Here comes another one...

[Inferno]

Ah, Mr Gilbo is back.

I didn't read a lot, but two or three things jumped out at me. I'll try to condense the arguments, correct me if I've incorrectly done so:

Gilbo, you claim that evolution (or rather, the Theory of Evolution) is not experimentally verified, that "Fish = Fish" and "E. Coli = E.Coli".

However, I already showed that your understanding of Evolution, Macroevolution and basically any other related topic was false in my "Macroevolution challenge" over at EFF. Don't you remember?

I asked you fifteen yes/no questions, none of which you (or anyone else on that forum) answered to any degree of satisfaction. I was able to show, though of course you'd never admit to that, that macroevolution occurs even according to your understanding of macroevolution. I was further able to show that half of what you would accept as macroevolution would violate at least one evolutionary law.
You called one of the already observed events (8) "hypothetical" and the other one (10) would not count even if I could show it to be true. Yet I showed both of these events to be true and they even fit the most restrictive definition of a macroevolutionary most creationists come up with.

To make this short: How can you, having been proved wrong on even these most basic points, still argue that evolution has not been experimentally verified when we've already found macroevolutionary events?

I would also like to remark that you can have a 1v1 debate, so all your "bum-rushed" comments are laughable.

Also, the definition of "fish" you use is... funny, to say the least. I have yet to read a creationist article where they claim that a baramin is at the level of a phylum, yet that's what you would suggest. All of the "fish" mentioned are chordates (which is probably the best term for what we call "fish"), yet all of them are in different classes or subphyla.

Actinopterygii, Chondrichthyes, Sarcopterygii, Lampreys and Hagfish...
All are in different classes and would, if one changed into another (which is possible according to your "Fish = Fish" comment), satisfy most creationist's need for "evidence for macroevolution".

Care to revise your definition?

 

[Dave B.]

Gllbo wrote:

AGAIN I ask you for evidence...

Assertum non est demonstratum fallacy, you really think that you can simply trash talk and people will believe you because you can write words...

No, I think people will believe me because they have seen you do it both here and at EFF. I don't need to demonstrate something that you have already demonstrated yourself.

But here's one example:

Gilbo wrote:

I wouldn't hold your breath Ron, I have asked the exact same in the "evolution did it" thread I made a while ago. Never had any evolutionist reply

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5603#entry93899

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

That was what he claimed, go look....

That is not what he said. He said dictionaries do not always get everything right, than used the example of how wrong scientific words can be in dictionaries. Please work on your reading comprehension. Remember, I was the one that quoted that section back to you because you simply refused to address it.

That is what you were claiming by accepting that faith is not a scientific word and then saying that dictionaries get normal words wrong too...

That is not at all, what I was claiming; work on your reading comprehension. I never said they get normal words wrong; all I said is that dictionaries are prescriptive and not descriptive. That does not mean they are inaccurate. Your grasp of the English language is tenuous at best and I can see why you hide behind semantics now.

So why am I being forced to accept them? I told him I do not accept them... He then went nuts on a tangent?

Its not a semantic argument, its a clear contradiction.. On one hand he claims dictionaries get words wrong, on the other he claims that he uses dictionaries to verify his word definitions... Its that simply how can you ignore this?

No one is forcing you to do anything. If you want to have a conversation with AronRa, you would have to accept those terms, or at least hammer out exactly why you do not accept them and see what comes of that. As I pointed out later, I do not care if you want to equivocate your language, I will simply point it out every chance I get.

Furthermore, semantics cause you to not move forward with an argument. You know that your arguments are grounded in the equivocations of words, which is why you do not want to move passed it and still make a fuss about it. In addition, AronRa claimed that dictionaries are prescriptive, not descriptive, for most words and sought to make the words descriptive by comparing multiple dictionaries and only using the definitions that they all agreed upon. Stop straw manning AronRa’s position on dictionaries.

What strawman? I am not the one attempting to redefine words and then force those redefinitions onto my opponents...

No, what you did was miss use the word I used and than said how does AronRa create definitions. Thus constructing a straw man. Once again, besides AronRa, no one cares if you want to use your definitions. Knock yourself out.

Only the context which applies to you which may not apply to others, this is called CHERRY PICKING... I have told you this a few times now... PErhaps the cap locks will help it sink in...

Again, if you want to use pejorative language you can call it cherry picking, however, it seems more appropriate to call it narrowing a definition. The context should be the same throughout the conversation. The only reason it would change is that you wish to equivocate words (thank you for admitting that outright). Semantics is all you have; you must stick with it.

I haven't made any equivocation? All I have done here is simply point out that he is cherry picking with his definitions (as he admitted) and that I do not accept his definitions, nor do I need to... In fact Aron is the one equivocating by attempting to redefine words

No, you are equivocating definitions. It is simple to demonstrate, you said:

gilbo12345[/url]"]Everytime you or I do an experiment we have faith that our results are an example of the reality.

You have faith that fossils are indicative of an evolutionary process despite not having experimental data to demonstrate that evolution really was the cause

Based on the prescriptive definition of faith, you would be correct, but then that gets us nowhere. You do realize that you can define a word so broadly that it is rendered useless. However, using the definition of faith that AronRa has provided, exposes your statements for the equivocations they are. Again, you need to do this because all you have are semantics to argue from, no real facts.

I asked you how does descriptive and prescriptive support what you claimed, you have failed to deliver in this regard. So are you backing away from demonstrating this?

