Denial of evolution III

[synthesizer-patel]

I'm questioning the myriad assumptions.

list them -all of them

We can't simply assume traits accumulate.

we don't - its lab tested and field tested - we KNOW traits accumulate
In a delicious irony, it turns out that it is in fact your claim that these things are assumptions that is the assumption.

In future I suggest - before you (continue to) make yourself look extremely foolish, you read a high-school level biology text book to find a few examples of beneficial traits accumulating within a population due to natural selection pressures.

Everyone here in favor and supporting evolution to create sweeping changes has made this same formal fallacy repeatedly.

well now that you know that its not a fallacy - you argument falls to pieces

what else have you got?

[leopold]

In future I suggest - before you (continue to) make yourself look extremely foolish, you read a high-school level biology text book . . .

was that really needed?

maybe you should ask yourself how an irrefuted scientific law got replaced with a theory.

[river-wind]

This is about the probability of circumstance moving inert matter from lifelessness to life...

This thread is about evolution. Therefor this thread is not about the probability of life coming from non-life.

That is a statement in favor of decision of population.
That is still an appeal to probability, a formal logical fallacy.

You're misapplying the fallacy. The fallacy is the assumption that if it could happen, it will happen. Probability doesn't work that way.

However, probability does work this way: something with a 1 in a million chance of happening, when repeatedly tested 10 million times in a day, has a likelihood of happening 10 times per day.

The idea that humans came from single cellular life isn't probable. But all evidence suggests that it did, and probability does not suggest that it couldn't. This argument doesn't argue in favor of evolution, it knocks down the following argument against evolution: "well, it seems very unlikely."

We can't simply assume traits accumulate. That is the assumption that we are pressed to believe in favor of macro-evolution.

If traits are encoded in genetic material, and genetic material is passed from parent to child, and genetic material can have errors, what mechanism would prevent the "accumulation" of traits?

Will a mutation passed fro P1 to F1 be somehow fixed before it is passed to F2 alongside some new mutation which occurred in F1?

[billvon]

We can't simply assume traits accumulate. That is the assumption that we are pressed to believe in favor of macro-evolution. We know that there is no absolute assurance that traits accumulate.

We have that absolute assurance because we have seen it happen. All dogs, from chihuahuas to great danes, were gray wolves 15,000 years ago. If traits did not accumulate that forced evolution could never have happened.

[synthesizer-patel]

was that really needed?

maybe you should ask yourself how an irrefuted scientific law got replaced with a theory.

what on earth are you blathering about man?

[Billy T]

what on earth are you blathering about man?

Perhaps his question: "how an irrefuted scientific law got replaced with a theory." refers to the up surge of “creationism” replacing well confirmed, both in theory and in observation, evolution? This is the third version of the thread "Denying evolution" and it, like the others, now has more than 900 posts!

It is really sad how strong faith is in various beliefs that oppose the well confirmed evolution with nothing to support them except believer’s reluctance to understand the fossil evidence, the accumulation of minor changes, the many experiments (both controlled* and by accidental**) demonstrating evolution, but usually not long enough in duration for accumulations to add to the extreme of creating a new species, as was the case with the preá in only 8000 years.

That new species evolving so quickly because it was a very small, isolated, population always under extreme environment pressure. I.e. continually losing the less well adapted group members each generation by starvation for 8000 years AND because there was zero removal of improved genes by being eaten by some predator before they became established in the gene pool.

For more details about the evolution of the prea’ species from Santa Catarina's Guinea Pigs, see: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=845
Or post 914 of this thread for brief summary.

-----------
*For example a tiny fish that lived with predators below a water fall and had adapted to become sexually mature in a few months and lay a few eggs before being eaten was transported above the water fall and in a little more than a decade delayed sexual maturity to more than a year, while growing much larger and laying many eggs in a controlled experiment in Brazil.

**The well know white moth which became a black moth when England was industrialized with coal suite covering all trees etc. but then when England controlled air pollution more than 100 years later became a white moth again.

