Robert Tulip wrote:Debates on evolution are based on a false pretence. The creationists pretend they are discussing science, but in fact that is not true. They are not really talking about science. Their big lie is to conceal their sole aim, which is to ensure that ignorant believers are not exposed to facts.

You are trying to shift the goalposts here Robert. You haven't engaged with any of the arguments I have presented here, but think you can just assume your philosophical naturalism is correct in advance.

You accept the standard model of cosmology but it's obviously neither rational or scientific for a universe to come from nothing. You assume abiogenesis in the same way, though it faces real and probably insurmountable problems in terms of blind, lifeless and goaless matter performing what is even termed by some evolutionists to be a miraculous feat.

So what are the facts? That the universe naturalistically created itself and biological life, but you don't actually have to prove this.

Robert Tulip wrote:The real terrain of debate should be the social values that creationists wish to instil, and how they can maintain cohesion within their congregation. This can be hard for scientists to understand, since scientifically trained people are incapable of entering mythological thinking, where people only believe what they are told by authority and are never exposed to conflicting beliefs, except in the context of a story from their authorities about why those different views are wrong.

There are different views among Christians ranging from young to old earth creationism,theistic evolution and the I.D. view of intelligence guiding built in processes,with in their view apparently, intelligent interventions in the process from time to time.

As far as your mythological arguments are concerned we have debated this extensively elsewhere and I certainly still maintain the position I have argued on that.

There is a war of philosophical ideologies in progress but it's naive to think it's good science versus bad religion. In other words many theists are prepared to engage with philosophical naturalism on the basis of the scientific evidence itself.
It's true that there is the element of what authorities are relied on. In the final analysis it's sometimes claimed that philosophical naturalism is supported by science,but that has to proved not assumed.

If the scientific evidence speaks against it then it's valid to raise the scientific objections to theories,that are not the same thing as science itself.

Echolocation in whales is a sophisticated system. They either have it or they don't.

That's exactly what has been said about so many of the so called "irreducibly complex" systems that have since been shown to be reducible. The truth is, the sophisticated system isn't required for echolocation. The fact that other animals have echolocation without that system is the proof in the pudding. The path between the simplistic weak echolocation and what whales have is the grain of sand from the Grand Canyon.

You obviously didn't listen to Prof Tour's talk. All the delicate,complex and necessary processes that would have to occur by a blind goal less process. There are statistical improbabilities but anyone who thinks it's just a matter of time and chance doesn't understand the processes.
http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/08/17/sc ... nt-design/

That article was one large argument from incredulity.

Show me support for how these statistical improbabilities are insurmountable. We already know there are unimaginably large numbers. Show me support for why the balance of these numbers is against the blind, dumb goal-less process.

There can be novel genetic information produced by mutations but whether this is adequate for the creation of novel biological systems which can be co-ordinated with existing systems is extremely unlikely.

Sure, it's unlikely. We're dealing with massive numbers here. Thousands or millions or billions of organisms per generation multiplied by thousands or millions of generations. Show me where the balance of probability lies between your "unlikeliness" and the large numbers involved. I can tell you where the balance lies based on surrounding evidence, but you seem to have a knee jerk reaction against accepting it.

If you are arguing, as you are, that this is acquired gradually then it's up to you to provide the evidence for proto or partial sonar systems in whales. As with most things this system simply appears fully formed and functional in whales, in the same way that it does in bats.

When you say that it appears fully formed, do you mean within a single generation? That's not how it works. If you think that's what happened, or if it were even a few dozen generations, you'll need to provide links to the evidence.

It seems to depend on who is hypothesizing,as some insist on gradualism and others on "abrupt change"

Either way the Cambrian animals just pop up without ancestors as complex fully functional animals. As Dawkins says, "It's as though they were just planted there without any evolutionary history."

And that's the pattern in the fossil record,sudden appearances,extinctions,and mostly stasis.

Evolution happens both gradually and by instances of punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium makes more sense to me, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were predominant.

Interbane wrote:Quote:
Echolocation in whales is a sophisticated system. They either have it or they don't.




That's exactly what has been said about so many of the so called "irreducibly complex" systems that have since been shown to be reducible. The truth is, the sophisticated system isn't required for echolocation. The fact that other animals have echolocation without that system is the proof in the pudding. The path between the simplistic weak echolocation and what whales have is the grain of sand from the Grand Canyon.

You won't give up on this Interbane,will you? So what animals have echolocation without a biological system for echolocation? Humans can intelligently mimic aspects of it.

Interbane wrote:Quote:

You obviously didn't listen to Prof Tour's talk. All the delicate,complex and necessary processes that would have to occur by a blind goal less process. There are statistical improbabilities but anyone who thinks it's just a matter of time and chance doesn't understand the processes.
http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/08/17/sc ... nt-design/




That article was one large argument from incredulity.

Show me support for how these statistical improbabilities are insurmountable. We already know there are unimaginably large numbers. Show me support for why the balance of these numbers is against the blind, dumb goal-less process.