Amazing how you said this when throughout the paragraph you quoted, I explain this to you. Again, work on your reading comprehension and reread that paragraph if you want my answer.

Actually I wanted to use a third party neutral dictionary, which is still concise.. Just not biased like Aron's made-up definitions.. As I asked how is Aron the arbiter of words? How can you or he know that he is making the right definitions?

First off, the dictionary you quoted earlier was not concise, as I pointed out above. Again, we compared multiple dictionaries (prescriptive definitions) and compared the definitions that are found throughout them (descriptive definitions) to have a better understanding of what is said in a conversation. This way you would not be able to hide behind semantics. Again, I do not care. This is just what AronRa wanted.

Sigh.. So if there is no double standard does that mean I am allowed to make-up my own definitions and then force you to abide by them?
How does what you say afterwards have any relevance to what you are replying to?

Again, no one (besides AronRa and I do not see him here) is forcing you to abide by them. Go ahead and make your semantical arguments and I will be more than happy to point out the fallacies in them.

The relevance is that instead of arguing the science, you would much rather argue the definition of words. Anything it takes to get away from the science and still feel you are fighting the good fight against us evil evolutionists.

 

[Prolescum]

Aww how cute! Mr Baggins has learned a new term, Assertum non est demonstratum. Shame he didn't learn that unless it's macaronic, the English terms are just fine.

So it seems that despite his supposed desire to avoid semantic arguments, he continues to make very little else. Given that HWIN has adequately reasserted AronRa's position on his terms, which I will add are fairly robust, the only reason I can see for Gilbo's continued reluctance to accept them is that, as HWIN noted, his arguments rely on equivocation. Flimsy doesn't even begin to describe it...

 

[DutchLiam84]

Ohh Jesus, I give up. There is no talking to this guy.

@Gilbo: Dude, you ask for stuff that is in the same goddamn text! Reading comprehension....do you have it?

It is obvious you lack certain skills. You could never be a scientist.

 

[Darkprophet232]

An official dictionary is much... (snip)

Listen, guy, I'm gonna level with you. We ran around this tree over 9 months ago, I'm not going to start again. I'm only responding to ask you to apologize for falsely claiming I insulted you.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

So my question stands, where are the experiments that support large changes from small ones?

This seems familiar. Oh, that is because this is the same argument you were using on the first page of the thread you started and I debunked here:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]What is the mechanism that stops this? As I pointed out above, we have observed speciation events. Until a mechanism is proposed that stops the changes from building up, the logical conclusion is that changes will always build up onto each other.

The process that causes large changes is the same process that causes small changes, just over a much larger time scale. Fossil and genetic evidence prove this (funny how you will not accept them). Now, unless you can propose a mechanism that stops this, your argument is moot.

An official dictionary is much... (snip)

Listen, guy, I'm gonna level with you. We ran around this tree over 9 months ago, I'm not going to start again. I'm only responding to ask you to apologize for falsely claiming I insulted you.

He kind of did already.

 

[Isotelus]

Fair enough. Though I still do not see how this relates to my main point, that being the claim that small changes add up to larger ones has not been experimentally verified and thus is merely an unscientific assumption.

A definiton of fish I would accept is found here
http://animals.about.com/od/f/g/fish.htm

"Definition: The term fish is used to refer to any aquatic vertebrate that has a skin covered with scales, two sets of paired fins, some unpaired fins, and a set of gills. Fish do not represent a single clade but are instead paraphyletic. They include hagfishes, lampreys, lobe-finned fishes, cartilaginous fishes and ray-finned fishes. "

I already know that you will try and claim that there have been slight changes within the fish as shown, and I do not doubt that, small changes happen we directly observe them. What I do doubt is the assumption that because small changes occur then larger ones must also occur, this extrapolation has no scientific foundation, since to do such would take "millions of years" since that is how long these larger changes are claimed to occur.

Ergo how we define fish really has nothing to do with what I am asking. I am asking for the experiments that confirm the hypothesis, "small changes lead to large-scale structural changes" without any observable examples of large-scale structural change there can be no experiments to verify that hypothesis.

Firstly this has nothing to do with the evidence small to large changes.... Since you are merely assuming ad hoc "evolution did it". How do you know that each of these forms actually did evolve to the other?

Where are the experiments that support that hypothesis? Remember the scientific method? You cannot assume your hypothesis of "evolution did it" is correct without demonstrating it via experiment.... By the way, ad hoc observation are not experiments... An experiment is repeatable, observable, measurable and falsifiable. Without means to test the cause of the similarities in fossils (since its a past event), it is not falsifiable nor repeatable.

