A most promising anti-evolutionist

[Outblaze]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CD: Well please let me know when you discover origin stories that can be verified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NottyImp
Which is rather the point. Why should I believe your stories rather than, say, a Buddhist's?

CD: Or science's?

As pointed out to you earlier, relegating scientific theories of origins to the same status as any other story of origins renders the theories meaningless. But I think you know that. And I think you also know that independently of any preconceived idea, science must proceed on the assumption that the problems it approaches are soluble. There's always time to call on "other stories" after all attempts at finding a natural explanation have failed. In the case of the origin of life, this is still far from being the case. However, as long as the problem is not solved under your paradigm, your tendency to invoke "other stories" will likely subsist.

What I said a few posts back still applies. You are defining creationism out of the picture

Because your paradigm defines it as supernatural. Which brings us back full circle to NottyImp's point, why should I believe your supernatural story over others?

If I cannot show you how God creates, then you will not accept it.

I'll call that supernatural story and raise you an even more compelling one (at least to Hindus): If I'm unable show you how Krishna creates, then you will not accept it?

Despite the fact fossil species appear planted there; that they then remain unchanged until another species comes along. The horse sequence is a good example. Once touted as a stellar example of gradualism, evolutionists finally reckoned with its reality; it got repackaged as the prime example of punctuated equilibrium. Each species appears, remains unchanged, and goes extinct.

An argument inferring creationism based on the appearance of a planted fossil record…a "just-so" story indeed, to borrow your mantra.

Btw, the horse sequence remains a good example of gradualism, PE being in fact a strictly populational phenomena, and therefore gradual.

But since I cannot demonstrate to you how God creates, you reject it. You even find it absurd to hypothesize and believe in such a thing.

It's irrelevant to science CD, as are all supernatural stories.

But since I cannot demonstrate to you how God creates, you reject it. You even find it absurd to hypothesize and believe in such a thing. Let us consider, for a moment, the possibility that evolution is wrong, and creationism is right. In that case, you would rule out the truth a priori.

…Or if both were wrong and Krishna is right, you would rule out the truth a priori? Your pleading for your supernatural paradigm is falling on deaf ears. It was rejected 150 years ago and offers nothing to biologists today in the way of explaining the abundance of variation found in nature.

[Albion]

Scientific theories are falsifiable, however; and since creationism like any other goddiditism isn't falsifiable, it is not a scientific theory.

You know the standard answer to that in CD space: it'd be falsifiable by the formulation of a compelling theory of evolution.

[caravelair]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
I think your points are all reasonable.

so you agree that the existence of vestigial structures is a falsifiable prediction of evolution?

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
My objection remains, however, that we are dealing with a theory capable of indulging in practically any story.

but wait a second, i just proved that it can NOT indulge in any story. as i pointed out, lack of vestigial structures would falsify evolution. and you said my points were reasonable, so i assume you agree.

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Here's an example... the point here is that evolutionists are willing to engage in all manner of explanations to preserve their theory. Do you seriously doubt that this sort of explanation would not be available to the evolutionist if no 'vestigial' structures were to be found?

i believe you have just exposed a weakness in your position here. first of all, it's irrelevant what evolutionists would or would not do. do you agree that vestigial organs are a falsifiable prediction of evolution? it doesn't matter what some other people would do in some hypothetical situation. that has nothing to do with the science of it. all that matters is whether or not it's a falsifiable prediction, and this argument of yours has done nothing to show that it isn't. furthermore, this argument of yours could just as easily apply to ANY prediction of evolutionary theory. so what you have done is basically eliminated the possibility that any prediction of evolution could provide evidence for it. and you wonder why people think your mind is closed on this issue.

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Agreed. But now having stripped your argument of metaphysics, it loses its high power.

how has it lost any power at all? because you do not want it to have power? it's the exact same argument as it was before. i just showed you that it was never a metaphysical argument. it was always always an objective argument, and so any "high power" it once had must remain, since the argument has not changed.

[caravelair]

It implies you have closed your mind because you are saying that an unsupported and unlikely hypothesis is a fact.

except that it's not unsupported. there is plenty of evidence, you just don't want to see it.


And furthermore, your requirement to change this conclusion is for me to disprove the hypothesis.

i have seen an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of evolution, so in order to change my mind about it, i would have to see some very compelling evidence against it. that is not unreasonable, and it does not mean i am not open to the possibility. furthermore, i would need a reasonable explanation of why evolution explains the evidence so damn well. so far, you have not even attempted to explain this. i explained why your flat earth physics worked so well in small distances easily, so if evolution is analagous to that, surely you can explain why evolution fares so well, even though it is false. moreover, any theory that replaces evolution in biology would also have to explain this (like how QM explains how newtonian mechanics works so well on a macroscopic scale) and special creation fails miserably in this department, just as it fails to explain anything about biology.

The facts that (a) echolocation and protein synthesis are highly complex, and (b) that you have no explanation beyond speculation, are not sufficient for you.

no, they are not. and they should not be sufficient for anyone else either, becuase they prove precisely nothing. they are complex... so what? complexity can arise through evolution, so why would complexity be evidence against evolution? that makes no sense. and it's true that i cannot describe exactly how echolocation evolved, but that is not evidence against evolution either. just because i don't know exactly how it happened does not imply in any way at all that it COULD NOT have happened, or even that it is unlikely to have happened.

You want me to provide an example that couldn't possibly have evolved. I'm supposed to falsify your theory, and you think this is being open minded.

actually, that was just meant as an example of something that would convince me, not the only thing that could do this. if you provided any compelling evidence against evolution, that would be something, but you have not.

Sorry, but I cannot falsify your theory. I also cannot falsify astrology.

you can't falsify astrology? but astrology makes many predictions which turn out to be false. every day, in fact.

You are claiming your idea is a scientific theory, and that it is a fact. That means you need to have some pretty strong evidence; not that you have managed to elude falsification.

and indeed, the strong evidence is in abundance. which is why i believe it.

[caravelair]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Of course, engineers and physicists use a flat-earth model for all kinds of applications. What's the point? The flat-earth model is highly successful, across several domains, with no detectable inaccuracy. And it is dead wrong too. The same could be said for a bunch of other theories too.

just to bring it back to your attention, this is what you said. and since it's so easy to explain exactly why a flat-earth model works in certain circumstances, perhaps you'd care to explain why evolution fares so well.

[caravelair]

one more thing. i would like to hear an example of a theory that you feel DOES have sufficient evidence in support of it - the kind that you would require of evolution - and explain what that evidence is. personally, i cannot think of any theories in science with as much supporting evidence as evolution has.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by monkenstick
compelling to whom?
compelling to you?

how about compelling to the vast majority of biologists around the world?

D. Futuyma, Science on Trial, p. 46
"If God had equipped very different organisms for similar ways of life, there is no reason why He should not have provided them with identical structures, but in fact the similarities are always superficial."

STOP. You read too quickly. Go back and read Futuyma again, slowly this time. Why do you uncritically accept this sort of diatribe? Who is Futuyma to be telling you what God should be doing? How about we look at the scientific evidence rather than appeal to a priori, non scientific dictums? This is precisely what Bacon worked to rid science of.

In this thread I asked why evolution is a fact. What I got was a series of ambiguous evidences (e.g., no, we don't know how protein synthesis, the DNA code, or echolocation evolved; not even close; but it was I who was at fault for being too picky; their evolution is a fact) and religious claims like Futuyma's. I conceded that evolution is a fact for people holding these religious views, but it is not a scientific fact.

[Charles Darwin]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Charles Darwin
For about the 13th time, by showing the evolution is compelling. ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by lpetrich
While raising the bar of compellingness much higher for evolution than for creationism.

Oh, no. I'm not the one claiming evolution is a scientific fact; that's you, not me.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by lpetrich
So there is some special stuff that these things are composed of?

Except that there are lots of "nonmaterial" things, like waves, that nobody considers composed of some special stuff. Are waves composed of wave-stuff?

If by 'special' you mean non material, then yes.

There are different kinds of waves. I'm not sure they can be grouped into a single category. Perhaps you should elaborate.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Charkes Darwin,

In case you haven't noticed, I've addressed Scadding's paper here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65302).

Thank you for that. I see that my memory was correct that Gould was a referee. In any case, it is probably worth repeating that my reference to that paper was not to reject the argument from vestigial structures in total, but provide Ipetrich with a starting point to his question about a scorecard for dubious claims of vestial-ness.

More importantly, the key point on the vestigial argument is not that they provide no evidence at all, but that they do not provide evidence by virtue of their vestial-ness. The evidence is just the usual similarity/homology argument.

In fact, this very claim can be used to test evolution in that certain complex structures (eg, an insect's gyro) are claimed to have evolved from very different structures (eg, a wing). So here we have two specific end points and no defined pathway. Just how does a wing become a gyro via single mutations? How many mutations are required and how does this compare to the total number of possible mutations? Over what time period is this supposed to have happened? And what is the resulting probability that random mutations could possibly have found such a pathway amidst the undoubtedly huge number of useless pathways?

Anyone remotely familiar with biology knows the number of useless mutations that will never lead to a gyro dwarfs the number of needed mutations. You are searching for a pathway in an N-dimensional ocean of useless alternatives. So there is a question of whether evolution is kinetically feasible. We haven't even yet gotten to the question of whether such a pathway even exists or not.

