Alternatives to Evolution

Originally posted by genius
no, it's not just a guess. instead, it is what is widely perceived to be the best explanation. that doesn't mean it is true.

in maths we deal with proofs. i have books on my reading list that are 50 years old. i have friends who have books that they bought last year which are now out of date. they study biology, physics and the like. scientific theories ch ...[text shortened]... know, a body of a 4000 year old man might be dug up tomorrow which will changed everything...

They dig up 4000 year old human remains all the time. That's not so impressive.
And math isn't science. You can't have a mathmatical style proof in many branches of science.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Again with the arrogance. Where within the Big Bang theory does it say matter started with the Big Bang?

EDIT: Einstein, of course, initially did not believe in an expanding universe.

The first two proponents of BB fell on both sides of the issue; one saying matter was always, the other claiming it all started there.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Again with the arrogance. Where within the Big Bang theory does it say matter started with the Big Bang?

EDIT: Einstein, of course, initially did not believe in an expanding universe.

Which is why he required the inclusion of a "cosmological constant", if I remember right.

Originally posted by no1marauder
SS, have you ever heard of Neil Turok and Paul Steinhardt? http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1768191,00.html

Interesting article, I'll need to see if I can get a copy of the "Science" paper (but I think our library doesn't stock the most recent 12 months).

I suppose, even if they are right, all it does is push the time dimension back a bit. Still, as our creationist friends like to point out, there had to be a beginning of time, before which neither time or matter existed. It would be interesting to work out what exactly happens to time as it is 'squeezed' through a BB singularity (if Turok & Steinhardt are right). I believe the current postulate is that time doesn't occur within a singularity, however, I'd have to check up on that one.

Originally posted by dj2becker
And you call this "science"?

Yes.

Originally posted by KellyJay
It was never a contest of mechanisms telerion, I have been debating
with you for how long? I acknowledge small changes, we can call that
evolution if you like, if that makes you happy. The debate is about
what was the starting point like, how much change can a be done
through these small changes, and so on.
Kelly

Research the origins of the incus, malleus and stapes (hint bones within the human ear) or does this still count as a small change as far as you are concerned??

Originally posted by timebombted
Research the origins of the incus, malleus and stapes (hint bones within the human ear) or does this still count as a small change as far as you are concerned??

You do the research and post it, I'm not going to, I will read it if you
post it, but do your own work.
Kelly

Originally posted by dj2becker
Microevolution is scientifically demonstratable and reproducable. The rock-frog-brid-fish-ape-human (whatever) chain has never been demonstrated to be possible.

With regards to your question on the fresh water fish:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/fish14.asp

Very interesting how the article you quote relies heavily on acceptance of micro evolution which is in fact not as micro as all that. In other words it accepts that a 'family' of fish are related (new species) and that fish are able to adapt (via evolution presumably) to salt or freshwater conditions.

Originally posted by twhitehead
However, I am yet to hear even one of them give a viable alternative explanation. The ID folks concentrate on criticizing evolution and saying "that cant happen" or "that is impossible" or "we see the hand of a designer" and yet at no point do they ever say "it works like this".

How is "we see the hand of a designer" not "it works like this"?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
How is "we see the hand of a designer" not "it works like this"?

lets see...hmm

1) It does not describe in detail any mechanical or supernatural process via which the diversity of life came to exist such that intelligent design is the only logical inference to be drawn

2) It is tantamount to suggesting that the wheels go round and round is an adequate description of how a car works

3) you have not seen any *hand* of such designer

Originally posted by Agerg
lets see...hmm

1) It does not describe in detail any mechanical or supernatural process via which the diversity of life came to exist such that intelligent design is the [b]only logical inference to be drawn

2) It is tantamount to suggesting that the wheels go round and round is an adequate description of how a car works

3) you have not seen any *hand* of such designer[/b]

(3) is just a silly rhetorical swipe.

(1) Why should ID be the only logical inference to be drawn? This criteria cannot be successfully applied to non-theistic evolution, so why should it apply to ID?

(2) No it isn't. It is tantamount to saying "Picasso painted this" is an explanation of how the Guernica came into being.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
(3) is just a silly rhetorical swipe.

(1) Why should ID be the [b]only logical inference to be drawn? This criteria cannot be successfully applied to non-theistic evolution, so why should it apply to ID?