This highlights a disturbingly common misconception on how organisms evolve. In your comment to me, you admitted that small changes occur and are observable. DutchLiam just listed a series of traits that changed sequentially within the whale group (most of which are seen in the fossil record) yet you’re calling it an assumption. Why the inconsistency? Pure and simple: the forms that exhibit these traits are and never were claimed to have evolved into the other. Please, please, please stop thinking of evolution as a linear process, because it is at the very root of the issue with your criticisms, and I can guarantee will cause problems in other areas not yet discussed. No scientist describing a lineage has ever presumed to identify an individual or a series of organisms as the true direct ancestor leading to the next and eventually resulting in modern extant taxa. This mistake is propagated by popular media (usually mistakenly), creationist websites, and in discussions such as this one. I am sure you are aware that evolution involves a series of branching lineages, but asking how we know one form evolves into another is the wrong question and shows a fundamental disconnect. You need to alter how you perceive phylogenies to understand where everyone here is coming from. The forms DutchLiam referenced are arranged on a branched lineage depending on how many traits they share with the last common ancestor and the crown group represented by living examples. Contrary to your claim, there are multiple ways to test whether or not the similarities among both fossils and extant taxa are due to relatedness, and research in this topic does not need to be restricted to lab procedures where only direct observation of any process counts as evidence. Here are a few papers that outline just a couple methods used to test phylogenies:
1) Baldauf, S. L., Roger, A. J., Wenk-Siefert, I., and Doolittle, W. F. (2000) "A kingdom-level phylogeny of eukaryotes based on combined protein data." Science 290: 972-7.
2) Penny, D., Foulds, L. R., and Hendy, M. D. (1982) "Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein sequences." Nature 297: 197-200.
3) Steel, M. A., and Penny,D. (1993) "Distributions of tree comparison metrics—some new results." Systematic Biology 42: 126-141.

Without any concordance between the “small and large changes”; i.e. if evolution was not responsible, all experiments using any of the typical phylogenetic methods involving algorithms and statistical analyses testing for shared-derived traits in a group of organisms would result in masses of mismatched, inconsitent trees: this does not occur. Further testing to evaluate the validity of the branches in any given tree would fail: they do not. Independent chromosomal, morphological, and genetic tests for one phylogenetic tree of organisms could not be used to refine or verify any other: they are, and they do repeatedly--with high degrees of statistical significance, no less. This leads me to the definition of fish, and how it applies to my above comments.

First of all, thank you for answering the question. That’s a great, precise definition, and there is nothing wrong with it, per say. However, Inferno did a good job of showing that it has a problem: it is not a functional term when using it within the context of evolution, and as such cannot be used as evidence against it. “Fish” is paraphyletic, meaning it includes the last common ancestor, but excludes its descendant group. This does not accurately reflect taxonomy and the evolutionary processes scientists put forth, who instead use the term only as a practical and simple descriptor. Fish=fish=fish also gives the false illusion of a linear evolutionary relationship because it does not explain anything systematically. When looking at the fish tree (The useful taxonomically relevant term would be Craniata), each divergence of a branch represents the appearance of a trait that is shared with all other subsequent ancestral lineages, but is not shared by its direct descendants (shared-derived traits). This means that while members of the group as a whole are all fish, a particular lineage can become increasingly removed from the ancestral condition as it diverges into further subsets, all of which are again erected based on the appearance of a series of incremental changes. Given that very significant changes occurred within a so-called branched fish group as Inferno explained, and in concordance with the use of mathematical analyses to demonstrate relatedness, there is absolutely no reasonable basis to remain skeptical that further derivation cannot occur. The most primitive tetrapods share a large number of traits with a particular group of highly derived fish, the Sarcopterygii. Here is the latest phylogenetic consensus for the Tetrapodomorpha; a monophyletic group that includes the closest sarcopterygians ancestors to all tetrapods:
Lu, J., Zhu, M., Long, J.A., Zhao, W., Senden, T.J., Jia, L., and Qiao, T. (2012) "The earliest known stem-tetrapod from the Lower Devonian of China". Nature Communications 3

 

[Dave B.]

Gilbo wrote:

demonstrating something is logically incoherent is evidence against that thing

1. Everything we know to exist exhibits physical, quantifiable evidence of its existence.
2. God does not exhibit physical, quantifiable evidence of his existence.
3. God does not exist.

There is your evidence that God does not exist. Now let's see if you can refute premise two by providing physical, quantifiable evidence of his existence.

 

[gilbo12345]

Sigh... Me telling you that I have never done something is not an argument from incredulity... I ask you AGAIN for your evidence concerning this claim. No evidence = No sale.

No, but claiming that evolution cannot logically occur is an argument from incredulity.

If I were to claim that god cannot logically exist you would most certainly accuse me of not having all the evidence available to make that claim. I would admittedly be making an argument from incredulity.

Now let's see you admit that you were wrong... :lol:

You have yet to hear my arguments for such ergo how can you claim that I am coming from a position of incredulity? Therefore you are simply jumping the gun... (Meaning you'd never listen to what I have to say anyway).

Gilbo wrote:

demonstrating something is logically incoherent is evidence against that thing

1. Everything we know to exist exhibits physical, quantifiable evidence of its existence.
2. God does not exhibit physical, quantifiable evidence of his existence.
3. God does not exist.

There is your evidence that God does not exist. Now let's see if you can refute premise two by providing physical, quantifiable evidence of his existence.

Do numbers exist? Can you please go to the shop and get me a kilo number seven.... Sure we can write a character and call it seven however that is merely a symbol not that actual thing. How about logic?

Your first premise is false since

a) we have examples of things that we know exist which do not have a physical state
b) you have no evidence to claim that only physical things exist, you are simply assuming this as evidence of your naturalism equating to circular reasoning...

An official dictionary is much... (snip)

Listen, guy, I'm gonna level with you. We ran around this tree over 9 months ago, I'm not going to start again. I'm only responding to ask you to apologize for falsely claiming I insulted you.

Yes you ran around the tree but never went in the tree that is the problem with trying to debate an evolutionist...

Read a little earlier... Already dealt with this.