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
More importantly, the key point on the vestigial argument is not that they provide no evidence at all, but that they do not provide evidence by virtue of their vestial-ness. The evidence is just the usual similarity/homology argument.

Yes, that was Scadding's argument. And he was wrong. See Naylor's response.

Anyone remotely familiar with biology knows the number of useless mutations that will never lead to a gyro dwarfs the number of needed mutations.

Got any support for this assertion?

You are searching for a pathway in an N-dimensional ocean of useless alternatives. So there is a question of whether evolution is kinetically feasible. We haven't even yet gotten to the question of whether such a pathway even exists or not.

Nope. You've made the fallacy of considering evolution to be teleological. It is not. Evolution does not have a goal that it is looking for a pathway to get to. The fact is there is not a sea of usless alternatives and one goal. Populations have many many many possible future states. Depending on what happens with the stocastic nature of evolution, the populations will end up in one of these states and not in one of the others.

We know evolution is capable of producing amazingly complex structures via the uncontroled amalgamation of mutation, selection, drift, gene flow, etc. This has been observed theoretically, empirically, and experimentally. Do you have any evidence that these beetles somehow are the exception in biology, other than personal incredulity?

[NottyImp]

CD: What I got was a series of ambiguous evidences (e.g., no, we don't know how protein synthesis, the DNA code, or echolocation evolved; not even close; but it was I who was at fault for being too picky; their evolution is a fact)

Sorry, this is a non-sequitur. How are your objections to be taken as "ambiguous evidences" offered by evolutionists on this thread?

[lpetrich]

"Charles Darwin":
Why do you uncritically accept this sort of diatribe? Who is Futuyma to be telling you what God should be doing?

Implying that creationism is totally unfalsifiable, because constructing hypotheses of what one ought to find is "telling us what God should bn doing".

In this thread I asked why evolution is a fact. What I got was a series of ambiguous evidences (e.g., no, we don't know how protein synthesis, the DNA code, or echolocation evolved; not even close; ...)

First, how does not knowing every single little detail support a hypothesis of being miraculously poofed into existence? It seems to me that CD would make an excellent defense lawyer. He'd say: unless you can show me some videotape of my client being caught in flagrante delicto, and unless you can read my client's mind and discover that that action was a deliberate one, you have no case and my client is to be presumed innocent -- and that the crime was really committed by some evil demon. And he'd say that the prosecutor's arguments are second-guessing such demons and even committing the terrible sin of implying that they do not exist.

Protein synthesis -- I'm not sure what you mean:
The biosynthesis of the component amino acids?
The construction of proteins from amino acids?
That latter one involves the "DNA code".

And echolocation evolution is not as difficult as CD seems to think it is -- especially when it can be done by species not specially adapted for doing it.

LP:
While raising the bar of compellingness much higher for evolution than for creationism.

Oh, no. I'm not the one claiming evolution is a scientific fact; that's you, not me.

So there is some special stuff that these things are composed of?

Except that there are lots of "nonmaterial" things, like waves, that nobody considers composed of some special stuff. Are waves composed of wave-stuff?

If by 'special' you mean non material, then yes.

There are different kinds of waves. I'm not sure they can be grouped into a single category. Perhaps you should elaborate.

Toss a stone into a point and watch the waves radiate around it. Notice that it travels through different water while keeping its identity. Thus, waves can reasonably be called nonmaterial entities, but ones which do not require the hypothesis of special nonmaterial substances.

In fact, this very claim can be used to test evolution in that certain complex structures (eg, an insect's gyro) are claimed to have evolved from very different structures (eg, a wing). So here we have two specific end points and no defined pathway. ...

Anyone remotely familiar with biology knows the number of useless mutations that will never lead to a gyro dwarfs the number of needed mutations.

So what? Not many "good" mutations are really "necessary", because they will help their possessors multiply at the expense of non-possessors. I'm acquainted with various function-optimization methods, and random variation + nonrandom selection DOES work. It is not as efficient as methods that use neighboring points or gradients, but it does work.

[lpetrich]

I'd have more respect for CD if he would take an agnostic stance toward the origin of what he considers difficult-to-evolve things, but he prefers a hypothesis of "poofing" -- something which has never been observed.

[rlogan]

I would like to know if anyone has a citation for what the creationists offer as a leading source for their view (Besides Genesis - that's a quick read).

I've tried to work on this thread, but its too "jumpy" and I'd like to sit down and go through a coherent front-to-back presentation from the creationist side.

So far I've been to some websites and found them lacking in coherency. I've seen the creationist "network" on satellite, and that was also lacking.

I want to give it a "fair hearing", but so far it looks like snake oil salesmanship. Give me the best they've got.

Thanks.

[Gracchus]

Originally posted by rlogan
I want to give it a "fair hearing", but so far it looks like snake oil salesmanship. Give me the best they've got.

That's it.

[rlogan]

No proof for "poof"?

Bummer.

So, as a survival strategy, so to speak, why don't they adopt the "poof" as the big bang and then accept evolution? Haven't they got some "wiggle room" in there?

Isn't Genesis actually saying first "period of time" and not first "day", etc. ?

Why cling to "zing"?

[Jack the Bodiless]

In this thread I asked why evolution is a fact. What I got was a series of ambiguous evidences (e.g., no, we don't know how protein synthesis, the DNA code, or echolocation evolved; not even close; but it was I who was at fault for being too picky; their evolution is a fact) and religious claims like Futuyma's. I conceded that evolution is a fact for people holding these religious views, but it is not a scientific fact.
This is, of course, baloney. When you asked why evolution is a fact, you were given an explanation of why evolution actually IS, undeniably, a fact. A fact that even YOU have not sought to refute directly. Instead, you keep trying to redefine the meaning of the word "evolution" to create a strawman argument. You should know by now that we're not going to let you do that. Evolution IS a scientific fact: a fact for everybody.

Furthermore, the above paragraph implies that echolocation was one of the "ambiguous evidences" that you got in response to your inquiry. This is, of course, false. Echolocation is YOUR failed argument, not OURS. You were the one who introduced it, then failed to provide any reason why echolocation could not have evolved. We have plenty of evidence for evolution (that you won't address), but echolocation is merely compatible with evolution: it does not contradict evolution.

You are praying again. And, even when the actual words of a prayer aren't regarded as emanating from a divine source, those who pray are often extremely reluctant to change the words to keep up with events. The Protestant version of the Nicene Creed still mentions upholding the "Holy Catholic Church" (it doesn't specify Roman Catholic, but it would still have been prudent to drop the "Catholic"), and British monarchs have been "Defenders of the Faith" ever since the title was awarded to Henry the Eighth for defending the Catholic Church against Protestantism (back when he was still married to his first wife).

Echolocation, and the notion that something you call "evolution" is not a fact, are parts of your prayer. You will continue to recite them even though the words don't represent any sort of argument. Apparently you've become psychologically dependent on this form of autohypnosis. And part of the appeal of theism is that it provides "unchanging truths" (actually, unchanging falsehoods forever declared to be truths). I suspect this is the mental block that prevents you from abandoning these claims.

[Jack the Bodiless]

I propose that we put an end to CD's deliberate misuse of terms such as "evolution", by substituting our preferred guess at the correct term in bold when quoting him. CD uses a number of interchangeable definitions of "evolution":

1. RM&NS (random mutation and natural selection: the mechanism of "neo-Darwinian" evolution: technically an approximation thereof, due to other factors such as reproductive isolation and genetic drift, but it will do)

2. common descent (descent from shared ancestors by ANY means, including Theistic Evolution)

3. naturalistic evolution (the theory that RM&NS is solely responsible for common descent, with no divine intervention)

4. methodological naturalism (the scientific assumption that everything happens in accordance with regular natural laws, allowing inferences and predictions to be made)

5. metaphysical naturalism (the common "atheistic worldview" that the natural world is all there is: disbelief in any divine intervention anywhere)

For instance:
Oh, no. I'm not the one claiming evolution is a scientific fact; that's you, not me.
This has several possible responses:
Oh, no. I'm not the one claiming RM&NS is a scientific fact; that's you, not me.
...Of course it's a scientific fact! Are you denying the existence of mutations, or denying that natural selection occurs?

Oh, no. I'm not the one claiming common descent is a scientific fact; that's you, not me.
Yes, the evidence for common descent is so overwhelming that it is considered to be a scientific fact. Your argument that "maybe God faked the evidence" is equally applicable to ALL evidence for ANYTHING.

Oh, no. I'm not the one claiming naturalistic evolution is a scientific fact; that's you, not me.
No, it is a scientific assumption, a theory that happens to fit the available evidence.

Oh, no. I'm not the one claiming methodological naturalism is a scientific fact; that's you, not me.
It is an integral part of the scientific method. Therefore it is "scientific" by definition.

Oh, no. I'm not the one claiming metaphysical naturalism is a scientific fact; that's you, not me.
...Bullshit! When have I EVER claimed that metaphysical naturalism is a scientific fact? I have merely pointed out that there is no evidence AGAINST it.

