KellyJay and his dinosaurs

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
No surprises here, you still haven’t answered any of my questions. Everybody can see you are now just being silly by pretending my self-evident statement isn’t so -proof for all to see that you lost the argument for you have no answers. you just are making an idiot of yourself - the only problem is you just don’t have the intelligence to see it.

[ ...[text shortened]...
Who else thinks it is blatantly obvious that KellyJay is both wrong here and he must know it!?

No it´s not self-evident. You have to demonstrate that the change in the species is due to one of the allowed mechanisms in evolution. You also have to have more than one instance. Essentially you need to show that this is not something specific to that particular species. It does provide evidence that evolution can make these changes, but proof is a different thing, For proof you need a set of criteria for the theory to be accepted, for example you might decide 20 observations of it happening in species was enough. What it does show is that species can change, but that is not quite the same claim.

Maybe the creationists should specify what they regard as an acceptable level of proof for evolution to be a good approximation to what happened.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I asked you to number your questions, the ones I'm most interested
in are the ones you said were on that page, I didn't see anything I
did not address and you were still claiming I didn't answer your
questions. So if you actually had questions on that page I missed
please stop wining about them them post them, number them if you
will and I'll address t ...[text shortened]... lt your self-evident proofs are not self-evident to all
just to the true believers.
Kelly

….I asked you to number your questions,..…

😛

Ok -I go through this charade of numbering them ( as if that helps 😛 )

Here are two adapted questions from the two questions you pretend don’t exist plus one more:

1, Did evolution design drug-resistant metabolism in what is now drag-resistant bacteria?

2, Did evolution design DDT-resistant metabolism in what is now DDT-resistant mosquitoes?

3, Explain to all of us why an observed example of evolution making changes in a species of living thing (such as indicated in (1) and (2) etc ) is NOT proof that evolution can make changes in a species of living thing?

I would request answers specifically for questions (1) and (2) and (3) 😛 ( which I presume you won’t answer 😛 ) -will you answer them? If not, what is you excuse for not doing so now now I have ‘numbered’ them as you requested 😛

Originally posted by DeepThought
No it´s not self-evident. You have to demonstrate that the change in the species is due to one of the allowed mechanisms in evolution. You also have to have more than one instance. Essentially you need to show that this is not something specific to that particular species. It does provide evidence that evolution can make these changes, but proof is a ...[text shortened]... egard as an acceptable level of proof for evolution to be a good approximation to what happened.

….You have to demonstrate that the change in the species is due to ONE of the allowed mechanisms in evolution.
..…(my emphasis)

What do you mean by ‘ONE’ of them? Isn’t there just “ONE mechanism in evolution”? i.e. first new mutations/gene combinations occur and then natural selection selects any that are favourable (and this process can be repeated many times)? -can you give an example of an “alternative” mechanism in evolution other than this one? (I apologies in advance if I have misunderstood your meaning here)

And even if there ARE other mechanisms in evolution other than this one, how does that contradict my original assertion that if you observe evolution make such a change that it is self-evident that evolution can make such changes? (I apologies in advance if you didn't mean to imply this) -surely this is just logic? -yes? -this is almost (but not really) like a tautology.

…You also have to have more than one instance.
..…

If you read my posts you will see I gave two instances -the evolution of DDT-resistant mosquitoes and the evolution of drag-resistant bacteria. I could give more.

….Essentially you need to show that this is not something specific to that particular species.
..…

I gave at least two species -I could give more.

…what were the steps it took?
..…

….It does provide evidence that evolution can make these changes, but proof is a different thing, For proof you need a set of criteria for the theory to be accepted, for example you MIGHT decide 20 observations of it happening in species was enough. What it does show is that species can change, but that is not quite the same claim.
.… (my emphasis)

That seems to be too harsh a criteria for defining what is a “proof” in this case simply because if there is no other alternative hypothesis that predicted/explain why that such a change can take place and if there is no evidence to the contrary, then I would say just ONE good example would AT LEAST be “very strong evidence” (being cautious here -lets say just one example could be ‘just a spurious fluke&lsquo😉 and two would be “proof”. I can give more than two examples.

