Religion is notorious for requiring and valorizing faith. Consider the story of Doubting Thomas, or this bit of “infallible” dogma that every Roman Catholic is required to believe:
Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”
Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.
As a skeptic, I can only roll my eyes at this kind of obligatory, blind faith.
But is science itself free of such faith claims? Many theists argue that it isn’t, and that science therefore has no reason to look down its nose at religion. Even physicist Paul Davies argues that science relies on faith:
The problem with this neat separation into “non-overlapping magisteria,” as Stephen Jay Gould described science and religion, is that science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified…
Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You’ve got to believe that these laws won’t fail, that we won’t wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour…
.Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too…
But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.
I think Davies gets it completely wrong. Science does not require faith that nature is intelligible; that is a conclusion, not an assumption. Science does not require faith in absolute and immutable laws, for the same reason.
Is there any way in which science requires faith? Not as far as I can see. Not even the most fundamental of our beliefs – such as a belief in the correctness of the rules of logic, or our belief that the external world exists – need to be taken on faith. They can be taken provisionally, subject to possible later disconfirmation.
What say the readers? Does science require faith?
Actually, many have denied that Tik is what evilutionists say it is.
So all Tik has done is create two new gaps.
Gralgrathor,
The odds are the same for both common design and common descent.
Yet i insist science is not about odds or guessing. its very reason for existence is to demonstrate by high standards of investigation using same evidence standards BEFORE conclusions are drawn.
your saying oDDS is admitting its about mere connectionsism.
You have NO BIOLOGICAL SCIENTIFIC evidence for these hidden connections.
You just have creatures with bodies, alike or not, and you gUESS that had a common descent because of common likeness in the bodies.
This is just a line of reasoning one could do in ones armchair without any more investigation.
Its only a hypthesis. you have no theory here.
I made the EXAMPLE of common design to show how anothyer option would also explain all biology likeness.
My example was not made to say yours is wrong.
I’m showing, by logic, your nest thing has no more or less evidence backing it then common design.
its all about drawing conclusions merely on lookalikes.
There is NO bio sci behind these conclusions on connections as evolution teaches.
You didn’t even try to show it.
You just repeated likeness in so much of biology COULD ONLY/ODDS be from common descent.!
Science is not rolling the dice and anyways it rolls the common design way just as well.
You did strive to prove me wrong when I said evolutionists can’t show bio sci evidence for evolution.
You didn’t do it here.
I have tried to articulate as carefully as possible why you did not.
Science only happens with the inbetween of fossil data. Presuming a mechanism is INBETWEEN going on is not science.
One is just joining the dots on a hunch.
I understand evolutions teachings.
We were talking about fossils or nests etc.
you said the features being alike enough in otherwise unrelated creatures was the evidence for them evolving from each other.
I said AHA. you admit its the features in creatures/fossils that is the ONLY evidence for these nests.
AMEN. its just looking at traits and presuming the only option is evolving from each other BUT there is no Evidence offered OTHER then this line of reasoning.
Common design can offer another option but thats not the point here.
The point is that fossils/nested thing is entirely without evideence of the mechanism behind these features being observed.
Its just a hunch and a exclusive option that evolutionism seizes on.
There is no sci bio evidence however. Nothing showing biological processes and not scientific methodology demonstrating them . Its truly just lines of reasoning upon basic data points.
i think I’m right here.
Tiktaalik supports evolution changes over time recorded in the correct order, and disproves simultaneous creation, Robert.
There’s no way to determine the odds on common descent, as it does not offer any testable hypothesis, Robert, so I’m going to have to treat that as the bare assertion it is.
You insist away, Robert; that does not change the simple fact that natural sciences are probabilistic in nature. We gauge the odds that a particular, testable hypothesis is correct based on the match between expectations following logically from that hypothesis and actual data. Nature is messy, so the match itself is probabilistic. Data points in a graph almost never exactly follow the perfect curve predicted by a model of whatever the graph is depicting.