[Albion]

1. RM&NS (random mutation and natural selection: the mechanism of "neo-Darwinian" evolution: technically an approximation thereof, due to other factors such as reproductive isolation and genetic drift, but it will do)

<rant>I hate RM&NS - it sounds so dismissive. They seem to use it over on the ARN board to make the evolutionary process appear inconsequential and inadequate. Using RM&NS is sort of like allowing yourself to be defined by your enemies. Would "variation and selection" do instead?</rant>

[Ken]

Creationist Ashby Camp made a critique to Theobald's "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution," and Theobald has responded here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html). Camp draws heavily from Cornelius Hunter, whose arguments are nearly identical to those of CD in this thread. I certainly wish Theobald and CD could go head-to-head, but barring that possibility, this article comes in a close second.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by monkenstick
the inactivating events do align with the phylogeny, that was my whole point!

Each monophyletic group has a shared derived STOP codon in its sequence.

But with evolution, identical mutations must have occurred independently in the gene, in separate lineages. The argument for why pseudogenes are powerful evidence for evolution is that the same mutation is observed in different species, and it seems that it would be too much of a coincidence for these to occur independently. So the mutation must have occurred in the common ancestor. But, this reasoning fails because, even under evolution, we must admit to identical yet independent mutations.

Originally posted by monkenstick
if a broken gene aligns well with the phylogeny, then ID has big problems, because homology and phylogeny are claimed to be due to common design, which requires that the characters used to derive the phylogeny actually have a function (which pseudogenes don't)

So unless you invoke ridiculous amounts of convergence (which aren't supported by the few papers you dredged up) to explain away the evidence, what we have here is the common descent of a broken gene - and a big problem for ID and YEC

I've already explained that creationism allows for two different explanations: there may actual be a function for these genes that we don't know of; or these genes may become inactivated independently. You've stated you don't buy the first explanation. OK. But the second explanation entails nothing more than what you are already accepting under evolution. There are no "ridiculous amounts of convergence." If you still think this is the case, perhaps you can carefully elaborate so I can understand your belief. Why does the second explanation require all this convergence?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Charles, the lack of a nested hirearchy COULD NOT be explained by "multiple abiogenesis events and rapid rates of change that occurred in the past". It is ludicrous to suggest that these could completely erase any trace of a nested hirearchy.


Why is that?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
...Waaait a minute...

...And how can you possibly know that "God does not deceive"?

I don't know that. I'd appreciate it if you could stop mischaracterizing my points.



Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
You admit that creationism is "falsifiable". According to you, this is achievable by a "compelling" theory of evolution. Therefore, if I'm navigating correctly through the fog of misapplied terms, what you're actually saying is that you admit that a naturalistic, materialistic, godless Universe is possible, and that evidence for it might yet be presented that would "compel" even YOU.

Is this correct? And what evidence for this would be "compelling"?

Evidence for evolution.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Are there any other "scientific theories" besides creationism that require formulating a "compelling" conflicting theory to be falsified?

I don't know, but in any case, I fail to see your point.

[lpetrich]

Charles Darwin:
But with evolution, identical mutations must have occurred independently in the gene, in separate lineages. ...

Why so? It most likely occurred in some shared ancestor of those lineages.

've already explained that creationism allows for two different explanations: there may actual be a function for these genes that we don't know of; or these genes may become inactivated independently.

Or such features could be put into place to give the appearance of being the result of evolution -- the Philip Gosse Omphalos hypothesis of created appearance.

Alternatively, independent inactivation is possible, though at the exact same spot is very improbable.

[monkenstick]

But with evolution, identical mutations must have occurred independently in the gene, in separate lineages. The argument for why pseudogenes are powerful evidence for evolution is that the same mutation is observed in different species, and it seems that it would be too much of a coincidence for these to occur independently. So the mutation must have occurred in the common ancestor. But, this reasoning fails because, even under evolution, we must admit to identical yet independent mutations.

i'm not saying it isn't possible, i'm saying that its incredibly unlikely that the inactivating mutations are all due to convergent mutations, due to their number and distribution

the convergent mutations they identified occured in only two species, and are well explained by the phenomenon of lineage sorting. The convergent mutations you're appealing to have to occur in 4 members of hominidae, and 5 members of hylobatidae, in precisely the distribution that accords with the current phylogeny

its not that creationist explanations are impossible, just that they're incredibly unlikely and unparsimonius when compared to the evolutionary explanation

There are no "ridiculous amounts of convergence." If you still think this is the case, perhaps you can carefully elaborate so I can understand your belief. Why does the second explanation require all this convergence?

I've already explained it CD, it requires 9 convergent mutations for the inactivating mutations to agree with the structure of the families in the current tree,

and enough convergent mutations such that the entire tree differs by two terminal nodes (for species that only diverged very recently in history) from the currently accepted tree when there are 323823762662400 possible topologies (I actually figured it out based on the number of species included)

furthermore, you haven't given us any reasons as to why we would expect one sort of convergent mutation in hominids, and another in gibbons - what possible explanation can you offer for the preference for one site over another in the different lineages when the sites in question are only 45 nucleotides apart?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by rlogan
I would like to know if anyone has a citation for what the creationists offer as a leading source for their view (Besides Genesis - that's a quick read).

I've tried to work on this thread, but its too "jumpy" and I'd like to sit down and go through a coherent front-to-back presentation from the creationist side.

So far I've been to some websites and found them lacking in coherency. I've seen the creationist "network" on satellite, and that was also lacking.

I want to give it a "fair hearing", but so far it looks like snake oil salesmanship. Give me the best they've got.

Thanks.

Here are a few that might help:

Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
Evolution: A theory in crisis
Darwin's God
Darwin's Proof
Darwin on Trial
Darwin's Black Box
The Origin of Species
The Mystery of Life's Origin

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Outblaze
[B]As pointed out to you earlier, relegating scientific theories of origins to the same status as any other story of origins renders the theories meaningless. But I think you know that. And I think you also know that independently of any preconceived idea, science must proceed on the assumption that the problems it approaches are soluble. There's always time to call on "other stories" after all attempts at finding a natural explanation have failed. In the case of the origin of life, this is still far from being the case. However, as long as the problem is not solved under your paradigm, your tendency to invoke "other stories" will likely subsist.

Because your paradigm defines it as supernatural. Which brings us back full circle to NottyImp's point, why should I believe your supernatural story over others?

I'll call that supernatural story and raise you an even more compelling one (at least to Hindus): If I'm unable show you how Krishna creates, then you will not accept it?

An argument inferring creationism based on the appearance of a planted fossil record…a "just-so" story indeed, to borrow your mantra.

Btw, the horse sequence remains a good example of gradualism, PE being in fact a strictly populational phenomena, and therefore gradual.

It's irrelevant to science CD, as are all supernatural stories.

…Or if both were wrong and Krishna is right, you would rule out the truth a priori? Your pleading for your supernatural paradigm is falling on deaf ears. It was rejected 150 years ago and offers nothing to biologists today in the way of explaining the abundance of variation found in nature.

Are you saying forensic science is not science?

You are misunderstanding; I'm not asking you to believe in creationism. I am asking why evolution is a fact. Your defining creationism as out of bounds sounds like a protectionist ploy.

Why reject the Hindu creation story? Because it calls for no beginning.

You falsely criticize me for 'just-so' stories, and then inform us that the horse sequence is a good example of gradualism. This shows how evolution can be morphed to fit just about anything. Now we are to believe that stasis and the abrupt appearance of new species are good examples of gradualism.

[lpetrich]

Charles Darwin:
Why reject the Hindu creation story? Because it calls for no beginning.

And why is that supposed to be a good reason?

You falsely criticize me for 'just-so' stories, and then inform us that the horse sequence is a good example of gradualism.

I wonder what CD thinks the horse sequence is; does he think that it's a big jump from Hyracotherium straight to Equus? And I doubt that he has ever looked at any equid fossils; in fact, I predict that his response will be a lot of quote mining.

[Ken]

CD, you've been asked at least twice on this thread how old you think the earth is, and you have evaded the question by saying it's irrelevant; evolution is impossible no matter how much time you give it. I'm am going to pose the question again, point blank, just as you were asked before, and I will continue to ask it until I get a direct answer. I won't ask you to tell me exactly how old you think is, but only within three orders of magnitude: Is the earth thousands, millions or billions of years old?

If you are unwilling to tell us your thoughts on this, why? Is it because you don't know the answer, or because you don't want to commit yourself to a particular position and thereby alienate yourself from young-earth creationists on the one hand or old-earth ID advocates on the other hand? If you have an opinion on the age of the earth (as surely you must), please share it with us.

If you think the earth is more than thousands of years old, would you go far to say that its antiquity is a "fact?" How much evidence would be required to pronounce one position or another a "fact?" This question is relevant to our discussion of common descent, if only for us to gain insight into what constitutes for you sufficient evidence to establish a hypothesis as fact.

[Ken]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Here are a few that might help:

Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
Evolution: A theory in crisis
Darwin's God
Darwin's Proof
Darwin on Trial
Darwin's Black Box
The Origin of Species
The Mystery of Life's Origin

Interesting list, given that the authors of at least two of these books (Michael Behe of Darwin's Black Box and Michael Denton of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Nature's Destiny) accept common descent (I won't even mention The Origin of Species). Michael Denton's shift from denial to acceptance of common descent would argue that there is in fact more evidence for common descent than CD wishes to acknowledge. How could such meager evidence for common descent convince the likes of anti-evolutionist Michael Denton or Michael Behe? Why does CD recommend these authors after spending so much effort to deny the very position they hold on common descent?

[lpetrich]

There's a creationist book called The Origin of Species Revisited.

Also, CD seems to be setting the bar of proof quality MUCH higher for evolution than for creationism -- and he ignores such alternative hypotheses as hordes of invisible elves designing living things over geological time.

