See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.

Talk:Evolution

From A Storehouse of Knowledge
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Archive 1 (Wed. 29th April, 2009Wed. April 29th, 2009)
  • Archive 2 (Sun. 13th September, 2009Sun. September 13th, 2009)
  • Archive 3 (Sun. 4th October, 2009Sun. October 4th, 2009)
  • Archive 4 (Fri. 27th August, 2010Fri. August 27th, 2010)
  • Archive 5 (Sun. 1st December, 2013Sun. December 1st, 2013)
  • Archive 6 (Tue. 1st April, 2014Tue. April 1st, 2014)

Contents


Evidence for evolution challenge

Alright, let's try this one: Philip, what would be considered evidence for evolution? Steriledepraved mind! 17:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Anything that is better explained by that hypothesis than by alternative explanations such as creation. To do that, one has to (a) have a proper understanding of the differences between the different explanations, (b) not rule out alternatives on ideological grounds, and (c) have sufficient data to make the judgement.
To give some examples:
(a) Evidence of speciation is not evidence for evolution, as creation includes speciation; evidence of the evolutionary family tree is not evidence against Intelligent Design.
(b) That creation involves the supernatural does not mean that it did not happen, nor that one cannot consider that as an explanation of what happened.
(c) Evidence of some similarities that are more likely under evolution is insufficient if the evidence for similarities that are less likely under evolution have not been adequately explored.
There are too many things that could potentially be used as evidence to list them here. But to give a couple of examples, some finely-graduated sequences between different basic kinds of creatures (but we have insufficient evidence of that), and lots of new genetic information arising through mutations (completely non-existent apart from a handful of contested examples)
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
could you expand what you mean by basic kinds ? Hamster (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to be that specific, but, for example, from amphibians to reptiles, or reptiles to birds. Perhaps the difference doesn't need to be that big, but it needs to NOT be almost systematically only very similar creatures. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 07:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
some finely-graduated sequences between different basic kinds of creatures (but we have insufficient evidence of that) ... for example, from amphibians to reptiles, or reptiles to birds What are you looking for here? Feathered dinosaurs? Skeletal similarities? Dinosaurs with air sacs? Sleeping posture? Medullary bone? Brooding behavior? Gizzard stones? Collagen type?
lots of new genetic information arising through mutations (completely non-existent apart from a handful of contested examples) Are you suggesting that the state of knowledge constitutes evidence against evolution, or just that it is too weak to count as evidence for evolution?
—Awc 21:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not "looking for" (suggesting) anything in particular, other than examples that are indisputably sequences from one to another.
In some cases at least, the state of knowledge counts as evidence against evolution. We've studied plenty of mutations, and if information-gaining mutations were as common as they need to be for evolution to be a viable proposition, we'd have found them by now.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 22:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
"Indisputably" as in "the consensus among experts in the field"? Or "indisputably" as in "even creationists admit"?
Under the assumption that it took several hundred million years of evolution occuring in millions of species and maybe a septtillion individuals (mostly single-celled) to produce the information currently in the biosphere, how often would you expect to see an information-gaining mutation, and how much information would be involved?
—Awc 22:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have more to say about this at some point, but do you think that other cited evidence for evolution is evidence, such as homologies (including in fossils), biogeography, pseudogenes, embrology, observed variation and adaptation and DNA similarities, to mention some broad categories? Steriledepraved mind! 16:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a fine juxtaposition occurring here. The problem with attempting to treat most of these things as evidence for evolution is that they are generally phenomena for which evolution is the proposed explanation. Evolution is defined so broadly as to accommodate pretty much any biological phenomenon/situation and thus might as well be undefined. LowKey (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm really waiting for Philip's response, but if you wish to say that all observations are consistent with evolution, then I don't have a problem with that, but I doubt that is the case. I would think that universal common ancestry (as it states in the article) or more loosely, the variation of species found in nature as formed through variation and natural selection is what we are talking about. It would seem to be a weakness of the creationist criticism of you do really mean that. Steriledepraved mind! 17:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
"Indisputably" as in "the consensus among experts in the field"? Or "indisputably" as in "even creationists admit"? Yes. (You're not suggesting that only evolutionists are experts in the field, surely?)
Oh. Then we're done here. By those definitions there is no evidence for evolution. There is no evidence that exists or could exist that can/could not be interpreted (twisted, if necessary) to be consistent with creationism. And it is certainly true that there are creationists who do not admit and would not admit that any sequence, no matter how finely graduated, is inconsistent with creationism. If the question is what does the weight of the evidence indicate, or what would an impassionate observer conclude, an observer with no pre-conceived notion of whether created kinds or universal common descent were true, well, that answer would be different. (I did not mean to suggest that creationists could not be experts in paleontology, but it is a fact that among paleontologists, non-evolutionists are outliers, both in numbers and in the position they hold, so they do not determine the consensus.) —Awc 14:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
…how often would you expect to see an information-gaining mutation, and how much information would be involved? Very often, and massive amounts.
"very often" and "massive" are 97% less quantitative than I would like - but about what I expected. It can be a revealing exercise to try to quantify something, even if you know the results will be way off. For the sake of argument, let's say the amount of information in the biosphere is something like the length of the gene sequence of every species. I don't know. Say 10^8 species times 10^6 base pairs. How many reproduction events have there been since the dawn of life? Say, 10^31 bacteria reproducing once a day for 500 million years. Makes about 10^42 replications. Therefore you would have to observe about 10^28 the replications of a genome to find just one new and useful base pair. Assuming you even know how to recognize when a new base pair represents new information, it is laughable to think that you could show that evolution is *not* occurring at this rate. —Awc 15:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
…do you think that other cited evidence for evolution is evidence, such as homologies (including in fossils), biogeography, pseudogenes, embrology, observed variation and adaptation and DNA similarities, to mention some broad categories? I think they potentially could be evidence, depending on just what is shown. For example, if that evidence showed something that only fitted the evolutionary account and not the creation account, that could be considered evidence. However, the mere existence of homologies is not evidence, as creation also explains homologies.
…if you wish to say that all observations are consistent with evolution, then I don't have a problem with that, but I doubt that is the case. I wouldn't agree that all observations could be consistent with evolution, but most are, given, as Bradley said, evolution is defined so loosely (or is so flexible) that it can explain (almost) anything. For example, the evolutionary family tree is supposed to be a nested hierarchy of features and/or DNA similarities, yet there are so many things that don't fit that nested hierarchy. But evolution is said to explain that also. So whether it conforms to a nested hierarchy or not, evolution is said to explain it.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
think they potentially could be evidence, depending on just what is shown. For example, if that evidence showed something that only fitted the evolutionary account and not the creation account, that could be considered evidence. However, the mere existence of homologies is not evidence, as creation also explains homologies. This is inane. You are now openly stating that something cannot be evidence if it's also "explained" by another contested position. Think about that for a moment. There's no point in having this discussion with some who's so intellectually dishonest that he won't give a definition to the word "evidence" that resembles reality. Honestly, go look the word up in a dictionary and admit to us all that it doesn't mean what you're claiming. Teh Aspis Atrocissima 14:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
given that science evaluates competing hypothesis on which BEST explains the observations how does creation best explain the hierarchies found by dna analysis and comparative anatomy ? evolution with common ascestry fits nicely , created kinds would seem to NOT predict common ancestry but rather a group identifiable as the original created animal. That God could chose to make a group of animals individually while making them appear to have a common ancestor is not an issue it does rather leave a few questions. Hamster (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Hold on Hammy. We're not talking about whether particular evidence wins out. Sterile asks the most basic question of what would be evidence in the first place. Philip is claiming that because his pet dogma also "explains" such and such, that claimed evidence of evolution isn't evidence at all. Were legit scientists and people being honest about use of the word "evidence" as uncharitable and stubborn as Philip, they'd make a similar claim as Philip does. But they don't. Oddly, what Philip is doing here is totally inconsistent with what he's claimed in the past and what CMI claims right now: that creationists and legitimate scientists look at the same evidence, just from different worldviews Teh Aspis Atrocissima 15:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