….Maybe the creationists should specify what they regard as an acceptable level of proof for evolution to be a good approximation to what happened.
…

I shouldn’t bother to ask them -I would guess they would only accept the scientific fact of evolution if it was written in the Bible (but without admitting this) -and it isn’t -end of (that) debate.
Even if you made a time machine and went back in time and directly filmed past evolution AS it happened and then brought the film back -they will STILL deny the evidence! -they will deny all evidence that contradicts there beliefs just as they have always done.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….You have to demonstrate that the change in the species is due to ONE of the allowed mechanisms in evolution.
..…(my emphasis)

What do you mean by ‘ONE’ of them? Isn’t there just “ONE mechanism in evolution”? i.e. first new mutations/gene combinations occur and then natural selection selects any that are favourable (and this process can nce! -they will deny all evidence that contradicts there beliefs just as they have always done.[/b]

Bear in mind that I only read the post I responded to and not the one it was based on - this thread is 17 pages long so reading everything is not something I´m prepared to do.

In response to the ¨more than one mechanism¨ question, genes can be selected for because the adaptation is sex linked and, although it doesn´t in itself give any survival advantage, is selected for because it makes it easier to find mates, or an adaptation could give resistance to a disease - there is more than one possible mechanism for natural selection.

But that wasn´t really what I was getting at. What I meant was that you had to show it was an evolutionary change, To do this you have to show that the change in the species is consistent with the theory of evolution - this is what I meant by ¨one of the allowed mechanisms¨. You also need the phenotypic shift to be possible. Ideally you´d rule out alternative hypotheses to natural selection on genes. Although the problem with that is that. even if you provided complete ¨before and after¨ genome sequences and could trace the individual(s) who first had the point mutation and lines of descent and so on. a creationist could always claim that God caused the mutation to happen rather than some random bio-chemical event.

Since you asked for an alternative hypothesis how do you prove DDT resistant mosquitos are not a CIA sponsored biological weapon which escaped? This provides a nice and paranoid conspiracy theory that can be arbitrarily extended to explain all new diseases and drug resistant strains.

What they cannot get away from is that the age of dinosaur fossils is well established at over 65 million years and there is no possibility that humans and dinosaurs could have coexisted. I can see how they might claim that the world was created with ancient bones already in place to give us a lesson in how the process works now, but instead of that they go for something that is impossible. Further the universe cannot be as young as creationists seem to think because the light from distant parts of the universe wouldn´t have got here, It really is not possible for distance measurements to be out by 6 or 7 orders of magnitude.

Originally posted by DeepThought
No it´s not self-evident. You have to demonstrate that the change in the species is due to one of the allowed mechanisms in evolution. You also have to have more than one instance. Essentially you need to show that this is not something specific to that particular species. It does provide evidence that evolution can make these changes, but proof is a ...[text shortened]... egard as an acceptable level of proof for evolution to be a good approximation to what happened.

creationists do not accept any proof other than what suits their needs. they ignore anything else. sometimes they will make the mistake and adopt something they believe supports the bible. and when that something is proven to support quite the contrary they will ignore that too.

i support the theory that one cannot be a creationist scientist. it is an oxymoron. scientists must be skeptical. they cannot adopt anything on faith. they cannot use unfounded results to form new theories because of course, they will have no certainty those theories are correct.

sure, one could ask, how can we be certain of any theory? how can we know we have reached the truth, that a theory is 100% correct? well in most cases we cannot. but we can make sure we are pretty damn close.and when you introduce in your theory the god hypothesis, an hypothesis that can never be proven incorrect and can make any theory work, then you can be sure you are not doing science but religion. "how did the flood happen? god made it so." anything that the scientists can use to disprove the flood, the creationists can claim god intervened personally and adjusted the laws of the universe just to punish the monkey people for being jerks.

i am a religious man. i believe in god. i believe he created the universe, and i am willing to believe the man that was called jesus and came with the brilliant idea to stop being jerks and help each other is in fact the son of god. but that is it. the message of jesus doesn't get any fluffier if i believe the preposterous notion of noah's flood. a flood that is contradicted by countless scientific FACTS. some of the things that contradict the flood are facts, not theories, not human interpretations but facts, phenomenons staring you in the face and just waiting to be acknowledged.

creators the creator seeks, not corpses not herds of believers.
nietzsche had some good ideas. if god exists, he doesn't need bovines that will eat anything up.

