|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/1/2008 5:26:19 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1402
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: gluadys quote:
And millions of years of human evolution have not produced any characteristic that is uniquely non-human either.
“Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 195,000 years ago.” - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
Millions of years of human evolution? How do you squeeze millions of years of human evolution into 195,000 years?
quote:
Your point?
As you just admitted, there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that humans have any non-human ancestors.
quote:
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.
The gross misunderstanding is yours. Evolutionary theory says that given enough time fruit fly descendants could become something totally foreign to any fly. That is NOT possible without the production of uniquely non-fruit-fly characteristics. E.g. according to TOE humans have fish in our family tree. Are you claiming humans have no uniquely non-fish characteristics?
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/1/2008 9:19:50 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 864
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL: gluadys quote:
And millions of years of human evolution have not produced any characteristic that is uniquely non-human either.
“Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 195,000 years ago.” - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
Millions of years of human evolution? How do you squeeze millions of years of human evolution into 195,000 years?
On the other hand, the human lineage is believed to have split from the Australopithecines 2-3 million years ago.
quote:
As you just admitted, there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that humans have any non-human ancestors.
On the contrary, I have admitted there is no empirical evidence that humans have any non-human descendants.
quote:
The gross misunderstanding is yours. Evolutionary theory says that given enough time fruit fly descendants could become something totally foreign to any fly.
Nope. It says exactly the opposite. You are listening to people who don't know the theory of evolution very well.
quote:
E.g. according to TOE humans have fish in our family tree. Are you claiming humans have no uniquely non-fish characteristics?
Depends on the fish. Fish have evolved too, and most fish have evolved separately from human ancestors, so they have acquired their own sets of unique characteristics. Nevertheless, there are a number of features we share with all fish: a skull, teeth, a jaw, a dorsal nerve chord. Note that because we share these features with fish (and many other animals) these are not uniquely human features. Early on, fish diversified into three groups: sharks, teleostes and sarcopterygians. Most modern fish are teleosts, and they are what you normally think of when you think "fish". These do have unique features you never find in humans, but then, they are not ancestral to humans. Neither are sharks. No, to find our fishy ancestors, we need to go to the sarcopterygians. What makes them different from other fish? What are their unique characteristics?
1. In addition to gills, most of them have lungs. Guess what--so do we.
2. Instead of fins being attached directly to the torso, they spread out from four lobes (primitive limbs). In later stages of sarcopterygian development, the lobes are supported by a skeletal structure that in the forward limbs includes a humerus (upper arm bone) and shoulder girdle. We also havew four limbs and our upper limbs (which would be the forward ones if we walked on all fours) include a humerus attached to a shoulder girdle.
3. Again in later sarcopterygii, such as Sauripterus, the bones of the fins are arganized into digits (fingers). Outwardly, it is a fin, but the skeletal structure is that of fingers---eight of them in Sauripterus. We also have fingers.
When we look at what the unique characters of sarcopterygians are, we do not find any of their descendants which lack these characteristics in some form, except some descendants which have lost their limbs altogether. Even these have skeletal characteristics which tell us that their ancestors did have limbs.
If TOE really predicted that given enough time descendants would be totally foreign to their ancestors, it is surely a false theory, for through 300 million years, the descendants of sarcopterygians have retained the unique features of their ancestors: lungs, limbs, digits. They are clearly not foreign to their ancestors.
In fact, what TOE predicts is precisely this retention of new unique characteristics in the descendants of the first animal to exhibit them----and (this is really important) only in the descendants of this animal. Descendants of teleosts do not exhibit these characteristics, because they were unique to sarcopterygians and only descendants of sarcopterygians inherited them. By the same token, descendants of sarcoptergians did NOT inherit characteristics which are unique to teleosts.
Now apply this to the fruit flies. They share many characteristics with other flies, so they are not foreign to the insect group we call "flies". But they have acquired some variant characteristics that are unique to them and distinguish them from other flies. TOE predicts that their descendants will inherit and retain these unique characteristics. And that ONLY their descendants will inherit and retain these unique characteristics. So the descendants of fruit flies will never be totally foreign to the insect sub-group we call fruit flies.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/1/2008 10:43:20 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1402
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: gluadys quote:
On the other hand, the human lineage is believed to have split from the Australopithecines 2-3 million years ago.
