Validity of Micro/macro-evolution idea

Bingo.

And so you do not know when you have been presented with objections to the way they have calculated the stats. You are operating in world of asserted opinions - you read what you take to be mine, you read what you take to be Hoyle's, and the only criterion you have for choosing between them is authority. Hoyle's is greater.

Fair enough. But that is no excuse for the greater error, which is attempting to evaluate factual or scientific hypotheses by the political history of the field. The validity of the micro/macro distinction as you take it (which is not as Ophiolite or others take it, notice) cannot be determined in this manner. It is valid - or not - without regard to the history of its formulation.

Something that took me a very long time to notice, for some reason, is the degraded and simplified aspect of the inorganic world we are left after 3 billion years of exploitation. The inorganic structures available as environments and scaffoldings for the first organic structures (some self-replicable from scattered pieces, even non-crystalline clay formations) - and vice versa - must have outdone the most ornate modern cave scenery. The sheer variety of niches and opportunities for unusual chemsitry is difficult to imagine - my guess is we miss low, mostly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What authority could saquist possibly have? I thought he was just a pathologically disturbed person trolling the forum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is decidedly pertinent. While I lean to pan spermia I also recognise it may not be necessary. The inorganic world could certainly have offered catalytic substrates and templates for molecular construction.
In this regard I suspect you are familiar with the work of Cairns-Smith on the role of clay minerals in the origin of life. His hypothesis is well thought out and highly plausible - it just lacks any evidence!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I find no error. I can only consider objective sources, contradictory sources and attempt a resolution...I'm no a biologist, therefore it is illogical to rely on merely my own understanding...therefore I seek out others...

 

And in relying upon Hoyle's misinterpretation of the probability of protein formation (which is laughed at by biologists) you selectively choose the words of a single scientist, working outside his field of expertise, over those of experts in the field.

 

It's not just his...consensus is inportant to me...if there is no consensus then we must rely on the logical arguement. Don't just single out Hoyle. More importantly I've found sufficent doubt to not take prestige into account when deliberating the evidence.

 

I believe that Ophiolite was not the one who singled out Hoyle.

What is the meaning of the word 'consensus' to you?

 

Might it be predictable that those you are for evolution have trouble being objective about other's discoveries and insight?

 

Your entire "logical argument" is a personal choice - self-admittedly uninformed - of whom to believe among some authorities found in a biased selection from the historical record. That is bad enough. Worse:

The historical record involved is irrelevant to the original matter, which was the validity of the micro/macro distinction. That irrelevancy was the error referenced. I do not know why you can't find it - my first guess is that you are not acquainted with the basics of scientific investigation and theory, and so cannot recognize invalid arguments in that arena.

That should be a hypothesis you had rejected by now, refuted by evidence. But instead it's an assumption, not open to refutation.

 

What the **** has prestige got to do with it. I am talking about competence. In the field of astrophsysics and cosmology Hoyle had this par excellence. In biology, and the application of probability to biochemical processes, he was a neophyte. His conclusions were wrong. Full stop. Period.
Yet creationists and intelligent design advocates have seized upon his invalid statistics and offered it as proof that complex bio-molecules could not arise by chance. This is a mistaken conclusion. Do you understand that?

 

I've admitted to being objective. My "arguement" focuses on the contradictions which none, namely you and your compatriots and the greater scientific community cannot answer. Namely the probability of thousands of necessary coincidence coalescing equating to impossible. If this is error then there must be updated calcuations that illistrate this. Curiously, I've found none.

My "argument" focuses on the Driving force of evolution. It is necessary to identify this for to establish it as real giving the theory substance. The known Laws of science have defined Gravity and isolated it's source, the laws of motions are reproducable and testable as a property of matter. They've been define and isolated over and over again. Yet while we can't identify the force that convey gravitational force we still have a source, it's still one of the most predictable action and reactions in the universe which lead to the discovery of many planets and phenomenon.

What we have with macro evolution is observation. Nothing has been obserered or isolated. We study effects and draw conclusions. The evidence and the facts do not support those findings.

Natural Selection is real. It has been observed. It is both a positive and negative force in animals, meaning what has occured in a family group of animals can be reversed.

Mutations are harmful and the introduction of them for a hundred years has been known to damage DNA to a degree approaching 99% of all mutations. That is a known and undisputed fact. EVolution proposes a reversal...that this downward trend eventually builds up and alters a speices instead of the logical conclusion...causing it's extinction.

Survival of the Fittest is a curious theory. It begins the path of ignoring probability and chance. From first glance the idea is that the strongest specimen survives. However many times in nature it is not a matter of strength. Sometimes its numbers, sometimes it's chance, in the case of mass extintions it's none of those factors. While existing to pass on stronger genes makes a lot of sense in the short term it makes little sense when applied to the greatest of life on the planet...human beings...who dominate this planet yet might vs might man is clearly not the fitest. Evolutionist say that our brains made the difference for the first time acknolwedging some other fact other than being fit. However it is a trend that is not marked in life. Animals are certainly intelligent to there own right but while they have the intelligence it doesn't progress the speices...Apes are capable of learning from humans, language and therefore mental expression but the advancement seems walled. Even to being passed down to the next generation. Without assistance these animals gain no further knowledge.

I wouldn't try so hard If I were you. The answer is right before your eyes. The first guess to any question is very often wrong and this is no exception. The distinction between the two has been clear at the outset that one is observed the other is so distant and so unlikely it doesn't deserve attention, that is why I've focused on the probabilty. It is the very foundation for the theory of evolution and establishes should our attention should be occupied on an impossible occurence.