Evidence was listed in many prior comments, Robert. The definition of what evidence is has not changed, nor has the data itself. You may continue to reject it, but that does not change the fact that for all common definitions of science and evidence, and given the models proferred, the items listed are, in fact, evidence for those models.
And as soon as anyone provides an testable hypothesis, science will be sure to pick up on it, Robert.
So, to get back to the question at hand:
Robert, what are the odds that all the observations in biology and palaeontology should match expectations logically following from a particular explanatory model if that model is somehow fundamentally flawed?
Are they large odds, Robert? Or are they small?
Nests, Robert? Are you sure you got that part right?
i say it isn’t biological scientific evidence for seeing the Tittaalik in any evolved relationship with anything else.
Even if it did reflect this creature having evolved IT STILL would not be bio sci evidence it evolved just because of geological deposition of it with something else in fossil form.
I’m splitting the atom here to demonstrate ONLY that evolutionary biology is not bio sci.
Not thats its wrong. first things first.
Tit having like traits with other fossil creatures can be observed. However the evolving is not. its presumed. WHY? Because of the likeness of the vtraits. Circular reasoning.
They just presumed there was no other options.
yet other options are there and anyways its still just a line of reasoning to say this Tit is connected to any other creature based on evolved features.
Gralgrathor,
All evolution conclusions are based on the same presumption. Segregated fossils with like features is the evidence of common descent. Thats all that got.
You uniquely stress that odds is part of the science process.
in this case this is wrong.
Science is not about odds but about solid facts including any kinds of testing.
You are , a little, agreeing that your odds thing is a needed line of reasoning for your nested system of biology.
We make progress.
i continue to say your nest is entirely based on a line of reasoning and empty of sci bio evidence.
Example.
Say space aliens came and gave us a perfect video of all biology on earth having evolved.
That would be perfect evidence of biologica processes and origins of results.
Yet i would insist its not biological scientific evidence for evolution.
no science was done using biology to determine this conclusion.
Even though the video is proof positive.
YOU would say the video is bio sci evidence.
The thing here is about what science is.
I say its not just right answers but is a methodology.
The method is not used in your nest case.
As you said you just see the odds as the evidence.
Yet all these things fits fine with common design.
ANYWAYS NOT THE POINT.
The point is that you have no evidence of the inbetween stage between any two biological entities. All you have is a hunch.
You say the odds are great the hunch is right.
I saw a hunch is not science. its fine for a hypothesis but not the essence of a theory.
anyways the hunch can be wrong when there are other hunches.
I have tried to carefully articulate what my point is.
I’m not sure if you could yet articulate back to me my own point.
I do think there is a fatal flaw in evolutionisms thinking that they have sci bio behind their conclusions.
i don’t see any yet.
Well, no, Robert. It hasn’t just “like features”; it’s got nested hierarchies. Nested hierarchies in the diverging progressions of morphological traits in the fossil record; nested hierarchies in the traits of morphological intermediates found in the fossil record; nested hierarchies in the sequences of pseudo-genes found in living animals; nested hierarchies in the morphological traits of living animals; nested hierarchies in their embryological development; atavisms that match their place in the nested hierarchies; and so on, and so forth. And they’re all the same set of nested hierarchies. And that’s just nested hierarchies.
Anyway, Robert, we already did this. You asked for us to list some evidence, we did.
Robert, the natural sciences are probabilistic in nature. It is about odds. Period.
Frankly, Robert, it’s science that makes progress, while you are apparently stuck with a set of beliefs stemming from ancient scripture.
Well, no, Robert. That would be a video. It probably wouldn’t be considered evidence at all. Physical data is what is needed for this. Comparative genomics and morphology. Palaeontology.
But we do, Robert. They’re called morphological intermediates, also known as transitional forms, and the fossil record is loaded with them. Tiktaalik roseae is one of them. Its exact location and morphology was predicted on the basis that there must have been some form intermediate between known species of lungfish and early amphibians – intermediate between a basal and a derived clade.
But what do you say, Robert? What are the odds that all the observations in biology and palaeontology should match expectations logically following from a particular explanatory model if that model is somehow fundamentally flawed?
