Disproving the Bible

[Esquilax]

@Esquilax

You are correct that poking holes in a theory does not prove another theory. I was addressing the false assertions that evolution is a proven fact. You think it is a fact because in your worldview, there is absolutely no conceivable alternative. I am pointing out that the "facts" do not disprove my worldview.

I think it is a fact because evolution is defined as replication with inherent modification over successive generations, and that this is a literally observed thing that we can reproduce in laboratories, at multiple scales and resolutions, without expending much effort at all.

I think that evolution is a fact because it's something I can watch happening, can see at the genetic level through tests, can see in the fossil record through the incredible predictive models that modern evolutionary theory has furnished and had confirmed. At this point, the level of evolution is so strong, and seeing it first hand is such a trivial request, that this is seriously like you're saying that "the sky is blue when it's sunny" is not a fact.

There is no way in the world that 99% of the evidence points to common ancestry of all life. The only strong evidence is that biologist can breed organism and get them to adapt or evolve some sort of new function in the species or genus levels. To then extrapolate that to all living things across family, order, class, phylum and kingdom is a huge leap.

Ouch, wrong again, Steve-o! As literally seven seconds on google shows, there is plenty of evidence for common descent, not just the one thing. Whether you consider it "strong" or not is entirely irrelevant, as you are untrained in the field, and have demonstrated yourself to have no great understanding even of how the scientific method works, let alone biology.

I won't go to you for opinions on what classes evidence or not for the same reason I wouldn't go to you to engineer a plane that'd fly, or to develop a vaccine. You aren't trained for it, and your layman's opinion is not equal to those who've actually studied this.

I actually read the links you posted on the fossil record. Listing a few dozen or even hundreds of transitional forms does not conclusive evidence make. The explanation can easily be that these were different animals.

You could say that. Many creationists do, although they disagree among themselves on where those species lines form, but that's not surprising, since they- like you- are just being obstinate because your pet beliefs are being challenged, rather than thinking this through on any serious level. But your ill educated bleating is of no consequence.

You see, we can observe speciation today, we can engineer it under laboratory conditions and see new species form in the wild too. Because of this absolutely confirmed biological fact, you are making the claim that in the past there was something preventing this from happening, in the face of all the genetic and observable evidence there is. Thus, you bear a burden of proof, and just blindly asserting based on no evidence at all that "they could be separate organisms!" doesn't go anywhere near demonstrating that.

You think they're separate species. Fine. Why do you think that, and why should any of us care what you think on this issue?

What would be conclusive evidence (99%) is what we don't see--organisms with small changes into a totally new one.

You mean like Tiktaalik Rosae, the fish that's developing tetrapod feet? Or modern day whales, manatees and so on, with the bone structure of a foot disappearing into their flippers?

You didn't research this at all before you made this claim, did you?

Nor do we see organisms with strange appendages that would later become something. We don't see organism with organs that are not fully functional. The predictive powers of evolution in the fossil record fall well short of your 99%

You literally do not understand evolution. Not only that, you're now contradicting your own claims: just a minute ago you were demanding that every fossil we see is just a separate species and now, after defining them all as not related, you're chastizing us for not having connective bridges between species. What a completely dishonest argument.

Moreover, in evolutionary terms, every organism is "complete," in that it's suited for whatever task its ecological niche requires it to fill. The reason we don't see so many creatures with incomplete organs and so on is, simply, that evolution doesn't say that's what we'd see, and to claim that it does just shows that... well, you're ignorant on this subject. In an evolutionary framework useless organs and features are costly, they're a negative that would often see the creature possessing them selected out of the gene pool, rather than the reverse. The creatures that get selected for would have used for their "incomplete" parts, like gliding animals with their incomplete wings. And don't insult my intelligence by defining gliders as "complete," because you could do that by fiat for any example I cared to mention. Don't be dishonest.

PS: we actually do have plenty of animals with useless organs even now, that are references to their evolutionary lineage. There are still species of snake with little stubby legs that don't do anything, as their slithering body shape is still something they're evolving into. Mud skippers have little fin hands, as they're still evolving into amphibianism. The aforementioned manatees still have the bone structure for hooves in their flippers, because they're still evolving their flippers right, from their ungulate ancestry. They're still complete animals, but we can see the shift in their anatomy.

In the area of genetics, we have some orphaned genes that show up out of nowhere. You have groups of genes showing up in branches of organisms where the theory predicts they should not be. The counter argument is "look at all the common genes" or "see the junk DNA from older organisms". Some common genes are expected for all living things. We are finding uses for junk DNA so that is certainly not in the 99% range of proof. When you draw out the genetic tree of life, you get convoluted connections that don't make sense. Genetics is certainly not the conclusive proof that evolutionist thought it would be.

