Human immunity, evolved from corals!:

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well, if it's not abiogenesis and evolution, and if it's not God then what caused the diversity of life we see? Unless you're going to advocate Lamarckism there aren't a huge number of other candidates.

A few weeks ago I looked in at the Spirituality forum so I could take a break from the rancor and mud slinging here at this forum. Imagine my surprise at finding the same gang of so called logical rabbel rousers over there. What's the point of anyone taking it over to the Spirituality forum when they can find the same people here pretending to be rational realists?

Originally posted by humy
which post are you referring to?

The one right above it.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Well no kidding! Nearly every poster who has responded to me has somehow managed to misunderstand or misinterpret nearly everything I've said, because nearly every poster who has responded to me has a vested interest in disqualifying nearly everything I have said. Should I expect the people who disagree with me to [b]not managle what I'm saying to the point it becomes unrecognizable even to me?[/b]

Have you considered that perhaps you are simply not articulating yourself as well as you think? I don't think most posters in this forum deliberately misunderstand you or twist your words due to a vested interest in disqualifying what you say.

I commented on you playing a semantics game, and what do you do? You respond by playing more of the semantics game.
No, I did not. I said quite clearly that I am not playing semantics games. I am pointing out errors in what you say inasmuch as I can understand what you say. If what you say is not what you mean, then feel free to clarify what you say, just as I am clarifying what I said.

Originally posted by twhitehead

So you know how to read wiki, but can't seem to apply what you read.

What I stated was that PE is not an argument for the theory of evolution, it is a hypothesis used to explain some aspects of the fossil record - with the assumption that evolution was taking place. Hence it is not a circular argument because it is not trying to prove the assumption.

What I stated was that PE is not an argument for the theory of evolution, it is a hypothesis used to explain some aspects of the fossil record - with the assumption that evolution was taking place.

No one is arguing with that.

Hence it is not a circular argument because it is not trying to prove the assumption.

Well good for you, you did it again! That is not what I was calling a circular argument. How did you manage to miss my point 1.) and point 2.) ? You don't need to translate it from English into English, because I have already stated it in English. I am not going to repeat points 1. and 2. again. Either go back and look at what I actually said, or admit you haven't a clue as to what is actually being said.

So you know how to read wiki, but can't seem to apply what you read.

Says the guy who apparently can't understand what is being said.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well, if it's not abiogenesis and evolution, and if it's not God then what caused the diversity of life we see? Unless you're going to advocate Lamarckism there aren't a huge number of other candidates.

I am not afraid to answer that one. God commanded that each kind of creature He created to multiply and fill the earth. So God is the cause by first creation of the different kinds of creatures and by providing them with the means to reproduce the different varieties.

The Instructor

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well, if it's not abiogenesis and evolution, and if it's not God then what caused the diversity of life we see? Unless you're going to advocate Lamarckism there aren't a huge number of other candidates.

Scientists are not required to consider conclusions before looking at the evidence. It doesn't mean there are no scientists who start with a conclusion and then try to get the evidence to fit with their theory, it just means scientists are not required to do this.

I'm not trying to be facetious here, but it seems unavoidable if I must continually state what should be obvious.

Originally posted by humy

A and B are 1. and 2.

Nope; try again.
Once again, you show your illogic.

Clarify:
you said:

“...1. gaps in the fossil record validating punctuated equilibrium and 2. punctuated equilibrium validating gaps in the fossil record. ...”

so if A and B are 1. and 2. then we have:

A = “gaps in the fossil record validating punctua ...[text shortened]... osed to be the argument parts but rather JUST the subjects assertion parts.

Even if there are no transitional species, then PE can still validate itself by assuming 1. gaps representing no findings of fossil evidence and 2. PE's explanation of why there is no fossil evidence found, and hence the gaps. This only works if evolution is actually true.

It doesn't matter if there were actually any transitional species or not, the circular reasoning of PE is self validating. 1. supports the the idea of there being gaps and 2. supports the explanation of why there are gaps. But what if the gaps are only imaginary? You see this as being fact because it can only be seen as subjective if you are willing to entertain the idea that perhaps there never were any transitional species.