Are they large odds, Robert? Or are they small? Think about it.
Its exact morphology was predicted, Robert. Right down to the shape of the bones in its forelimbs. Without ever having seen any other animal of its kind.
What are the odds?
We see common descent all the time.
Parents have children; cats have kittens; dogs have puppies; pigs have piglets; ducks have ducklings, etc.
this is not the same thing.
the fossils used to claim evolution are not the same creatures BUT RATHER have some like traits from which they reason/conclude they are therefore of common descent. How else they ask?
Notwithstanding I say this is not sci bio evidence. Its just guessing with a conviction there is no other options for why it would be this way.
Guessing is not science. Even if it was true.
Odds are not science. A creationist could predict this.
Yet like features in different creatures is not sci bio of why they have like features. its just a guess.
Other options existing would also predict this result.
I say common design with diuversity or rather with like traits for like needs would also fit.
However as you admit THE science is based on dice rolling.
Thats not science. Thats a line of reasoning even if the odds were fantastic in your favour. YET you must agree with me IT IS JUST a line of reasoning. The reasoning feeding off the odds.
Yet no actual bio sci evidence for the inbetween evolving.
We are making progress if you agree your odds=line of reasoning.
thats my goal I have trued to press here.
Gralgrathor,
Okay I think we make progress. I usually never go this far with a evolutionist as they fail to keep up and are confused.
Amen. A video from space aliens, though proof positive, is not biological scientific evidence for evolution.
i said here there was NO SCI BIO evidence. Not mere evidence.
Evolution claims to be a sci theory. So it must show it is.
not a mere hypothesis with secondary claims of evidence.
We talked about the nest thing.
i say its not a nest but a claimed nest based on like traits.
You seem to say the nest comes from like traits in INTERMEDIATE fossils between the two evolving ones.
OKAY
Yet this is no different , I say, then merely comparing traits. Its still just guessing some mutual trait could only be evidence of evolution FOR there is no other option for why it would be like that.
there is other options. but thats beside the point.
your saying once again a line of reasoning/odds is the only evidence for the connection.
The inbetwen was not fossilized. Only a result is fossilized.
there is no biological data point to examine using scientific methodology.
there are just some result fossils. Then a connection is made based on the hypothesis. YET i say this is just a line of reasoning.
however reasonable, if so, its not bio sci evidence for the connection.
Another option(s) would right away nullify this “evidence” without destroying it.
There is no evidence these are intermediates. they can be diversity or unrelated critters with like responses to like needs.
In fact convergent evolution in evolutionary theory itself could offer another option for any example you brought up.
Another example.
If you add a perfect sequence or a creature in its stages of evolving features in the geo strata record IT STILL would not be sci bio evidence for vwhat it obviously is showing.
for no examination/observation is being done on a biological agent here AND if not then its not SCIENTIFIC biological investigation.
Its just connecting rock pictures.
In the real world there is no such sequence.
TIT could be predicted by anyone aware of the two fossils ITS meant to be between. one is just predicting like traits for like needs or like traits
Anyways a mere prediction is not sci bio evidence. its just engaged in reasoning itself.
i think we are making progress.
It is about the high standard of science to avoid wrong reasonings.
No, Robert. Nested hierarchies. Read up on it.
Wrong, Robert. The natural sciences are of necessity probabilistic in nature. Nature is not precise and clean. Nature is messy. Data points don’t usually fall exactly on the ideal curve predicted by the model. Once you learn that, you may be able to understand other stuff as well.
Yes, Robert. Additional morphological intermediates. What are the odds that we keep finding the transitional forms that are predicted by common descent, Robert? Do you think aliens put them in the ground just to fuck with our heads, Robert? And besides that, we can actually observe morphological divergence directly, again matching predictions following from our models.
Anyway, the rest is just repetition. There’s no need for you to come back here, Robert, until you learn:
– That the natural sciences are probabilistic in nature. Yes, it’s about odds.
– That evidence is observations matching expectations following logically from a testable explanatory model.
– Nested hierarchies, Robert, nested hierarchies.