Argument from ignorance: "We don't know everything about this, therefore the things we can glean from this can't be right." Could you lay off the fallacies for a single goddamn post?

In micro-biology, we are finding that things are more complicated than they seemed to be (actually a better phrase would be mind-boggling complicated). How did DNA evolve? How did a cell evolve? How do GRNs evolve? Do you honestly think we know within your 99%?

Nobody said we knew everything. But of the body of knowledge we currently have, the vast majority of it points to, and is concordant with, evolution, whereas very little contradicts it. I'm sorry that doesn't match up with your childish fantasies of absolute certainty or nothing, but science isn't obligated to follow the obscenely high level of skepticism that you reserve solely for things you don't agree with.

The origin of life challenges, the first domino in this chain of events, is a massive mystery. Does that fit into the 99% certainty or is that a separate issue? Because it is a necessary ingredient and proving that life could come from non-life would be an immense proof that all this could have happened.

Abiogenesis is not germane to this discussion, as we are discussing evolution and common ancestry, not the origins of life. For more information on life coming from non life, I suggest you start at the Miller-Yurey experiments, where it was demonstrated that the building blocks of organic material can in fact come from non-organic material.

Has there been enough time for all the necessary mutations to occur, accumulate, and evolve all the necessary organisms?

Yes.

What is the rate of beneficial mutations?

That very much depends on the context you find yourself in when you possess any given mutation.

Is there are flaw in thinking that minute random mutations accumulate toward a beneficial end--getting "selected by the organism even though there is no immediate functional value or is it more probably that mutations that are not of immediate beneficial use are corrected, selected out, or die off. To make this even more complicated, multiple mutations are needed in multiple genes to effect even the first step in the chain to make a beneficial change--requiring an exponential amount of time, during which the organism has to keep around genetic material of no immediate use. While I am not a scientist, this does not sound like 99% certainty.

First of all, mutations that are neutral can also be selected for; the only criteria for keeping a mutation in the gene pool in some form or another is that it isn't harmful enough to be fatal to those that possess it. Second of all, you're assuming that each step in the chain of mutations from one thing to another would not be helpful in themselves, that each individual mutation is completely useless up until they reach that "final" mutation where it all clicks together. That's ludicrous; there are plenty of examples of initial simple mutations being modified and increasing in complexity over time, with each stage being beneficial or neutral to the host. Hell, the human eye began as a patch of light sensitive cells!

Seriously, you're not actually fact checking before you make these claims, are you?

Regarding the article, you want to give the impression that these people are uneducated hacks.

Not at all. Some of them have more degrees than I do. But none of them have degrees in biology, which makes them completely unsuitable to discuss it in any in depth manner. For exactly the same reason that you don't go to a plumber when you want medical advice; they just don't have the training.

The author of the article is irrelevant, but the content was useful to show the relationship between the original paper by Wilf and Ewens and the subsequent paper citing major flaws in it.

The authorship of the paper is very much relevant: you're asking me to believe that the opinions on biology of four people with no training in that subject are more informed than the professional opinions and careers of ninety seven percent of actual trained biologists. I'm not willing to make that leap, and I'm absolutely dumbfounded that you are.

The paper was mainly about the math that Wilf and Ewens used and therefore would require understanding mathematics as it applies to biology--which the authors were perfectly qualified to do:

No: if you're going to talk about math and biology, but only have expertise in math, then you're missing out fifty percent of the expertise you need.

Ann Gauger received a BS in biology from MIT, and a PhD in developmental biology from the University of Washington, where she studied cell adhesion molecules involved in Drosophila embryogenesis. As a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard she cloned and characterized the Drosophila kinesin light chain. Her research has been published in Nature, Development, and the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

And then she sold out the very basis of her scientific credibility when she went to work for an organization that requires her to accept a position as true before examination of the evidence, and in spite of evidence to the contrary. Can you honestly not see that a person employed to begin her investigations with the position that life is designed, and nothing can change that, is biased?

If I gave you a source that literally said, right at the beginning, that the authors presupposed that evolution was true, and will disregard all evidence to the contrary, would you take that source seriously? No? Then why are you asking that we do differently?

William A. Dembski has a whole bunch of degrees including postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University and a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago.

Yes, he's a mathematician, not a biologist. I don't care what he thinks about biology, which is what evolution is. Moreover, he draws his employment from an organization that has in its charter a commitment to "defeating" evolution. Does that not seem like a bias to you?

Moreover, don't you think it's incredibly hypocritical of you to complain that secular scientists won't even consider creation, and then to turn around and cite sources that literally state proudly that they won't even consider evolution, and will manipulate political organizations in order to "defeat" evolution regardless of its factual merit? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

The other two have degrees in engineering, computers and/or mathematics.

So I'll trust their opinions on engineering, computing and mathematics quite readily. But not on biology. They aren't trained for that.