good point , Hammy is contrite *hangs head* Hamster (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Better move slowly here. We have time. The mere existence of patterns, e.g. in the geographical distribution of species, does not by itself help much to distinguish between created kinds and common descent. It is the details of the patterns that constitute the evidence one way of the other. This is covered in the Biogeography article. The greater speciation in isolated environments doesn't tip the balance strongly either way, but the characteristics of marsupials does. They can be explained without great difficulty within an evolutionary paradigm, but creationism runs into trouble on several fronts. —Awc 15:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to go to far astray--from the start, there were statements not about the evidence (potential or real) for evolution. I am curious about the responses to Awc's statements, but I'll add one further question: so many things that don't fit that nested hierarchy I'm assuming "many things" implies "many organisms." What organisms don't fit into a nested hierarchy, either through physical characteristics or DNA? (There is a difference between saying that you have proposed one set of characteristics and then changing your mind; and saying there is no nested hierarchy that an organism fits into. The latter is a much stronger statement--extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim.)
As for the definition of evolution, I'm happy to go with one or the other of the definitions above, one of which is in the article (universal common ancestry). I will also note that a successful theory must be consistent with all the observations, and it seems odd to imply otherwise. But that seems to get off track. Steriledepraved mind! 16:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh. Then we're done here. By those definitions there is no evidence for evolution. I wouldn't be so absolute about it, but to a fair extent, that is precisely the point. As creationists have been saying for ages, and as The Asp (almost) put it, creationists and [evolutionists] look at the same evidence, just from different worldviews. As the claims that are in dispute are all about things in the past, and are therefore not empirically measurable, there is no evidence that one can point to as absolutely supporting one view over the other. However, as Hamster says, we can evaluate[] competing hypothesis on which BEST explains the observations.
And it is certainly true that there are creationists who do not admit and would not admit that any sequence, no matter how finely graduated, is inconsistent with creationism. Just as it is true that there are evolutionists who do not admit and would not admit that any evidence for creation, no matter how good, is inconsistent with evolution. Furthermore, in talking about it being disputed by creationists, I'm not talking about some outlier somewhere disputing it, but creationary scientists generally.
If the question is what does the weight of the evidence indicate, or what would an impassionate observer conclude, an observer with no pre-conceived notion of whether created kinds or universal common descent were true, well, that answer would be different. My answer was not inconsistent with that. Although that impassionate observer, although possibly a useful concept, probably doesn't exist in practice (at least if we are talking about people with enough knowledge of the subject to make a judgement).
…it is a fact that among paleontologists, non-evolutionists are outliers, both in numbers and in the position they hold, so they do not determine the consensus. Of the 216 scientists listed on CMI's creationary scientists page, seven are palaeontologists (which is 3%). Expand that to the number of creationary scientists in total (over 100,000; see the front page of this encyclopædia), that means that there are about 3,000 creationary palaeontologists. Sure, that's a very crude calculation and open to question, but as you said, It can be a revealing exercise to try to quantify something…, and although I'll readily concede that creationary palaeontologists are in the minority, I wouldn't go as far as calling them "outliers" insofar as numbers are concerned. As for the positions they hold, perhaps that ought to be quantified too? And of course take into account the discrimination that occurs in who is allowed to get jobs. A "consensus" of those who hold a particular view is hardly a good argument.
It can be a revealing exercise to try to quantify something, even if you know the results will be way off. … Therefore you would have to observe about 10^28 the replications of a genome to find just one new and useful base pair. I agree on the first point, and creationists have often done this very thing, with devastating results for evolution (e.g. [1][2][3][4]). As for your particular calculation, I think there is a problem at the very least in comparing the number of mutations necessary for all the genomes on Earth with the number of reproduction events of bacteria, which of course reproduce at a much faster rate than most other species. One of the calculations done (which doesn't rely on identifying information) is the number of differences between humans and chimps, the number of generations available, and therefore the number of mutations per generation that must be kept. See here and here. Another is Lenski's experiment (which involved bacteria), and the number of generations it took to get one small functional change. Again, transfer that rate to, say, humans, and see how long it would take from chimp to human. Another way of looking at it, however, is the number of mutations observed, and the number of them that do something beneficial (which doesn't necessarily mean information-gaining) vs. the number that are deleterious (which are not information-gaining).
You are now openly stating that something cannot be evidence if it's also "explained" by another contested position. Depending on how you define "evidence", then yes. If you say that evolution has lots of evidence "supporting" it, but that evidence also "supports" a competing explanation, then what is the value in claiming that it "supports" evolution?
There's no point in having this discussion with some who's so intellectually dishonest that he won't give a definition to the word "evidence" that resembles reality. Honestly, go look the word up in a dictionary and admit to us all that it doesn't mean what you're claiming. Okay, here's a dictionary definition: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"[5] So how does a fact that fits two different proposition indicate if either one is true or valid?
given that science evaluates competing hypothesis on which BEST explains the observations how does creation best explain the hierarchies found by dna analysis and comparative anatomy ? evolution with common ascestry fits nicely I disagree that evolution with common ancestry fits nicely. The widespread phenomenon of so-called convergent evolution, for example, contradicts the claimed hierarchies.
Oddly, what Philip is doing here is totally inconsistent with what he's claimed in the past and what CMI claims right now: that creationists and legitimate scientists look at the same evidence, just from different worldviews There is no inconsistency. As I said, it depends on how you define "evidence". When creationists say that creationists and evolutionists look at the same "evidence", they are talking about "the available body of facts or information", to quote the definition above. Usage depends on context. So when we say that something is "evidence for" something (as opposed to just "evidence"), we are saying that the facts or information fit better with a particular explanation (i.e., they "indicat[e] whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". In a court case, for example, both sides present evidence. Some of that evidence is for the prosecution (i.e. it favours the prosecution's argument), and some is for the defence. Neither side is going to present as evidence something that fits with both the prosecution's and defence's arguments, as it doesn't help decide one way or the other.
…CMI claims right now: that creationists and legitimate scientists look at the same evidence… No, CMI does not make a distinction between "creationists" and "legitimate scientists". That is your bigoted misrepresentation.
The mere existence of patterns … does not by itself help much to distinguish between created kinds and common descent. It is the details of the patterns that constitute the evidence one way of the other. Note, The Asp, the evidence one way or the other. "Evidence" that fits both views is irrelevant to deciding which view fits the evidence better.
…the characteristics of marsupials does. They can be explained without great difficulty within an evolutionary paradigm, but creationism runs into trouble on several fronts. That's disputable. The biogeography article points out that a number of the details don't fit an evolutionary view, and cites mainstream scientists saying that "…biogeography (or geographical distribution of organisms) has not been shown to be evidence for or against evolution in any sense."
I'm assuming "many things" implies "many organisms." Many aspects of those organisms, and, by extension therefore, many organisms.
What organisms don't fit into a nested hierarchy, either through physical characteristics or DNA? Ones that have features that are not explainable by common ancestry, but (as mentioned above) by so-called "convergent evolution".
(There is a difference between saying that you have proposed one set of characteristics and then changing your mind; and saying there is no nested hierarchy that an organism fits into. I agree that there is a difference. I'm saying that there is no single nested hierarchy that many organisms can fit into. (And by "single" nested hierarchy, I meaning that although there may be different nested hierarchies proposed, only one at most can be correct.)
I will also note that a successful theory must be consistent with all the observations, and it seems odd to imply otherwise. I don't know what comment you are responding to here, but in principle I agree. I accept, however, that when you have a large number of observations, it's understandable if a few don't seem to fit, and that is not reason to discard an otherwise-successful theory. But if many don't fit, that's another matter.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I can imagine a visit to Philip J. Rayment, M.D., versed in creationist medicine.