Come back when you understand these things, Robert. Until then, cheeryo.
It is the evidence of a continuing process of descent.
Yet these are evidence by living creatures and known where they came from.
The fossils or nested thing is not about living creatures but details on a rock.
The connection is what is demanded to be shown by evolutionism.
They don’t. They just keep showing the beginning/end results and insist the inbetween is proven because HOW ELSE could it be?
No science going on except a hunch and lines of reasoning.
Gralgrathor,
Cheeryostay.
If you leave I claim victory fair and square.
Its important to you that science is probabilistic. Fine. Okay.
Yet this is unrelated to your bringing in odds for evolutionary trees I say.
You are not just saying about odds but saying the evidence for connections between creatures is the odds. Not actual evidence in the hand. This has been my point. Its a line of reasoning always in your nest thing, fossils etc etc that they are evidence for evolution.
It also doesn’t work because other option, creationism, explain the connections.
Your odds concept fails here. bY the way few evolutionists are argue odds. they stress common science methods .
There are few transitional fossils but they still are not evidence for evolution betwen the two fossils being connected.
they are just what they are. the idea of some trait on some intermediate being evidence for evolution is just a line of reasoning. Whats the evidence for it evolving. who says its not just a useful trait created by god or adapted without evolutionary processes. All there is IS limited data.
Your nest idea.
I understand it enough.
your still saying the likeness of traits equals common descent across biologys spectrum.
whats the evidence other then this likeness of traits?
how do you know how the likeness came? you say evolution predicts it WELL so does creationism. anyways evolution first devloped by looking at traits. not predicting it laqter.
Yet prediction is not biological scientific evidence.
Its just guessing about connections between creatures being based on common descents.
I belueve I could articulate what your saying about this.
I don’t believe you could articulate my point.
I don’t think you understand that lumping biology together just because of how it looks is not science. Even if you got it right.
Its just thoughtful hunches.
I said there was no scientific biological evidence for evolution.
You bravely stepped forward.
you failed to persuade me and failed to show me you understood my criticisms however articulate I tried to be.
Where is the biology evidence, using the scientific methodology for examining this evidence, showing evolution can say its a theory of science???
There is none. you can’t show it any better then anyone and this is why evolutionism will end soon.
However my challenge is out for any one to provide bio scie for evo.
When you are solving a jigsaw puzzle, you did not have to see the original picture being cut up into pieces. You can judge how well you are doing by how well the pieces fit together.
When solving a crossword problem, you do not have to see how the author of that particular crossword designed it. You can tell, by how well the clues fit together, whether you are getting it right.
With evolution, the pieces fit together very well.
Our understanding of the continuing process of descent, together with the way the pieces fit together, are what make evolution persuasive.
By contrast, YEC is obvious nonsense. The parts don’t fit together.
It just is. I can’t help it. That’s the way the world works; you’re just going to have to deal with it.
It’s also important that you understand why the natural sciences are probabilistic in nature.
We’ve given you the evidence, Robert. Now answer the question: what are the odds all these things match up with our models through random chance? Do you believe random chance can get that lucky, Robert?
Since you’re still unable to call the phenomenon by its name, nested hierarchies, I have to assume that you don’t. Your further comments on nested hierarchies confirm this.
Again, look it up. Can’t be that hard to find a biology text on nested hierarchies, or even a wikipedia article.
That’s obvious. That’s your problem though. If you or anybody else had had any good arguments against science, we’d have been thinking about doing things differently by now.
Your challenge was met and won ages ago. It’s a shame that you lack the basic understanding of scientific principles and findings to realize that.
its the jigsaw puzzle here then we are questioning. Its different.
How pieces fit together is not science.
Science is a methodology that insists upon careful investigation before conclusions drawn.
You must demonstrate the pieces fit. Not just bseemingly.
As I said before. Creationism allows the pieces to fit.
Common design allows for a common blueprint to biology and so everyone has the same eyeballs.
You say NAY. Eye balls come from common descent.
Yet then you say its the only option. ITS NOT.
