Intelligent Design? Myth or Fact

A recent case of directly observed evolution:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070712143300.htm

Well-documented case of observed speciation in ring species:
http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences2/ensatina2.htm

 

Might also check out Kenneth Miller's Evolution Page on the web, or his book Finding Darwin's God. He's a Christian prof at Brown University, so Lithium might cringe, and I find some of his religious views simplistic, but he defends Darwin well. Not "proof" but solid support. Or as geneticist and Evangelical Christian, Francis Collins, puts it: "Evolution is such an incredibly well-supported way of understanding everything in biology."

 

1.

Jumbuli55, Today, 5:00PM, quote:
"I could post as many, nay , ten times as many links and references pointing to the contrary of what you are claiming [with dozens, no, hundreds of challenges to the theory you claim to be valid] ,without engaging myself in a meaningful discussion and without a proper use of the links provided, but that wouldn't prove the point or would it?"
end of quote


2.

Jumbuli55, Today, 6:17PM, quote:
"I don't have to be specific about any part of evolutionary theory since I am not the one who has the burden of proof to prove its' validity here.
I don't claim that evolutionary theory is valid as you do.
Nor do I claim that any existing theory in this regard is valid.
When and if I make such claim ,about any such theory being valid, then I will have the burden of proof and will need to be specific in bringing the body of evidence and references, along with clear and precise explanation of it , [particularly when it involves the body of knowledge so specialized that it requires someone who is in the narrow field of corresponding study, who can make the terminology and the body of knowledge understandable to those to whom one would like to present it.

So, since you claim that this theory is valid one please proceed to prove your claim.
In anbsence of such I have benefit of assumption and you demosntrate the lack of ability to substantiate your claim.

 

If your point was that plenty of well-established confirmatory evidence existed and you were to provide links to some of that evidence, then yes, it would prove the point that such evidence existed.

We could then move on to a discussion of the validity of that evidence. This is the situation we're now in - I've provided you with quite a few examples of evidence consonant with evolution, confirmations of its predictions and tests of the theory. It's now up to you to dispute that evidence if you have an issue with it or provide contrary evidence.

Alternatively you could just keep copying and pasting what you've already written, that'd be good

 

I am not the one who makes the claim about validity of evolutionary nor any other alternative theory ,
now why should I be the one producing any sort of evidence and then arguing my point on it when I am not the one who makes the claim?

You are the one who entered into discussion with the claim that the theory of evolution is the the valid one , I haven't made such claim, before or after.
Since you are the one who makes the claim you are also the one who carries the burden of proof. I have benefit of assumption until you prove your claim.

And proving the claim takes more than posting links to articles.
You have to be able to come up with clear and consice explanation of your point of view (your claim that the theory is valid),
and in the meantime, not to draw your arguments from the ceiling, you must back it up with existing body of evidence and references and explain what the evidence reasonably means in the context of your claim, why any particular evidence brings to conclusion that you arrive, and you also must be able to explain it in acceccible, precise language, in the way that someone without narrow, specialized knowledge of the subject would understand the essence of the evidence and conclusions you were arriving to.

Among other things you must have superb knowledge of the discipline of physics and chemistry.
You must know what properties in what order are needed for formation of simplest matter from the very basic , the most elementary constituents , what energy level is required and what division, combination, sequence leads to formation of the simplest matter from its' constituents.
What are the numerical limits of possible "erroneous" sequences that do not lead to formation of anything at this most elementary level? How many would have to be overcome before natural selection allowed for the most basic first steps forward?
Then, as this elementary level is reached, as the number of possibillities progress, as the more complex matter gets formed in the process of natural selection, how the number of probabilities grow in proportion?
You must keep doing your math and be able to arrive at the number of sequences or probabilities that would have to play out before each following step in formation of more complex matter from elementary was possible.
Don't forget in the meantime that we don't even know yet what is the most elementary particle, how far matter can be divided and most curiously, how are you goiung to do the math and produce finite number of possibilities when the elementary particles themselves are not precisely known to be either particles or energy carriers with wave manifestation, but simultaneously possess the qualities of both?
Yet somehow you must be able to do this math and show the quantity of probabilities out of which the the evolution of simplest matter took place, otherwise your entire argument is moot and without any empirical basis.
As you keep doing your progressive math, you must to be able to arrive to some finite number of probabilities and random sequences that had lead to coming into existence of the organisms as high as grassess, trees, reptiles and mammals, consciousness of latter included.