The operative words in your statement are “is believed”. I believe no such thing and evolutionists only have evolution-biased interpretation to base that belief on. That belief has absolutely NO empirical support.
quote:
On the contrary, I have admitted there is no empirical evidence that humans have any non-human descendants.
Humans have non-human descendants and we just don’t have any empirical evidence of it?
quote:
quote:
Evolutionary theory says that given enough time fruit fly descendants could become something totally foreign to any fly.
Nope. It says exactly the opposite. You are listening to people who don't know the theory of evolution very well.
Let me get this straight. The same theory that claims humans descended from a fish also states that a fruit fly will never be anything other than a fruit fly?
quote:
If TOE really predicted that given enough time descendants would be totally foreign to their ancestors, it is surely a false theory, for through 300 million years, the descendants of sarcopterygians have retained the unique features of their ancestors: lungs, limbs, digits. They are clearly not foreign to their ancestors.
“Unlike other fish, sarcopterygian fish has a cental appendage in their fins containing many bones and muscles.” - http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/sarco/sarcopterygii.html
Hmmm. Sounds like your example has at least one characteristic that was uniquely different than its predecessor.
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.
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/2/2008 12:02:48 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 864
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL: gluadys quote:
On the other hand, the human lineage is believed to have split from the Australopithecines 2-3 million years ago.
The operative words in your statement are “is believed”. I believe no such thing and evolutionists only have evolution-biased interpretation to base that belief on.
The belief relates to the time-frame, and even that is a pretty close estimate. There is considerable empirical evidence for the historical relationship of humans and australopithecines.
quote:
Humans have non-human descendants and we just don’t have any empirical evidence of it?
If we don't have any empirical evidence for it, we wouldn't know that we have non-human descendants. Nor did I say that we have undiscovered non-human descendants. You have a real talent for misconstruing my actual intent. What I said and meant is that no descendants of humans lack unique human traits. Nor would we expect them to.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Evolutionary theory says that given enough time fruit fly descendants could become something totally foreign to any fly.
Nope. It says exactly the opposite. You are listening to people who don't know the theory of evolution very well.
Let me get this straight. The same theory that claims humans descended from a fish also states that a fruit fly will never be anything other than a fruit fly?
Not quite. Any descendant of a fruit fly will have the unique characteristics of its fruit fly ancestor, however much it changes. It would not become a non-fruit fly. It would become a modified fruit fly. It would still be a member of the fruit-fly clan, even if classified under another name.
quote:
“Unlike other fish, sarcopterygian fish has a cental appendage in their fins containing many bones and muscles.” - http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/sarco/sarcopterygii.html
Hmmm. Sounds like your example has at least one characteristic that was uniquely different than its predecessor.
First, note that the "other fish" is not the ancestor of the sarcopterygian fish. The "other fish" is a sister clade, not an ancestral group.
Second, of course, it has a characteristic uniquely different from its predecessor. TOE doesn't forbid acquiring a new trait. What it forbids is losing the identifying traits of its ancestor. In this case, the sarcopterygian fish retained the bony skeleton, jaws, bilateral body plan and fins of its ancestor. All these + its new unique characteristics were passed on to its descendants. TOE also forbids the distribution of these unique characteristics to those who are not its descendants.
quote:
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.
Still getting the TOE backwards about. Of course, humans have new characteristics not found in microbes. But the applicable thesis of the TOE here is that they also have identifying characteristics inherited from their microbial ancestors. For example, many microbes have no flagella at all. Some have multiple cilia instead. Others move by amoeboid action. Of those that do have flagella, most have them mounted at their anterior end. Such flagella basically "pull" the cell behind them. A relatively small group have their flagella mounted at their posterior end, where they "push" the cell in front of them. This group are called "opisthokonts"
Human cells, in fact, all animal cells--all that have flagella (like sperm)-- are opisthokont cells. And since sperm cells, like all cells in the body, are derived from the single cell formed at conception, it follows that even if they do not have flagella, all the other cells in the body are also opisthokont cells. The identifying character trait of the opisthokont cell has never been lost in all the multicellular bodies of all its descendants. Furthermore, it is not found in organisms that do not have an opisthokont origin. Plants are derived from unicellular algae which are not opisthokont, and they do not have opisthokont cells.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/2/2008 5:29:34 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1402
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: gluadys quote:
There is considerable empirical evidence for the historical relationship of humans and australopithecines.