Patient: I have a runny nose. Do I have the flu?
Dr. Phil: The flu? Rubbish. There are 27 diseases that have a runny nose as a symptom. You can't use that as evidence for the flu!
Patient: Well, I have a fever as well.
Dr. Phil: Bah! That's even worse. There are 76 infections that end up with a fever. Not evidence for any of them!
Patient: I have aches, too.
Dr.Phil: Fibromyalgia also has body aches as a symptom. I can't believe you've bought into secular science.

I can only imagine what the patient gets sent to the hospital for appendicitis. (Or maybe Dr. Phil would just say "it depends" over an over to get to the same conclusion.) Otherwise:

  • Creationist probability arguments have been refuted so many times it's barely worth mentioning. See for example [6] [7] [8] [9] I asked you years a go to look at specific genetic examples in a paper about dog mutations, and you couldn't tell me which ones had more or less information, and just last week you said you couldn't quantify creationist genetic meaningful information.
  • I have no idea why you have a problem with convergent evolution. Why can't variation and selection come up with parallel body functions twice?
  • I asked you for an example of an organism that doesn't fit in a nested hierarchy. You have not provided one. An example would be the name of a species, such as the common ostrich or Oryctolagus cuniculus. Perhaps you can find one on the Hillis plot. I find it amusing that you are denying nested hierarchies since creationists used to use it as evidence for creationism. Sure, there has to be one tree of life, but to imply that there is no tree of life based on DNA or physical characteristics is absurd.
  • The comment about all biological evidence supporting a theory is a response to Bradley's comment above. You can't say there there is no evidence for evolution, there is evidence against evolution and all observations fit with evolution. Which is it?
  • Do you see a problem that you can provide evidence against a theory but can't even think of hypothetical evidence for the theory?
  • You have still not really answered the question about what is evidence for evolution, nor have you really answered what is the evidence for baramins. Given that the premise of the encyclopedia is to provide evidence....

Steriledepraved mind! 14:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

a couple of points. The definition above seems to make evidence a group of observations. A single fact is still evidence, there seems to be no singular or plural word. So observations A,B,C are both singly and as a group evidence.
"Evidence" that fits both views is irrelevant to deciding which view fits the evidence better. I will disagree here. This gets into a qualitative assessment of which hypothesis provides a better explanation.
why would baramins show nested hierarchies if there is no change from one to the other. Would you not expect a group of shrubs rather than a ingle tree ? Hamster (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I can imagine a visit to Philip J. Rayment, M.D., versed in creationist medicine. Here's an imagined visit to Sterile, M.D., versed in evolutionist medicine:
  • Patient: I have a runny nose. Do I have the flu?
  • Dr. Sterile: Of course. Your symptoms are evidence of that.
  • Patient: I have a fever as well.
  • Dr. Sterile: Cases of fever have been known to occur in patients with runny nose. Anyway, all doctors believe in the flu. Only non-doctors question that.
  • Patient: I have aches too.
  • Dr. Sterile: Can you give any explanation of those symptoms other than the flu? Having aches as well as a fever and a runny nose doesn't rule out you having the flu. It's possible to have more than one ailment at a time. I can't believe you looked up the Internet and found some shonky site that said that it might not be the flu.
  • Patient: Actually, the site I looked up was run by qualified doctors.
  • Dr. Sterile: If they didn't think it was the flu, then they were quacks. Don't be an idiot. Clearly the evidence shows that you have the flu.
Creationist probability arguments have been refuted so many times it's barely worth mentioning. Evoltionist counter-arguments have been refuted so many times it's barely worth mentioning. Including at least some of the ones I listed above. Thanks for the links, though. At least one gives the lie to the claim that the creation-evolution controversy doesn't exist in the scientific literature.
I have no idea why you have a problem with convergent evolution. Why can't variation and selection come up with parallel body functions twice? In other words, if A is evidence for evolution, why can't not-A also be evidence?
I asked you for an example of an organism that doesn't fit in a nested hierarchy. You have not provided one. I provided a category instead. What's wrong with that? But your question is a bit like asking which of ten contradictory accounts is wrong. We don't need to know which is wrong to conclude that at lest nine must be wrong because they can't all be correct. But because I point out something like that, you say I haven't answered the question of providing an example of a wrong one.
You can't say there there is no evidence for evolution, there is evidence against evolution and all observations fit with evolution. Which is it? Well, I haven't said the first. A more accurate description of the third is that most observations can be made to fit with evolution. In that form, it doesn't contradict the second statement.
Do you see a problem that you can provide evidence against a theory but can't even think of hypothetical evidence for the theory? Do you see a problem that I have already listed potential evidences for evolution, but you claim that I can't even think of hypothetical evidence for it?
You have still not really answered the question about what is evidence for evolution, nor have you really answered what is the evidence for baramins. I have answered the former (see my previous point in this post), and the second is outside this discussion.
The definition above seems to make evidence a group of observations. The dictionary definition? It might imply that, but the "available body of evidence" could be any number of facts from one upwards.
I will disagree here. This gets into a qualitative assessment of which hypothesis provides a better explanation. I don't disagree, except that the original statement still stands, just with the previously-unstated assumption that the evidence referred to fits both views equally as well.
why would baramins show nested hierarchies if there is no change from one to the other. Would you not expect a group of shrubs rather than a ingle tree ? Almost anything can be arranged into nested hierarchies if one wishes, whether that's stock for sale in the supermarket (first level below the root: fresh food; packaged food; non-food), books in a library (fiction; non-fiction), or living things (plants; animals; whatever). It doesn't mean that any particular nested hierarchy one devises is evidence of evolution from one to the other. The nested hierarchy of living things was developed by the creationist Carl Linnaeus.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 21:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused. You had pretty much said before that evidence for one hypothesis or proposition could not be used for another hypothesis or proposition. Are you retracting that? I guess to, Depending on how you define "evidence", then yes. If you say that evolution has lots of evidence "supporting" it, but that evidence also "supports" a competing explanation, then what is the value in claiming that it "supports" evolution? I would say there is much value, such as in how a doctor would actually diagnose a disease. Any physical observation that must correspond with a given hypothesis makes us more certain it is valid, and hence can be used as evidence. A runny nose counts as evidence for the common cold and the flu, and ignoring that for unique symptoms could lead to a wrong diagnosis. That is also the reason to explore the evidence for creationism: If we must eliminate evidence for evolution based on its overlap with creationism, we need to know what the creationists claim is evidence. (I also don't think you've ever answered that question here.) I guess I'm also not sure of the difference between making an observation fit with evolution and being evidence for evolution, with the caveat that some evidence is better than other evidence.