[Ken]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
STOP. You read too quickly. Go back and read Futuyma again, slowly this time. Why do you uncritically accept this sort of diatribe? Who is Futuyma to be telling you what God should be doing? How about we look at the scientific evidence rather than appeal to a priori, non scientific dictums? This is precisely what Bacon worked to rid science of.

In this thread I asked why evolution is a fact. What I got was a series of ambiguous evidences (e.g., no, we don't know how protein synthesis, the DNA code, or echolocation evolved; not even close; but it was I who was at fault for being too picky; their evolution is a fact) and religious claims like Futuyma's. I conceded that evolution is a fact for people holding these religious views, but it is not a scientific fact.

CD, in the crowded field of anti-evolutionists, it appears you've managed to carve out a niche for yourself by latching on to the idea that evolutionists are motivated more by theological than scientific considerations, and it is your mission to ferret out examples to prove your point. This is your raison d'être, your calling for "such a time as this" (c.f. Mordecai in Esther). This is how you intend to make a name for yourself in the anti-evolutionist community, and you may convince a few evolutionists to re-evaluate their position. Your assumption is that if proponents of evolutionary theory can be caught invoking metaphysics, then that's all that really matters, showing the real reason why they accept evolution. All the other non-metaphysical evidence they present can be dismissed as a smokescreen, a front to support the metaphysically-founded basis of their beliefs. It doesn't matter how much scientific evidence they marshal; if metaphysics pops up here an there in their writings, you will mine these quotes, amassing them as proof of your central thesis.

OK, so you've discovered that a number of evolutionists do in fact bring metaphysics into their writings, perhaps mentioning theology in one out of every ten pages. But it's a stretch to see metaphysics as the most important reason for accepting evolution rather than as one of a number of considerations. If the opponents of evolutionary theory are primarily creationists who hold certain ideas about God's nature, then it's to be expected that evolutionists should address their opponents on their [metaphysical] terms, not just on scientific terms. Consider this excerpt (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/0701rbc.asp) from Answers In Genesis, where Ken Ham responds to the nascent old-earth creationism of Martin de Haan:

At the same time, the author allows for the view that the world could be millions of years old. If this is the case, then the ‘pain and trouble’ we see today have been around for millions of years. As soon as one even allows for millions of years, one has also accepted death, disease (like cancer—there is evidence of cancer in dinosaur bones supposedly millions of years old), bloodshed, violence, and thorns (there are thorns in the fossil record supposedly 300 million years old—yet the Bible makes it clear thorns came after the Curse (Genesis 3:18)) before man sinned—and thus God called this ‘very good.’ This undermines the Gospel—the message that death is the result of sin, which is why Christ died on the Cross.
When a Christian tells a non-Christian we can all believe in millions of years, this is a major stumbling block to the non-Christian believing in a God of love. (See our story The slippery slide to unbelief regarding evangelist-turned-agnostic Charles Templeton, Creation 22(3)8–13, June–August 2000.) Because it automatically means that this world of violence, death, and disease has been going on long before man, and hence long before sin, so it must be God who is responsible for it, and even calls it ‘very good.’
Now, I will give you that not all anti-evolutionists are driven by this kind of metaphysics, nor are evolutionists who respond theologically to such ideas operating strictly in the scientific realm, but it would be unfair to deny the right of evolutionists to respond to them theologically. If the prevailing idea of God in the time of Darwin was Victorian-pollyannaish, and Darwin responded to some of those concepts in his arguments for evolution, does that mean we can dismiss all his writings as unscientific? A century and a half later, you denounce that theological perspective, proudly embracing a more biblical (Old Testament) outlook along these lines: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things (Isaiah 45:7).

As I have previously mentioned in speaking for myself, it was scientific rather than metaphysical considerations that led me to my present position three years ago. I agree with your thesis that metaphysical arguments are unscientific, but I see these arguments as legitimate supplemental material when it comes to responding to theistic critics of evolution, invoking whatever theological ideas are current among those critics. If those theological ideas should swing from one generation to another, then evolutionists should be expected to respond to the ideas of each generation, whether those ideas come from the Bible, the Koran or current trends. If these ideas are unbiblical or are in some other way unsupportable, then the use of such ideas by evolutionists may have no merit other than to respond to the (erroneous) ideas of their contemporary theistic critics. But none of this changes that fact that the primary reasons scientists accept evolution have been, are and always will be scientific.

But I will go further. Two particular attributes of God held by nearly all theists can legitimately be brought into the debate in any generation, namely that God is omnipotent and that he is not deceptive. When Futuyma suggests that there is no reason God should have done something such and such a way (raising your metaphysical red flag and adding to your log of unscientifically motivated evolutionists), what he's really getting at is that God, being all-powerful, could have done it in such a way as not to suggest evolution had occurred, when in fact it does appear that evolution had occurred. So, if God created in a way that is compatible with or suggestive of evolution, when it was within his power to create in a manner incompatible with evolution, and we see this pattern throughout nature, then why should scientists like Futuyma be chastised for highlighting these patterns (unless he truly fails to bring any scientific evidence to bear)?

Go on amassing your quotes, and mine this whole thread to isolate metaphysical morsels, and package them up with some supporting prose to bolster your central thesis, then do your best to bring down the whole evolutionary edifice with your revolutionary findings. But scientists will not be impressed with this game. If anti-evolutionists begin joining your bandwagon en masse, and your name rises to the fore of the anti-evolutionary movement, then you can be assured that leading proponents of evolution will not hesitate to bring to light the emptiness of your thesis. I am not impressed by the thesis that evolutionists are primarily motivated by metaphysics, nor is presumably anyone on this thread. Ashby Camp tried to use your thesis in his response to Theobald's "29+ Evidences for Macro-Evolution," but Theobald effectively rebutted these arguments in his response (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html) to Camp. What's your take on that exchange?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by caravelair
i believe you have just exposed a weakness in your position here. first of all, it's irrelevant what evolutionists would or would not do. do you agree that vestigial organs are a falsifiable prediction of evolution? it doesn't matter what some other people would do in some hypothetical situation. that has nothing to do with the science of it. all that matters is whether or not it's a falsifiable prediction, and this argument of yours has done nothing to show that it isn't. furthermore, this argument of yours could just as easily apply to ANY prediction of evolutionary theory. so what you have done is basically eliminated the possibility that any prediction of evolution could provide evidence for it. and you wonder why people think your mind is closed on this issue.

OK, let me try to be more explicit then. For those not following closely here, the point at issue is whether evolution can sustain the failure to find any vestigial structures. Caravelair maintains that evolution would necessarily be false and we'd all have to go home if no such structures were found. And since we have found them it is a nice feather in evolution's cap. Why is claim not true?

First, we need a definition for vestigial structures. It turns out this is not so easy. You might think a structure that lacks function, or has reduced function would do. But in fact evolutionists say vestigial structures do not need to have reduced or zero function. In fact, they can have a whole new function that they have taken on; and they can be rather efficient in performing this new function. So right off the bat, if we are going to claim that vestigial structures are such a powerful prediction of evolution, it would be nice to have an unambiguous definition of these things.

Let's assume we define vestigial structures as those that suggest homology yet have reduced function. This is not as easy as it sounds, because function is often difficult to measure. The small bones in the whale are said to be vestigial and of little use; yet they may be used in the reproduction process. They may be pretty important.

But let's assume that tomorrow someone comes up with a great way to measure function. And we indeed find that the whale bones, flightless bird wings, etc., all have good function. Would evolutionists throw up there hands and say to each other, "gee, I guess we were wrong about all this; evolution must be false." No, they would not. Why? Because (as we have already discussed), the fact that "vestigial" organs need not be of reduced function has already been acknowledged by evolutionists. They have no problem with this.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by caravelair
complexity can arise through evolution, so why would complexity be evidence against evolution?

I didn't know that. Can you explain how you know that complexity can arise through evolution?

Originally posted by caravelair
i have seen an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of evolution,

and indeed, the strong evidence is in abundance. which is why i believe it.

If there are such good evidences then I'd believe too. Can you tell me what are the best of your evidences?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by caravelair
one more thing. i would like to hear an example of a theory that you feel DOES have sufficient evidence in support of it - the kind that you would require of evolution - and explain what that evidence is. personally, i cannot think of any theories in science with as much supporting evidence as evolution has.

Hmm. How about this; the dinosaurs became extinct due to a meteor impact (certainly not a fact, but not a bad theory). A theory with a host of unknowns that merits being called a fact? How about this; the Norman Conquest occurred in the 11th century.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Yes, that was Scadding's argument. And he was wrong. See Naylor's response.

Naylor shows that vestigial structures are evidence beyond the usual homology argument? I must have missed it. Can you point me to the passage where he does that? Or reconstruct the argument?

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
We know evolution is capable of producing amazingly complex structures via the uncontroled amalgamation of mutation, selection, drift, gene flow, etc. This has been observed theoretically, empirically, and experimentally.

I didn't know that. Can you give me a good example?

[lpetrich]

Charles Darwin:
I didn't know that. Can you explain how you know that complexity can arise through evolution?

Little invisible elves do it.

Just teasing.

The emergence of greater complexity has been a serious concern of evolutionary biologists, and there is a simple mechanism that produces at least some case of increased complexity: gene duplication and diversification. Each of the new copies will start having its own mutations, but because they are redundant, they will be less constrained. In the process, they can drift toward having a different function, though usually one similar to the original, at least initially.

