Dr. Anthony Fauci is a real time illustration on how absurdity becomes mainstream "science".

[Gus Bovona]

It plays a huge role,

Good, so the mere lack of direct observation doesn’t doom a theory, because it might be inferred properly, and if the inferences are improper, then the theory fails. It all hinges on whether the inferences are proper or not, not the lack of direct observation.

but all inferences need to be judged individually.

Of course.

Watching someone develop their long jump from 5 feet to 10 feet in a month does not mean that in 12 months they will be jumping 55 feet. Likewise, observing a mutation break a gene function and spread to the population in 12 months, doesn't mean that in 12 million years a bacteria will become a frog.

And it doesnt mean that it won’t just because the long jump doesn’t extrapolate as far as 55 feet.

Evolutionists have a little magic box called natural selection/deep time. Add water and "nature will innovate" to account for anything that is needed for evolutionists to put on a fancy slide show.

Nothing more than smears.

Evolutionists barely have good cases of clear speciation to observe.

But now you’re back to direct observation, and we already saw that inference can play a proper role in science.

They don't even claim observing more than that. Evolutionists claim the generation of new Phyla by the same mechanism that they struggle to explain speciation. How can this be a good inference?

They’re not struggling, unless you mean they have only directly observed speciation a few times, but see above.

"Look mom, I built a paper rocket ship and watch me jump off the chair. I just know I can go to the moon with it mom!"

"Stop it Tommy"

"You just don't believe in me mom. Look, if I can jump 2 feet what makes you think I can't jump to the moon?"

More smears.

At the end of the day, there is no observable evidence for evolution much beyond what we already see and know and don't debate about.

The observed evidence for

For all the thousands of years of dog breeding and you still have dogs. More and more sickly breeds of dogs and just dogs. Put them back in nature and they will revert back to what they were thousands of years ago. It's just all cyclical, epigenetic adaption, half-baked survival via mutation, or extinction.

 

[Andreas]

Fine, scientists, those who practice science.

As with black swans, it is not proving a negative, the theory and evidence predict a nested heirarchy,. to disprove it, you need to find

On the contrary, we observe evolution every day and measure evolutionary relationships every day, do you know about Covid variations.
For the umpteenth time, abiogenesis is not part of evolution.

Absolutely irrelevant to evolution, it doesn't matter to evolution if your God magicked the first cell into being.

I wasn't talking about abiogenesis. I was talking about knowing what the first cell was exactly that all life is supposedly descended from. It's reasonable that if you want to say that all life came from a common ancestor then those that make that argument need to know what the first ancestor was.

As a side note you are trying to make "evolution" only biological evolution (i.e. Darwinism, EES, etc.). OoL research is trying to study "chemical evolution". There is also "cosmic evolution". There are lots of ways the word "evolution" is used. Some are controversial and some are not. The ones with actual evidence are not.

 

[Andreas]

Good, so the mere lack of direct observation doesn’t doom a theory, because it might be inferred properly, and if the inferences are improper, then the theory fails. It all hinges on whether the inferences are proper or not, not the lack of direct observation.


Of course.


And it doesnt mean that it won’t just because the long jump doesn’t extrapolate as far as 55 feet.


Nothing more than smears.


But now you’re back to direct observation, and we already saw that inference can play a proper role in science.


They’re not struggling, unless you mean they have only directly observed speciation a few times, but see above.


More smears.


The observed evidence for

EES theories do indeed struggle to explain biological change. Everything that is observed has never been observed to do that much. Someone could come along someday and long jump 55 feet. Unless you can show me that it can't happen under absolutely no circumstances, then it is a fact that 55 feet is achievable. This is the same sort of argument that evolutionists use for their grand claims that go beyond the evidence.

The "fact of evolution" (i.e. universal common descent) is disconnected from the theories of evolution just as the law of gravity is a fact even if we don't understand exactly what gravity is. The problem is that we can observe what gravity does and more gravity can be measured precisely using math. Physicists readily admit what they don't know for sure about gravity.


Evolution, on the other hand is not measurable like gravity. You can't extrapolate, for example, that random mutations that break a gene function will keep mutating to generate a novel organ. Put a larger mass next to another body and you can predict the gravitational difference ad infinitum. Put more random mutations on a population of organisms and you may end up with extinction or a sickly population. Macroevolutionary predictions are simply irrational exuberance. Comparing gravity to evolution is like Apples and hubcaps.