You keep making this claim, but haven’t presented anything other than the dogma you have chosen to accept. Do you somehow think that the constant repetition of your mantra makes it true?
If you want anyone to accept your claims what you need to do is present some actual empirical evidence. I realize that presenting something that doesn’t exist is not possible but after all, you are the one making the claim.
quote:
First, note that the "other fish" is not the ancestor of the sarcopterygian fish.
The lobe finned fish don’t have fish ancestors? Pray tell, what did they evolve from if not some earlier form of fish? Do they not have any invertebrate ancestors? TOE is loaded with the production of unique new characteristics, which you say would falsify TOE if they actually exist.
quote:
TOE also forbids the distribution of these unique characteristics to those who are not its descendants.
Your posts have degenerated into gibberish. Lobe finned fish don’t share any common ancestors with other fish?
quote:
Still getting the TOE backwards about. Of course, humans have new characteristics not found in microbes.
You have destroyed TOE with your own words. Thank you.
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/2/2008 5:35:57 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 566
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL: gluadys quote:
There is considerable empirical evidence for the historical relationship of humans and australopithecines.
You keep making this claim, but haven’t presented anything other than the dogma you have chosen to accept. Do you somehow think that the constant repetition of your mantra makes it true?
If you want anyone to accept your claims what you need to do is present some actual empirical evidence. I realize that presenting something that doesn’t exist is not possible but after all, you are the one making the claim.
quote:
First, note that the "other fish" is not the ancestor of the sarcopterygian fish.
The lobe finned fish don’t have fish ancestors? Pray tell, what did they evolve from if not some earlier form of fish? Do they not have any invertebrate ancestors? TOE is loaded with the production of unique new characteristics, which you say would falsify TOE if they actually exist.
quote:
TOE also forbids the distribution of these unique characteristics to those who are not its descendants.
Your posts have degenerated into gibberish. Lobe finned fish don’t share any common ancestors with other fish?
quote:
Still getting the TOE backwards about. Of course, humans have new characteristics not found in microbes.
You have destroyed TOE with your own words. Thank you.
You have it backwards... humans have some unique characteristics. Only descendants of humans will have those unique characteristics. Get it? Those descendants may have their own unique characteristics, in addition to some human characteristics. It wouldn't be likely for those human characteristics to be present in some other organism before their convergence with humans in the phylogenetic tree (going backwards). Same goes for any other organism.
Never before have I seen someone so determined to misunderstand the words that are communicated to him.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/2/2008 5:52:50 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1402
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:drj11quote:
You have it backwards... humans have some unique characteristics. Only descendants of humans will have those unique characteristics. Get it?
I don’t have it backwards. You have totally missed the gist of the discussion. Gluadys stated that TOE doesn’t allow descendants to gain unique new characteristics, yet microbe to man evolution is not possible without it. Gluadys own argument destroys itself.
quote:
Never before have I seen someone so determined to misunderstand the words that are communicated to him.
Stay away from mirrors and that won’t happen again.
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/2/2008 6:04:20 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 566
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:drj11quote:
You have it backwards... humans have some unique characteristics. Only descendants of humans will have those unique characteristics. Get it?
I don’t have it backwards. You have totally missed the gist of the discussion. Gluadys stated that TOE doesn’t allow descendants to gain unique new characteristics, yet microbe to man evolution is not possible without it. Gluadys own argument destroys itself.
Again, that's exactly backwards to what he was saying. Humans wont have any characteristics that were developed in organisms after we and them diverged in the phylogenetic tree. Same with fruit flies. The will have fruit fly characteristics, but not human characteristics, except for those that were present before our common ancestor diverged.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/2/2008 9:17:58 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 864
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
TOE also forbids the distribution of these unique characteristics to those who are not its descendants.
Your posts have degenerated into gibberish. Lobe finned fish don’t share any common ancestors with other fish?