Likewise, genes can be brought together by various sorts of gene transfer:

Cell fusion in the sexual cycle
Transfer of genes to and from viruses
Direct injection of genes from one organism to another
Endosymbiosis
Scavenging of dead organisms' released genetic material

"Charles Darwin" appears to be totally ignorant of the evolutionary-biology literature, aside from whatever excursions may be necessary to do quote-mining.

(For evolution)
If there are such good evidences then I'd believe too. Can you tell me what are the best of your evidences?

It would be difficult to distinguish evolution from special creation that looks exactly like evolution, so under "evolution" we ought to include such special creation.

And please be more specific about your standards of evidence. You seem to have set them MUCH higher for evolution than for "poofing", a.k.a. creationism.

And the word "evidences" waves a red flag -- it's mostly fundies who use that word.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by lpetrich
"Charles Darwin": There are different kinds of waves. I'm not sure they can be grouped into a single category. Perhaps you should elaborate.

Toss a stone into a point and watch the waves radiate around it. Notice that it travels through different water while keeping its identity. Thus, waves can reasonably be called nonmaterial entities, but ones which do not require the hypothesis of special nonmaterial substances.

Well I didn't say they did require such a hypothesis. I said the laws of logic requires such a hypothesis. I certainly agree that waves on a pond are really just the water taking on a time-varying shape.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Yes, the evidence for common descent is so overwhelming that it is considered to be a scientific fact.

Can you give us one or two of the best evidences?

[lpetrich]

Charles Darwin:
Naylor shows that vestigial structures are evidence beyond the usual homology argument? I must have missed it. Can you point me to the passage where he does that? Or reconstruct the argument?

It's in his paper. CD, I don't want to spoonfeed you Naylor's arguments, when his paper should be easy to read. So why don't you read it and tell us what difficulties you have with it?

And while you are at it, why don't you ask yourself why we have appendices that can be removed without apparent ill effects? Is appendectomy patient Jenna Bush coming down with half a dozen opportunistic diseases?

And why do seed plants have vestigial gametophytes (haploid phases that make gametes)? Why are they almost, but not quite all, sporophyte (diploid phase that makes spores)? Why don't they have direct meiosis-to-gametes, as the animal kingdom does?

Female gametophytes live inside of their parent plants' reproductive structures, while male gametophytes live inside of pollen grains. In most flowering plants, female gametophytes have only 7 cells and male ones only 3.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Ken
CD, you've been asked at least twice on this thread how old you think the earth is, and you have evaded the question by saying it's irrelevant; evolution is impossible no matter how much time you give it. I'm am going to pose the question again, point blank, just as you were asked before, and I will continue to ask it until I get a direct answer. I won't ask you to tell me exactly how old you think is, but only within three orders of magnitude: Is the earth thousands, millions or billions of years old?

If you are unwilling to tell us your thoughts on this, why? Is it because you don't know the answer, or because you don't want to commit yourself to a particular position and thereby alienate yourself from young-earth creationists on the one hand or old-earth ID advocates on the other hand? If you have an opinion on the age of the earth (as surely you must), please share it with us.

If you think the earth is more than thousands of years old, would you go far to say that its antiquity is a "fact?" How much evidence would be required to pronounce one position or another a "fact?" This question is relevant to our discussion of common descent, if only for us to gain insight into what constitutes for you sufficient evidence to establish a hypothesis as fact.

I have no reason to doubt that the earth is 4+ billion years old. My point was not to be evasive, but not to get off on a useless tangent. A fact? Let me put it this way; evolution is nowhere close to the old earth theory in terms of being a fact.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Ken
Interesting list, given that the authors of at least two of these books (Michael Behe of Darwin's Black Box and Michael Denton of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Nature's Destiny) accept common descent (I won't even mention The Origin of Species). Michael Denton's shift from denial to acceptance of common descent would argue that there is in fact more evidence for common descent than CD wishes to acknowledge. How could such meager evidence for common descent convince the likes of anti-evolutionist Michael Denton or Michael Behe? Why does CD recommend these authors after spending so much effort to deny the very position they hold on common descent?

I didn't know that about those authors. In any case, I had assumed it would go without saying that I was not endorsing everything in those volumes; let alone what the authors personally believe.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Ken
CD, in the crowded field of anti-evolutionists, it appears you've managed to carve out a niche for yourself by latching on to the idea that evolutionists are motivated more by theological than scientific considerations, and it is your mission to ferret out examples to prove your point. This is your raison d'être, your calling for "such a time as this" (c.f. Mordecai in Esther). This is how you intend to make a name for yourself in the anti-evolutionist community, and you may convince a few evolutionists to re-evaluate their position. Your assumption is that if proponents of evolutionary theory can be caught invoking metaphysics, then that's all that really matters, showing the real reason why they accept evolution. All the other non-metaphysical evidence they present can be dismissed as a smokescreen, a front to support the metaphysically-founded basis of their beliefs. It doesn't matter how much scientific evidence they marshal; if metaphysics pops up here an there in their writings, you will mine these quotes, amassing them as proof of your central thesis.

OK, so you've discovered that a number of evolutionists do in fact bring metaphysics into their writings, perhaps mentioning theology in one out of every ten pages. But it's a stretch to see metaphysics as the most important reason for accepting evolution rather than as one of a number of considerations. If the opponents of evolutionary theory are primarily creationists who hold certain ideas about God's nature, then it's to be expected that evolutionists should address their opponents on their [metaphysical] terms, not just on scientific terms. Consider this excerpt (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/0701rbc.asp) from Answers In Genesis, where Ken Ham responds to the nascent old-earth creationism of Martin de Haan:


Now, I will give you that not all anti-evolutionists are driven by this kind of metaphysics, nor are evolutionists who respond theologically to such ideas operating strictly in the scientific realm, but it would be unfair to deny the right of evolutionists to respond to them theologically. If the prevailing idea of God in the time of Darwin was Victorian-pollyannaish, and Darwin responded to some of those concepts in his arguments for evolution, does that mean we can dismiss all his writings as unscientific? A century and a half later, you denounce that theological perspective, proudly embracing a more biblical (Old Testament) outlook along these lines:

As I have previously mentioned in speaking for myself, it was scientific rather than metaphysical considerations that led me to my present position three years ago. I agree with your thesis that metaphysical arguments are unscientific, but I see these arguments as legitimate supplemental material when it comes to responding to theistic critics of evolution, invoking whatever theological ideas are current among those critics. If those theological ideas should swing from one generation to another, then evolutionists should be expected to respond to the ideas of each generation, whether those ideas come from the Bible, the Koran or current trends. If these ideas are unbiblical or are in some other way unsupportable, then the use of such ideas by evolutionists may have no merit other than to respond to the (erroneous) ideas of their contemporary theistic critics. But none of this changes that fact that the primary reasons scientists accept evolution have been, are and always will be scientific.

But I will go further. Two particular attributes of God held by nearly all theists can legitimately be brought into the debate in any generation, namely that God is omnipotent and that he is not deceptive. When Futuyma suggests that there is no reason God should have done something such and such a way (raising your metaphysical red flag and adding to your log of unscientifically motivated evolutionists), what he's really getting at is that God, being all-powerful, could have done it in such a way as not to suggest evolution had occurred, when in fact it does appear that evolution had occurred. So, if God created in a way that is compatible with or suggestive of evolution, when it was within his power to create in a manner incompatible with evolution, and we see this pattern throughout nature, then why should scientists like Futuyma be chastised for highlighting these patterns (unless he truly fails to bring any scientific evidence to bear)?

Go on amassing your quotes, and mine this whole thread to isolate metaphysical morsels, and package them up with some supporting prose to bolster your central thesis, then do your best to bring down the whole evolutionary edifice with your revolutionary findings. But scientists will not be impressed with this game. If anti-evolutionists begin joining your bandwagon en masse, and your name rises to the fore of the anti-evolutionary movement, then you can be assured that leading proponents of evolution will not hesitate to bring to light the emptiness of your thesis. I am not impressed by the thesis that evolutionists are primarily motivated by metaphysics, nor is presumably anyone on this thread. Ashby Camp tried to use your thesis in his response to Theobald's "29+ Evidences for Macro-Evolution," but Theobald effectively rebutted these arguments in his response (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html) to Camp. What's your take on that exchange?

I'm sorry to see that you have so dramatically misunderstood my posts. I would have hoped that it would be abundantly clear that science argues against evolution and that it certainly is not a fact. This has been my point. I'm sorry to see that you have read so much into my posts.

[rlogan]

I'm glad we have pinned down an age of earth answer. I am completely unqualified to speak at the level of the physical scientists here, but I can give some input on the "odds of things happening", and how important the age of the earth is to that problem.

Sometimes we hear statements that sound impressive along the lines that the odds of evolution producing a human are similar to the odds of a monkey typing a book. I am completely unimpressed with such silly analogies and as a practicing statistician I would point out a simple example as a starting point for consideration of mutations and evolution:

Let's say that the odds of some event happening in a year are one in a billion. What, then, are the odds that the thing will happen in 4 billion years? The answer may be surprising, but it is:

1 - (1-(1/1,000,000,000))^4,000,000,000 = 98.2%

That is, even if the event is completely random, and the odds seem so incredibly small, you'd better bet on it happening in four billion years. Put enough monkeys to work, and one of them will win the pulitzer prize.