Refrence your accusation otherwise you wish me to establish the truth based on your word alone. Your word alone is a prestige, a self authority, that is attached to no known published work, nor is your identity identifiable. Stopping to address whether or no your accusation is valid must be followed by a source.

The focusing on Hoyle seems futile others have calulated similar probabilities and they match Hoyles figures leading us into the impossible. There are enough agreeing figures (such as those stated) that it does warrant pause on considering evolution (macro) as valid theory.

 

What about his arguement is convinsing?

 

who's argument...Hoyle or Opiliolite?

 

Hoyle's

 

Evolutions argument never really materializes. All the evidnece seems to lean heavily in the direction away from "chance" and "luck" and the improbable.

The mutation, the fossil record, natural selection, and adaptation. We know animals change. We also know animals can change back very easily. Evolution hasn't set any parameters for exactly "what" is evolution. A generic blanket is cast over biology and suddenly everything is under the all encompasing canopy of evolution.

If evolution were true they should be working on defining what exactly is evolution. Unfortuantly it seem most scientist feel that the work on figuring out evolution is done. Yes, they continue attempt to recreate evolution in the Lab but they're are not working evolution...they're working on creation. In every respect an act of will describes creation.

Getting past these series of inexplicable coincidences upon coincidences leading into the thousands seems far more important to the theory's survival than conjuring life in a lab. Of course one has a theoretical application the other biology has a real world application...thus a large amount of work goes into the biology.

Molecular biologist Michael Denton writes in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 250: “Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than [one trillionth of a gram], each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.

Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of their basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth

“I believe that we are faced with a mystery—a great and profound mystery, and one of immense significance: the mystery of the habitability of the cosmos, of the fitness of the environment.” He sets out “to detail what can only seem to be an astonishing sequence of stupendous and unlikely accidents that paved the way for life’s emergence. There is a list of coincidences, all of them essential to our existence.” Yet “the list kept getting longer . . . So many coincidences! The more I read, the more I became convinced that such ‘coincidences’ could hardly have happened by chance.” A shattering fact for an evolutionist to face up to, as he next acknowledges:

“But as this conviction grew, something else grew as well. Even now it is difficult to express this ‘something’ in words. It was an intense revulsion, and at times it was almost physical in nature. I would positively squirm with discomfort. The very thought that the fitness of the cosmos for life might be a mystery requiring solution struck me as ludicrous, absurd. I found it difficult to entertain the notion without grimacing in disgust . . . Nor has this reaction faded over the years: I have had to struggle against it incessantly during the writing of this book. I am sure that the same reaction is at work within every other scientist, and that it is this which accounts for the widespread indifference accorded the idea at present. And more than that: I now believe that what appears as indifference in fact masks an intense antagonism"

And I must agree with him. This reliance on evolution despite the facts outlined numerous times by numerous people have gone on unanswered and uncontested. Ther reason has to been more that a basis a fact...If the facts show a downward trend how can a speices survive this sort of natural experimentation that has no reason to it?

 

Good thing evolution doesn't rely on those things, then.

Except for all those scientists working on describing the mechanisms of heredity and mutation.

His opinion is a fact now?


So, back to Hoyle; what about his statements seem convinsing to you?

 

doesn't seem to rely on anything does it?

Yes...they existed before your post and they'll exist after. None of them have explained the failures in the theory.

Is it?

The consenus to facts. The same flow...the downward trend the facts make known but the theory ignores. That is convincing.

 

No, it relies on alot. I won't repeat what, as it has been discussed in many threads you and I have both been a part of - it's been covered already.

You claimed that they don't exist. now you say they do, and always have. Please pick one, and stick to it.

You seem to be claiming that it is, by quoting his personal assesment of the situation, and then saying that evolutionists have a hard time admiting this 'fact'. His opinion then = fact, apparently. Which is why I asked.

Anything specific? Something we could address in terms of numbers, measurable trends, or statistical analysis? Something that could be used to actually convinse us?

 

Those coincidences are not necessary, as you would know if you understood Darwinian evolutionary theory.

If anyone could show that complex proteins actually formed by chance, that would be a severe blow to Darwinian explanations of their formation. According to Darwinian theory, no such coincidences are possible and all such complexity was built in a series of probable steps.

Hoyle's calculations, and all calculations of that kind, are not updated because they are both wrong and irrelevant. They cannot be performed without erroneous assumptions, and they have no bearing on evolutionary theory. One of the assumptions, which you would recognize if you knew anything about the "probablity" you claim to take seriously, is independence of events that are not independent. One of the signs of their irrelevancy, which you would recognize if you understood Darwinian theory, is that they would not contradict Darwinian theory even if they were soundly based calculations. They are calculations of random assemblage, and Darwinian theory does not incorporate complex random assemblage.

Again: you are not arguing from fact, because you can't. You are simply choosing authorities and believing assertions from them. You could find other authorities, and see that they are in "consensus", and believe them instead, but you choose these for some reason. Why do you choose such poor authorities? Do you understand that criticism of scientific inquiry is not a matter of choosing authorities ?

 

You are confusing objective and objectionable.

re Hoyle's miscalculations, just google something on autocatalytic cycles to understand, in part, why he was wrong. I'm not about to waste time doing your basic literature research for you - since past evidence suggests you will ignore it.