Of course, that's why I noted the other fish were a sister clade. Sister clades share a common ancestor. What they do not share are their unique characteristics. Unique characteristics are passed only to descendants, not to sister clades and most certainly not to ancestors.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/2/2008 9:21:44 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 864
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
I don’t have it backwards. You have totally missed the gist of the discussion. Gluadys stated that TOE doesn’t allow descendants to gain unique new characteristics, yet microbe to man evolution is not possible without it.
No I didn't. I said that TOE doesn't allow descendants to lose the unique characters that defined their ancestors. (Or if they do, there is still vestigial evidence they once had them.)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/13/2008 12:19:14 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1337
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
So, aside from gluadys contradicting himself and providing poorly interpreted (and highly distorted) circumstantial evidence (and well refuted arguments), does anyone have any evidence for UCD?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/13/2008 6:50:24 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 864
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
So, aside from gluadys contradicting himself and providing poorly interpreted (and highly distorted) circumstantial evidence (and well refuted arguments), does anyone have any evidence for UCD?
I didn't contradict myself. Unclemonkey read me backward, reading "gain" where I had said "lose".
And, as I recall, you demonstrated that you don't actually know what "empirical" means. For example, circumstantial evidence IS empirical evidence.
Also you keep referring to non-existant "refutations". I haven't seen any yet.
I provided you with four possible falsifications of UCD, and in your response you indicated that you do not recognize falsification when you see it. I could give you many more possible falsifications.
The evidence for UCD is that not one of these possible falsifications has actually been observed. Instead we see the opposite situation. And the opposite of a falsifying observation is an observation that supports (i.e. is evidence for) UCD.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/13/2008 11:33:32 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1337
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
I didn't contradict myself. Unclemonkey read me backward, reading "gain" where I had said "lose".
I read it, you contradicted yourself. It's quite obvious. Others on this board can obviously see this, I am not going to waste too much time trying to convince you otherwise.
quote:
And, as I recall, you demonstrated that you don't actually know what "empirical" means. For example, circumstantial evidence IS empirical evidence.
No, circumstantial != empirical. There is a difference. I know the difference.
quote:
Also you keep referring to non-existant "refutations". I haven't seen any yet.
I provided you with four possible falsifications of UCD, and in your response you indicated that you do not recognize falsification when you see it. I could give you many more possible falsifications.
Again, Darwin made falsifications for UCD, many turned out to be false, and it did not falsify UCD. I have no reason to believe that your alleged falsifications are any different. Where in Darwins book does he mention your falsifiers? Why should you all of a sudden change the falsifiers, just because Darwin was wrong? Just like with Darwin, if your alleged falsifiers were demonstrated to be wrong, I have no reason to believe it would falsify UCD. Many of Darwins falsifiers were wrong and it didn't falsify UCD. I can just as easily say, "if you proved the sky is not blue, it would falsify UCD" or, "if you found another energy currency other than ATP, it would falsify Biblical creation" or, "if another organism used something other than DNA or RNA, it would falsify Biblical creation." Your falsifications are irrelevant, just because you allege that something would falsify UCD (or I allege that it would falsify Biblical creation) does not make it so. Many of Darwins predictions were wrong, inventing some new irrelevant ones does not make UCD falsifiable. Nice try though.
quote:
The evidence for UCD is that not one of these possible falsifications has actually been observed.
Instead we see the opposite situation. And the opposite of a falsifying observation is an observation that supports (i.e. is evidence for) UCD.
Again, there is no reason that UCD should predict any such thing. Many of Darwins falsifiers have been falsified, it didn't falsify UCD. Making up irrelevant ones does not make UCD falsifiable.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 5/13/2008 11:44:28 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/13/2008 11:39:58 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 566
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Again, Darwin made falsifications for UCD, many turned out to be false, and it did not falsify UCD. I have no reason to believe that your alleged falsifications are any different. Where in Darwins book does he mention your falsifiers? Why should you all of a sudden change the falsifiers, just because Darwin was wrong? Just like with Darwin, if your alleged falsifiers were demonstrated to be wrong, I have no reason to believe it would falsify UCD. Many of Darwins falsifiers were wrong and it didn't falsify UCD. I can just as easily say, "if you proved the sky is not blue, it would falsify UCD." Your falsifications are irrelevant. Many of Darwins falsifiers were falsified, inventing some new irrelevant ones does not make UCD falsifiable. Nice try though.