I suppose the only evidence (real or hypothetical) for evolution you give is

  • "Some finely-graduated sequences between different basic kinds of creatures." You still have not answered Hamster and Awc's question about "basic kinds." Certainly the DNA sequences supporting the Hillis plot support a finite, reasonable number of mutations between species. You do not deny speciation, right?
  • "lots of new genetic information arising through mutations" This is going to be difficult to verify because of your insistence for not being quantitative. Now we have a lack of knowledge about how much information is gained or lost per mutation and per population after mutation and natural selection. (If an organism loses or gained information and then dies, then I assume the population stays neutral.) As usual, creationist meaningful information hides an assertion behind language that sounds like science without actually doing it. I would also be curious what amount of information gain allows us to transfer from supporting evolution to creationism, although you can't answer that either without numbers.

Anyway, I suspect Awc is right, you will just deny any evidence for evolution (except for when you are saying everything fits with it!), so this is probably not a fruitful exercise. Steriledepraved mind! 18:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

he doesn't say everything fits, he says everything is MADE to fit implying pretty directly bad faith and dishonesty from every non-creationist on the planet. Hamster (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I guess I'm confused. You had pretty much said before that evidence for one hypothesis or proposition could not be used for another hypothesis or proposition. Are you retracting that? I did not say that, so there is nothing to retract.
I would say there is much value, such as in how a doctor would actually diagnose a disease. You are correct (sort of), but the circumstance is not all that analogous. The value is actually in noting that evidence doesn't fit. So if the evidence fits one hypothesis and not another, there is value. If it fits two hypotheses but not a third, there is value, in that it eliminates the third. But it is of no value in deciding between the two that it fits (assuming that it fits those two equally as well). A runny nose counts as evidence for the common cold and the flu, and ignoring that for unique symptoms could lead to a wrong diagnosis. A runny nose, because it fits with both the common cold and the flu, is of no value in determining which of those two is applicable. However, if you are trying to whittle down multiple (i.e. more than two) possibilities, the runny nose could indeed be of value in eliminating other possibilities. So if you are trying to determine which of (a) evolution, (b), creation, (c) something else, is the case, then evidence that fits both (a) and (b) but not (c) has value in eliminating (c), but not of deciding between (a) and (b).
That is also the reason to explore the evidence for creationism: If we must eliminate evidence for evolution based on its overlap with creationism, we need to know what the creationists claim is evidence. (I also don't think you've ever answered that question here.) I'm not sure that I've ever been asked it. But this shows one of the long-standing problems with anti-creationists: they often reject creation without understanding its claims. I said something along this line on my Wikipedia user page years ago.
I guess I'm also not sure of the difference between making an observation fit with evolution and being evidence for evolution… That, to some extent, is a judgement call. For a silly example, see the side box in aSK:Encyclopaedias and neutrality. The photograph is evidence that the Earth is round, but it can be made to fit with the idea of a flat Earth. Another example might be the supposed waving flag on the moon with the Apollo 11 flight. On the surface at least, it is evidence that supports the idea of the moon landings being a hoax. However, it can be made to fit with the moon landings being genuine (by pointing out that other things can make the flag move). (And lest anybody wants to get the wrong idea, I completely accept the latter explanation and don't for a moment think that the moon landings were anything but genuine.) So one must make a judgement as to whether the "fit" is real or forced. If it's real, it's evidence for the idea. If it's forced, it's evidence that has been "made to fit". Of course it's not an either/or situation either. The "fit" can be very good, good, reasonable, poor, or very bad (or etc.) It's a scale, not a choice of one or the other.
I suppose the only evidence (real or hypothetical) for evolution you give is They were the only two I gave; I wasn't saying that they are the only two.
You still have not answered Hamster and Awc's question about "basic kinds." I did answer Hamster's question, immediately below it. I don't see where Awc asked a question about that.
Certainly the DNA sequences supporting the Hillis plot support a finite, reasonable number of mutations between species. I don't think that's in evidence.
You do not deny speciation, right? Right.
This is going to be difficult to verify because of your insistence for not being quantitative. Inability to be quantitative; not an insistence.
Now we have a lack of knowledge about how much information is gained or lost per mutation and per population after mutation and natural selection. Nevertheless, we can determine in many cases that information is lost.
(If an organism loses or gained information and then dies, then I assume the population stays neutral.) I take it you are referring to an individual losing or gaining information but not passing that on, and therefore the amount of information in the population stays the same. Yes, that would be correct.
As usual, creationist meaningful information hides an assertion behind language that sounds like science without actually doing it. Sorry, what assertion is that? And why (apart from bias) do you say "as usual"? And how does evolution not do that?
I would also be curious what amount of information gain allows us to transfer from supporting evolution to creationism, although you can't answer that either without numbers. While I couldn't answer that without numbers, it's the wrong question, as the creationary view doesn't propose an information gain, except at creation itself.
Anyway, I suspect Awc is right, you will just deny any evidence for evolution… Of course I will, if it's reasonable to deny it. Without the specifics of the evidence, however, that's just rhetoric.
…he says everything is MADE to fit implying pretty directly bad faith and dishonesty from every non-creationist on the planet. That does not imply (or at least doesn't have to mean) either bad faith or dishonesty. It is normal for people who believe something strongly to honestly and sincerely make something fit with their views. Rather, your comment implies that disagreement by me regarding evolution amounts to me calling evolutionists dishonest, which is a typical anti-creationist (etc.) tactic: disagreement over the science is labelled as denial of science itself.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Because you haven't defined information or provided criteria for it, there is nothing substantively different between asserting that "mutations can't lead to new function" and "mutations can't lead to new meaningful information, and therefore new function"; or between "Lenski's experiment didn't add new information, and therefore isn't evolution" and "Lenski's experiment is not evolution." There is no substantive difference.
If it's forced, it's evidence that has been "made to fit". Is it still evidence? Is it still consistent? Characterization doesn't accomplish anything in terms of determining validity. Again, to be a successful theory, it must fit.
Why can't accumulated speciations lead to different "kinds" of organisms?
You haven't told us the evidence (scientific or not) for creationism, and hence I can't disagree with it. You deleted an article entitled Evidence for the Genesis Account of Creation, with the edit reason "Invalid point-making article". This seems at odds with the fact that the raison d'être for this encyclopedia is to give evidence for your Christian beliefs.
Oh, and as for And how does evolution not do that?, I don't know any where that evolutionists use that there is or is not meaningful information as evidence for or against evolution or creationism. It's entirely a creationist invention.Steriledepraved mind! 21:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Because you haven't defined information or provided criteria for it… False.
Is it still evidence? Is it still consistent? As I said, That, to some extent, is a judgement call. I gave examples, but you've not commented on how those examples are invalid or don't demonstrate my argument.
Why can't accumulated speciations lead to different "kinds" of organisms? They can, or can't, depending on how you define "kinds". In the baraminological sense, they can't because by definition each kind is how it was created.
You haven't told us the evidence (scientific or not) for creationism, and hence I can't disagree with it. So why do you disagree with it, if you admit that you can't?
You deleted an article entitled Evidence for the Genesis Account of Creation, with the edit reason "Invalid point-making article". This seems at odds with the fact that the raison d'être for this encyclopedia is to give evidence for your Christian beliefs. How is deleting an invalid article inconsistent with the reason for the encyclopædia? It seems to be very consistent. Or are you, yet again, begging the question by assuming I'm wrong (in claiming that it's invalid) to argue that I'm wrong (to delete the article)?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence for evolution challenge (2)