Gllbo wrote:

AGAIN I ask you for evidence...

Assertum non est demonstratum fallacy, you really think that you can simply trash talk and people will believe you because you can write words...

No, I think people will believe me because they have seen you do it both here and at EFF. I don't need to demonstrate something that you have already demonstrated yourself.

But here's one example:

Gilbo wrote:

I wouldn't hold your breath Ron, I have asked the exact same in the "evolution did it" thread I made a while ago. Never had any evolutionist reply

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5603#entry93899

Pointing out that evolutionists don't reply to a hard question isn't me "declaring victory" its simply me pointing out that they refuse to answer hard questions...

Ah, Mr Gilbo is back.

I didn't read a lot, but two or three things jumped out at me. I'll try to condense the arguments, correct me if I've incorrectly done so:

Gilbo, you claim that evolution (or rather, the Theory of Evolution) is not experimentally verified, that "Fish = Fish" and "E. Coli = E.Coli".

However, I already showed that your understanding of Evolution, Macroevolution and basically any other related topic was false in my "Macroevolution challenge" over at EFF. Don't you remember?

I asked you fifteen yes/no questions, none of which you (or anyone else on that forum) answered to any degree of satisfaction.

Actually I believe you cut out that part of my post and ignored it, I pulled you up on this twice where once you replied by cutting out my answers and not addressing them (post# 26) and another when you later stated that nobody answered your questions, you post#42 when I already had... which means you are simply lying there...

However you did finally accept my answers and your only problem was that you were caught up on me not wanting to accept a hypothetical (idiotic) claim... Why should I? It had no basis in reality.... (post# 33) http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5314&p=88119

Therefore how can you claim that my answers were not good, if you read my answers and your own (post #24 and #42 you'd see that they are the same meaning you are simply trash talking here... Perhaps to look big in front of your mates... (I mean your entire post is crapping on about how you "triumphed", how old are you? 13?)

Unlike you or your mates here I will actually DEMONSTRATE my claims see the post numbers I mention or perhaps read the entire thread and see Mr Inferno's folly



I was able to show, though of course you'd never admit to that, that macroevolution occurs even according to your understanding of macroevolution.

How by complaing that I do not accept hypothetical imaginary situations?

I was further able to show that half of what you would accept as macroevolution would violate at least one evolutionary law.

What post is that?

You called one of the already observed events (8) "hypothetical" and the other one (10) would not count even if I could show it to be true. Yet I showed both of these events to be true and they even fit the most restrictive definition of a macroevolutionary most creationists come up with.

What post is that?

To make this short: How can you, having been proved wrong on even these most basic points, still argue that evolution has not been experimentally verified when we've already found macroevolutionary events?

You never proved me wrong, you merely assert as such however I see no-where on the thread where you did such in fact if you look at post#24 and #42 you'd see that both of our answers are pretty much the same. (Except for the hypothetical situations which you discount in your answers anyway)



I would also like to remark that you can have a 1v1 debate, so all your "bum-rushed" comments are laughable.

Also, the definition of "fish" you use is... funny, to say the least. I have yet to read a creationist article where they claim that a baramin is at the level of a phylum, yet that's what you would suggest. All of the "fish" mentioned are chordates (which is probably the best term for what we call "fish"), yet all of them are in different classes or subphyla.

Actinopterygii, Chondrichthyes, Sarcopterygii, Lampreys and Hagfish...
All are in different classes and would, if one changed into another (which is possible according to your "Fish = Fish" comment), satisfy most creationist's need for "evidence for macroevolution".

Care to revise your definition?

By the way STILL waiting for the EXPERIMENTS that verify the assumption of small changes do lead to larger ones. You cannot assert that its true without giving evidence that it is, otherwise you are doing exactly as I say and are making assumptions.

I repeat where are the EXPERIMENTS.... You know the repeatable, falsifiable, measurable tests.
Ad hoc observation of fossils and small changes etc are NOT EXPERIMENTS, so anyone posting such and think it answers my question do not understand what an experiment is. I suggest you guys go check a dictionary... Oh sorry forgot you don't like those....

As I said before looking at fossils and then claiming its representative of evolutionary change is assuming that "evolution did it", you'd need another EXPERIMENT to validate the hypothesis that "fossils are representative of evolutionary change", rather than merely assert that they are. As I keep telling you guys asserting something is not demonstrating it, why must you keep using that fallacy?

There are three principal means of acquiring knowledge... observation of nature, reflection, and experimentation. Observation collects facts; reflection combines them; experimentation verifies the result of that combination.
Denis Diderot

Without EXPERIMENTATION to verify your claims what do you have? A bunch of unverified hypothesises....

 

[DutchLiam84]

Let's turn it around. If you found 2 fossils, what kind of experiment would you do to establish relatedness between the 2?

 

[Dave B.]

Gilbo wrote:

You have yet to hear my arguments for such ergo how can you claim that I am coming from a position of incredulity?

It does not matter what your arguments are. You made the claim that evolution cannot logically occur. That is an argument from incredulity.

Now, if you want to demonstrate how it is unlikely that evolution can occur then that's fine. But you cannot argue that evolution cannot occur because you lack the knowledge to make such a claim. As I stated earlier this is no different than claiming that God cannot exist.

 

[Dave B.]

Gilbo wrote:

Do numbers exist? Can you please go to the shop and get me a kilo number seven.... Sure we can write a character and call it seven however that is merely a symbol not that actual thing. How about logic?