Again, there is no reason that UCD should predict any such thing. Many of Darwins falsifiers have been falsified, it didn't falsify UCD. Making up irrelevant ones does not make UCD falsifiable.
Again, you get hung up on the fact that theories change over time. Show us an example of a scientific theory that from the start made 100% accurate predictions, and wasn't later changed to accommodate greater understanding? Why do you hold UCD and Evolution to impossible standards. By the very definition of a theory your standards don't even make sense.
< Message edited by drj11 -- 5/13/2008 11:46:57 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/13/2008 11:41:58 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1337
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
Again, you get hung up on the fact that theories change over time. Show us an example of a scientific theory that from the start made 100% accurate predictions, and wasn't later changed to accommodate greater understanding?
There is nothing wrong with changing a theory. Likewise, UCD has either been falsified (or is unfalsifiable), so we should come up with something else (or at least admit that UCD has been falsified). There is nothing wrong with coming up with new theories when old ones are falsified. UCD = falsified (or unfalsifiable). The scientific thing to do is to admit that it has been falsified.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/13/2008 11:44:09 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 566
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
Again, you get hung up on the fact that theories change over time. Show us an example of a scientific theory that from the start made 100% accurate predictions, and wasn't later changed to accommodate greater understanding?
There is nothing wrong with changing a theory. Likewise, UCD has either been falsified (or is unfalsifiable), so we should come up with something else (or at least admit that UCD has been falsified). There is nothing wrong with coming up with new theories when old ones are falsified. UCD = falsified (or unfalsifiable). The scientific thing to do is to admit that it has been falsified.
Uh no. Common descent has not been falsified... even if the name of the theory were to change, the concepts behind it would be similar. That's why it still continues on as UCD. At this point it's just a naming convention problem to you then? It needs a new name?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/13/2008 11:46:33 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1337
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
Uh no. Common descent has not been falsified... even if the name of the theory were to change, the concepts behind it would be similar. That's why it still continues on as UCD. At this point it's just a naming convention problem to you then? It needs a new name?
No, it's not a "naming conversion" issue. Darwin made predictions based on UCD. They were false. This suggests that UCD (as in, the notion that all living organisms share a common ancestor) has either been falsified or is unfalsifiable. So, the scientific thing to do would be to admit that it has been falsified and throw it out. Renaming it does not constitute throwing it out.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/13/2008 11:51:20 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 566
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
Uh no. Common descent has not been falsified... even if the name of the theory were to change, the concepts behind it would be similar. That's why it still continues on as UCD. At this point it's just a naming convention problem to you then? It needs a new name?
No, it's not a "naming conversion" issue. Darwin made predictions based on UCD. They were false. This suggests that UCD (as in, the notion that all living organisms share a common ancestor) has either been falsified or is unfalsifiable. So, the scientific thing to do would be to admit that it has been falsified and throw it out. Renaming it does not constitute throwing it out.
You cant pretend the last 150 years of science after Darwin never happened. We have monumental amounts of evidence gathered since then that reinforce the idea that all organisms share a common universal heritage, whether it was within the confines of Darwin's original predictions or not.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/13/2008 12:11:16 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1337
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
You cant pretend the last 150 years of science after Darwin never happened.
That's not what I'm doing.
quote:
We have monumental amounts of evidence gathered since then that reinforce the idea that all organisms share a common universal heritage, whether it was within the confines of Darwin's original predictions or not.
Claims like this are easy enough to make, but substantiation is a whole different issue. So far, such claims have not been substantiated and this is the thread to substantiate them in. Please substantiate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/13/2008 12:17:32 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 566
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
You cant pretend the last 150 years of science after Darwin never happened.
That's not what I'm doing.
quote:
We have monumental amounts of evidence gathered since then that reinforce the idea that all organisms share a common universal heritage, whether it was within the confines of Darwin's original predictions or not.
Claims like this are easy enough to make, but substantiation is a whole different issue. So far, such claims have not been substantiated and this is the thread to substantiate them in. Please substantiate.