I'm actually appealing to the views of the specialist chemists who have studied origin of life and understand the chemistry but you reckon you are better informed. You're entitled to your opinion but basically what you are saying is that there are unimaginably large numbers. You haven't a clue how difficult the problem is to get even the simplest prebiotic elements just right,but you think it's just a matter of time and chance.

Interbane wrote:

Quote:
If you are arguing, as you are, that this is acquired gradually then it's up to you to provide the evidence for proto or partial sonar systems in whales. As with most things this system simply appears fully formed and functional in whales, in the same way that it does in bats.




When you say that it appears fully formed, do you mean within a single generation? That's not how it works. If you think that's what happened, or if it were even a few dozen generations, you'll need to provide links to the evidence.

Entire animals with all their fully functional systems just appear suddenly in the fossil record, never mind individual systems. It's a very discontinuous record. But again I'm just repeating myself and it's getting a bit tedious.

So you are welcome to maintain your faith in chance and this central dogma of philosophical naturalism, but I'm getting a bit tired of repeating myself.

Flann 5 wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:Debates on evolution are based on a false pretence. The creationists pretend they are discussing science, but in fact that is not true. They are not really talking about science. Their big lie is to conceal their sole aim, which is to ensure that ignorant believers are not exposed to facts.

You are trying to shift the goalposts here Robert.

Yes, because the debate you have raised is like one team having goals ten times wider than the other one. Your assertions should be held to the same standards of consistency and coherence as scientists require for their hypotheses. But the creationist method is to just make stuff up. So the mystery is why you produce such nonsense, and that is where the alternative ‘goalposts’ of religious sociology provide a good explanation. Your statements are political, not scientific.

Flann 5 wrote:You haven't engaged with any of the arguments I have presented here, but think you can just assume your philosophical naturalism is correct in advance.

True, and nor do I think your arguments are worth discussing, since they all involve the premise of supernatural intervention, a false myth which entirely lacks any evidence or reason, and is far better explained by psychology and politics than by physics. Your arguments are like saying "assuming the world is flat, how do we explain our perceptions?” We can’t assume God created the world as an intentional personal act of will any more than we can assume the world is flat.

Flann 5 wrote:
You accept the standard model of cosmology but it's obviously neither rational or scientific for a universe to come from nothing.

Debate on cosmology provides no reason whatsoever to posit a supernatural entity who engages in deliberate action outside of evolution to change the genes of his creatures. The hole in your argument is far bigger than any alleged gaps in evolutionary theory. Your belief that the universe came from divine creation has zero evidence to support it, and involves a basic misunderstanding of the nature of divinity, which is really about the existence of complex order within nature.

Flann 5 wrote: As far as your mythological arguments are concerned we have debated this extensively elsewhere and I certainly still maintain the position I have argued on that.

I encourage you to read the superb essay I linked above by Malinowski on Myth in Primitive Psychology. The fascinating idea emerging from his essay, based on his extensive field research into primitive anthropology, is that when we try to reconstruct ancient beliefs just using fragments, by reading ancient texts without ritual or scientific context, we are likely to be entirely wrong about the context. That is how creationism evolved, by reading the Bible without knowing the real intent of its authors, and it illustrates the need for caution in Biblical analysis.

The writers of Genesis knew full well that their descriptions of God were allegorical mysteries. The curse of literalism only arose later, as church communities found that literal reading of scripture was a good way to enforce social norms.

Flann 5 wrote: There is a war of philosophical ideologies in progress but it's naive to think it's good science versus bad religion.

That is actually a really good point Flann, and one where we have some common ground. As I discussed in the thread on faith and reason, scientists tend to have a weak grasp of theology, so the popular debate on religion tends to involve two bad theologies slugging it out, and both ignoring good theology for their own different reasons. Atheists think good theology concedes too much ground to faith, while theists think good theology concedes too much ground to reason. The challenge is to find a middle way.

Flann 5 wrote:In other words many theists are prepared to engage with philosophical naturalism on the basis of the scientific evidence itself.

Theists perhaps, creationists no.

Flann 5 wrote: It's true that there is the element of what authorities are relied on. In the final analysis it's sometimes claimed that philosophical naturalism is supported by science, but that has to be proved not assumed.

You are making a valid point that naturalism is treated as a necessary truth, an axiomatic assumption, and is therefore a metaphysical idea. That raises the problem of whether the assumption of naturalism or supernaturalism has a better fit with our experience. Logically, the problem is whether our experience is more likely if conditioned by natural or supernatural reality. My view is that a natural worldview is far more coherent, consistent and orderly than a supernatural view.

Flann 5 wrote:
If the scientific evidence speaks against it then it's valid to raise the scientific objections to theories, that are not the same thing as science itself.

That is not a completely clear statement. You seem to be asserting that there is scientific evidence against evolution. Invariably, such alleged creationist 'evidence’ turns out to be junk.

You won't give up on this Interbane,will you? So what animals have echolocation without a biological system for echolocation? Humans can intelligently mimic aspects of it.

How could humans mimic it without a biological system that allows it? When blind people use acoustic navigation, they click with their mouths and the sound bounces off objects around them and they pick up the sounds with the hairs in their ears. We have what is required for minimal echolocation. As I said, that's a starting point for the trait.