Originally posted by DeepThought
What they cannot get away from is that the age of dinosaur fossils is well established at over 65 million years and there is no possibility that humans and dinosaurs could have coexisted. I can see how they might claim that the world was created with ancient bones already in place to give us a lesson in how the process works now, but instead of that the ...[text shortened]... e, It really is not possible for distance measurements to be out by 6 or 7 orders of magnitude.

Actually Kelly quite happily 'gets away from' all that. He essentially denies the validity of any science that contradicts his beliefs. With anything historical he hides behind a badly constructed argument that if he cannot witness it then he cannot know it.
Regarding stars creationists either:
1. claim the distance measurements could be wrong. (but have to give up on that once the details are explained)
2. claim that light traveled faster in the past allowing us to see more distant objects.
3. claim that God made the light 'in transit'. They don't however like to deal with the implication that God created a view into a false history.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Bear in mind that I only read the post I responded to and not the one it was based on - this thread is 17 pages long so reading everything is not something I´m prepared to do.

In response to the ¨more than one mechanism¨ question, genes can be selected for because the adaptation is sex linked and, although it doesn´t in itself give any survival advant ...[text shortened]... e, It really is not possible for distance measurements to be out by 6 or 7 orders of magnitude.

….To do this you have to show that the change in the species is CONSISTENT with the theory of evolution - this is what I meant by ¨one of the allowed mechanisms¨. You also need the phenotypic shift to be possible.
..…(my emphasis)

I don’t understand -why is it a necessity to have to show that the change in the species is CONSISTENT with the theory of evolution? -I mean, either the observed change IS consistent with evolution or it is not -yes? If the theory predicts such a change and then that change is observed then surely that change is “consistent” with that theory….and….that’s it! -I mean, if the theory predicted it and then it happened, in what way could what happened be “INconsistent” with the theory? Surely all you have to do to “show” that a particular outcome a theory predicted is “consistent” with that theory is merely point out that the theory predicted it -that is all!?

…Although the problem with that is that. even if you provided complete ¨before and after¨ genome sequences and could trace the individual(s) who first had the point mutation and lines of descent and so on.
..…

Why would that have to be necessary to conferm that evolution took place? -I mean, if evolution predicted the OUTCOME then that is sufficient evidence even without knowing “which individual had the first mutation” etc and I don’t even see how knowing “which individual had the first mutation” etc would confirm or refute the hypothesis since know body is doubting that there was a first etc! -what difference would it make WHICH one was first?

….a creationist could always claim that God caused the mutation to happen rather than some random bio-chemical event. ..…

Even if they make such a totally baseless claim, wouldn’t that just be an alternative form of “evolution” they are suggesting that defers from the standard theory merely by the arbitrary and totally unnecessary insertion into the theory that “God” made the first mutation?

…Since you asked for an alternative hypothesis how do you prove DDT resistant mosquitoes are not a CIA sponsored biological weapon which escaped?
..…

This wouldn’t be a credible hypothesis. Just for starters, DDT resistant mosquitoes evolved independently in two DEFERENT parts of the world and with two very DEFERENT genes that gave DDT resistance. What would be the chances of it happening twice and in two separate parts of the world neither of which was in America?

….This provides a nice and paranoid conspiracy theory that can be arbitrarily extended to explain all new diseases and drug resistant strains.
.…

-ALL these are accidental escapes from the CIA?
I hope the Creationists DO make such claims for that would expose them as being just delusional in the minds of those ordinary people with just a reasonable level of common sense.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
creationists do not accept any proof other than what suits their needs. they ignore anything else. sometimes they will make the mistake and adopt something they believe supports the bible. and when that something is proven to support quite the contrary they will ignore that too.

i support the theory that one cannot be a creationist scientist. it is an ox ...[text shortened]... sche had some good ideas. if god exists, he doesn't need bovines that will eat anything up.

Strange, in the corresponding thread in the Science forum I´m discussing this with a creationist and in the Spirituality forum I´m discussing this with scientists.

I am an agnostic, What you have described in your paragraph on scientific method is similar to a post I made in the science thread on evolution (*). Essentially as far as approaching science is concerned you should take a position of practical agnosticism - which as you are a believer can be rationalized as God is going to do a good job and produce a universe that is beyond our powers to distinguish from a naturally occurring universe(**). This is essentially what I´m trying to get KellyJay to agree to in the evolution of the eye thread.