OOPS! You forgot to greenify one part of my post. Could you explain the substantive difference between asserting that "mutations can't lead to new function" and "mutations can't lead to new meaningful information, and therefore new function"; and between "Lenski's experiment didn't add new information, and therefore isn't evolution" and "Lenski's experiment is not evolution"?

The baraminological definition is irrelevant to whether evolution is valid, because evolution does not have basic "kinds" in the same way. The barminological concept is only relevant if there is evidence for it, which there is not, or at least I don't know that anyone has rigorously determined the border between one holobaramin and another.

So why do you disagree with it, if you admit that you can't? Do you not understand how absurd this question is? I can't agree or disagree with something that you haven't told me. You might as well ask me to believe (or not) in an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire. Meanwhile, I am aware of much evidence for evolution. Why would I not think it valid?

Do you have any interest in exploring the evidence for creationism? What is wrong with having an article on it? Is it not the purpose of this encyclopedia to provide evidence? The implication is that you are only interested in denying evolution and not interested in investigating your own claims or beliefs. You claim your faith is based on evidence, and yet the evidence is lacking. Steriledepraved mind! 18:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

OOPS! You forgot to greenify one part of my post. No, I didn't forget. That part started with Because … there is nothing substantively different between … As I disputed the premise in the first part, I didn't bother responding to the dependant claims in the second part. As for the substantive difference, the difference is an extra layer of explanation. "Lenski's experiment is not evolution" is a bald statement. "Lenski's experiment didn't add new information, and therefore isn't evolution" is a statement with an explanation as to why it is so.
I have no idea what a "bald statement" is. There is no "extra layer" of explanation unless you say how you know that there is more, less or the same amount of information. Without that, I or anyone else can say, "Mutations always lead to new meaningful information." Without criteria, you cannot prove me wrong. Steriledepraved mind! 21:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The baraminological definition is irrelevant to whether evolution is valid, because evolution does not have basic "kinds" in the same way. Is this your way of saying that you weren't using the word "kinds" in that way? My point was that you didn't previously indicate which way you were using it.
You used kind originally used "kinds," not me. Steriledepraved mind! 21:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The barminological concept is only relevant if there is evidence for it, which there is not,… Another bald assertion.
What's your evidence for baraminology? I can add that to the ever growing list of things you say you have evidence for but you do not give. Steriledepraved mind! 21:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
…I don't know that anyone has rigorously determined the border between one holobaramin and another. Just as no-one has rigorously determined the border between one species and another. So the concept of species is therefore useless too?
Evolution requires that if two species are close together in ancestry that it be ambiguous whether it's a distinct species. It's actually great evidence for evolution. Baraminologists can't even decide how to define its terms. Steriledepraved mind! 21:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you not understand how absurd this question is? I can't agree or disagree with something that you haven't told me. Yet you do disagree with creationism all the time, which means that the question is a very relevant one.
That's not entirely true. I find the evidence for evolution extremely compelling and consistent with itself, and certainly enough to rule out a 6000 year old creation and a 4000 year ago flood. I don't find separate barmins compelling, or at least, God was being tricky and making everything look like universal common ancestry. I cannot say anything on supernatural intervention at any time in history. As a chemist, I will say that matter has always been observed to follow the laws of chemistry and physics that are know, such that invoking a supernatural being to be the puppeteer behind it doesn't make sense. If anything, the universe has the appearance of following scientific law without intervention, and I don't know of any true "miracles" outside those laws. Steriledepraved mind! 21:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Is it not the purpose of this encyclopedia to provide evidence? No. The purpose of an encyclopædia is to impart knowledge.
The implication is that you are only interested in denying evolution and not interested in investigating your own claims or beliefs. That is not implied.
Then give me the evidence for your positive claims. Steriledepraved mind! 21:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
You claim your faith is based on evidence, and yet the evidence is lacking. Just because you are in denial about it doesn't mean that it's lacking.
Cute. Steriledepraved mind! 21:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 22:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
As per usual, you've reduced a conversation to a point where it's fruitless to continue, because you obstruct it. Steriledepraved mind! 21:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what a "bald statement" is. In this context, essentially a bald assertion.
There is no "extra layer" of explanation unless you say how you know that there is more, less or the same amount of information. You seem to be on the wrong track here. You asked, and I answered, about two different English sentences. If you can't tell the difference between a simple statement (X is blah blah bla) and a statement with a rationale (X is blah blah blah because of this that and the other), then you presumably don't understand English. But of course you do understand English, so there must be some other explanation.
You used kind originally used "kinds," not me. So your use of the word "kinds" was a reference back to my much earlier use which I explicitly described as not being anything specific but in the context of a lack of finely-graduated sequences? That use had nothing to do with speciation per se
What's your evidence for baraminology? … let alone baraminology.
I can add that to the ever growing list of things you say you have evidence for but you do not give. When I don't give evidence, such as in this case, it's because you bring it up in a circumstance that is unrelated. We are not talking about baraminology here, except as an aside, so that has nothing to do with this discussion. And you are very close to asking for evidence for a particular classification system. That's like asking what the evidence is for the Dewey classification system. That's probably not what you mean, but that's what the wording of your question indicates.
Evolution requires that if two species are close together in ancestry that it be ambiguous whether it's a distinct species. Now that's a new one! So how do you give something a species name if you've concluded that it's species state is ambiguous? Second, that's not part of the definitions of species that I've seen.
It's actually great evidence for evolution. Yes, I can see that it might be if that really did occur that much. I don't believe that it does. The very fact that you can classify creatures into distinct groups is itself evidence against evolution, as under evolution you would expect a continuum with no clear breaks between different organisms. Well, apart from the fact that evolution is so flexible that you can always come up with a variation that doesn't have that.
Baraminologists can't even decide how to define its terms. Again, how is that different to defining species?
That's not entirely true. Which part? The part that says that you do disagree with creationism all the time? That's quite true (as long as you don't understand it with wooden literalism).
I find the evidence for evolution extremely compelling and consistent with itself, and certainly enough to rule out a 6000 year old creation and a 4000 year ago flood. Solomon answered this point about 3000 years ago. His comment on this is recorded in Proverbs 18:17.
As a chemist, I will say that matter has always been observed to follow the laws of chemistry and physics that are know… So Who wrote those laws? Or, to put it another way, why do such laws exist? Science started on the foundational belief that those laws exist because there existed a universal Lawmaker. Why would nothing produce such laws? The very existence of such laws speaks of a Creator.
…such that invoking a supernatural being to be the puppeteer behind it doesn't make sense. Yet the puppeteer concept is not what was or is proposed. There is no puppeteer. The "puppets" operate on their own. But someone had to make the "puppets" in the first place. The puppets didn't make themselves, as nothing makes itself. Or, if you want to put it in more scientific terms, nothing has ever been observed making itself, so the concept is contrary to observations.
…I don't know of any true "miracles" outside those laws. Miracles are separate topic. First, the very word is hard to define. It doesn't necessarily mean things occurring outside the laws of nature. Many things referred to as miracles almost certainly occur within the laws of nature. But another aspect of miracles is their one-off nature. As such, they are not very amenable to scientific study, which requires repeatability (not to mention advance notice to know that the miracle is going to occur, so that you can be ready to study it).
Then give me the evidence for your positive claims. That is a very broad question, and likely anything I'll refer to you'll dismiss as not being what you meant. For example, I have given evidence—in the form of logical argument—in this post, regarding the origin of physical laws.
As per usual, you've reduced a conversation to a point where it's fruitless to continue, because you obstruct it. As per usual, you misrepresent me, in this case by claiming obstruction when I have done no such thing.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 22:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
No, really, we aren't really talking about evidence for evolution (or creationism, admitted added by me) any more. The only concept I feel necessary to correct is: The very fact that you can classify creatures into distinct groups is itself evidence against evolution, as under evolution you would expect a continuum with no clear breaks between different organisms. The ability to classify isn't evidence for or against anything. You also have to think in terms of populations for evolution, not individual organisms (which is part of creationist meaningful information on an organism scale has no weight).The genetic evidence indicates that DNA is on a continuum of similar DNA, and evolution would only require a steady gradation of genes and characteristics forward and backward in time for a population, not at one time. Two populations at significant genetic distance from each other need not have much in common. It's part of the problem of baraminology: common DNA and characteristics are evidence of common ancestry, but dissimilar DNA and characteristics are not evidence of much of anything. It's hard to prove discontinuities, especially when the positive evidence support continuities. Steriledepraved mind! 23:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say that the ability to classify is evidence against evolution. I agree that anything can be classified in any way one likes (which was sort of my point about your claims regarding baraminology; you asked for evidence of a classification system). However, I didn't say that. What I referred to as evidence against evolution was the ability to classify into distinct groups. With evolution, arguably there should not have been distinct groups, with everything merging imperceptibly into the previous and next steps. The genetic evidence does not point to a continuum; there are very distinct differences and discontinuities. Your criticism of baraminology seems to me to apply much more so to evolution. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 00:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I may be wrong but I believe that you can look up a biology text book and find the criteria for classification of any plant or animal. The usual definition that I know is one of fertility, that a species can breed with its own members and generally not with another species.
I cant seem to find a text book on the baramin classification system. Hamster (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? Did look at Hillis plot and how they put it together? All organisms that have been investigated have some percentage of common DNA with all other organisms. That's not a discontinuity.