Unlike the prea’ these examples only show modest accumulation of traits within a species and were not the development of an entirely new species.

[Billy T]

Here is a new adaptation for not being seen by a deer:


Who knows, if black has more sex appeal too, perhaps all deer will be black in 10,000 years?

The photo of black faun with normal spotted faun and their mother was here briefly - hope you saw it. Perhaps someone more skilled than me can get it back?

[synthesizer-patel]

Perhaps his question: "how an irrefuted scientific law got replaced with a theory." refers to the up surge of “creationism” replacing well confirmed, both in theory and in observation, evolution? This is the third version of the thread "Denying evolution" and it, like the others, now has more than 900 posts!

I am extremely sceptical about a supposed "upsugre" in creationism.

While creationists are very vocal and have some political clout in the USA, in a global sense it doesnt have much has a foothold outside of those few parts of the States where is is still considered acceptible to marry your cousin - globally it is a diminishing viewpoint.

*For example a tiny fish that lived with predators below a water fall and had adapted to become sexually mature in a few months and lay a few eggs before being eaten was transported above the water fall and in a little more than a decade delayed sexual maturity to more than a year, while growing much larger and laying many eggs in a controlled experiment in Brazil.

this is a classic study - guppies and killifish if I remember correctly - and was one of the ones I referred to when I suggested that another poster should read a high-school level text book to revlieve himself of his assumptions

[dbnp48]

I am extremely sceptical about a supposed "upsugre" in creationism.

"However, the percentage of people in the USA who accept the idea of evolution declined from 45% in 1985, to 40% in 2005."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio..._United_States

While creationists are very vocal and have some political clout in the USA, in a global sense it doesnt have much has a foothold outside of those few parts of the States where is is still considered acceptible to marry your cousin - globally it is a diminishing viewpoint.

"The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%). Public acceptance of evolution was most widespread (at over 80% of the population) in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_o..._for_evolution

[GeoffP]

Those percentages are still terrifying. Are we talking about six-day-on, one-day-off literal creation, or God-did-it evolution?

[dbnp48]

Those percentages are still terrifying. Are we talking about six-day-on, one-day-off literal creation, or God-did-it evolution?

The study didn't say. Here's more from the same link about a different poll:

"According to a 2001 Gallup poll, about 45% of North Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Another 37% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process", and 14% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process"."

Only 14% believe in unguided evolution!

"Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with postgraduate degrees, 74% accept evolution."

No surprise there.

[iceaura]

Are we talking about six-day-on, one-day-off literal creation, or God-did-it evolution?

God-did-it evolution is an academic sophistication, comprehended and adopted by only a small and well-educated faction of the American fundie community.

The sticking point is comprehending the standard Darwinian theory of evolution in the first place. The percentage of people who comprehend it and reject it is very small. There are none on this forum, for example, as far as I can tell

[GeoffP]

God-did-it evolution is an academic sophistication, comprehended and adopted by only a small and well-educated faction of the American fundie community.

Weeelll, I dunno. Speaking as an evolutionary biologist who happens also to be Christian, I don't attach any numerical belief to such a scenario, but it would be implicit that I should believe it worked in such a manner, if I integrated my faith and my training.

However, I don't integrate those things. I adopt Gould even in my subconscious, it seems: better the twain shall not meet. It's not as though they could really come up anyway: shall I derive a test for God?

The sticking point is comprehending the standard Darwinian theory of evolution in the first place. The percentage of people who comprehend it and reject it is very small. There are none on this forum, for example, as far as I can tell

Sorry, it's a weekend and my brain is flabby after rushing for a deadline: are you saying that they don't follow the mechanics of descent with modification? I think you've got a point, but I think some of them do understand how it's meant to operate: Saquist, for example, I think. But there are certainly those who can't or don't conceive of it at all.

[Mr MacGillivray]

Can you really be a christian if you think the bible is a work of fiction?

