Originally posted by ColettiSince you responded to that post, I am assuming you are challenging the claim that the TOE is scientific (?). Or are you claiming Creationism is scientific? Or are you saying both are equivalently scientific, or are you saying Creationism is more scientific than the TOE?
Ultimately, the question how life can to be as we know it, is a philosophical one. The science follows from philosophical presuppositions. There is plentiful data for either theory, and big empirical holes in both. And neither can be answered empirically. Although, if you limited yourself to empiricism, TOE is the only reasonable, if incomplete answer. If you allow for theism, Creation makes more sense.
Your post does not clearly describe your position on the respective and comparitive scientific merits of the two models for life as we see it today and how it came to be.
Up until the end, you seem to be saying the two are equivalent. However then you say
Although, if you limited yourself to empiricism, TOE is the only reasonable, if incomplete answer. If you allow for theism, Creation makes more sense.
What is 'empiricism' and what is 'theism'? Can you elaborate on these last two sentences?
Originally posted by jmonkeyThe TOE is based on both inference and observation. Observation will become more and more of a factor as time goes on (unless Jesus comes and beats up all us heathens first).
I agree to an extent. The TOE is based on inference not observation. We see a collection of fossils that show a progression of changes. We cannot or ever will be able to observe these changes so we have to infer that the species evolved. Unforunately, when we use the fossil record, there is no scientific basis in assuming that evolution took place. Actually, ...[text shortened]... not treat the TOE like it is their religion and get all offended when other people question it.
We cannot or ever will be able to observe these changes so we have to infer that the species evolved.
Well, we cannot observe that which already has taken place of course; unless we make a time machine. However we should be able to observe equivalent events in the future. In order for these future events to be strong support for one or the other position, it's important to clearly and rigorously define the terms we use now and make solid predictions now such that the two models disagree on how things will turn out. By this I am referring to what data will appear, not whether (for example) things will seem intuitively complex (with complex being poorly defined).
Originally posted by jmonkeyUnforunately, when we use the fossil record, there is no scientific basis in assuming that evolution took place. Actually, Creationism whether biblical or not is the only theory that is really supported by the fossil record.
I agree to an extent. The TOE is based on inference not observation. We see a collection of fossils that show a progression of changes. We cannot or ever will be able to observe these changes so we have to infer that the species evolved. Unforunately, when we use the fossil record, there is no scientific basis in assuming that evolution took place. Actually, ...[text shortened]... not treat the TOE like it is their religion and get all offended when other people question it.
I have to disagree with the claim that "when we use the fossil record, there is no scientific basis in assuming that evolution took place."
For example, unicellular organisms have left fossils older than those of any worm. Worms have left fossils that are older than those of any fish. Fish have left fossils that are older than any reptile. Etc.
Macroevolution is one model that explains these observations. In agreement with the model of macroevolution are the existence of transitionary fossils. For example, fossils that are similar to birds in some ways and similar to reptiles in others are dated to be somewhat older than the earliest birds in some cases. Bird-fish hybrids are not found however, and bird-reptile hybrids are not found before reptiles.
This is one small argument showing that macroevolution is scientific. There are many other facts that fit the model very well; take a look at this website for a much more in depth discussion that shows that macroevolution is scientific:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
By the way, just because something is scientific doesn't make it right.
Actually, Creationism whether biblical or not is the only theory that is really supported by the fossil record.
Care to support that claim? I don't think you can support that Creationism is supported by the fossil record. I've already shown that even if it is, it's not the only theory.
Originally posted by jmonkeyCan you give some examples?
What I mean is that the fossil record shows different species that "just appear". There is no way to observe that two species are related and that one evolved from another. We assume evolution through the observed similiarities but assumption should not be used to support a hypothesis or theory. My emphasis is on the OBSERVATIONS we make versus the ASSUMPTIONS we draw from them.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe best example would be the lack of intermediary species. We need to see a constant change from a flipper to a leg. Whales have what appear to be hips, albeit sans flipper. Unfortunately we don't have any intermediary fossils where those ancient legs start shrinking and finally disappear altogether. I'm not saying those species did not exist but assuming they had to be there is not the same as seeing the actual fossils.
Can you give some examples?
There are also fossils of what appear to be dinosaurs with feathers but that doesn't mean that birds came from dinosaurs. There are porcupines and possums that have prehensile tails but the two species are not related, nor does anyone think they evolved from a same parent.