Once you arrive ,by application of math, to such an enormous quantity you must calculate just how long time it would take for something like that to actually occur under natural circumstances? At what rate and for how long would it have to be going on to arrive to the point at which we are now?
Does that number correspond to the age of Universe or age of Earth as we know it?

In another words if there were N billion (for arguments sake) possible sequences out of which one was leading to a step forward, just how many trials it would probably take in average for that one right sequence to be naturally selected, in the environment of random selection, and what is the time-length required for that average number of sequences to take place in Natural environment under most natural circumstances , known from laws of physics and observable properties of particles?
Does the timeframe, when you add entire process of evolution of Universe, when doing the math as I ask you to be done here, does the timeframe correspond to what we know of the age of Universe? Can you or any human being or any man-made machine even calculate this number? Are physical properties of elementary particles, as we know them , even allow us to calculate their behavior with such precision, so we could put it all in numerical perspective? Do all the dots connect?

These are just a few of the most elementary questions you would need to address before you even begin to move up to anything close to what your links point to, which you would also and most certainly need to address in time as your explanation evolves.

But I am not here to assist you in advancing your claim and I don't think I should even be spending my time putting questions to be answered forward.
Because, as I said, I am not the one who made the claim that the theory is valid in the first place.
You did.
So, it is you who must come up with evidence and proof of your claim.
Unless you do so, I have a benefit of assumption, even if I asked silliest of the questions or have worst of all methods of explaining or expressing my thoughts or have most retarded linguistical or other skills imaginable.

This discussion is not about me. It is about the claim you made that theory you believe in is valid, period.
Since you made the claim you are the one who must prove it.
In absence of such proof I have the benefit of assumption and you demonstrate the lack of ability to back up your claim.

We can go in circles and you can try twenty more times to digress and change the subject by repeating all the things you have said many times already and posting links to many more articles from daily newspapers and mass media periodicals, but it will not change anything, it will not prove validity of your claim for as long as you don't actually proceed to prove it in the strictest scientific terms or proving your claim, and "that'd be good" too

 

Yes, I think we can all agree that a person who asserts carries the overall burden of "proof". In a courtroom, once that person makes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the other side to come up with something convincing. In fairness to Lithium, I think your contention that he must begin by explaining QM is a bit much! If that is true for evolution, it would be true of all scientific theories. It's absurd to say that until an evolutionist can do that, the theory is on a par with all creation myths. There's an impressive amount of evidence to support it, and none so far to refute it, despite the best efforts of Creationists and the ID crowd. So by citing that evidence, I think he's made his prima facie case.

 

In all fairness I want him to prove the claim he made, he claims that theory of evolution is valid one.

All along I said that burden of proof is his. He insisted that I challenge him in any way , despite his insistence I kept saying that it's not up to me to challenge or argue the point, but up to him to establish his claim since he is the one who made it.
He still wanted to know if I had any counterevidence and I came up with just a few fundamental questions and my perspective on what steps it would take to validate his point.

Now, If he knows of better way to answer even the most fundamental questions I asked, then sure, let him do so.
If he can explain how simplest particles evolved in the first place ,without his having to resort to the knowledge of QM and Chemstry to make such explanation, then more power to him.
May be he can play violin better than Paganini, without any strings.
Very interesting how one can explain the principles of combustive engine without invoking principles of physics.
I am waiting for him to proceed.

Not quite undertsanding what this sentence means, Okiefreak

Great, let him bring it up and explain it. My mind is open , but I won't take anything in blind faith.
To say "There's an impressive amount of evidence to support it" is not the same as for him to actually bring it up and support it.
And since he made the claim, he should prove it as well.
Or else, his claim is moot and I have benefit of assumption.

I, for one, am neither Creationist nor one of ID crowd.
I am the one who consistently maintains that I don't know how it all came up to be, unlike either Evolutionists, Creationists or ID crowd.
They all claim to know, so they are the ones who have the burden of proof.

What evidence? Where is the evidence? Those few URLs?
Hey, EVIDENCE, where are ya?
[silence...]