The number seven is an adjective that describes reality. It only exists as a description of reality. We cannot know that seven exists but we can know that seven of something exists.

Logic is also descriptive. It explains our observations of physical reality. It does not exist independently of the observer. Example: 11+1=12 (decimal) or 11+1=100 (binary). Both are logically correct and yet they logically contradict one another without the context of the observer.

Your first premise is false since

a) we have examples of things that we know exist which do not have a physical state

And yet none of them exist objectively. But feel free to demonstrate instead of just assert... :lol:

b) you have no evidence to claim that only physical things exist, you are simply assuming this as evidence of your naturalism equating to circular reasoning...

I see no evidence that non-physical things exist. That is the basis of the first premise and therefore it is stripped of all assumptions. In order for it not to be a valid premise you would need to:

1. Demonstrate something non-physical that exists objectively.
2. Assume that something non-physical exists objectively.

I'm willing to concede that something non-physical could exist but you would need to provide evidence in order for me to consider it.

 

[Frenger]

Trying to help educate the masses, as seen above apparantly a logical fallacy is a good thing to base ones own worldview on... Imagine that!

Oh you!

How is posting "evidence" staying clear?

Ach, it's the old reading comprehension again isn't it? I said I would stay clear of the semantics argument, which I did.

Actually the assumption is the evolutionist since they claim it can. As I was told before by Liam, scientists need to be skeptical.. Ergo they don't assume stuff happens. They'd be more likely to do as I do and say that nothing happens UNTIL there is evidence for it... Hence why I am asking for the evidence... If I am given the evidence (real evidence mind you, with no assumptions included) then I'd be happy to change my mind since its been demonstrated rather than asserted.

There is evidence though my friend, we see it in the fossil record. We see these changes happen on the smale scale and we can see them on the bigger scale in the past. Now, is that really so hard to understand?

I believe in our discussions on EFF I already told you this. Whenever we see a trait go into its extreme it leads to complications unique with that trait... Larger pigs = more mass but leads to decreased fertility, angled legs = better ability to mate (jumping) but leads to issues with joints and leg durability. A good observable example of this are Persian cats. Essentially with every trait there is a trade-off when it gets over expressed in the extreme.

I'm flattered you remember me, however, as I told you before, those traits that go to "extremes" as you put it, wouldn't survive and therefore wouldn't be passed on. Instead, those mutations that DO increase survival chances, will be passed on due to reproductive success. If a larger pig has decreased fertility, then it's going to be less likely to pass that trait on, you geddit?

Eager to hurl elephants are we?

Always

Alas these are all based on the assumption "evolution did it". If you had an experiment directly demonstrating small changes to larger ones then I'd accept that.

So because evolution is a slow process and you can't see it happen in your snap shot of a life time, you're going to ignore all that we see in molecular genetics, comparative anatomy and the fossil record then? Seem legit.

I'd ask that you unpack each argument since its your argument not mine to make. Feel free to post quotes from your links and your own description how this is an experiment that directly demonstrates large
changes from smaller ones.

The study supported the sentence I wrote, you can read them or leave them, but your willful ignorance will be noted.

Except for the fact that no other species is sentient, ergo they don't "believe" in evolution for the fact that they cannot.

Well done on answering a flippent and somewhat sarcastic remark there. Grab yourself a pat on the back.

 

[Frenger]

I'd like to suggest that Gilbo responds to Isotelus first, as I don't want that incredible post to get lost in the detritus.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I'd like to suggest that Gilbo responds to Isotelus first, as I don't want that incredible post to get lost in the detritus.

This.

In fact, that post is worthy of an honour not often seen here:

 

[gilbo12345]

Let's turn it around. If you found 2 fossils, what kind of experiment would you do to establish relatedness between the 2?

Why turn it around? Why not address the issue? (Did I mention evolutionists don't like to answer the hard questions? )

You ask what experiments would I conduct, what experiments have been conducted? There can be no experiments since its a past event, you cannot do a scientific experiment on a past event, (lest you have a time machine...). You can make inferences about a past event, however this is not empirical science, of which Biology is, an empirical science.

Therefore if evolution is not empirical science, why is it associated with Biology? Why isn't it placed within the social sciences / philosophy where it belongs?

Perhaps try and consider how does one do an experiment on a past event? It cannot be repeatable since all the specific details of the event would be unknown. It cannot be falsifiable because you cannot be sure that your attempt to recreate the past was accurate or not. Meaning it fails 2 of the four requirements for a valid experiment. Fossils are even worse due to the time-frame imposed, unfortunately people assume "evolution did it" without considering whether the observations and the inferences we make now are in line with what the reality was back then.. In other words they assume they are correct without testing their inferences.

As the quote, (and scientific method ) claimed. We make observations to gather data, we ponder on the data and make a hypothesis we then do an experiment to test our hypothesis to determine if it is representative of reality.

Gilbo wrote:

You have yet to hear my arguments for such ergo how can you claim that I am coming from a position of incredulity?

It does not matter what your arguments are. You made the claim that evolution cannot logically occur. That is an argument from incredulity.

Now, if you want to demonstrate how it is unlikely that evolution can occur then that's fine. But you cannot argue that evolution cannot occur because you lack the knowledge to make such a claim. As I stated earlier this is no different than claiming that God cannot exist.