Finally it is not logical to say that the TOE has credibility because the most simple fossils are followed by the more complex fossils. The TOE doesn't say that complexity is the best survivor. Crocodiles and sharks have not changed much since they first appeared because they are extremely well adapted to their environment not because they were more complex.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungEmpiricism is the theory that all knowledge comes from perceptions (sense experience). All that we can know is based on what we can see, feel, smell, etc. Most natural sciences are based on this assumption.
Since you responded to that post, I am assuming you are challenging the claim that the TOE is scientific (?). Or are you claiming Creationism is scientific? Or are you saying both are equivalently scientific, or are you saying Creationism is more scientific than the TOE?
Your post does not clearly describe your position on the respective and compa ...[text shortened]...
What is 'empiricism' and what is 'theism'? Can you elaborate on these last two sentences?
Theism would say that knowledge comes from God (or God and experience).
Usually empiricism is contrasted with rationalism - which is the theory that some knowledge can not be accounted for by empiricism alone, and must be accounted for by intuition.
My thinking is that Creationism and Macro Evolution are both so broad or too supernatural for science to deal with. So I have a hard time calling either scientific as far as natural empirical science is concerned.
If I were to accept empiricism, I'd say ask me in 100,000 years and I'll tell you if Macro Evolution is true - because by then I might have experienced it. 😉
Originally posted by nickybuttStatus so far:
As far as I know the Theory of Evolution (TOE) is the best scientific model to explain life as we see it today. However there seems to be quite an opposition against it. But if the TOE is wrong, what else do we have that can explain the multitude of Earth's life?
Length: 50 post
Thread life: 4 days
Still no alternative, it's quiet in here...
Originally posted by ColettiI am an empiricist then I think.
Empiricism is the theory that all knowledge comes from perceptions (sense experience). All that we can know is based on what we can see, feel, smell, etc. Most natural sciences are based on this assumption.
Theism would say that knowledge comes from God (or God and experience).
Usually empiricism is contrasted with rationalism - which is the theory th ...[text shortened]... and I'll tell you if Macro Evolution is true - because by then I might have experienced it. 😉
You don't need to wait 100,000 years to support the TOE empirically, if science is purely empirical. You can take what you experience now and propose models to explain it; this is perfectly scientific. For example, it's scientific to say that mass-energy is always conserved. No one human has experienced what has happened with all mass and all energy over all time, past, present, and future; yet the conservation law is still scientific.
Originally posted by jmonkeyThe examples I wanted were those of fossils that "just appeared" as you put it. I should have been more clear.
The best example would be the lack of intermediary species. We need to see a constant change from a flipper to a leg. Whales have what appear to be hips, albeit sans flipper. Unfortunately we don't have any intermediary fossils where those ...[text shortened]... adapted to their environment not because they were more complex.
You say there are a lack of intermediary species in the evolution of whales from a legged ancestor. How many such fossils would you need to see before you admitted you're wrong? An infinite number? The fossils of every single animal in the line of descent? Or would a smaller number suffice? Also, would we have to find every single one of these fossils in perfect condition, with every bone in place?
If the TOE is correct, to demand every skeleton of every animal in the line of descent to be found in perfect condition and with all bones perfectly arranged is to demand the impossible, because not every such animal would leave a skeleton in that condition.
You seem extremely skeptical. If you see a woman walk through a door and then five seconds later she walks back out, don't you assume she was on the other side of the door for those five seconds and base your model about what's going on in that region of the world on this assumption? I am sure you do. Why is that assumption acceptable as a basis for modelling the world around you but similar assumptions aren't acceptable as a basis for modelling how life came to be in it's present forms?
There are also fossils of what appear to be dinosaurs with feathers but that doesn't mean that birds came from dinosaurs. There are porcupines and possums that have prehensile tails but the two species are not related, nor does anyone think they evolved from a same parent.
This is because there is stronger evidence suggesting different evolutionary paths for these organisms. If the only thing we had to go on was the prehensileness of the tail then it would be logical to assume they did come from the same ancestor. This is not the case for the feathered dinosaurs; birds have many features in common with dinosaurs, and few with other organisms.
I don't know what you're talking about when you mention complexity of fossils as evidence for the TOE.
Every species "just appears" in the fossil record because there are no intermediary species connecting the species together. I don't know how many species would be required to connect a major change like a land mammal evolving into a whale. Anthropologists and biologists acknowledge the lack of the intermediary species. When they find the fossils and they say they have found the appropriate chain of species then that might be proof enough.