 

Yes, this is absurd, plainly so, the requirement seems to be to "prove" evolution (and everything leading up to creating the conditions for, but not covered by the theories of, evolution) beyond the shadow of a doubt. This would indicate no relevant awareness of the way scientific theories are developed and tested. Or, fundamentally, what they are - a theory is not a proof.

Thankyou, some sense. Evolution is a well-substantiated unifying explanation of observed phenomena based on, and consistent with, the available empirical evidence, and capable of generating hypotheses by which the theory can be tested. No test has yet falsified the theory. This makes it a valid theory.

 

You seem to be playing some kind of game here, which I have no interest in doing. You have asked for evidence, I have provided you with plenty of evidence from scholarly research. You have failed to engage with any of this.

 

Nothing but words, nothing but myth

Why don't you break it down and answer, at least, the most fundamental questions I asked?
Nothing to back up your belief?
No wonder.... :conehead:

 

None of this is relevant to, or covered by, the theory of evolution, which seeks to explain how life evolved from simple forms. It does not cover how matter exists. It does not cover how life emerged to begin with (abiogenesis) for which there is as yet no unified theory, but several competing hypotheses.

You are also committing what Dennett terms "greedy reductionism" - seeking to reduce an explanation to a level inappropriate to a meaningful functional discussion of a phenomenon. (For instance, the function of a computer is explained well according to the operations of its hard drive and memory, it is not explained well according to the interactions of its component plastics, metals and electrons.) Greedy reductionism strips an explanation of meaningful explanatory power.

You are also confusing a scientific theory with an absolute proof. You are making the assumption that if we cannot say everything about a subject with absolute certainty, then we can say nothing about that subject, and that anything we say, in the absence of absolute proof, is of equal status. This leads to the absurdity of the view that well-substantiated, repeatable and testable empiricial research is on an equal footing with random guessing. All this indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is, and what scientific theories are, and how they function.

 

Indy Hippy, Christianity may have its flaws and lies but this is not one of them.

The flaw in this argument is in assuming that if God is omniscient he has to know everything but is that so?

If a person has the power to crush an egg with his hand does that mean that he has to crush it every time he picks up an egg?

Following your argument, If God is omnipotent and has to use all of his power every time he uses it wouldn’t that mean that the universe could not exist?

Because every time he tried to make, say a delicate flower, he would have to use all his power and the universe would be overpowered and destroyed but no one argues that God can’t use part of his omnipotence to perform a task, so why can’t he use just part of his omniscience to perform a task?

To give mankind free will he would have to decide not to use his omniscience to the full, at least not using it to see what each individual would do. So in allowing Adam and Eve freewill when he created them, he would not have known that they would fail when tempted by Satan.

 

Ok, go ahead and explain it the best way you can. I don't even have to tell you how you should prove your claim, it's entirely up to you how you proceed.

You make lots of wishful claims and are ,once again, conveniently trying to shift the focus of conversation from it's subject matter to me.
I don't want to be namecalling, but it's defined as demagoguery.
I must remind you once again that I am not the subject matter of this exchange.

You have made the claim that theory of evolution is valid one, so now YOU have burden of poof, you must prove that the theory of evolution is indeed a valid theory, per YOUR claim.

How will you proceed about it is entirely up to you, but if it is your aim to convince the skeptical mind you must keep in yours that for any theory to be accepted as valid it must make sense and not be akin to a wishful fantasy like ancient myths, it must very well correspond to known empirical facts and evidence and be a logical extention and inference from it, with no contradoctory questions arising out of it.

I don't have blind faith in some supposedly smarter dudes who supposedly know better than myself why I should believe them, but I accept thorough ,clear and convincing explanations as valid.
Nothing you produced so far meets that strict criteria, for you so far produced nothing but wishful words and a few links to mass media articles , without even bothering to expound on it.


Now, I justly expect you to go ahead and proceed with your proof - proof of VALIDITY OF THEORY , claim that YOU have made not me.
I have yet to see you doing so, all you do instead is pointing your finger at me as if I was the subject matter of this discussion and not your claim about validity of this theory.

Any attempt on your behalf to shift the focus of discussion to me or any other irrelevant subject can only be regarded as your inability to sustain your own claim , and thus rendering your own claim moot and giving me the benefit of assumption.

Of course you are free to proceed with your proof of validity of the theory at any time.