The ability (and prediction) to classify organisms in a phylogenetic tree, the fossil record, shared genetic codes, endogenic retroviruses, vestigial organs, redundant pseudogenes, hundreds (thousands, even?) of transitional forms, etc etc. Take your pick.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/13/2008 12:35:49 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1337
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
The ability (and prediction) to classify organisms in a phylogenetic tree,
I do not think this is evidence for UCD. If anything, it's more more like a postdiction.
quote:
the fossil record,
I don't think this really supports UCD either. For example, Darwin predicted gradualism and that was false, which really demonstrates the unfalsifiable nature of UCD.
quote:
shared genetic codes,
Cars share similar tires among each other and their tires have common characteristics with bike tires. Doesn't mean they share a common ancestor.
quote:
endogenic retroviruses,
What about them?
quote:
vestigial organs,
Many of which are now known to have function.
quote:
redundant pseudogenes,
What about them?
quote:
hundreds (thousands, even?) of transitional forms, etc etc.
Your parents are a transitional form between you and your grandparents. So? None of this is evidence for UCD. There are huge gaps in the fossil record, as creationism would predict.
quote:
Take your pick.
Do you want to discuss anything in particular?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/13/2008 1:40:36 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 566
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I do not think this is evidence for UCD. If anything, it's more more like a postdiction.
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.
quote:
I don't think this really supports UCD either. For example, Darwin predicted gradualism and that was false, which really demonstrates the unfalsifiable nature of UCD.
Of course it does. UCD is independent of the mechanisms that drive evolution and the characteristics of those mechanisms (like rate of change). Gradualism isn't false either btw. There are plenty of organisms which do seem to evolve in a gradualistic way and others that seem to have rapid spurts. Gradualism and PE arent mutually exclusive, nor were they ever considered to be by the person who came up with PE, or anyone else. 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?
Heck, even if there were an intelligent designer waving his wand and causing all speciation to occur at his whim, this doesn't necessarily mean squat for UCD.
quote:
Cars share similar tires among each other and their tires have common characteristics with bike tires. Doesn't mean they share a common ancestor.
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.
quote:
endogenic retroviruses,
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.
quote:
Many of which are now known to have function.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial_structure
"Vestigial structures are often called vestigial organs, although many of them are not actually organs. These are typically in a degenerate, atrophied, or rudimentary condition,[1] and tend to be much more variable than similar parts. Although structures usually called "vestigial" are largely or entirely functionless, a vestigial structure may retain lesser functions or develop minor new ones."
quote:
What about them?
Much the same way we can see common ancestry by ERV's, redundant pseudo genes provide similar insights.
quote:
Your parents are a transitional form between you and your grandparents. So? None of this is evidence for UCD. There are huge gaps in the fossil record, as creationism would predict.
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.
< Message edited by drj11 -- 5/13/2008 2:20:56 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 5/13/2008 3:32:20 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 864
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I read it, you contradicted yourself. It's quite obvious. Others on this board can obviously see this, I am not going to waste too much time trying to convince you otherwise.
Well, if you point out the obvious to me, I will see what you are talking about. 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.
quote:
quote:
And, as I recall, you demonstrated that you don't actually know what "empirical" means. For example, circumstantial evidence IS empirical evidence.
No, circumstantial != empirical. There is a difference. I know the difference.
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?
quote:
Again, Darwin made falsifications for UCD,
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.
quote:
Where in Darwins book does he mention your falsifiers?
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.
quote:
if your alleged falsifiers were demonstrated to be wrong, I have no reason to believe it would falsify UCD.
So go ahead. Demonstrate that they are wrong.
quote:
I can just as easily say, "if you proved the sky is not blue, it would falsify UCD"
First you would have to show that the colour of the sky is determined by common descent. A potential falsification has to arise from a logical consequence of the theory. As far as I know, ToE makes no comment on the colour of the sky, so it cannot be used as a source of falsification.
quote:
or, "if you found another energy currency other than ATP, it would falsify Biblical creation"
First you would have to show that ATP energy production is a logical consequence of creationism. Only then would an alternate source be a falsifier.
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.
quote:
or, "if another organism used something other than DNA or RNA, it would falsify Biblical creation."
Does creationism logically require that all life be based on RNA/DNA replication? Please explain why. Because if it does not, the use of some other molecule would not be a falsifier.
It is a falsifier for common descent, because descent implies inheritance, and if you inherit your paren | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