In your example of the woman and the door. You OBSERVED the woman walking through the door and then 5 seconds later going back through to where she started. If I showed you two pictures, 5 seconds apart, of the woman on one side of the door.... would you be able to assume that she went through the door? If I show you a picture of the woman in the lobby and then 5 minutes later a picture of her in the penthouse suite, can you tell me if she took the elevator or stairs? Maybe she took the stairs up a few stories and then got tired and rode the elevator.
My point about the tails is that biologists are able to OBSERVE the species that are alive today and can tell that the prehensile tail evolved as a similar adaptation to their environment rather than as a remnant from an earlier species. Most fossils are not complete skeletons so if there were two fossils with very similar tails, whose to say that the species might not be miscategorized.
About the complexity of organisms, your the one who brought it up earlier as evidence for macro-evolution. I was just saying that natural selection works on the best adapted not the most complex and like other evidence the worms-> fish-> birds idea is circumstantial.
The TOE has alot of circumstantial evidence. Other theories may start out as inferences on what is observed but eventually scientist have to conduct an experiment that will prove or disprove their theory. I don't understand why the TOE can get away without such experimentation just because "there is not enough time" or "there is no way" to test it. My point is that the fanaticism that some people have towards the TOE mirrors the religious zeal that creationist are accused of having.
Originally posted by jmonkeyJust because so many pieces of the puzzle are missing, it seems to me that TOE requires as great a "leap of faith" as religion.
Every species "just appears" in the fossil record because there are no intermediary species connecting the species together. I don't know how many species would be required to connect a major change like a land mammal evolving into a whale. Anthropologists and biologists acknowledge the lack of the intermediary species. When they find the fossils and they ...[text shortened]... people have towards the TOE mirrors the religious zeal that creationist are accused of having.
Originally posted by nickybuttErm...well step outside the debate for a second.
Status so far:
Length: 50 post
Thread life: 4 days
Still no alternative, it's quiet in here...
TOE says it's a "natural" or "accidental" process and I would say it's the only one that 's going to make any sense (i.e. there's no other way to have a non-directed process produce life unless you accept life happening by complete random chance as an option). So logically any "alternative" explaination would have to be based on pre-determination or "designer" theory.
So if you're not happy with intelligent design as an alternative you're going to have a very, very long wait for another...
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by jmonkeyEvery species "just appears" in the fossil record because there are no intermediary species connecting the species together.
Every species "just appears" in the fossil record because there are no intermediary species connecting the species together. I don't know how many species would be required to connect a major change like a land mammal evolving into a wha ...[text shortened]... irrors the religious zeal that creationist are accused of having.
Huh? What is an intermediary fossil to you? Why are 'intermediary fossils' important if they are defined in such a way that absolutely none exist? I see your words, but I don't get their meaning; my first natural response is to say you are incorrect when you say there are no intermediary species in the fossil record.
I don't know how many species would be required to connect a major change like a land mammal evolving into a whale.
So no matter how many fossils were found, I suspect it still would not be evidence to you. You'd always demand more. An analogy might be with Newton's Law of Gravity; no matter how many objects you saw fall at the same rate of acceleration, you'd always demand more before you accepted there was something to that Law. Actually I suspect that may not be a solid analogy, but I can't point out why so I'll leave it to you to show me if it's not solid.
Anthropologists and biologists acknowledge the lack of the intermediary species.
Can you give specific quotes from specific people that acknowledge this?
When they find the fossils and they say they have found the appropriate chain of species then that might be proof enough.
I'd like clarification about who "they" are. If you're going on the authority of biologists and anthropologists you should be an evolutionist already. I don't see how you can appeal to the authority of biologists yet challenge them when the vast majority of them say MacE is a correct model.
If I showed you two pictures, 5 seconds apart, of the woman on one side of the door.... would you be able to assume that she went through the door?
If one picture shows her on one side and the other on the other side, I'd say the most likely explanation is that she went through the door, yes. Your question is not clearly worded so I don't know if she is on the same side or opposite sides of the door in the two pictures.
If I show you a picture of the woman in the lobby and then 5 minutes later a picture of her in the penthouse suite, can you tell me if she took the elevator or stairs?