Regards

 

No, I'm not going to play your game, you're just sidestepping the points I've made. You can engage meaningfully with what I've written if you like, or you can just keep repeating yourself.

By your logic we cannot begin to explain how aeroplanes fly until we can fully explain in absolute terms how matter came to exist in the first place. Until then, we cannot make a judgement as to the likely mechanism - whether it has anything to do with the principles of aerodynamics, or whether it is sky fairies. Empirical research can tell us nothing in the absence of absolute certainty, so both those options are equally valid.

A question: do you regard any scientific theory to be valid?

 

Perhaps the one who plays the game here is you?
What points did you make other than posting a few links?
You didn't even bother to expound on any of those. But you keep pointing your finger at me.
So, who is repeating himself?

No, that is not my logic, perhaps that's what your logic tells you mine is , but it doesn't make mine so just because it appears to you so.
You have a habit of putting into my mind what is in yours, so no surprise here.
But once again, I remind you: the subject matter of this discussion is not me.
The subject matter is your claim that the theory you defend is valid one.

You are free to proceed and prove your claim. Otherwise it is rendered moot and I have benefit of the assumption.

See above.

Empirical research can give us empirical data.
Using that empirical data and known properties of matter one can draw inferences or come up with theories as to what originally caused the effect that is observed empirically.

The difference between valid and invalid theory is that invalid theory is arbitrary , akin to wishful fantasy, whereby valid theory relies on empirical evidence and strict rules of reason.

Australian aborigen may claim that there is a cause-effect connection between woodstick and a rainfall.
But that is not scientific theory , it's wishful fantasy, no matter how many aborigens believe it or repeat it.

Valid theory would , relying on facts of event, try to make a logical conclusion as to origins and cause of event , without being arbitrary or wishful in the process of drawing such conclusions or simply relying on hearsay.

Someone who claims the theory to be valid would need to first present the facts and then prove the scientific validity of the method used to arrive to conclusion.

Any scientific theory that is not arbitrary or wishful in the process of drawing its' conclusions merits to be accepted as valid for the purposes of this discussion.

 

Such as?

 

What is the relevance of my answering to this question to the subject matter of you making a claim and not sustaining it?

 

The relevance is that if you do not believe that any scientific theory can be "valid" - which is what your argument seems to imply - then discussing the merits of any particular scientific theory is somewhat pointless.

This would also explain why you have refused to engage with any of the standard evidence for evolutionary theory and have tried to divert the subject from evolution into the fields of chemistry and physics in an apparent attempt to undermine the whole idea of "knowing" anything at all by empirical research. (An interesting debate on its own terms, by the way, but not the one I have been fruitlessly trying to have with you.)

 

Here is what I actually wrote before you asked your "relevant" question:


Jumbuli55, 5:11PM, Quote:
Valid theory would , relying on facts of event, try to make a logical conclusion as to origins and cause of event , without being arbitrary or wishful in the process of drawing such conclusions or simply relying on hearsay.

Someone who claims the theory to be valid would need to first present the facts and then prove the scientific validity of the method used to arrive to conclusion.

Any scientific theory that is not arbitrary or wishful in the process of drawing its' conclusions merits to be accepted as valid for the purposes of this discussion.
End of quote

You are the one who consistently shifts the focus of conversation from subject matter of it to my persona.

You made the claim about validity of the theory now go ahead and prove your claim.
Either that or your claim is moot and I have the benefit of assumption.

Explain the theory you defend and prove its' scientific validity.
I don't care how you proceed, but however you do it "if it is your aim to convince the skeptical mind you must keep in yours that for any theory to be accepted as valid it must make sense and not be akin to a wishful fantasy like ancient myths, it must very well correspond to known empirical facts and evidence and be a logical extention and inference from it, with no contradoctory questions arising out of it"[Jum., Today, 5:11PM].

Now if you would like to proceed and prove your claim I am more than willing to hear your argument.
If you don't then your argument is moot and I have the benefit of assumption.

You can go in circles as many times as you wish but it won't change anything:

you either prove your claim in strict accordance with scientific method or you render your claim moot and I have the benefit of assumption.

 

Yes, I read that the first time you posted it. Thanks for copying and pasting it in there again. Now, my question was: is there in your view, any scientific theory which meets these criteria? If so, please let me know which one(s).