But that is for a RANDOM event. When we have a long series of "plays" with random mutations that a force is acting upon and "selecting" from for survival, the odds of developing complex and highly differentiated living organisms becomes - certain, from a purely statistical point of view.

So what are the odds that God did it? Here is the problem with that proposition, statistically. Mutations occur. We observe them. We have no positive proof of God by observation in "poofing" anything into existence. Zero.

So we have one proposition that is virtually certain to be true statistically vs another that is probability zero.

Now, back to vestigal organs...

[monkenstick]

I would have hoped that it would be abundantly clear that science argues against evolution and that it certainly is not a fact. This has been my point.

thats your attempted point - but you haven't demonstrated it - you've merely asserted that that which the vast majority of biologists worldwide consider to be science, isn't

all you seem to have is your own say so

your "say so" isn't worth much CD

[rlogan]

I did want to thank CD for the list of citations on creationism.

I'm digging in now...

[Principia]

rlogan: I would like to know if anyone has a citation for what the creationists offer as a leading source for their view (Besides Genesis - that's a quick read). Well, rlogan, there is no other view for Creationists aside from Genesis. Everything else is a criticism of evolution motivated by religious concerns. And criticisms are dime a dozen. I wouldn't be surprised if CD hasn't already covered the majority of them in this thread.

Please, do yourself a favor, and spend your time or your money better than to buy and read the crap that CD cited. After all, it seems that even CD himself hasn't read the books: I didn't know that about those authors. In any case, I had assumed it would go without saying that I was not endorsing everything in those volumes; let alone what the authors personally believe. He's promoting books in which he fails to pick up that the authors are sympathetic towards common descent or disagree with his own views? :rolleyes:

[GunnerJ]

Hmm. How about this; the dinosaurs became extinct due to a meteor impact (certainly not a fact, but not a bad theory). A theory with a host of unknowns that merits being called a fact? How about this; the Norman Conquest occurred in the 11th century.

I am saddened and distressed to know that CD still can't use the terms "fact" and "theory" correctly.

[rlogan]

Hi Principia. Acknowledged.

There is value to me in knowing their arguments, and yes - it isn't a positive presentation of creation.

Thus far, the assertion that all radiometric dating has huge flaws is falling on its face. I see CD accepts the age of the earth is > 4 billion years anyway, so it's on to the assertion that there are not gradual evolutionary fossil forms in successive layers of strata.

From a layman's view it seems obvious to me the simple organisms are on the bottom, eh? I find the horse literature pretty convincing so far...

[Albion]

I'm sorry to see that you have so dramatically misunderstood my posts. I would have hoped that it would be abundantly clear that science argues against evolution and that it certainly is not a fact. This has been my point. I'm sorry to see that you have read so much into my posts.

All through this thread you've been saying that people who accept evolution are doing so for metaphysical or theological rather than scientific reasons. Ken has every reason to interpret your posts the way he did. There's now over 30 pages of posts from people ranging from interested laymen to researchersin evolutionary biology, with a variety of different metaphysical positions, that are describing the scientific basis for accepting evolution, and the best you seem to have been able to come up with in opposition is nitpicking followed by statements that none of the evidence is compelling and that the people who think it is compelling aren't being motivated scientifically. Not that we seem to be any nearer a definition of "compelling," since most people here do consider the current theory of evolution compelling as an explanatory and predictive scientific tool.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Albion
All through this thread you've been saying that people who accept evolution are doing so for metaphysical or theological rather than scientific reasons. Ken has every reason to interpret your posts the way he did.

No, I've been pointing out metaphysics as they arise.

Originally posted by Albion
There's now over 30 pages of posts from people ranging from interested laymen to researchersin evolutionary biology, with a variety of different metaphysical positions, that are describing the scientific basis for accepting evolution, and the best you seem to have been able to come up with in opposition is nitpicking ...

Sorry, I was trying to engage the scientific claims you are making. Can you give me an example of nitpicking in response to a scientific claim (and I'll try to fix it)?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by monkenstick


i'm not saying it isn't possible, i'm saying that its incredibly unlikely that the inactivating mutations are all due to convergent mutations, due to their number and distribution

the convergent mutations they identified occured in only two species, and are well explained by the phenomenon of lineage sorting. The convergent mutations you're appealing to have to occur in 4 members of hominidae, and 5 members of hylobatidae, in precisely the distribution that accords with the current phylogeny.

No, the convergent mutations involve the gorilla, the orangutan, the gibbon, the chimp, and the human. The authors explore alternative explanations but find the mutations to be most likely independent.

From Oda, et. al.:
The nonsense mutation (TGA) at codon 107 is, however, more complicated than others. It occurs in the gorilla, the orangutan, and the gibbon, and therefore requires multiple origins of this nonsense mutation.

In contrast, the exon 3 mutation is not shared by H. syndactylus (CD: but does appear on the other gibbons) but by the gorilla and the orangutan. The origin of this mutation is therefore multiple and relatively recent in the gibbon lineage.

Although it is difficult to decide which change occurred first, it is interesting to note that the exon 2 nonsense mutation (CGATGA) is the same as that found in -Uox in the human and the great apes. One possibility for such coincidence may be attributed to a high transition rate from C to T in a CGA codon (CD: but the authors explain why this is not a good hypothesis).


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no "ridiculous amounts of convergence." If you still think this is the case, perhaps you can carefully elaborate so I can understand your belief. Why does the second explanation require all this convergence?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've already explained it CD, it requires 9 convergent mutations for the inactivating mutations to agree with the structure of the families in the current tree,

and enough convergent mutations such that the entire tree differs by two terminal nodes (for species that only diverged very recently in history) from the currently accepted tree when there are 323823762662400 possible topologies (I actually figured it out based on the number of species included)

Several problems here. First '323823762662400 possible topologies' is irrelevant. The authors computed phylogeny had extremely little to do the with the convergent mutations. Their phylogeny was based on the entire gene. The fact that their phylogeny is similar to the accepted species phylogeny is no surprise at all.

What is interesting, as we discussed, is the erroneous grouping of the chimp and gorilla; and especially the fact that it is supported by 100% bootstrap probability. They had no choice but to resort to the just-so polymorphism story with random sorting. What is the probability of that is giving you 100% bootstrap probability?

furthermore, you haven't given us any reasons as to why we would expect one sort of convergent mutation in hominids, and another in gibbons - what possible explanation can you offer for the preference for one site over another in the different lineages when the sites in question are only 45 nucleotides apart?

But this sort of thing is common even under evolution. For instance, in the paper the nonsynonymous substitutions show different rates in the hominoids versus the Old World and New World monkeys. Likewise, mutation frequencies in the promoter region as compared to intron 4 must be different in the hominoids versus the non hominoids:

From Oda, et. al.:
The pairwise distance matrix is computed in terms of the proportion of nucleotide differences per site (table 1). It is immediately clear that the nonsynonymous substitutions have accumulated as rapidly as the synonymous substitutions among the five hominoids, but this is not the case among the three Old World monkeys and the New World monkey. Similarly, the proportion of nucleotide differences is computed regarding the promoter region and intron 4. For a given species pair among the hominoids, there is no significant difference in the proportion of nucleotide differences between the promoter region and intron 4, whereas for a species pair among the nonhominoid primates, the proportion is lower in the promoter region than in intron 4.

So we can ask the same question of evolution. Why should mutation trends and rates differ between hominoids and the monkeys? I realize I am not answering your question, and I agree with you that I do not have an explanation for why the convergent mutations occur at all. But they do. They are empirically observed, and under evolution we infer them historically. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable for creationism to appeal to them as well. The fact that they are more predominant in more similar species is what would be expected since this is what is emprically observed.

[monkenstick]

No, the convergent mutations involve the gorilla, the orangutan, the gibbon, the chimp, and the human. The authors explore alternative explanations but find the mutations to be most likely independent.
the convergent mutations occur in those species, but any one of the convergent mutations is only shared by two species at a time

Several problems here. First '323823762662400 possible topologies' is irrelevant. The authors computed phylogeny had extremely little to do the with the convergent mutations. Their phylogeny was based on the entire gene. The fact that their phylogeny is similar to the accepted species phylogeny is no surprise at all.

the computed phylogeny took ALL positions into consideration - including the convergent ones and the inactivating ones, and more positions supported the phylogeny than didn't (including the inactivating ones)

i.e. the amount of mutations in favour of the phylogeny far outweighed those that weren't (the convergent ones) even so much as to have 100 percent bootstrap probability

this is how phylogeny works CD - you don't select the positions you want to construct whatever phylogeny you want - you sum over all of them - because the random nature of mutations demands that phylogenies are supported in a statistical rather than absolute sense

What is interesting, as we discussed, is the erroneous grouping of the chimp and gorilla; and especially the fact that it is supported by 100% bootstrap probability. They had no choice but to resort to the just-so polymorphism story with random sorting. What is the probability of that is giving you 100% bootstrap probability?
if it is due to lineage sorting thats exactly what you'd expect - i.e. the allelic inheritance is supported 100 percent, but the allelic inheritance doesn't reflect the species tree because of lineage sorting

But this sort of thing is common even under evolution. For instance, in the paper the nonsynonymous substitutions show different rates in the hominoids versus the Old World and New World monkeys. Likewise, mutation frequencies in the promoter region as compared to intron 4 must be different in the hominoids versus the non hominoids:

quote: From Oda, et. al.:
The pairwise distance matrix is computed in terms of the proportion of nucleotide differences per site (table 1). It is immediately clear that the nonsynonymous substitutions have accumulated as rapidly as the synonymous substitutions among the five hominoids, but this is not the case among the three Old World monkeys and the New World monkey. Similarly, the proportion of nucleotide differences is computed regarding the promoter region and intron 4. For a given species pair among the hominoids, there is no significant difference in the proportion of nucleotide differences between the promoter region and intron 4, whereas for a species pair among the nonhominoid primates, the proportion is lower in the promoter region than in intron 4.