No. However I would be able to say she probably moved her body from the one location to the other through a continuous path, as opposed to poofing into existence in the penthouse. Analogously, MacE does not necessarily tell what the exact mechanisms were for change; it simply states that certain changes occurred.
My point about the tails is that biologists are able to OBSERVE the species that are alive today and can tell that the prehensile tail evolved as a similar adaptation to their environment rather than as a remnant from an earlier species.
No they can't. They can observe the species alive today, but they can't observe how those species evolved. They can make certain models about how those species evolved and look for evidence to support or refute their models, but they can't see how that change occurred because it happened in the past.
About the complexity of organisms, your the one who brought it up earlier as evidence for macro-evolution.
Here is what I said about complexity in this thread:
In order for these future events to be strong support for one or the other position, it's important to clearly and rigorously define the terms we use now and make solid predictions now such that the two models disagree on how things will turn out. By this I am referring to what data will appear, not whether (for example) things will seem intuitively complex (with complex being poorly defined).
Here I am criticising creationists' common argument that 'complexity' is relevant somehow to the TOE. I am not saying anything about complexity being support for anything. That was the only time in this thread I discussed anything remotely like what you say I said. So, you are incorrect when you say I brought up complexity as evidence for MacE.
The TOE has alot of circumstantial evidence. Other theories may start out as inferences on what is observed but eventually scientist have to conduct an experiment that will prove or disprove their theory.
Well, scientists have done such experiments in the lab. In response, creationists decided that experiments that demonstrate microevolution 'don't count' for some reason. In addition, another type of experiments have been done. In these, people go around digging, looking for fossils, and predict that those fossils will fit in with the macroevolutionary scheme; for example, no fossils of mammals have been found that date earlier than about 200 million years ago. Interestingly, fossils of mammal like reptiles are found that date up to about 280 million years ago, while fossils of non mammal like reptiles have been found that date earlier.
Other experiments that have been done include looking at the biochemistry of organisms, looking for DNA similarities or ribosomal similarities; while occasionally these experiments produce unexpected results, overall they consistently fit in with the predictions of evolutionists. For example, mammals are more similar to reptiles than they are to amphibians or fish.
My point is that the fanaticism that some people have towards the TOE mirrors the religious zeal that creationist are accused of having.
You have no arguments from me there. I do my best to avoid that fanaticism and I find it annoying in other people.
For starters, who said I wasn't an evolutionist. My point is that the TOE isn't clear cut and that at present, faith is required to follow it as truth.
Intermediary species are important because we should see them all over the place, both in the fossil record and now. We should even see our cellular makeup in the process of evolving. Life went through mass extinctions and then very quickly returned so that inside a relatively compact strata we should see numerous intermediary species... but we don't.
Here are some an excerpts from Darwin's The Origin of Species, Chapter 6:
Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? ...extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form.
But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?
In this chapter Darwin covers what he considers are potential faults in his theory. He says that these inconsistencies can be explained by the imperfection of the geological record, continental drift, and the concentration of species. Darwin suggests that the geological record just doesn't hold fossils well, that species evolved more when the continents were a collection of islands, and that these intermediary species existed in areas on the fringe of an ecosystem where the concentration of animals is noticeable smaller.
I think these are all valid ideas but they require a leap of faith. Darwin was speculating on ideas ranging from geology, to animal behavior and statistics.
----------------------------
Huh? What is an intermediary fossil to you? Why are 'intermediary fossils' important if they are defined in such a way that absolutely none exist? ...
I quote Darwin and no I didn't define intermediary species.
I don't know how many species would be required to connect a major change like a land mammal evolving into a whale.
So no matter how many fossils were found, I suspect it still would not be evidence to you. You'd always demand more...
Now that's just wrong. You completely took my response out of context. I said that scientists are the ones that come up with the definition of the intermediary species, not me.
My point about the tails is that biologists are able to OBSERVE the species that are alive today and can tell that the prehensile tail evolved as a similar adaptation to their environment rather than as a remnant from an earlier species.
No they can't. ... they can't see how that change occurred because it happened in the past.
Finally we agree. Evolution is based on inference not observation.
About the complexity of organisms, your the one who brought it up earlier as evidence for macro-evolution.
Yes, you brought it up. This is from your earlier post.
"For example, unicellular organisms have left fossils older than those of any worm. Worms have left fossils that are older than those of any fish. Fish have left fossils that are older than any reptile. Etc.
Macroevolution is one model that explains these observations. "