(2) No it isn't. It is tantamount to saying "Picasso painted this" is an explanation of how the Guernica came into being.[/b]

1)Because you're trying to refute the validity of evolution with ID...they both pretty much contradict and so for now, given that there are no other feasible alternatives (note that this does not = I think ID is feasible), it follows that if hypothetically you could resolve one...it would leave only the other. But anyway, lets give you some lee-way with the word only (you are well known for evasion through nit-picking till the original point is forgotton)....so what is the mechanical or supernatural process in detail such that ID is even tenable?

2) tantamount to that it is but...Guernica, a painting by Pablo Picasso, inspired by Picasso's horror at the Nazi German bombing of Guernica, Spain on April 26 1937 that is black and white, eleven-and-one-half-foot tall and almost twenty-six feet wide mural painted in oil is a more descriptive explaination of how the Guernica came into being. (and not even a full one at that!) ...Try again! try to understand my point as well for your counter-analogy isn't much different from my car analogy

3) if you say so!

Originally posted by Agerg
1)Because you're trying to refute the validity of evolution with ID...they both pretty much contradict and so for now, given that there are no other feasible alternatives (note that this does not = I think ID is feasible), it follows that if hypothetically you could resolve one...it would leave [b]only the other. But anyway, lets give you some lee-way with s well for your counter-analogy isn't much different from my car analogy

3) if you say so![/b]

(1) ID is not YEC; it does not contradict evolution as a process. What it does contradict is certain mechanisms (e.g. probabilistic) of evolutionary theories (and even there IDers don't claim that such mechanisms are universally absent, simply that they're not universally present).

(2) Your point quite simply is that you want a mechanical description for ID. There's a category error there -- a supernatural event does not, by definition, have a mechanical explanation.

EDIT: To go back to the Guernica analogy, suppose Picasso had never revealed why it was painted or what it is [supposed to] mean? Would "Picasso painted it" be an inadequate description? If you're talking about describing the artifact itself, well, IDers do describe the specific biochemical mechanisms they use to illustrate their theory.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You do the research and post it, I'm not going to, I will read it if you
post it, but do your own work.
Kelly

I already understand the evidence for evolution, I don't need to research it again! You continually and boringly request for examples of big changes, this is just one, if you really want to know then I have provided more than enough for you to educate yourself. Although from reading your previous posts you are either beyond education or unwilling to assess scientific evidence.

Read any good book on vertebrate evolution for a start, Kardong is simple to understand....... then we can progress to peer reviewed examples from science journals.

If you make the effort we can continue a logical discussion until then I will not waste my time with you.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
(1) ID is not YEC; it does not contradict evolution as a process. What it does contradict is certain mechanisms (e.g. probabilistic) of evolutionary theories (and even there IDers don't claim that such mechanisms are universally absent, simply that they're not universally present).

(2) Your point quite simply is that you want a mechanical descripti IDers do describe the specific biochemical mechanisms they use to illustrate their theory.

hmm...lets not forget the line (of yours) that prompted my responses:
How is "we see the hand of a designer" not "it works like this"?

1)ID seems to imply that we humans/animals are so damned complex that there must have been a designer at work all along...but this is just you and others *saying so*...why is it not reasonable to suggest that if a trait that is disadvantageous to it species with respect to its current circumstances it doesn't proliferate?...why is it unreasonable to suggest that in view of the vast number of generations of a presently uncountable number of different species of lifeforms that a great many number of serendipitous mutations might have occured that in some cases survived and in other cases didn't?..yeah we have eyes, ears, brains etc...pretty impressive constructs but why can this not be due to the continuous but not *controlled* refinement of some at one time lucky but rudimentary mutation that allowed its beneficiary to live long enough to mate with many more of it's peers?..how many chances does nature get to hit upon something that just works?...what else did your intelligent designer devise?...did he *create* AIDS and syphillis etc...?

(2) Your point quite simply is that you want a mechanical description for ID. There's a category error there -- a supernatural event does not, by definition, have a mechanical explanation.
But I did actually specify supernatural process as well 😉...you'll have to help me out here because I don't believe in ghosts either, they too are supernatural but I just can't see how something supernatural is able to interact with the physical world...for its effects to to manifest there must surely be some underlying mechanical process such that some physical entity can be in someway changed/displaced etc...; but what is the process via which that mechanical process itself is allowed to manipulate our physical world?..a supernatural one???...I want details

with regards to your edit...you counter-attack my 2nd attack of the line:
How is "we see the hand of a designer" not "it works like this"?
with the analogy "Picasso painted this" is an explanation of how the Guernica came into being.


your guernica analogy merely establishes that the finished product was the result of some labour on Picasso's part...It doesn't resolve the *it works like this* bit...there is no detailed description of the process.