Notwithstanding all this WHERE IS THE SCIENCE?
your just asking on a hunch and a line of reasoning from that is confirming it to you.
You are seeing things not there.
Where is the sci bio behind any evidence of evolution??
Gralgrathor,
OKAY.
AGREED. Its not random chance that creates these nests impressions or anything in biology. Creationism says so too.
I didn’t realize you thought I was saying that!
I did say its a product of design. Common biological foundations with tweeking for to create kinds.
You have been saying that the NESTS etc COULD ONLY be from common descent and so THIS IS THE SCI BIO evidence for evolution.
I said AHA. Your admitting its all lines of reasoning.
So another lINE nullify’s your line as the only line and this alone nullify’s your claim to bio sci evidence.
Anyways i say its not bio sci evidence to merely use logic upon raw data.
Its not science. Its just putting two and two together.
I asked for bio sci evidence that showed evolution to be a sci theory.
You showed me jUST lines of reasoning based on a exclusive option for why biology looks alike.
In no way is this scientific investigation of biological processes.
In no way I say.
You have used the words odds etc a great deal.
I say this means you agree its LINES OF REASONING.
However great you think your odds are its still truly lines of reason.
Its not actual observation of biological processes/results.
You presume these processes happened because of the ODDS that biology is connected based on likeness.
So then YOU must show that this ODDS observationism is scientific investigation of biology.
I say its not. its just reasoning lines. YET no science is going on here. No biology is either.
Just using raw biology data points and reasoning they are connected by common descent AND SO thats the evidence for evolution.
AGAIN its up to you to prove your doing sci bio in drawing your conclusions.
You have not done this as I strive to show here.
You really should stop trying to redefine science to suit your own needs, Robert. It’s not seemly behaviour. Fitting together pieces of a puzzle is an apt analogy for the way the natural sciences try to uncover the secrets of nature.
As thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed papers in scientific journals do.
It doesn’t. Compared to the way science works, creationism is like being handed a puzzle where the pieces are all white squares, and a paintbrush so that you can paint a picture on it once you’ve put the pieces together*. Sure they fit together. But they fit together in a billion different and equally valid ways, without giving a hint about which is the right way. Which is fine, if you believe that there’s no one objective reality. Unfortunately for creationism, most of us do believe there’s a single objective reality, and we want to know how its pieces fit together.
Is an untestable claim. A bunch of white, square pieces.
The science is in making claims that can be verified against data. In jigsaw pieces that are not square and white, but have all kinds of unique shapes and colours, allowing us to match them against expectations based on understanding.
Which would be very nice, if there were some way to distinguish 1) between common design and any other claim, and 2) between the falsehood and the truth of common design. But with common design, we can do neither.
There’s no way to say what potential observations should obviously not be expected if common design is true, since there’s no knowing what the designer might have wanted to achieve, what its motivations or limitations were.
Equally, there’s no telling what should be expected based on the claim of common design. Should common design lead us to expect to find five-headed cucumberhorsefishbirds? Sure, why not. Should common design have us expect a fully stocked mini-bar at the absolute center of the Earth? Sure, why not.
There’s no potential observation of which we can say “nah, common design could not possibly produce something like that”, nor is there any potential observation about which we can say “yes, that would be a logical consequence of common design!”. The claim simply isn’t testable**). And therefore not science.
Your insistence that it was common design that produced these patterns is exactly the same as saying that it’s all a coincidence. After all, you know nothing of the abilities, limitations and motivations of the designer. So what you’re saying is that the world we find just happens to be what the designer chose, arbitrarily, without being able to determine how likely this particular outcome is.
You believe in random chance more than any ‘evolutionist’ does, Robert. Me, I don’t. When it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then I’m not going to say that it just happens to be an arm-chair designed to appear like a duck. The best guess in that case is that it is a duck.
Yes, that’s quite a lot of text for you to work through. Not quite sure why I bother. Anyway, perhaps you’ll think about it. And perhaps pigs fly.
*) I’m being a bit too generous here, perhaps. What creationism actually hands us is a mix of white square and round pieces, which can’t be made to fit together in any way.