Noah´s flood isn´t that ridiculous - floods have happened numerous times. The ludicrous part is the notion that it was global and wiped out all land life. As far as we know none of the great extinction events happened due to flooding (except lava floods).

I suspect the desire for an obedient flock lies less with the divinity than those who act as his priests.

(*) Page 4 at the top.
(**) Obviously if God exists then divine creation is how universes occur naturally. By naturally occurring I mean random creation without a god intervening.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually Kelly quite happily 'gets away from' all that. He essentially denies the validity of any science that contradicts his beliefs. With anything historical he hides behind a badly constructed argument that if he cannot witness it then he cannot know it.
Regarding stars creationists either:
1. claim the distance measurements could be wrong. (but hav ...[text shortened]... n't however like to deal with the implication that God created a view into a false history.

Well yes, he would wouldn´t he. I was hoping one of the creationists would argue with my claim that the universe is as big as it is. Distances up to about 1 kpc can be determined by parallax and there are cosmological bounds on things like the speed of light changing. You could claim that the speed of light increases when you get outside the immediate vicinity of a star, but you´d expect a detectable lensing effect. I was also hoping one of them would argue with the dating of rocks. The method is precise as error correction is built in.

To claim God made the light in transit I´ll accept as logical (not as true). You could have a creationist cosmology where God creates the universe at any time in the past and designs it to look exactly as if it were far older. I don´t see the problem with a false history as you can invent good reasons for the deceit quite easily, for example: In the genesis stories people who looked on God died. So presumably we can´t cope with clear proof he exists therefore the universe has to be a perfect imitation of the universe of the scientific cosmology.

The only conclusion is that they regard believing in impossible things as a demonstration of how deep their faith is and believe they gain status from it.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….To do this you have to show that the change in the species is CONSISTENT with the theory of evolution - this is what I meant by ¨one of the allowed mechanisms¨. You also need the phenotypic shift to be possible.
..…(my emphasis)

I don’t understand -why is it a necessity to have to show that the change in the species is CONSISTENT with t ...[text shortened]... t delusional in the minds of those ordinary people with just a reasonable level of common sense.[/b]

If you are talking in the science forum then you can assume this stuff. If you are posting in the spirituality forum then you need to prove everything. This means that you have to write the equivalent of an undergraduate biology essay on genetic mutation rates and so on to show that it could happen and in the time. You are making assumptions you don´t realize you are making. Essentially you have assumed that any change in a species must be due to the scientific theory of evolution. While I cannot name a plausible alternative, that does not mean that an alternative is impossible.

Since it´s entertaining. I agree that my CIA sponsored mosquitos scenario is implausible, although you can only argue with the conspiracy theory on grounds of plausibility; two different genes just means they tried more than one type and obviously had separate release points to get a nice clean comparison, Since you´d expect different countries to have different projects you can get an entire selection of new species appearing all over the world as 160 countries all try out their pet science projects on each other.

Originally posted by DeepThought
If you are talking in the science forum then you can assume this stuff. If you are posting in the spirituality forum then you need to prove everything. This means that you have to write the equivalent of an undergraduate biology essay on genetic mutation rates and so on to show that it could happen and in the time. You are making assumptions you don´t ...[text shortened]... ile I cannot name a plausible alternative, that does not mean that an alternative is impossible.

I disagree that he has to provide any form of proof simply because of which forum he is in. All he is asking for from Kelly is a reasonable alternative explanation or even at a minimum and acknowledgment that the observations in question have been made. So far it appears that the questions themselves are so sensitive that Kellys automatic vision filtering system is blocking them out.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree that he has to provide any form of proof simply because of which forum he is in. All he is asking for from Kelly is a reasonable alternative explanation or even at a minimum and acknowledgment that the observations in question have been made. So far it appears that the questions themselves are so sensitive that Kellys automatic vision filtering system is blocking them out.

I was arguing with his claim that what he said was incontrovertible. It does require something outside science, and we are in the spirituality forum he´s likely to find something outside science. As a logical construction the tautology he wanted acknowledging isn´t a tautology.

KellyJay did actually acknowledge evolution as an ongoing process (*), since in itself evolution doesn´t contradict anything in the Old Testament mythology. It´s the evidence concerning evolution as the origin of species he has issues with.

(*) Page 6 of the evolution of the eye thread in the science forum, second post from the bottom. Note that he does not agree that for example the liver could have come about by natural selection alone.