Hamster: Read the Answers Research Journal articles on barminology. The cognitum method indicates that the baraminologists "use their senses" to classify organisms. Not very scientific, since it's barely removed from making things up. Furthermore, as I explained above, some differences must occur. It's the denialist who declares them to be too different but ignores the commonality. Steriledepraved mind! 04:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I shall away thither to that Journal and seek a path to enlightenment. (yes really) I am curious about wombats. To me they look somewhat pigish and somewhat bearish so to what baramin do they go ? Maybe the Journal has a list ! Hamster (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Since lots of meats taste like chicken, I'm certain they belong to the chicken kind. Steriledepraved mind! 16:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I may be wrong but I believe that you can look up a biology text book and find the criteria for classification of any plant or animal. The usual definition… The "usual" definition? By that you implicitly acknowledge that thre is more than one definition. Which, to use Sterile's words, means that evolutionists …can't even decide how to define its terms.
…that I know is one of fertility, that a species can breed with its own members and generally not with another species. So how do you apply that definition to fossils?
All organisms that have been investigated have some percentage of common DNA with all other organisms. That's not a discontinuity. There mere existence of "some percentage of common DNA" does not rule out a discontinuity. A discontinuity is a significant difference, not the absence of some similarity.
The cognitum method indicates that the baraminologists "use their senses" to classify organisms. I have already pointed out that you are being misleading in claiming this, but there you go again; citing something out of context to give the impression that it's something it's not. Doesn't repeating an error after you've been corrected amount to lying? (Okay, I will accept that one can forget being corrected, if one then admits that.)
Not very scientific, since it's barely removed from making things up. That seems to apply more to your misleading claim.
It's the denialist who declares them to be too different but ignores the commonality. Oh? Just what am I denying? And how do you tell how much difference is too much? Answer please. Because I could equally claim that it's the denialist who declares them to be too similar but ignores the difference.
To me they look somewhat pigish and somewhat bearish so to what baramin do they go ? Given that they are marsupials, not with either, unless one wants propose* that marsupial animals are a trivial variant of their placental equivalents. *—something like this has been proposed, but I'm not convinced.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 06:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
ok I missed the biblical list of created kinds, could you supply the verses ?
it seems odd that the few papers I can find on Baraminology seem to be trying to fit kinds into modern taxonomy. A paper lists 140 or so kinds of frogs without being very clear on them being biblical kinds or being split from one frog kind. Hamster (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, there's a bit of ambiguity in the defintion for species. I'm not sure what your obsession with it is. It's fairly clear that humans and chimpanzees are reproductively isolated from each other, and it does nothing to negate evolution. The baramin definition seems easy at some levels--just figure out what was here on day 1 of creation--but apparently difficult to find evidence for apparently. In reality they are different concepts, and I'm not sure why you insist on making a parallel between the two. Creationists don't deny species, do they?

You seem confused about evidence again. The positive claim of common descent and evolution is that all organisms have a common ancestor, and any pairwise set of organisms have a common ancestor. The relevant evidence is commonalities in DNA, which are supported in generation-by-generation observations of DNA as well as DNA throughout all life. A large difference in DNA could just mean that the common ancestor is distant in evolutionary time back billions of years, although some research into genetic clocks could clarify that.

Creationism's positive claim was that there were distinct kinds created 6000 years and culled a bit 4000 years ago. Utterly different DNA would be comforting as evidence for that, although I think people would want more evidence. Of course, the ad hoc appeal to design for common DNA just complicates the picture: How much DNA is a difference due to a separate kind that was design vs. genetic drift over time? Difficult to say. I find baraminology an interesting construct for that reason: It's difficult to decide what evidence to look for.