**) Being too generous again. Certain claims regarding Genesis are very well testable, and have been found utter bollocks long ago.
Gralgrathor,
It does seem we come back to your point about odds that biology looks so alike while being different species etc etc.
Creationism says also biology would look alike from a common design.
Eyeballs for everyone because its a good idea/design.
yET you say eyeballs for everyone demands ONLY the option of common descent.
It doesn’t. thats just a exclusive pre determination before you investigate biology.
Everything is a option.
In no way do i see your nests thing as bio sci evidence for evolution.
This was your example in trying to demonstrate there IS bio sci evidence for evolution.
Your example didn’t work as I knew it wouldn’t.
Your example is just a line of reasoning however much you think its reasonable/odds friendly.
perhaps you do realize this now.
Looking at creatures alive/fossil and comparing traits is not bio sci evidence for wHY they have like/close traits.
Its just a hunch its from common descent. There is no evidence from merely looking at them.
Second another hunch, common design, also nullify’s common descent as the only option and so all the more showing its just lines of reasoning and unrelated to investigative science.
I think progress was actually made in our discussion.!
No. Your saying that shows that you haven’t bothered to look up what the phrase nested hierarchies refers to.
The nested hierarchies of biology concern the similarities and the differences between lifeforms forming a pattern of groups within groups within groups, each subclade having defining characteristics unique to them (the differences), but also the defining characteristics of all superclades (the similarities). It is this pattern of nested hierarchies based on which the creationist Karl Linnaeus originally decided that Man, Homo sapiens, were Primates. And it is this pattern that was an important clue towards common descent, eventually leading to the formulation of theories describing the mechanism of change, ultimately resulting in the theory of evolution by natural selection that Darwin pioneered.
No, it doesn’t. Creationism just says “goddiddit”. If an omnipotent creator had decided to populate a world with lifeforms, it might just as easily have made all species completely different, with no discernible pattern of similarities and differences whatsoever. Nested hierarchies – or similarities, for that matter – do not follow from “common design”, and therefore the “common design” thesis cannot be tested using the observation of nested hierarchies (or similarities).
Let’s think about that for a second, shall we? There are as many different types of eye in the animal kingdom as there are major clades. What’s more, one of the defininig traits of the vertebrate eye is the reverse order of optical receptors and nerves, requiring a blind spot for allowing the nerves to lead toward the brain. But other animals have other types of eyes: there are faceted eyes, common in insects; pinhole camera eyes, found in molluscs; eyes that are no more than a patch of light sensitive cells, found in some types of flatworm; and so on. So obviously not “eyeballs for everyone because its a good idea/design”.
And again we see here the nested hierarchies of biology. We never find eyes with an autofocusing lens and iris in insects; we never find pinhole camera eyes in vertebrates; and so on. A god could have mixed and matched such components as he saw fit. In stead, what we find is a rigorous adherence to a pattern of similarities and differences forming groups within groups within groups – a pattern such as would be formed by mindless inheritance.
Now why is that, do you think?
Gralgrathor,
For most creatures its the same eyeballs. Yes there are a few other types for quite different types of creatures. Yet its not a roll of the dice.
Common design would predict like eyes for like needs. I see this as making my case well.
your nest thing sTILL is about comparing details of body. Thats all they did and do.
its just a line of reasoning that likeness, equals like descent.
yet I don’t see why common design would not produce the same result.
Yes God could make every creature completly different in looks but he could make everyone off the same rack. A basic plan and then tweeking to make kinds.
Why should biology be any more chaotic then physics coming from the same creator.??
yet it still comes back that these nests are just lines of reasoning in saying they are evidence for evolution. there is no bio sci evidence that evolved from each other in big ways. You provide NONE.
you provide a reasoning/odds concept.
Yet the odds are better for a creator with a plan that fits all almost.
Yet still I insist this nest idea has no science in it for what it claims to prove.
this has been a great flaw of logic/methodology in seeing these biology data points as evidence for evolution.
Even if true it would still just be deduction and not bio sci investigation.