I'm actually appealing to the views of the specialist chemists who have studied origin of life and understand the chemistry but you reckon you are better informed. You're entitled to your opinion but basically what you are saying is that there are unimaginably large numbers. You haven't a clue how difficult the problem is to get even the simplest prebiotic elements just right,but you think it's just a matter of time and chance.

I most certainly don't understand the issue better than these chemists. And I've already said that I understand how unbelievably improbable it is for prebiotic elements to combine in the right way. I don't think you understand my point. Show me the math that makes this pop out to you as incredulous.

Entire animals with all their fully functional systems just appear suddenly in the fossil record, never mind individual systems. It's a very discontinuous record. But again I'm just repeating myself and it's getting a bit tedious.

So what? Fossilization is rare and evolution can happen in punctuated bursts. I'm not seeing why this would be an argument that would convince you of anything. Show me the best example of what you find incredulous.

Interbane wrote:Quote:
Entire animals with all their fully functional systems just appear suddenly in the fossil record, never mind individual systems. It's a very discontinuous record. But again I'm just repeating myself and it's getting a bit tedious.




So what? Fossilization is rare and evolution can happen in punctuated bursts. I'm not seeing why this would be an argument that would convince you of anything. Show me the best example of what you find incredulous.

The argument of the rarity of fossilization as an excuse for Darwinian gradualism was rejected by the paleontologists themselved.

What are the mechanisms for these rapid dramatic changes? You apparently reject Durett and Schmidts calculations of timescale for fixing two simultaneous mutations in a population when using population genetics to make calculations. These based on known rates of such mutations.

The many dramatic changes to countless systems let alone minor alterations makes the land mammal to whale hypothesis sheer nonsense.
And these have to be co-ordinated with alterations to other systems simultaneously or they could not actually work. And as I've indicated elsewhere it's absolute rubbish to claim that Pakicetus was a walking whale.
www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v6i2f.htm

What evolutionary development shows is the highly conserved nature of biological information and the epigenetic information directing things.

So what we see pervasively is stasis but evolutionists are prepared to postulate amazing rapid transformation from a wolf like land animal to a deep diving whale in an evolutionary blink of an eye. And what evidence have they? A wolf like land animal to a morphologically different otter like animal and then a different again fully aquatic animal.

Why do they believe this? Because the theory requires such a transition from land to ocean for whales.

Sharks are living fossils that haven't changed at all. That's how elastic and unfalsifiable the theory is. Sharks found their niche and never changed a jot but a wolf like land mammal had werewolf like metamorphoses in an evolutionary heartbeat they say.

http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/fos ... ks/abrupt/

What are the mechanisms for these rapid dramatic changes? You apparently reject Durett and Schmidts calculations of timescale for fixing two simultaneous mutations in a population when using population genetics to make calculations. These based on known rates of such mutations.

I assume it's this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18791261

Did you read the authors admissions of all the variables that would alter the timescales given?

Sharks are living fossils that haven't changed at all.

There is nothing in the theory that says every organism must change. That's your straw man, and it doesn't even make sense. Why would organisms need to change?

Interbane wrote:

Quote:
What are the mechanisms for these rapid dramatic changes? You apparently reject Durett and Schmidts calculations of timescale for fixing two simultaneous mutations in a population when using population genetics to make calculations. These based on known rates of such mutations.




I assume it's this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18791261

Did you read the authors admissions of all the variables that would alter the timescales given?

It's pretty technical, but I still think it's a big problem for whale evolution as it's not just some minor adjustments we're talking about.

Interbane wrote:Quote:
Sharks are living fossils that haven't changed at all.




There is nothing in the theory that says every organism must change. That's your straw man, and it doesn't even make sense. Why would organisms need to change?

There are all these innumerable animals who don't change for hundreds of millions of years they say,which is stasis which is the most common feature of the fossil record. Some things do change though very rapidly.

So all these innumerable animals who never changed in all their hundreds of millions of years must have never encountered the environment that supposedly caused others to suddenly change.
That's an argument from incredulity,right? So yeah,they never encountered the same environmental pressures in hundreds of millions of years.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/10/st ... 00011.html

The theory covers every imaginable eventuality. That's why it's so wonderful. In fact it's a complete waste of time even debating it as every objection can be called a strawman. Massive changes evolution,no change evolution. Ok then,I give up.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig ... is-a-fact/

Flann wrote:That's an argument from incredulity,right? So yeah,they never encountered the same environmental pressures in hundreds of millions of years.

There are many varieties of shark, all having evolved in various directions over the last few hundred million years. Great Whites have stayed the same for roughly 16 million years. Such an alpha predator being optimized to so many environments isn't the norm, but it also isn't fodder to be used against evolution. There is nothing here that falls outside the theory. That doesn't mean the theory is unfalsifiable, it just means the theory isn't false. You're mistaking the two in your fervent desire to find an issue.

It's pretty technical, but I still think it's a big problem for whale evolution as it's not just some minor adjustments we're talking about.

Why is it a problem?