My arguments certainly do matter... Perhaps consider interconnected systems that require multiple parts within each system. In order to get functional benefit from the system you need to have all the parts in place in order for it to function. Darwin himself stated that if it can be found that something does not "evolve" via small increments then his "theory" (not scientific theory mind you), is falsified. We already see such occurring in nature, and was the basis for the "hopeful monster" hypothesis... (Another ad hoc hypothesis to support this branch of pseudoscience).

Gilbo wrote:

Do numbers exist? Can you please go to the shop and get me a kilo number seven.... Sure we can write a character and call it seven however that is merely a symbol not that actual thing. How about logic?

The number seven is an adjective that describes reality. It only exists as a description of reality. We cannot know that seven exists but we can know that seven of something exists.

Logic is also descriptive. It explains our observations of physical reality. It does not exist independently of the observer. Example: 11+1=12 (decimal) or 11+1=100 (binary). Both are logically correct and yet they logically contradict one another without the context of the observer.

Your first premise is false since

a) we have examples of things that we know exist which do not have a physical state

And yet none of them exist objectively. But feel free to demonstrate instead of just assert... :lol:

so numbers don't exist then?.... Or if you mean to exist objectively is to exist in the physical world then you are engaged in circular reasoning my friend since you define existence in terms of physical structure and then complain that non-physical things don't exist....

b) you have no evidence to claim that only physical things exist, you are simply assuming this as evidence of your naturalism equating to circular reasoning...

I see no evidence that non-physical things exist. That is the basis of the first premise and therefore it is stripped of all assumptions. In order for it not to be a valid premise you would need to:

Your first premise attributed existence to only physical existence... Meaning you are claiming that only physical things exist. You are assuming this, since in order to make such a claim / premise you would need to demonstrate that non-physical things do not exist... Therefore you cannot say that "Everything we know to exist exhibits physical, quantifiable evidence of its existence."... We know that laws of reality exist and whilst yes they are descriptive they exist none-the-less ergo I remain to conclude that your first premise is incorrect.

1. Demonstrate something non-physical that exists objectively.
2. Assume that something non-physical exists objectively.

I'm willing to concede that something non-physical could exist but you would need to provide evidence in order for me to consider it.

Thus you defy your first premise in conceding such...

Fair enough. Though I still do not see how this relates to my main point, that being the claim that small changes add up to larger ones has not been experimentally verified and thus is merely an unscientific assumption.

A definiton of fish I would accept is found here
http://animals.about.com/od/f/g/fish.htm

"Definition: The term fish is used to refer to any aquatic vertebrate that has a skin covered with scales, two sets of paired fins, some unpaired fins, and a set of gills. Fish do not represent a single clade but are instead paraphyletic. They include hagfishes, lampreys, lobe-finned fishes, cartilaginous fishes and ray-finned fishes. "

I already know that you will try and claim that there have been slight changes within the fish as shown, and I do not doubt that, small changes happen we directly observe them. What I do doubt is the assumption that because small changes occur then larger ones must also occur, this extrapolation has no scientific foundation, since to do such would take "millions of years" since that is how long these larger changes are claimed to occur.

Ergo how we define fish really has nothing to do with what I am asking. I am asking for the experiments that confirm the hypothesis, "small changes lead to large-scale structural changes" without any observable examples of large-scale structural change there can be no experiments to verify that hypothesis.

Firstly this has nothing to do with the evidence small to large changes.... Since you are merely assuming ad hoc "evolution did it". How do you know that each of these forms actually did evolve to the other?

Where are the experiments that support that hypothesis? Remember the scientific method? You cannot assume your hypothesis of "evolution did it" is correct without demonstrating it via experiment.... By the way, ad hoc observation are not experiments... An experiment is repeatable, observable, measurable and falsifiable. Without means to test the cause of the similarities in fossils (since its a past event), it is not falsifiable nor repeatable.

This highlights a disturbingly common misconception on how organisms evolve.

In your comment to me, you admitted that small changes occur and are observable. DutchLiam just listed a series of traits that changed sequentially within the whale group (most of which are seen in the fossil record) yet you’re calling it an assumption.

If you bothered to read my reply you would know why... There is no "line of transition" from one specimen to the other. Essentially you are taking a leap of faith to assume X organism became Y organism when you do not have a clear line of transition displaying every single small variance in the fossils.. Considering the "millions of years" these organisms have existed for there should be enough fossils lying around to demonstrate all these small variances... (I mean in the order of say 20 to 30 fossil organisms between each assumed transition demonstrating an observable progression from one to the other). Without this you ARE assuming that one organism became another since you have no reason to claim they did, apart from your own evolutionary assumptions.

I'd ask what EXPERIMENT was done to verify that each of these supposed "whale transitions" are indeed whale transitions? As I have been saying no experiment = no verification = no sale.

Why the inconsistency?

What inconsistency?

Pure and simple: the forms that exhibit these traits are and never were claimed to have evolved into the other.

Please, please, please stop thinking of evolution as a linear process, because it is at the very root of the issue with your criticisms, and I can guarantee will cause problems in other areas not yet discussed.

If you claim that X organism became Y organism then THAT is linear... Between X and Y... That is what I am saying with the "line of transition" if you cannot demonstrate the changes between X and Y why in the world should I do as you do and assume they occured?

No scientist describing a lineage has ever presumed to identify an individual or a series of organisms as the true direct ancestor leading to the next and eventually resulting in modern extant taxa.