Originally posted by DeepThought
If you are talking in the science forum then you can assume this stuff. If you are posting in the spirituality forum then you need to prove everything. This means that you have to write the equivalent of an undergraduate biology essay on genetic mutation rates and so on to show that it could happen and in the time. You are making assumptions you don´t ...[text shortened]... earing all over the world as 160 countries all try out their pet science projects on each other.

….If you are posting in the spirituality forum then you need to PROVE everything.
..…(my emphasis)

Is a proof consisting of just merely pointing out the evidence and there being no scientific plausible alternative to a hypothesis “proof’” in the science forum but NOT “proof” in the spirituality forum?

Let me put it another way:

is a [hypothetical] scientific proof that the Earth is round that merely consists of pointing out both the evidence such as international aircraft routinely circle-navigate the Earth etc and the fact that there is no plausible alternative to a hypothesis to explain these facts “proof’” in the science forum but NOT “proof” in the spirituality forum because, in the spirituality forum, you could say that international aircraft routinely circle-navigate the Earth is all an elaborate hoax etc and the fact that this not a plausible alternative hypothesis could be rendered irrelevant to the question of whether the Earth round proven merely if the said ’proof’ was placed in the spirituality forum as apposed to the science forum?
-if so, why so?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Is a proof consisting of just merely pointing out the evidence and there being no scientific plausible alternative to a hypothesis “proof’” in the science forum but NOT “proof” in the spirituality forum?

Well yes, because you have to take into account non-scientific alternatives depending on who the audience is.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….I asked you to number your questions,..…

😛

Ok -I go through this charade of numbering them ( as if that helps 😛 )

Here are two adapted questions from the two questions you pretend don’t exist plus one more:

1, Did evolution design drug-resistant metabolism in what is now drag-resistant bacteria?

2, Did evolution design ...[text shortened]... ? If not, what is you excuse for not doing so now now I have ‘numbered’ them as you requested 😛

"1, Did evolution design drug-resistant metabolism in what is now drag-resistant bacteria?

2, Did evolution design DDT-resistant metabolism in what is now DDT-resistant mosquitoes? "

[/b]Here was my answer to your question on page 13 to these two,
for me it is self evident I was responding to your questions, I guess
my direct answer wasn't that self evdent for you. Since I did respond
to these questions I thought you had something else in mind.

"Correct, natural selection does not design anything.
You can if you want to produce your evidence to prove it otherwise
I have given you my argument. Explain how natural selection actually
does design anything, it filters out bad or weak mutations, but that
isn't design that is a filter.
Kelly"

Here was another time I stressed the same point on page 13 again
I thought I was very direct in my response, but maybe my saying
natural selection did not design anything wasn't self evident to you.

"Let me say this AGAIN, natural selection does not design anything
it acts as a filter. It kills off that which cannot make it, supposedly
leaving behind that which is improving or able to live. It does not
direct mutaitons to take place at certain times under certian conditions
to do specific things.

I've been very clear on this point, more than once.

You really have to be told that mosquitoes may not get killed off by
things we attempt to kill them with? It wasn't created yet, does not
for a second mean they were already going to live through it, because
it wasn't going to kill them. It may have had success with some but not
all, those that lived grew in numbers, again a filter not a director.
Kelly"

If you were under the impression I'm suggesting anything else, I'll
say it again you have NOTHING so far that shows evolution building
anything new here in your examples, I'm asking you to show it to
me!

Here was me answering your last question on page 13 as well, so I
hope you can see that I did answer all of your questions.

3, Explain to all of us why an observed example of evolution making changes in a species of living thing (such as indicated in (1) and (2) etc ) is NOT proof that evolution can make changes in a species of living thing?

"Please, you are really telling me that for you, all it takes is you
giving me a couple of questions about did natural selection design
DDT-resistant is enough to prove your point?

I gave you an argument not a statement of belief, you refute my
argument by telling me what you believe and now I'm suppose to
accept your point was proven!?

You can poison a group of anything and those that are resistant live
and those that are not die! Then those that are resistant live on and
all the come after will have the resistances required, that does not
mean something new was designed, it means something that was
there was passed down or filtered down.
Kelly"

If these answers are not acceptable to you we can go at it again, but
I hope this at least lays to rest your attacks on me avoiding your
questions.
Kelly