So we can ask the same question of evolution. Why should mutation trends and rates differ between hominoids and the monkeys? I realize I am not answering your question, and I agree with you that I do not have an explanation for why the convergent mutations occur at all. But they do. They are empirically observed, and under evolution we infer them historically. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable for creationism to appeal to them as well. The fact that they are more predominant in more similar species is what would be expected since this is what is emprically observed.

haha
CD, its not the mutation rate that is different. Its the rate of fixation of mutations

Oda et al found exactly what they were expecting

the reason that the nonsynonymous mutations have accumulated as rapidly as the synonymous mutations in the hominids is because their sequences are neutral - nonsynonymous mutations make no difference to fitness, and so are fixed at the same rate as synonymous mutations

the reason that the same isn't the case in the old world monkeys and the new world monkey is that their urate oxidase still functions -> so the nonsynonymous sites are under selective constraint -> changes in nonsynonymous sites are not fixed at the same rate as synonymous sites, because they have phenotypic consequences

so the difference is in the selection on the sequences - not the mutation rates of the sequences - this is confirmation of the fact that the urate oxidase pseudogene in hominids is useless, and its why they looked at nonsynonymous/synonymous rates of substition

[Jack the Bodiless]

Charles:
Charles, the lack of a nested hirearchy COULD NOT be explained by "multiple abiogenesis events and rapid rates of change that occurred in the past". It is ludicrous to suggest that these could completely erase any trace of a nested hirearchy.

Why is that?
Which part isn't ludicrous? I've already explained the problems with "multiple abiogenesis events". As for "rapid rates of change that occurred in the past": these would have to be VERY extreme to erase all traces of the hirearchy (e.g. a cat giving birth to a winged kitten: the creationist caricature of evolution). As evolution is constrained to operate in small incremental steps, and to work with modifications of existing structures rather than suddenly adding new organs with no pre-existing template, it follows that the hirearchy cannot be quickly erased.

Evolution is a scientific theory which accounts for the fact of common descent. If there was no visible evidence of common descent, there wouldn't be any theory to account for it: just as there wouldn't be a theory of gravity if we were all floating about weightlessly in a hollowed-out asteroid with all memory of our planetary origin erased by mischievous aliens. Why bother to speculate about a parallel Universe in which the evidence for common descent doesn't exist? That isn't the Universe we inhabit.
You admit that creationism is "falsifiable". According to you, this is achievable by a "compelling" theory of evolution. Therefore, if I'm navigating correctly through the fog of misapplied terms, what you're actually saying is that you admit that a naturalistic, materialistic, godless Universe is possible, and that evidence for it might yet be presented that would "compel" even YOU.

Is this correct? And what evidence for this would be "compelling"?

Evidence for evolution.
Well, I've struggled to understand what you're getting at here by substituting each of your various usages of the term "evolution", but I'm stumped. What sort of "evolution" do you NOT have evidence for?

And why do you still resort to such obfuscation?
You are misunderstanding; I'm not asking you to believe in creationism. I am asking why evolution is a fact. Your defining creationism as out of bounds sounds like a protectionist ploy.
Who says that "evolution" is a fact? What are you talking about, man?

See my earlier post on this.
OK, let me try to be more explicit then. For those not following closely here, the point at issue is whether evolution can sustain the failure to find any vestigial structures. Caravelair maintains that evolution would necessarily be false and we'd all have to go home if no such structures were found. And since we have found them it is a nice feather in evolution's cap. Why is claim not true?
No, the REAL issue is that vestigial structures undoubtedly DO exist. Again, you want to draw us into your parallel Universe in which they do NOT exist.

There's also a very curious use of tenses here: "whether evolution can sustain the failure to find...". You should be using the conditional tense when discussing your fantasy Universe: "whether evolution COULD sustain a failure to find...". There is no ACTUAL "failure to find any vestigial structures". You seem to be having difficulty keeping reality and fantasy separate.
But let's assume that tomorrow someone comes up with a great way to measure function. And we indeed find that the whale bones, flightless bird wings, etc., all have good function. Would evolutionists throw up there hands and say to each other, "gee, I guess we were wrong about all this; evolution must be false." No, they would not. Why? Because (as we have already discussed), the fact that "vestigial" organs need not be of reduced function has already been acknowledged by evolutionists. They have no problem with this.
Where are you getting this from?

A vestigial organ is one whose ORIGINAL function is obvious from its structure, and from comparisons with otherwise similar organisms. The organ is no longer adequate for its ORIGINAL function, and any additional function is plainly incidental, because (in most cases) the organ is poorly "designed" for its new function also. The human appendix is a classic example of a vestigial organ: there is no reason at all why a dead-end section of intestine should be "designed in" as a site for a concentration of immune-system defenses (but, conversely, a good reason for extra defenses at a site that represents a dangerous avenue of infection).

complexity can arise through evolution, so why would complexity be evidence against evolution?

I didn't know that. Can you explain how you know that complexity can arise through evolution?
Are you seriously admitting that you do not know how complexity can arise through evolution?

That is a rather startling admission of ignorance from one who otherwise claims to know more about evolution than professional biologists!

I could explain it for you, but first I want to check that this isn't another bizarre "let's pretend to be stupid" ploy. My apologies in advance if you are genuinely unaware of this.
one more thing. i would like to hear an example of a theory that you feel DOES have sufficient evidence in support of it - the kind that you would require of evolution - and explain what that evidence is. personally, i cannot think of any theories in science with as much supporting evidence as evolution has.

Hmm. How about this; the dinosaurs became extinct due to a meteor impact (certainly not a fact, but not a bad theory). A theory with a host of unknowns that merits being called a fact? How about this; the Norman Conquest occurred in the 11th century.
Please explain how there is more evidence for either of those theories than for common descent. If it is fact that the Norman Conquest occurred in the 11th century, based only on a handful of old documents: there is FAR more evidence for common descent from the fossil record (MILLIONS of fossils) and from the Linnaean "Tree of Life" hirearchy visible in living organisms today.

...But, if you're using another meaning for "evolution" here, please explain this.
Yes, the evidence for common descent is so overwhelming that it is considered to be a scientific fact.

Can you give us one or two of the best evidences?
It is pointless to pretend that there are only "one or two" individual pieces of evidence. Going back to my earlier analogy of wave-sorted pebbles on a beach: this would be like being asked to point to one or two pebbles as evidence that sorting had occured.

It is the staggering totality of the fossil record, and the "Tree of Life" of cladistics, that makes the evidence so overwhelming. Thousands upon thousands of species forming a nested hirearchy, supported by millions of fossils confirming the pattern of development of that same hirearchy. And genetics is providing new support of the same hirearchy: again, it is the totality of the genome similarity that matters. Individual genes can be tweaked by mutation in unpredictable ways, but the overall pattern of relationships (based on the percentage difference between the genome of one species and that of another) correlates with the same "Tree of Life" derived from other sources.

I am not aware of anything else in science that is better supported (other than obvious observations such as "the Sun emits light"). The odds against this correlation being "accidental" are truly astronomical: the number of possible permutations involved dwarfs such numbers as the number of atoms in the Universe, for instance.
I have no reason to doubt that the earth is 4+ billion years old. My point was not to be evasive, but not to get off on a useless tangent. A fact? Let me put it this way; evolution is nowhere close to the old earth theory in terms of being a fact.
Again, what aspect of "evolution" are you talking about? There is far more evidence for common descent than for the age of the Earth. Also, more evidence for mutation and natural selection.

[pz]

This thread is going to be closed later today.

At this point, it is just going around and around in circles, and lacks any kind of focus. The issues being discussed now were also discussed 20 pages ago.

I recommend that if anyone still wants to persist in this, that they start a new and much more specifically titled thread.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by pz
This thread is going to be closed later today.

At this point, it is just going around and around in circles, and lacks any kind of focus. The issues being discussed now were also discussed 20 pages ago.

I recommend that if anyone still wants to persist in this, that they start a new and much more specifically titled thread.
Aw, spoilsport! This hasn't yet reached the length of the good ol' E/C Ed Thread!

(Seriously: good move. It has long since been imitating the fabled Oozlum Bird.)