 

[Gus Bovona]

EES theories do indeed struggle to explain biological change. Everything that is observed has never been observed to do that much. Someone could come along someday and long jump 55 feet. Unless you can show me that it can't happen under absolutely no circumstances, then it is a fact that 55 feet is achievable. This is the same sort of argument that evolutionists use for their grand claims that go beyond the evidence.

I sincerely doubt that you have an authoritative source from an evolutionary biologist that claims anything equivalent, such that because others can't show that evolution hasn't happened, then it might have happened.

The "fact of evolution" (i.e. universal common descent) is disconnected from the theories of evolution just as the law of gravity is a fact even if we don't understand exactly what gravity is.

Huh? To be parallel with the law of gravity, you'd be accepting the fact of evolution (as distinct, somehow, from theories of evolution), but that's contrary to your position. I can't make heads or tails out of this.

The problem is that we can observe what gravity does and more gravity can be measured precisely using math. Physicists readily admit what they don't know for sure about gravity.

Evolution, on the other hand is not measurable like gravity.

When are you going to drop the direct observation of evolution approach (given that gravity is directly observable)?

You can't extrapolate, for example, that random mutations that break a gene function will keep mutating to generate a novel organ.

Why are you limiting evolution to "break[ing]" (whatever that means) a gene function?

Put a larger mass next to another body and you can predict the gravitational difference ad infinitum. Put more random mutations on a population of organisms and you may end up with extinction or a sickly population.

The word "may" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. And, of course evolution predicts species going extinct.

Macroevolutionary predictions are simply irrational exuberance. Comparing gravity to evolution is like Apples and hubcaps.

More smears.

 

[Gus Bovona]

It's reasonable that if you want to say that all life came from a common ancestor then those that make that argument need to know what the first ancestor was.

that is false for the same reason that you don’t need to identify or find anything related to or know anything about one of your great-great grandfathers to know that you had a great-great grandfather

 

[Andreas]

I sincerely doubt that you have an authoritative source from an evolutionary biologist that claims anything equivalent, such that because others can't show that evolution hasn't happened, then it might have happened.


Huh? To be parallel with the law of gravity, you'd be accepting the fact of evolution (as distinct, somehow, from theories of evolution), but that's contrary to your position. I can't make heads or tails out of this.




When are you going to drop the direct observation of evolution approach (given that gravity is directly observable)?


Why are you limiting evolution to "break[ing]" (whatever that means) a gene function?


The word "may" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. And, of course evolution predicts species going extinct.


More smears.

I should not post that late in the day while doing other things. Let's clarify. I recall years ago the head of the NCS, Eugenie Scott, made the comparison between evolution and gravity. Furthermore, she distinguished between the "fact of evolution" and the theories of evolution. She said that evolution was a fact like gravity is a fact.

But that comparison is severely flawed because "evolution" as in the grand claim of universal common descent has never been observed, whereas gravity is precisely measurable, predictable and observable in small ways and galaxy sized ways. What Newton observed with gravity and the earth and moon could be logically extrapolated to far away galaxies and observed for testing its theory. The extrapolation from our Solar System to far beyond could be observed and tested. That is not the case with evolution. We observe minor change in organisms but extrapolating beyond that and observe and test is not possible.

That macroevolution can't be tested is not the fault of evolutionists, but neither is the lack of solid testing something that should be covered up, or exaggerated beyond where the evidence actually goes.

As a side note, Eugene's Scott's prediction on pseudogenes was wrong. She was on the same trainwreck as Dawkins, Miller, and other failed evolutionists from the last generation.

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/b...enie-scotts-failed-prediction-on-pseudogenes/

 

[rossum]

What Newton observed with gravity and the earth and moon could be logically extrapolated to far away galaxies and observed for testing its theories.

What Newton observes was wrong, because his instruments were not sufficiently accurate. See the precession of the orbit of Mercury for just one example.

As a side note, Eugene's Scott's prediction on pseudogenes was wrong.

And Harold Camping's predictions were wrong as well. Do you accept that Christianity is wrong because of that failed prediction? Newton failed to predict the precession of the orbit of Mercury.

There are a lot of failed predictions out there.

 

[Andreas]

What Newton observes was wrong, because his instruments were not sufficiently accurate. See the precession of the orbit of Mercury for just one example.


And Harold Camping's predictions were wrong as well. Do you accept that Christianity is wrong because of that failed prediction? Newton failed to predict the precession of the orbit of Mercury.

There are a lot of failed predictions out there.