[synthesizer-patel]

Can you really be a christian if you think the bible is a work of fiction?

It's a little more sophisticated than that.

Thoughtful, intelligent, non-brainwashed and sane, christians see parts of the bible as allegorical - not literal "dis is wot happund a foo fowsund yearz agoe so deres!!!" stories, but insightful stories about the human condition.

The genesis story is one of these - it isnt supposed to be taken literally - the jews that wrote it dont and never did - it is (in part at least) a story about how we are apart from other animals as we have self-awareness and language, and this is both a great priviledge, but also a burden and a responsibility. THAT is what the Genesis story is about. or at least the parts that the creationist Imams get so wound up about.

[GeoffP]

Can you really be a christian if you think the bible is a work of fiction?

Yeah, I think so. Hell, there's all kinds - used to be more - that had radically different views even on things like the corporeality of Christ. I don't have to believe all of it, and I strongly contend it would be foolish to do so. Men collected the books; who wrote them is another contention. And other reasons.

[Ophiolite]

was that really needed?

Needed? It should have been frigging mandatory!

[iceaura]

Sorry, it's a weekend and my brain is flabby after rushing for a deadline: are you saying that they don't follow the mechanics of descent with modification?

They don't follow the logic of it, never mind the mechanics.

I think some of them do understand how it's meant to operate: Saquist, for example, I think.

You're kidding, right?

He's been posting about the improbability of random assemblage of complex entities, as an argument against evolutionary theory, for example. He's posted about macro vs micro evolution. He's posted about the improbability of beings adopting ways of life unsuited to them, for them to evolve into. He's posted on the presumption of evolutionary change being a matter of faith, equivalent to faith in gods or angels. Can you find a basic error in reasoning on a creationist website that he hasn't posted here?

But the point stands regardless: you can find one or two examples here or there, but the combination of comprehension and rejection in one person is vanishingly rare.

Incomprehension and acceptance is far more common - a hint that the theory is actually pretty difficult.

[Saquist]

This thread is about evolution. Therefor this thread is not about the probability of life coming from non-life.

I assure you I am fully aware of the thread title, sir.

You're misapplying the fallacy. The fallacy is the assumption that if it could happen, it will happen. Probability doesn't work that way.

I don't think so. From what I have been able to discern from your position and others is that the accumulation of traits is...inevitable and unquestionable. I try to be very precise in how I speak and listen. You gave me an illustration of the chances of a person winning the lottery and the chances of anyone winning the lottery. The latter was 1 to 1. That's a mathematical expression for inevitable.

However, probability does work this way: something with a 1 in a million chance of happening, when repeatedly tested 10 million times in a day, has a likelihood of happening 10 times per day.

Indeed.

The idea that humans came from single cellular life isn't probable. But all evidence suggests that it did, and probability does not suggest that it couldn't. This argument doesn't argue in favor of evolution, it knocks down the following argument against evolution: "well, it seems very unlikely."

I disagree.
If something is improbable isn't not likely. Against the odds.

If traits are encoded in genetic material, and genetic material is passed from parent to child, and genetic material can have errors, what mechanism would prevent the "accumulation" of traits?

Recessive losses
Extinction
DNA
Population
Premature Death

False, and demomstrated false by traits accumulating into a new species, called the preá, in only 8000 years.

See quick summary in post 914's illustration (2nd half of post) and several older posts collected together at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=845
from an earlier version II of this evolution thread.

You're very quick to jump on the word false but I must inform you my knowledge of prea predated your post. Could you isolate the actual demonstration of genetic accumulation of traits in your post? Perhaps I missed something or took something for granted.

[Mr MacGillivray]

Yeah, I think so. Hell, there's all kinds - used to be more - that had radically different views even on things like the corporeality of Christ. I don't have to believe all of it, and I strongly contend it would be foolish to do so. Men collected the books; who wrote them is another contention. And other reasons.

But surely this is now Satan talking.