But this is something you are not able to consider because the theory of evolution necessarily needs for there to be transitional species. The design argument doesn't need to explain gaps because there are no gaps to explain. A creationist can look at the fossil record as it is and he is able to see what he would expect to see.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Scientists are not required to consider conclusions before looking at the evidence. It doesn't mean there are no scientists who start with a conclusion and then try to get the evidence to fit with their theory, it just means scientists are not required to do this.

I'm not trying to be facetious here, but it seems unavoidable if I must continually state what should be obvious.

Science happens within a collection of paradigm theories. They are needed to be able to formulate questions and interpret evidence. Every now and again they change. The notion that new species emerge due to evolution driven by natural selection forms such a paradigm. If it's not to be evolution and not intelligent design, then the only other potential paradigm theory in this area is Lamarckism. No one has ever attempted science without a body of knowledge behind them. Really, it's standard procedure to assume an explanation for anomalous data exists within the generally accepted paradigm, until there's too much of a contradiction or a better theory. You must have an alternative theory in mind.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Science happens within a collection of paradigm theories. They are needed to be able to formulate questions and interpret evidence. Every now and again they change. The notion that new species emerge due to evolution driven by natural selection forms such a paradigm. If it's not to be evolution and not intelligent design, then the only other potentia ...[text shortened]... too much of a contradiction or a better theory. You must have an alternative theory in mind.

My alternative theory is to allow evidence to be the determining factor whether it supports a particular theory or not. And if evidence does not support my alternative theory of allowing evidence to be the determining factor then I must reconsider and search for another alternative theory.



Careful there humy, you might blow out a circuit trying to understand this one.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Science happens within a collection of paradigm theories. They are needed to be able to formulate questions and interpret evidence. Every now and again they change. The notion that new species emerge due to evolution driven by natural selection forms such a paradigm. If it's not to be evolution and not intelligent design, then the only other potentia too much of a contradiction or a better theory. You must have an alternative theory in mind.

Given what was known at the time of Lamarck and Darwin, I believe both of them showed a great deal of insight and ingenuity. But today we are able to see and understand (and not just theorize about) the inner workings of cells. And how DNA serves a two fold purpose by functioning as both library and machine shop for making molecular machines on demand and when they are needed. This relatively new understanding is a game changer, but it doesn't take anything away from what Darwin and Lamarck attempted to do... they simply didn't know what anyone today is able to know.

I'm curious about many of the comments I've seen that suggest Darwinism is basical done and gone. I'm not sure if I understand this. If Darwinism is no longer the top theoretical dog, then what has replaced it? Is there some new version of neo-Darwinism that has replaced the old neo-Darwinism? Or has evolution (theory of) moved on to something entirely different?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Science happens within a collection of paradigm theories. They are needed to be able to formulate questions and interpret evidence. Every now and again they change. The notion that new species emerge due to evolution driven by natural selection forms such a paradigm. If it's not to be evolution and not intelligent design, then the only other potentia too much of a contradiction or a better theory. You must have an alternative theory in mind.

First time I have seen this term Lamarckism, but it appears to only be the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics as seen from the following Wikipedia article:

Lamarckism (or Lamarckian inheritance) is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or soft inheritance). It is named after the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829), who incorporated the action of soft inheritance into his evolutionary theories as a supplement to his concept of an inherent progressive tendency driving organisms continuously towards greater complexity, in parallel but separate lineages with no extinction. Lamarck did not originate the idea of soft inheritance, which proposes that individual efforts during the lifetime of the organisms were the main mechanism driving species to adaptation, as they supposedly would acquire adaptive changes and pass them on to offsprings.


When Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution by natural selection in On the Origin of Species, he continued to give credence to what he called "use and disuse inheritance", but rejected other aspects of Lamarck's theories. Later, Mendelian genetics supplanted the notion of inheritance of acquired traits, eventually leading to the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis, and the general abandonment of the Lamarckian theory of evolution in biology. Despite this abandonment, interest in Lamarckism has continued (2009) as studies in the field of epigenetics have highlighted the possible inheritance of behavioral traits acquired by the previous generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

The Instructor

Originally posted by lemon lime
No one is arguing with that.

Either you were, or this post by you makes no sense:

Before we can imagine how gaps in the fossil record occurred we must first believe that there are gaps. We don't need to do that with swiss cheese because the holes are there for anyone to see. Since we weren't there to see the fossil record being formed, then we are only assuming there are gaps... we don't know for a fact if those gaps actually exist or not.

I am also yet to see where you explain how I used an argument from authority. Or are you admitting that you were wrong on that point?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Even if there are no transitional species, then PE can still validate itself by assuming 1. gaps representing no findings of fossil evidence and 2. PE's explanation of why there is no fossil evidence found, and hence the gaps. This only works if evolution is actually true.

So are you admitting here that:
1. If evolution is true, there is no circular reasoning involved?
2. You were ignoring the fact that the scientists in question assume evolution is true and are not trying to prove it?
This just after a post denying exactly that.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The design argument doesn't need to explain gaps because there are no gaps to explain. A creationist can look at the fossil record as it is and he is able to see what he would expect to see.

No, actually, a creationist could not possibly see in the fossil record anything even close to what he should expect to see. The fossil record clearly shows evolution and not creation.
Yes creationists will say that they see what they expect to see, but a bit of discussion will reveal that they are just making it up as they go along, and haven't really thought it through.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Even if there are no transitional species, then PE can still validate itself by assuming 1. gaps representing no findings of fossil evidence and 2. PE's explanation of why there is no fossil evidence found, and hence the gaps. This only works if evolution is actually true.

It doesn't matter if there were actually any transitional species or not, the ci ist can look at the fossil record as it is and he is able to see what he would expect to see.

It doesn't matter if there were actually any transitional species or not,

Actually it does. Even with PE, we SHOULD still expect to find direct physical evidence of SOME transitional species -just not as many as if PE was false. We have found that evidence in the way PE predicts. If, hypothetically, there was literally no transitional species ever found despite the vast mountain of fossil evidence and other evidence found, then PE actually could be in trouble! But this is not the case and PE is now an established scientific fact proven by the irrefutable physical evidence.

Even if there are no transitional species, then PE can still validate itself by assuming 1. gaps representing no findings of fossil evidence and

What on earth are you talking about? We HAVE the fossils thus we HAVE the fossil evidence. And we HAVE found transitional species, both in the fossil record and those alive today. So whether it “can” validate itself by assuming something else other than the fossil evidence we HAVE already got is completely hypothetical and totally irrelevant.

PE's explanation of why there is no fossil evidence found, and hence the gaps.

No, we HAVE found the fossil evidence thus it is NOT true that “there is no fossil evidence found “. We HAVE the fossils; we HAVE examples of transitional species; we HAVE the physical evidence to back up PE; no need for any kind of circular reasoning and no kind of circular reasoning used by us scientists.


To demonstrate circular reasoning, you must TELL US:

A = “...what statement goes here?....”

B = “...what statement goes here?....”

so that A and B can then be substituted for the above two statements in statement (1) below:

(1) = "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."

Remember, if A or B is given (explicitly or implicitly) ANOTHER premise other than the reason stated in statement (1), then the reasoning is NOT circular.
Also remember, even if you do FINALLY get round to demonstrate circular reasoning, that circular reasoning would not be the reasoning we scientists use because we rely on the physical evidence because, and here is the revelation for you, that's just how science works.

So far you have made one failed attempt to do this (you cannot allow the argument (1) itself to be substituting A or B !).
I challenge you to try and do this yet again!
Your inevitable continuous failure to do this just proves you have no circular reasoning demonstrated.

Once again I debunk every claim you make and you show your complete inability to think logically and concisely.