(May 25, 2016 at 8:41 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 8:00 pm)AAA Wrote: How do I not understand evolution? Is it not capable of replacing an inefficient structure with an efficient one?

Why do I believe that the designer is the Christian God? There are a few reasons. One of the main reasons is that Jesus's resurrection is the only acceptable explanation for the explosion of the early Christian church as many people were reported to have seen him alive afterword. Mass hallucinations and other explanations don't hold up. Also, I have been writing an extensive philosophy paper on the purpose of life and redefining the concept of the common good. I reached a conclusion. I realized after I had come up with that idea that it coincided perfectly with the Christian message.

And I hate the idea of an afterlife as much as you, but that doesn't change the fact that I think it is true.

The prior and more important question is why do you think the intricate 'design' of things implies a super-omni cosmic watchmaker at all?  Must every factoid regarding the arrangement of a thing's parts reflect a decision by that Guy?  Your way of thinking about this doesn't seem at all intuitive to me.

I don't 'hate' the idea of an afterlife so much as I find it silly.  It doesn't jive with what we experience.  

But since you've decided that the bible is the can't-miss reference book of the world par excellence, you just can't help using it to screen every finding of science and the evidence of your own senses.  I'm sure it isn't even a conscious decision on your part by now.  I have to say I feel a little sorry for you on this account.

Are you serious? I never even mentioned the Bible, then you say that I use it to screen every finding of science?? If we are going to stereotype, then you (as an atheist) are: arrogant and thinks they are smarter than every theist by definition; you like to do drugs and have sex a lot because there will be no punishment for a reckless lifestyle; and you think that we should all just do what makes us happy and find our own meaning in life.

(May 25, 2016 at 11:12 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 8:16 pm)The_Empress Wrote: By definition, design requires intelligence, a plan, intention, thought. Maybe you'd like to try another example of something that is designed but doesn't require intelligence?

I seem to recall bringing up this very issue some back and at the time ack-ack did not appear to dispute it.

I would seem that he now wants to pretend that isn't a thing.

Well I disagree with that definition. So does the definition #2 that theEmpress gave.

(May 26, 2016 at 1:53 am)robvalue Wrote: Well, all my points about the difference between science and pseudo science have been unaddressed.

I wonder if AAA went to discuss this with any of his professors.

Science tests falsifiable hypotheses. Pseudoscience doesn't. That's it in a nutshell. Don't believe me? Go ask a scientist.

Anyone who thinks the theory of evolution has not been established via falsifiable hypotheses understands neither evolution nor science. Scared to find out if I'm right?

You still never told me how evolution was falsifiable. You can't just say that anyone who thinks it isn't falsibiable just doesn't understand it. Give a criteria. And remember that I'm not questioning conventional geologic time.

AAA Wrote:

Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:I seem to recall bringing up this very issue some back and at the time ack-ack did not appear to dispute it.

I would seem that he now wants to pretend that isn't a thing.

Well I disagree with that definition. So does the definition #2 that theEmpress gave.

Yeah, I thought it was going to go in the direction of it being impossible to prove that anything isn't actually designed, but it just seems to be a weak attempt at a 'gotcha'.

(May 26, 2016 at 11:40 am)AAA Wrote: You still never told me how evolution was falsifiable. Give a criteria.

Fossilised bunnies in the Cambrian period.

(May 26, 2016 at 11:27 am)AAA Wrote: You ought to read a primary article on the evolution of some biological system and see how speculative and non-empirical it is.

TheRocketSurgeon has already picked you up on this. You're wrong. Modern biology is underpinned by evolution, that is to say that progress made in the field (e.g. modern medicine) is impossible without reliance on the demonstrable facts of evolution. You don't know what you're talking about and therefore disqualify yourself from intelligent discourse on this subject.

AAA Wrote:

robvalue Wrote:Well, all my points about the difference between science and pseudo science have been unaddressed.

I wonder if AAA went to discuss this with any of his professors.

Science tests falsifiable hypotheses. Pseudoscience doesn't. That's it in a nutshell. Don't believe me? Go ask a scientist.