Then what is with the whale transition you mentioned? Its not the transition for whales?

Why the inconsistency?

This mistake is propagated by popular media (usually mistakenly), creationist websites, and in discussions such as this one. I am sure you are aware that evolution involves a series of branching lineages, but asking how we know one form evolves into another is the wrong question and shows a fundamental disconnect. You need to alter how you perceive phylogenies to understand where everyone here is coming from. The forms DutchLiam referenced are arranged on a branched lineage depending on how many traits they share with the last common ancestor and the crown group represented by living examples. Contrary to your claim, there are multiple ways to test whether or not the similarities among both fossils and extant taxa are due to relatedness, and research in this topic does not need to be restricted to lab procedures where only direct observation of any process counts as evidence. Here are a few papers that outline just a couple methods used to test phylogenies:
1) Baldauf, S. L., Roger, A. J., Wenk-Siefert, I., and Doolittle, W. F. (2000) "A kingdom-level phylogeny of eukaryotes based on combined protein data." Science 290: 972-7.
2) Penny, D., Foulds, L. R., and Hendy, M. D. (1982) "Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein sequences." Nature 297: 197-200.
3) Steel, M. A., and Penny,D. (1993) "Distributions of tree comparison metrics—some new results." Systematic Biology 42: 126-141.

Without any concordance between the “small and large changes”; i.e. if evolution was not responsible, all experiments using any of the typical phylogenetic methods involving algorithms and statistical analyses testing for shared-derived traits in a group of organisms would result in masses of mismatched, inconsitent trees: this does not occur.

What makes you say that? A creationist perspective is similar design = similar DNA needed for the similar functions to be utilized by the similar organisms. However surely you realise that with the advent of epigenetics (which was halted by the evolutionary blunder of "junk" DNA belief), means that DNA is not the be-all-end-all for similarity.

If you didn't know epigenetics demonstrates that organisms with the same genes could produce totally different gene products from those genes, meaning two organisms with similar genetic structure could be totally different.

Additionally the methods for DNA analysis are flawed in that

a) they allow the addition of gaps in "alignment" on the basis that evolution has occurred and thus mutations have altered the DNA. Meaning to use DNA analysis to support evolution is an example of circular reasoning...

b) The addition of these gaps ensures that the process is entirely arbitrary since the sequences are aligned to whatever you are testing them with. I tested this myself whilst studying this.

I had lots of different plant sequences DNA A,B,C,D,E and W,X,Y,Z, all of which are similar being crop plants (so no trees etc)

I aligned DNA A with B,C,D,E and aligned DNA A with W,X,Y,Z and guess what I found... The gaps given to DNA in each alignment were totally different...

Meaning the computer was incorporating the gaps in an attempt to force similarity between the sequences I was testing. How do we know that the first alignment is correct or the second one is? If we switch the DNA A's over there is almost zero similarity. On what basis can this be a true representation of reality when it is being doctored?

What I'd like to see would be DNA sequencing done with NO alignment, just the RAW DNA being tested for similarity. But that will never happen because there will be very little similarity.

Further testing to evaluate the validity of the branches in any given tree would fail: they do not. Independent chromosomal, morphological, and genetic tests for one phylogenetic tree of organisms could not be used to refine or verify any other: they are, and they do repeatedly--with high degrees of statistical significance, no less. This leads me to the definition of fish, and how it applies to my above comments.

Obviously in order to make such a statement you have never heard of the inconsistencies between morphological trees and genetic trees.. I suggest rather than living in a bubble, pop your head into reality and LOOK at the real data. Some honest scientists are starting to realise this as per the article below.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html

First of all, thank you for answering the question.

No worries

That’s a great, precise definition, and there is nothing wrong with it, per say. However, Inferno did a good job of showing that it has a problem: it is not a functional term when using it within the context of evolution, and as such cannot be used as evidence against it.

I wasn't using it as evidence? I was giving a definition because you asked, remember?

“Fish” is paraphyletic, meaning it includes the last common ancestor, but excludes its descendant group. This does not accurately reflect taxonomy and the evolutionary processes scientists put forth, who instead use the term only as a practical and simple descriptor. Fish=fish=fish also gives the false illusion of a linear evolutionary relationship because it does not explain anything systematically. When looking at the fish tree (The useful taxonomically relevant term would be Agnatha), each divergence of a branch represents the appearance of a trait that is shared with all other subsequent ancestral lineages, but is not shared by its direct descendants (shared-derived traits). This means that while members of the group as a whole are all fish, a particular lineage can become increasingly removed from the ancestral condition as it diverges into further subsets, all of which are again erected based on the appearance of a series of incremental changes.

Assuming that the tree is a representative of reality, of which many scientists now doubt

Given that very significant changes occurred within a so-called branched fish group as Inferno explained,

Significant?

and in concordance with the use of mathematical analyses to demonstrate relatedness, there is absolutely no reasonable basis to remain skeptical that further derivation cannot occur.

What analyses are these? Again asserting is not demonstrating? (not asking for just a link, asking for a link with your own explanation and quotes).

Why can't I remain skeptical because it hasn't been demonstrated experimentally? So you believe it because it isn't proven wrong? Isn't that the argument from ignorance again?

How in the world does this advance any form of rebuttal to my asking for the EXPERIMENTS that verify evolutionary inferences?