There is nothing there to observe except results.
Your side did not imagine another option was possible and convinces itself that these nests are bio sci evidence.
Nope. Just reasoning from a starting point whether right or wrong.
SO i can say still you didn’t provide bio sci evidence for evolution.
you can’t. Its not there.
No, not really, Robert. You’re showing an astonishing lack of awareness of the true complexity and diversity of Earth’s biome.
Surely not, Robert. It’s variation and selection.
No, it wouldn’t, Robert. I explained this already.
That, as I explained multiple times, is the point, Robert. “Common design” does not logically lead to any specific set of expectations rather than another. If we found out tomorrow that the world is actually a big sugarlump floating in a broth of peanut butter, that’d be perfectly okay with “common design”. There’s nothing that says the “designer” can’t make worlds like big sugarcubes floating in peanut butter, after all. How many more times do we have to explain this to you, Robert?
… First, it’s not a “nest thing“. Robert, if you can’t even be bothered to use the appropriate terms, then why on Earth do you come here to discuss these matters? Obviously, you’re neither familiar with nor interested in the science involved. And yet you come here to dispute it. You come here to dispute something you know nothing about and understand even less. I don’t get you, Robert.
Second – yes, that’s what they do, Robert. They compare morphologies, genomes, embryological development patterns, proteomes, behaviours, and so on. What else would you have them do, Robert? Play checkers? Write a novella on the whichness of why?
Robert. I explained to you how science works. I explained to you what evidence is, in the context of the natural sciences. I explained to you what nested hierarchies are. I explained to you how inheritance would have us expect to find a pattern of nested sets of similarities and differences in morphologies, genomes and behaviour.
You’re picking up none of it, Robert. I’ve made a lot of effort to explain things to you in elementary school terms, so that even a kid could understand, but you’re still arguing as if none of this has been explained to you. What’s the use of coming here to complain, Robert, when you cannot be bothered to assimilate or even check the information given to you? Do you care about what’s true at all, Robert? Or are you just complaining because you don’t know how to do anything else?
Because if you don’t soon start showing signs of conscious thought, Robert, you’re done here. I cannot in good conscience spend more energy in explaining things to somebody who time and again demonstrates not to listen and not to care what is said.
Good-by, Robert.
Gralgrathor,
Gralgrathor,
We had a long and good discussion. We just failed to persuade each other.
I understood all you said. i don’t think you got me.
To sum it up.
I said the comparing of morphology etc between creatures and SAYING this is bio sci evidence for the conclusion they evolved from each other was WRONG.
Its not bio sci evidence.
Its just a line of reasoning upon comparing close morphology’s and building yoir trees/nests etc .
Second. i said common design also could predict morphologies showing a closeness of biology.
the seconf point here was just to show their is other options BECAUSE , as you admitted, its was about the odds that biology would be so arranged.
Yet these odds mean there is no bio sci evidence. just a reasoned appreciation of the odds of such a result.
AHA. I say. AMEN.
its not science. its deduction from very basic data points.
I’m confident I showed that there was no bio sci evidence presented here by someone like you who was thoughtful and tried very hard and probably no one could do better.
I wish iD/YEC creationists would read our posts abd sharpen criticism against evolution based on the methodology failure in evolutionist thought..
You say that, but there’s no indication from your comments that you have.
Meaning you haven’t understood a word I said, when I explained to you how science works and what evidence is.
Robert, I don’t know whether it is by design or by inability that you’ve failed to understand my explanations, but rephrasing them over and over again has lost its appeal, so I’m done with this. Adios.
Gralgrathor,
It was a interesting and important discussion.
Your the first thoughtful evolutionist who ever brought up the issue of odds.
Odds means something other then raw fact.
i don’t see odds as legitimate in a science like dealing with in biology but anyways it make me take notice.
I do see the waqll here about your side makling connections in evolved biology based on exclusive option as you see it in how biology must be arranged.
I think i won and prevailed confidently but anyways it shows this issue is more then listing facts.
There is bigger systems here of how conclusions are drawn of unwitnessed events.