Oolon

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by monkenstick



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CD: No, the convergent mutations involve the gorilla, the orangutan, the gibbon, the chimp, and the human. The authors explore alternative explanations but find the mutations to be most likely independent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


the convergent mutations occur in those species, but any one of the convergent mutations is only shared by two species at a time

No, this is not true either:

From Oda, et. al.:
The nonsense mutation (TGA) at codon 107 is, however, more complicated than others. It occurs in the gorilla, the orangutan, and the gibbon, and therefore requires multiple origins of this nonsense mutation

The bottom line is there are several instances of independent, yet identical mutations.







quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CD: Several problems here. First '323823762662400 possible topologies' is irrelevant. The authors computed phylogeny had extremely little to do the with the convergent mutations. Their phylogeny was based on the entire gene. The fact that their phylogeny is similar to the accepted species phylogeny is no surprise at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the computed phylogeny took ALL positions into consideration - including the convergent ones and the inactivating ones, and more positions supported the phylogeny than didn't (including the inactivating ones)

i.e. the amount of mutations in favour of the phylogeny far outweighed those that weren't (the convergent ones) even so much as to have 100 percent bootstrap probability

this is how phylogeny works CD - you don't select the positions you want to construct whatever phylogeny you want - you sum over all of them - because the random nature of mutations demands that phylogenies are supported in a statistical rather than absolute sense

You keep talking about mutations driving the phylogeny; sorry, but the majority of the loci show no substitutions whatever. They are driving the phylogeny, not the relatively few mutations.






quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But this sort of thing is common even under evolution. For instance, in the paper the nonsynonymous substitutions show different rates in the hominoids versus the Old World and New World monkeys. Likewise, mutation frequencies in the promoter region as compared to intron 4 must be different in the hominoids versus the non hominoids:

quote: From Oda, et. al.:
"The pairwise distance matrix is computed in terms of the proportion of nucleotide differences per site (table 1). It is immediately clear that the nonsynonymous substitutions have accumulated as rapidly as the synonymous substitutions among the five hominoids, but this is not the case among the three Old World monkeys and the New World monkey. Similarly, the proportion of nucleotide differences is computed regarding the promoter region and intron 4. For a given species pair among the hominoids, there is no significant difference in the proportion of nucleotide differences between the promoter region and intron 4, whereas for a species pair among the nonhominoid primates, the proportion is lower in the promoter region than in intron 4. "

So we can ask the same question of evolution. Why should mutation trends and rates differ between hominoids and the monkeys? I realize I am not answering your question, and I agree with you that I do not have an explanation for why the convergent mutations occur at all. But they do. They are empirically observed, and under evolution we infer them historically. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable for creationism to appeal to them as well. The fact that they are more predominant in more similar species is what would be expected since this is what is emprically observed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

haha
CD, its not the mutation rate that is different. Its the rate of fixation of mutations


Good point, I wasn't reading carefully. Bad example, but my point still stands; namely, that convergent mutations occur. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable for creationism to appeal to them as well. The fact that they are more predominant in more similar species is what would be expected since this is what is emprically observed.

Let me say something else that, from reading your posts, I gather needs saying. You keep on referring to the inactivating mutations common to the gibbons, and to the human, chimp, gorilla, and orangutan; as though they are great coincidences explainable only via common descent. You seem to be missing the fact that they have been carefully culled from a larger set of mutations, which are all over the map. Most of them do not explain the gene inactivation, but if you look hard enough you find one that is common to the human, chimp, gorilla, and orangutan; and you find two that are common to the gibbons. So these are identified by evolutionists as the probable inactivating mutations. OK, fine. But from a non common descent view, if you have a set of mutations and if there are mutational hotspots (an empirical fact), then it is not surprising that (a) they generally will agree with the consensus phylogeny, and (b) amongst all those mutations you will find some that occur in all sequences in a group. The mutational hotspots would be species specific most often; but sometimes specific at higher levels.

This is a perfectly reasonable explanation and not, as you have been saying, incredibly unlikely.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
It is the staggering totality of the fossil record, and the "Tree of Life" of cladistics, that makes the evidence so overwhelming. Thousands upon thousands of species forming a nested hirearchy, supported by millions of fossils confirming the pattern of development of that same hirearchy. And genetics is providing new support of the same hirearchy: again, it is the totality of the genome similarity that matters. Individual genes can be tweaked by mutation in unpredictable ways, but the overall pattern of relationships (based on the percentage difference between the genome of one species and that of another) correlates with the same "Tree of Life" derived from other sources.

I am not aware of anything else in science that is better supported (other than obvious observations such as "the Sun emits light"). The odds against this correlation being "accidental" are truly astronomical: the number of possible permutations involved dwarfs such numbers as the number of atoms in the Universe, for instance.

But what you present to us is a false dichotomy. Our choices are not between evolution and accident. Yes, the odds against this correlation being "accidental" *are* truly astronomical; so what? Hierarchies are also a characteristic of created things; and long before there were paleontologists or microscopes creationists predicted an orderly progression to creation. They had no idea the fossil record would reveal, guess what, an orderly progression.

Furthermore, your theory of evolution does not require such a hierarchy, so it is hardly so compelling as you suggest.

[Jack the Bodiless]

But what you present to us is a false dichotomy. Our choices are not between evolution and accident. Yes, the odds against this correlation being "accidental" *are* truly astronomical; so what? Hierarchies are also a characteristic of created things; and long before there were paleontologists or microscopes creationists predicted an orderly progression to creation. They had no idea the fossil record would reveal, guess what, an orderly progression.
This single nested hirearchy, supported by multiple categories of evidence, is overwhelming evidence of common descent. If God created all species, then it's abundantly clear that he did it by basing each new design on a modification of an existing one, at least as far back as the Cambrian Explosion. Since then, not a single "new" variety of organism appears in the fossil record without similar ancestors.

It is the fact of common descent that you have sought to deny. This would also involve denial of Theistic Evolution, as I have repeatedly pointed out.
Furthermore, your theory of evolution does not require such a hierarchy, so it is hardly so compelling as you suggest.
...Except that it DOES require such a hirearchy, so you're just babbling here. :rolleyes:

[pz]

Please, people -- I'm trying to be nice and give everyone time to move on, and to avoid closing it when someone is in the middle of making a reply. However, I am closing this thread in 20 minutes. You're all better off making the effort to start new, specific, precise, well-defined threads. OK?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
This single nested hirearchy, supported by multiple categories of evidence, is overwhelming evidence of common descent. If God created all species, then it's abundantly clear that he did it by basing each new design on a modification of an existing one, at least as far back as the Cambrian Explosion. Since then, not a single "new" variety of organism appears in the fossil record without similar ancestors.

It is the fact of common descent that you have sought to deny. This would also involve denial of Theistic Evolution, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

Whether God based designs on ealier designs or whether those designs were predetermined is a metaphysical question. Your claim that the former is "abundantly clear" conveniently supports your evolutionary views, but is simply not true.

You needn't repeatly point out that the many weaknesses of the theory of common descent are also weaknesses of Theistic Evolution. We agree on that.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
This single nested hirearchy, supported by multiple categories of evidence, is overwhelming evidence of common descent. If God created all species, then it's abundantly clear that he did it by basing each new design on a modification of an existing one, at least as far back as the Cambrian Explosion. Since then, not a single "new" variety of organism appears in the fossil record without similar ancestors.

It is the fact of common descent that you have sought to deny. This would also involve denial of Theistic Evolution, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, your theory of evolution does not require such a hierarchy, so it is hardly so compelling as you suggest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...Except that it DOES require such a hirearchy, so you're just babbling here. :rolleyes:

Either temporary high rates of evolutionary change of multiple abiogenesis events would explain the lack of a hierarchy. Both high rates of evolutionary change and abiogenesis are accepted in evolutionary theory. I'm sorry, but these are facts. You have denied these facts in an effort to support your evolutionary views.

[Jack the Bodiless]

What is this, some sort of "get the last word in" contest?

(I'll try to be brief!)
Whether God based designs on ealier designs or whether those designs were predetermined is a metaphysical question. Your claim that the former is "abundantly clear" conveniently supports your evolutionary views, but is simply not true.
Charles: scroll UP. My response was to your request for evidence of common descent.
Either temporary high rates of evolutionary change of multiple abiogenesis events would explain the lack of a hierarchy. Both high rates of evolutionary change and abiogenesis are accepted in evolutionary theory. I'm sorry, but these are facts. You have denied these facts in an effort to support your evolutionary views.
Pure baloney, already addressed.

You're just not bothering anymore, Charles, and neither shall I.

Goodbye.

[lpetrich]

Charles Darwin:
Hierarchies are also a characteristic of created things;

Please be explicit about this. And explain why in your own words, and not someone's quote-mined words.

I can easily point out several counterexamples. For example, chairs and tables are all "created", yet they do not fit a hierarchy very well.

and long before there were paleontologists or microscopes creationists predicted an orderly progression to creation.

Except that they had never predicted any such thing. A very common belief in early modern times was that no species had ever gone extinct, because God would not allow that fate to befall any one of his beloved creations. Fossils were often interpreted as belonging to still-existing species, and it was commonly speculated that even the more exotic fossil species have still-living representatives.

But around 1800, Georges Cuvier examined mammoth bones in more detail, and showed that they represented a species distinct from the still-living Asian and African elephants. He also noted that mammoths' great bulk makes them difficult to hide, and that nobody has ever claimed to have seen a live one, let alone caught one. He thus concluded that mammoths are now extinct.

He also examined the fossils of various other Pleistocene megafauna, like mastodons, giant ground sloths, Irish Elk, etc., and showed that they also had gone extinct.

Thus, Cuvier had demonstrated something totally unexpected.

They had no idea the fossil record would reveal, guess what, an orderly progression.

Except that they never predicted such neat family trees as the horse one.

[GunnerJ]

I'm going to risk responding to this thread which is about to die in order to comment that "orderly progression" is such a nice, safe, vague term. CD is wise to use it rather than something more precise.