This was why I didn't reply before because it advanced nothing for the topic, and didn't address my question, as well as being a shotgun making this thread expand into topics I don't want to discuss on this thread. I would rather discuss the experiments (or lack thereof) supporting evolutionary assumptions at least Liam is addressing my question.

 

[Inferno]

Gilbo: I'll address your comments as soon as I have a few minutes on my hands, but I wanted to get a quick comment in. You complain that we don't answer your questions, that we don't want to "answer the hard questions".

They're actually not that hard to answer, but there's a more difficult thing to deal with first. It's exactly the same thing I tried in the EFF-thread and which you sidestepped so clumsily: We want you to agree to standards so we can nail you on them later on.

For example, DutchLiam asked you about what experiment YOU would conduct. He didn't ask because they haven't been conducted, rather for the exact opposite reasons: They HAVE been conducted. Yet once we tell you exactly what was done and what was found out, you will move the goalposts and claim that wasn't what you wanted. That's why we want to focus on a rigid set of criteria first so you won't have room to wiggle later on.

I asked my question some time ago (forget which thread) and was completely ignored, so I'll instead promote Liam's question:
"If you found 2 fossils, what kind of experiment would you do to establish relatedness between the 2?"

Once you answer exactly that, we'll easily show you the experiments. It really isn't that difficult.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Perhaps try and consider how does one do an experiment on a past event? It cannot be repeatable since all the specific details of the event would be unknown. It cannot be falsifiable because you cannot be sure that your attempt to recreate the past was accurate or not. Meaning it fails 2 of the four requirements for a valid experiment.

Looks like all of forensic science is fucked as well! :|

Moving the goalpost in 3...2...1...go!

 

[gilbo12345]

Gilbo: I'll address your comments as soon as I have a few minutes on my hands, but I wanted to get a quick comment in. You complain that we don't answer your questions, that we don't want to "answer the hard questions".

Well in four pages of thread I have yet to see any EXPERIMENTS that validate the assumption "evolution did it" or the assumption that small changes add up to larger ones...

They're actually not that hard to answer, but there's a more difficult thing to deal with first. It's exactly the same thing I tried in the EFF-thread and which you sidestepped so clumsily: We want you to agree to standards so we can nail you on them later on.

Really... So in the last post where you lied about my answers to your questions being wrong when in fact you gave the SAME answers you now claim I did something else wrong... What did I side-step? Post up some links, quotes and DEMONSTRATE it.

For example, DutchLiam asked you about what experiment YOU would conduct. He didn't ask because they haven't been conducted, rather for the exact opposite reasons: They HAVE been conducted.

Why ask such a question if such experiments have been conducted? If they have post them, if they haven't just admit they haven't... Liam's question has no relevance to my own he is attempting to shift the goal posts. As I said, if there are experiments present them, if not admit it and then we can continue...

Yet once we tell you exactly what was done and what was found out, you will move the goalposts and claim that wasn't what you wanted.

Huh? First off I have yet to hear of any experiments and doubt I ever will considering all the mental gymnastics I am seeing here... Just answer the question, if there are experiments provide them, if not admit it. Simple... No more dodging.

You are assuming what I will or won't do... Again do you have these atheist superpowers to read people's minds? Two other people have made such comments on this thread alone so perhaps its a common atheist belief?

IF I change goal posts THEN point it out, don't think by making comments about the future somehow allows you any entitlement to derail the thread from my question.

Additionally how is me attempting to keep you guys on track and answer my question, shifting goalposts... If anything I am shifting them back to normal after you guys attempt to change the topic, (like Liam asking what experiments I would prefer to be conducted... How does my preferences have anything to do with the existence or non-existence of experiments?)

That's why we want to focus on a rigid set of criteria first so you won't have room to wiggle later on.

Criteria for what? I have already said that experiments are observable, repeatable, measureable and falsifiable... More that that it seems like you want me to actually hand you an experiment for you to use as an answer. I'm not going to do your work for you. Present the experiments that verify the assumptions being made or admit there are no experiments and evolutionists base their claims on an unverified hypothesis.

I asked my question some time ago (forget which thread) and was completely ignored, so I'll instead promote Liam's question:
"If you found 2 fossils, what kind of experiment would you do to establish relatedness between the 2?"

Whatever experiment evolutionists have done to verify their assumption that they are related... Unless of course such an experiment doesn't exist and the assumption is unverified.

Once you answer exactly that, we'll easily show you the experiments. It really isn't that difficult.

Of course since once I have answered that the answer itself is the experiment, since that is what you are asking me for you are asking me for the answer to the question I am asking you... As I said, I'm not here to do your work for you.

Provide the EXPERIMENTS or admit there are none and then the conversation can continue rather than being bogged in semantics and mental gymnastics. It isn't that difficult

Perhaps try and consider how does one do an experiment on a past event? It cannot be repeatable since all the specific details of the event would be unknown. It cannot be falsifiable because you cannot be sure that your attempt to recreate the past was accurate or not. Meaning it fails 2 of the four requirements for a valid experiment.

Looks like all of forensic science is fucked as well! :|

Moving the goalpost in 3...2...1...go!

Yes you have moved the goal posts since I have been asking you for the experiments that evolutionists have done to verify their assumptions... You have failed to provide such, instead waxing lyrical and asking me to give you such an experiment even when I have repeatedly said I do not think there are any....

Forensic science isn't empirical is it? Law is not scientific... As I said, you are the one changing goal posts since I am not discussing forensic science...