCD. However, while a single basic life design is a necessary consequence of UCD, it is not a necessary consequence of a single designer. It is a free choice that could be otherwise. That is why the existence of a wholly different design would not falsify design, but would falsify UCD.
quote:
quote:
IOW, we observe the commonality of ATP and explain it through common descent.
Again, I see no reason for this.
Why? Is inheritance not a probable reason for descendants of ATP-using organisms also using ATP? If not, why not?
quote:
quote:
Creationism does not provide this explanation for there is no logical reason in creationism that ATP should be common to life-forms with potentially separate origins.
To show one designer (or at least multiple designers working together or who are familiar with each others work). It is unlikely that multiple designers working independently of each other (and each others work) would all choose ATP unless ATP somehow provides an advantage.
And what makes it likely that a single designer would never vary from using ATP in separate creations? This is again, the crucial difference between design and descent. One can only inherit what already exists in one's ancestors.
A single designer could choose only to use ATP, but could also choose not to. One cannot choose what one inherits. A designer or designers who choose a single design and stick to it cannot be distinguished from inheritance. A designer or designers who choose to vary their designs prove that something other than inheritance is involved.
Because one cannot choose what one inherits, common descent explains common design. A single designer does not explain common design, because it does not follow that a single designer will always use common design. And should the designer choose to vary design, that would falsify UCD, because it would show a pattern that cannot be explained by inheritance.
quote:
There is no reason why nature should care to maintain one energy currency if others work just as well.
There is every reason why only one would be inherited if all life forms have a common ancestor. You would have to have separate ancestors to get separate energy processing molecules. To be sure, if they work equally well, natural selection would maintain them both. But you have to have both generated separately to begin with. One can only inherit what exists in the ancestor. And if all inherit ATP, it is probably because all inherit it from the same ancestor.
quote:
quote:
Of course, the creator is also free to use ATP in all created life-forms, so the universal existence of ATP does not tell us whether it was inherited from a common ancestor or created in every separately created life-form. The difference is that if we found a variety of the crucial energy processing molecule in different categories of life forms, that would not falsify separate creation, but it would falsify common descent. How could descendants not inherit the mechanism that existed in their ancestor?
Again, it would not falsify UCD, there is no reason for it to.
How would it not? How could a life-form inherit what its ancestor did not possess?
quote:
Sorry, I thought you said creators. But you even admit that evolution does not require any such thing. So you admit that all organisms using ATP (for instance) is not a necessary consequence of UCD.
No, it could be a designer choice. However, the latter is not explanatory and leads to no useful predictions. UCD is explanatory and does lead to testable and fruitful predictions. So it is a better scientific model.
quote:
I said that we do not use "all" the same code as bacteria.
http://psyche.uthct.edu/shaun/SBlack/geneticd.html
Please tell me which of these codons is not used by bacteria or not used by humans.
quote:
quote:
Indeed it would not. But it would falsify common descent if we apparently inherited different eyes from the same common ancestor.
and how would any such thing be apparent?
By the differences in the eyes, of course. Different structure (compound vs camera), different nerve, muscle and blood vessel arrangements. Different ligatures to the bone (or lack of bone altogether). How would such differences come from the same ancestor?
quote:
If one set of parents had an offspring with one type of eyes and the same parents had another offspring with a completely different type of eyes, that does not mean that both offspring do not share a common ancestor. The eyes of two brothers are slightly different and they come from the same common ancestor.
Indeed, the point is that the brothers' eyes differ slightly. That is all that can be expected in siblings. You do not get mammalian eyes in one brother and octopus eyes in the other, because the parents do not have octopus eye characteristics to bequeath to either son.
Are you sure you understand inheritance?
|
|
|
|
| |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