Anyone who thinks the theory of evolution has not been established via falsifiable hypotheses understands neither evolution nor science. Scared to find out if I'm right?

You still never told me how evolution was falsifiable. You can't just say that anyone who thinks it isn't falsibiable just doesn't understand it. Give a criteria. And remember that I'm not questioning conventional geologic time.

The theory of evolution can be used to make predictions, such as in what strata we can expect to find (or not find) a particular kind of heretofore undiscovered fossil in, or roughly how many novel species we can expect to find on an unexplored island that is 45 miles across, separated from other land masses by at least 700 miles in every direction, if we also know how old it is and how long it has been separate from other land masses.

Ever since it was proposed, the theory has been tested over and over, and at every turn, evidence to disconfirm evolution could have been discovered instead of evidence that fits it. Almost everything we know about genetics was discovered after Darwin and it could easily have falsified evolution instead of demonstrating a plastic system of heredity that is subject to mutations changes in allele frequency depending on reproductive success.

Shorter answer: mammal fossils in Precambrian strata would be a big problem for evolution.

(May 26, 2016 at 10:10 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Of course, the trachea/esophagus thing isn't all that's not quite right with our transition from quadruped to biped. Our ancestors' guts hung downwards, ours need to be supported by muscle, not always reliable, leading to hernias. Our backbones went from an arched horizontal 'pole' great for climbing and moving in trees to an 'S' shape that leaves us prone to backaches and back injuries, because an 'S' isn't a good shape for supporting weight. We have too many bones in our feet, and flexible feet are great for climbers, but make us prone to fallen arches, ankle sprains, Achilles tendonitis, shin splints, and broken ankles. Ostriches have a much better foot design for bipedalism, but then, their ancestors were bipedal many millions of years before ours were.

These folks might just be 'the next step' in human foot evolution, though their reproductive isolation both preserves their unusual feet and prevents the gene from becoming more widespread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vadoma#Ectrodactyly

So you think that if we all hunched over, we wouldn't have back problems, because that is what our backs are meant to handle? Guts hanging down would still need to be supported by muscle too.

And they are losing genetic information which I believe definitely does happen. I do not think that our species would acquire this trait if we were allowed to breed with them.

(May 26, 2016 at 11:47 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(May 26, 2016 at 11:27 am)AAA Wrote: You ought to read a primary article on the evolution of some biological system and see how speculative and non-empirical it is.

TheRocketSurgeon has already picked you up on this. You're wrong. Modern biology is underpinned by evolution, that is to say that progress made in the field (e.g. modern medicine) is impossible without reliance on the demonstrable facts of evolution. You don't know what you're talking about and therefore disqualify yourself from intelligent discourse on this subject.

No, I don't believe in the all out story of evolution, but I seem to be doing just fine with my science classes. I haven't relied on it, and I think that thinking of it as designed systems makes it easier to understand.

(May 26, 2016 at 11:49 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

AAA Wrote:You still never told me how evolution was falsifiable. You can't just say that anyone who thinks it isn't falsibiable just doesn't understand it. Give a criteria. And remember that I'm not questioning conventional geologic time.

The theory of evolution can be used to make predictions, such as in what strata we can expect to find (or not find) a particular kind of heretofore undiscovered fossil in, or roughly how many novel species we can expect to find on an unexplored island that is 45 miles across, separated from other land masses by at least 700 miles in every direction, if we also know how old it is and how long it has been separate from other land masses.

Ever since it was proposed, the theory has been tested over and over, and at every turn, evidence to disconfirm evolution could have been discovered instead of evidence that fits it. Almost everything we know about genetics was discovered after Darwin and it could easily have falsified evolution instead of demonstrating a plastic system of heredity that is subject to mutations changes in allele frequency depending on reproductive success.

Shorter answer: mammal fossils in Precambrian strata would be a big problem for evolution.

I specifically said that I was not questioning geologic time. The fact is that when we look at the physiology of living systems, there is no way to falsify evolution. In other words,  there is no way to find any biological process that would falsify evolution.