You are only partly correct about using the senses in baraminology. The direct quote from the 2011 ARJ article is, "A cognitum is a group of organisms that are naturally grouped together through human cognitive senses." It's never been entirely clear to me what "naturally grouped" actually means, the usual problem of baraminology: Where does the baramin end? They are fairly clear that the cognitum is only beneath hybridization in terms of evidence: "As we embark on the Ark Kinds research, we have outlined basic principles that will be used to determine probable Ark kinds. We unanimously agree that hybrid data, for both biblical and biological reasons, is the best way to definitively demonstrate that creatures are descendants of the same Ark kind. ... Unfortunately, hybrid data is lacking for many creatures. In these cases, a cognitum approach will be used." They specifically say that other evidence is only used if absolutely necessary: "Other data, including results of statistical baraminology analyses as well as protein and DNA sequence data, will be evaluated where it seems appropriate. However, none of these will be given as high a priority as hybrid data or the cognitum." With the problem for DNA data being the ad hoc appeal to design: "How does one distinguish between sequences that are the same because two creatures are from the same kind and sequences that are the same because God created them the same in two different kinds? Why do differences exist? Are they simply variability God placed in one created kind at Creation? Are they differences that have arisen within a kind since Creation? Are they created differences between different kinds? Are they differences that have arisen between two different created kinds that originally had identical or very similar sequences in a particular region? The bottom line is that we don’t have enough understanding of genetics to understand the significance of most sequence data." (Genetics is so vague!) They even say, "One reason the cognitum is the preferred method after hybridization is that Adam would have recognized created kinds by sight. Presumably the same would have been true in Noah’s time. Humans are designed to be able to visually detect patterns and have a natural tendency to group according to those patterns. Therefore, when the cognitum is used, emphasis will be placed on traits that affect the overall appearance of the animal over those that represent more obscure anatomical or physiological details." So except for hybridization (where you are right), they are making it up. And it's not just them: "The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the plants and the classification response it elicits in humans" (Sanders 10).

You are denying evolution and its relationship to modern genetics. I'm not sure why you ask, "And how do you tell how much difference is too much?" Again, the commonalities in DNA exist and are consistent by billions of years of evolution. Life uses the same machinery, DNA and proteins (and sugars and fats). One might expect two different biochemical machineries if there were not universal common descent, for example. The differences are explained through observed genetics processes, not an ad hoc appeal to a designer who apparently is not all that omnipotent since is bound to only reuse the same sequences over and over again. Not all that convincing. You are also a denialist because you do not really look for evidence for your own positive claim, or at least spend very little time doing so; you spend far, far more time looking to deny the opposition.

Again, we are far removed from the original topic. You seem either unable or unwilling to give significant hypothetical or real evidence for either contention. Steriledepraved mind! 21:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

PS. I have to take issue with some of your previous comments. You had said, Did you do any more than skim parts of that paper? The cognitum is like a "best guess" when lacking better information, because they wanted answers in time to construct exhibits for the Ark Encounter Project. It's misrepresenting it to refer to it as the "state of the art". and then I have already pointed out that you are being misleading in claiming this, but there you go again; citing something out of context to give the impression that it's something it's not. Doesn't repeating an error after you've been corrected amount to lying? (Okay, I will accept that one can forget being corrected, if one then admits that.) Given the hefty nature of those accusations--that I'm lying--could you justify how I'm "misrepresenting" it as "state of the art", how I'm "lying", and how you think I've only "skimmed" the papers.

All this work has been done in the 2010s by legitimate creation scientists: the names are all well known: Lightner, Hennigan, Purdom, and Hodge. The cognitum concept is based on the work of Sanders, who cites Wood, probably the best known baraminologist, who supports it according to his blog. It's clear the that the only "better information" is hybridization, which is extremely limited (because hybrids are extremely limited). They've classified mammans, frogs, birds, turtles and crocodiles with no sight of an end point (except that maybe Ark Encounter's funding is going south), and they only mention the Ark Encounter in passing. They explicitly say they will not take any other information into account, so there aren't other types of "better information." I'm not sure what characteristics you ascribe to "state of the art," but it would seem that evidence that trumps all others and that is a modern technique would qualify So how am I misleading or lying? To me, it seems that it is you who is misrepresenting me, and now you are in fact lying about it. Is your disgust of evolutionists so strong that you can't even fathom that they might be correct? Steriledepraved mind! 00:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hamster
Unanswered question:
  • So how do you apply that definition to fossils?
ok I missed the biblical list of created kinds, could you supply the verses ? What list?
Sterile
Unanswered questions (although some have been questioned or commented on):
  • …how is that different to defining species?
  • So Who wrote those laws? Or, to put it another way, why do such laws exist?…Why would nothing produce such laws?
  • Doesn't repeating an error after you've been corrected amount to lying? (NB: I have now corrected the spelling: correct->corrected)
  • And how do you tell how much difference is too much? Answer please.
Sure, there's a bit of ambiguity in the defintion for species. I'm not sure what your obsession with it is. My "obsession" is a response to your obsession with baraminology. But this doesn't answer the question of how defining species is different to defining baramin.
The baramin definition seems easy at some levels--just figure out what was here on day 1 of creation--but apparently difficult to find evidence for apparently. So, to repeat, how is that different to defining species? It seems easy at some levels—just figure out what groups are interfertile—but with fossils apparently difficult to find evidence for apparently.
In reality they are different concepts, and I'm not sure why you insist on making a parallel between the two. Because they are both methods of classifying living things, one according to biblical definitions, and one according (to a large extent) to evolutionary concepts.
Creationists don't deny species, do they? That's like asking if accountants deny the Dewey classification system. The question is incoherent.
You seem confused about evidence again. I'm not.
The relevant evidence is commonalities in DNA… How is evidence that is consistent with two different view considered evidence for one of those views over the other?
Of course, the ad hoc appeal to design for common DNA just complicates the picture… It's not ad hoc.
It's never been entirely clear to me what "naturally grouped" actually means. As I read the wording, they are talking about how a person, using the cognitive senses, would "naturally" group different organisms. That is, "naturally" is used in the sense of "what comes naturally" (to a human using their cognitive senses).
They specifically say that other evidence is only used if absolutely necessary… That's putting it stronger than they put it.
You are denying evolution… True, but that doesn't mean that I'm a "denialist".
…and its relationship to modern genetics. How am I doing that? Or what specifically am I denying about that?
I'm not sure why you ask, "And how do you tell how much difference is too much?" Yet I explained why: Because I could equally claim that it's the denialist who declares them to be too similar but ignores the difference.
Again, the commonalities in DNA exist and are consistent by billions of years of evolution. Begging the question.
Life uses the same machinery, DNA and proteins (and sugars and fats). By and large, but there are enough differences to not fit with common descent, whilst enough similarity to indicate a common designer.
The differences are explained through observed genetics processes… Disputed.
…not an ad hoc appeal to a designer… It's not ad hoc.
…who apparently is not all that omnipotent since is bound to only reuse the same sequences over and over again. Nobody says He's "bound" to. That's your invention.
You are also a denialist because you do not really look for evidence for your own positive claim, or at least spend very little time doing so; you spend far, far more time looking to deny the opposition. I reject the caricature, but even so, that doesn't make one a denialist.
…could you justify how I'm "misrepresenting" it as "state of the art", how I'm "lying", and how you think I've only "skimmed" the papers. I believe that I've already explained it, but to restate it, "state of the art" means the highest level of development. Given that (as you admit) "cognitive sense" is secondary, it's hardly the highest level of development. That's the misrepresentation. That you got this point wrong suggested that you hadn't read the papers properly, i.e. you had skimmed them (and it was a question, not an accusation). Similarly, I didn't accuse you of lying; I asked if repeating an error (the "state of the art") amounts to lying when you repeat it after being told it's incorrect (Gish was accused of lying on these grounds).
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Short on time, but as fior the questions:

  • …how is that different to defining species? For one, a holobaramin is going to be a collection of species (or whatever organism-classifying mechanism you have); that is, it's a group of organisms that can be traced back to one. A species is obviously different, since it's one type of organism. Obviously the definitions and characteristics are going to be different because they are different. In fact, you probably need species to define a baramin.
  • So Who wrote those laws? Or, to put it another way, why do such laws exist?…Why would nothing produce such laws? The big band does not tell you what happened before it, so this is a straw-man. Laws do not imply that someone wrote them, which is an unwarranted assumption, they are merely a description of reality. If there could be verified to be nothingingness, why wouldn't the same laws apply to the nothingness? Steriledepraved mind! 13:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Doesn't repeating an error after you've been corrected amount to lying? (NB: I have now corrected the spelling: correct->corrected) Not playing. Or are you, as site owner, saying it's kosher to do character attacks?
  • And how do you tell how much difference is too much? Answer please. Um, that's a problem for baraminologists, not for evolutionists. Since evolution implies common ancestry, you must establish common ancestry. Since baraminology implies that there isn't common ancestry, it implies discontinuities. One might expect entirely different genetic codes or even different classes of biomolecules, which are not observed. Steriledepraved mind! 13:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Addressed, but still unanswered, questions:
  • …how is that different to defining species?
  • So Who wrote those laws? Or, to put it another way, why do such laws exist?…Why would nothing produce such laws?
  • Doesn't repeating an error after you've been corrected amount to lying? (NB: I have now corrected the spelling: correct->corrected)
  • And how do you tell how much difference is too much? Answer please.
Obviously the definitions and characteristics are going to be different because they are different. Yes, the definitions will be different. But my question was in reference to your claim that Baraminologists can't even decide how to define its terms. Your answer does not address my question of how an inability to decide how to define its terms is different to the case with species, were there are different definitions floating around, with no consensus on which definition to use.
The big band does not tell you what happened before it, so this is a straw-man. No, your answer is a cop-out. I ask you how something came to be, and because your view doesn't supply an answer, you claim I shouldn't be asking the question!
Laws do not imply that someone wrote them,… Actually, they do. The existence of laws implies a law-giver.
…they are merely a description of reality. But reality has implications. In that sense they are not merely a description of reality, but raise issues that need to be addressed.
If there could be verified to be nothingingness, why wouldn't the same laws apply to the nothingness? For one thing, that would mean that there is something (the laws), not nothing. The origin of that something needs to be explained.
Not playing. Or are you, as site owner, saying it's kosher to do character attacks? It's not a game. As I said, Gish was accused of this (and I think I have been in the past, too). Do you agree with this conclusion, or not? If you don't, just say that you don't. (Of course saying so will mean that you don't agree with those who accused Gish of this.)
Um, that's a problem for baraminologists, not for evolutionists. No, it's a question for evolutionists, because it was evolutionary claims that we were talking about. You claimed that All organisms that have been investigated have some percentage of common DNA with all other organisms. That's not a discontinuity. [athough] … some differences must occur. It's the denialist who declares them to be too different but ignores the commonality. So you were talking about evolutionists pointing to comonalities in living things, and criticising opposing views—that point out the differences—as "denialist". So I asked how do you tell how much difference is too much? That is, how much difference is enough that the commonalities can't be used to support evolution. That is a question for the evolutionists, not the baraminologists.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Catching up on some edits

Reasons for my changes/reversions, mostly responding to edit comments attempting to justify removal of content.

  • "removed unsupported and unsourced generalizing speculation": As I've mentioned before, the introductary section of an article summarises the rest. The support is further down in the article.
  • "evolution is a theory, and CMI says you shouldn't say otherwise; more misrepresentation": The bit removed did not say that.
  • "Who wrote this erroneous [rubbish]? What is the hopeful mnster model; also, evolution does not say that a lung "popped into existence"; suddenly does not mean this": The bit about the "hopeful monster" was added by EvanW[10], although I'm sure you weren't really interested in knowing that. The "hopeful monster" idea was proposed by geneticist Richard Goldschmidt. It basically said that a reptile laid an egg and a bird hatched from it. In 1977 Stephen J. Gould predicted that the idea would return, and proposed punctuated equilibrium. However although I won't support the exact wording that was there, it didn't say that lungs "popped into existence"; it said that "a fish will randomly be born with the DNA for some form of lung which natural selection will then work on". The rest of the deletion was all legitimate content, and the additions are mostly not.
  • "Very clear this section isn't about "evidence against evolution"": This has been discussed ad nauseum, and it is about evidence against evolution, although more needs to be added.
  • "removed unsupported and unsourced generalizing speculation": The irony here is that the part that was claimed to be "unsupported and unsourced" was a comment saying that an evolutionary claim is unsupported and unsourced! So apparently it's okay for evolutionists to make this claim, but not creationists.
  • "no citation to racism/Communism/morals references nor any information on the claim. citation please": If a reference is required, the normal practice is to put a tag in the article; not to delete the text and put a request in the edit comment. In any case, per standard practice, this is a summary of information in the main article linked at the head of the section, and the main article has the references.
  • "first world is a standard term; not clear what legit alternatives to evolution are; I like how wesel words are used to equivocate in favor of creationists but not for evolutionist: clearly dishonest": Fair enough on the first point. I'm not clear on what change your next point relates to, but obviously ID and creationism are legitimate alternatives. We've discussed "weasel words" before, and the terms used are legitimate where they are correct, as here. In any case, you put in what could be considered a weasel word. (But it's reasonable and I've left it in.)

The edits to the "Scientific consequences" section were silly. "However, in a number of areas, evolution has temporarily hindered to scientific research, but eventually were corrected." What was eventually corrected? The hindrances??? Further, one of the meanings of hinder is to cause delay. Saying that something has "temporarily hindered" is tautologous. And "Mysteriously, evolutionary scientists discovered these findings, while creationist contributed nothing to them." Scientists discovered findings?? And that creationists contributed nothing to them is not in evidence; there are many creationists working in mainstream scientific positions, and for all you and I know creationists have contributed to them.

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Arithmetic

15 years is not the same as 1982 to 2014 which is 32 years. which number is correct ? Hamster (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The numbers are in Support for creation and evolution. It so happens that the number was 9% for both 1982 and 1999. They were fairly stable inbetween and only started rising after 1999. That's why I wrote 15 years, although you might quibble about which is a better summary. I will change the date to 1999. (In any case, a date is better than just an interval.) —Awc 20:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
ok thanks I get it now Hamster (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't deliberately go for the older date; I just saw that the table started with 9% in 1982 and used that on the assumption that that's what Awc wsa referring to, without stopping to realise that it wasn't 15 years. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
visitor navigation
contributor navigation
monitoring
Toolbox