The point is that gravity can be observed and tested with improved instruments but that can't be done with evolution.

The above-mentioned evolutionists were not lone incidents by outlier scientists. These were the leaders and shakers of major institutions and/or internationally known authors. Harold Camping was a lone minister out on the west coast and 99.9999% of Christianity either never heard of him or didn't agree with him. Jesus told us NOT to make predictions. On the other hand, entire institutions held to the myths of Dawkins and Miller. I'll include the head of the NIH, Francis Collins as well. Miller was the primary evolutionist at the Dover trial. So, your comparison is a huge stretch, although I'm glad you admit to the mistakes by the leading lights of evolutionary theory from 1985-2015.

 

[Mustang48]

Fine, scientists, those who practice science.

As with black swans, it is not proving a negative, the theory and evidence predict a nested heirarchy,. to disprove it, you need to find

On the contrary, we observe evolution every day and measure evolutionary relationships every day, do you know about Covid variations.
For the umpteenth time, abiogenesis is not part of evolution.

Absolutely irrelevant to evolution, it doesn't matter to evolution if your God magicked the first cell into being.

What evidence for evolution?

 

[Gus Bovona]

I should not post that late in the day while doing other things. Let's clarify. I recall years ago the head of the NCS, Eugenie Scott, made the comparison between evolution and gravity. Furthermore, she distinguished between the "fact of evolution" and the theories of evolution. She said that evolution was a fact like gravity is a fact.

But that comparison is severely flawed because "evolution" as in the grand claim of universal common descent has never been observed, whereas gravity is precisely measurable, predictable and observable in small ways and galaxy sized ways. What Newton observed with gravity and the earth and moon could be logically extrapolated to far away galaxies and observed for testing its theory. The extrapolation from our Solar System to far beyond could be observed and tested. That is not the case with evolution. We observe minor change in organisms but extrapolating beyond that and observe and test is not possible.

That macroevolution can't be tested is not the fault of evolutionists, but neither is the lack of solid testing something that should be covered up, or exaggerated beyond where the evidence actually goes.

As a side note, Eugene's Scott's prediction on pseudogenes was wrong. She was on the same trainwreck as Dawkins, Miller, and other failed evolutionists from the last generation.

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/b...enie-scotts-failed-prediction-on-pseudogenes/

1. Some facts are confirmed by direct observation of the phenomenon in question.

Other facts are confirmed by direct observation of other phenomenon than the one in question.

2. The theory of evolution is tested by predictions of what must be and what must not be if it is true.

 

[Gus Bovona]

What evidence for evolution?

Here is a summary..

 

[Andreas]

1. Some facts are confirmed by direct observation of the phenomenon in question.

Other facts are confirmed by direct observation of other phenomenon than the one in question.

2. The theory of evolution is tested by predictions of what must be and what must not be if it is true.

Yes, and it must be noted that different areas of science use different tools and inferences. Different doesn't necessarily make them wrong, it's just that the tools have to be different. Sometimes the fields and tools overlap. For example, forensic science has tools, and its scientists make inferences in courts of law that can be upheld as valid in court cases. Historical scientists make inferences based on records from the past. This is different than experimental science performed in a pharmaceutical lab, and different yet than astronomers.

The problem with evolutionists is that they have framed evolution as though it is a settled fact, like gravity, and then continue to work on the various theories of evolution through the lens of evolution as a fact.

There are issues on multiple levels. One big one is just what definition of evolution are they talking about? There are at least 7 of them. Some are controversial and some are not. A big mistake is when evolutionists muddle these 7 definitions of evolutions and take evidence for one as evidence for all. For example, a mutation that breaks a gene is used as evidence for macroevolution via extrapolation.

Intentional or intelligent Design must make inferences also. This is where evolutionists, become hypocrites in not accepting rational inferences based on design theory, while showing irrational exuberance towards their own inferences. They don't need to play stupid when the best explanation for a complex and highly specified system is Design.

I think the old adage by lawyers could apply to evolutionists here. If you’re weak on the law and strong on the facts, pound the facts. If you’re weak on both, pound the table.

 

[rossum]

The point is that gravity can be observed and tested with improved instruments but that can't be done with evolution.

Evolution also has improved instruments. Neither Darwin nor Mendel had access to DNA sequences. That more accurate data has further confirmed evolution. Unlike with Newton, who was shown to be incorrect.

We can now see exactly what changes mutations make in DNA by comparing parent(s) with offspring.

 

[rossum]

Intentional or intelligent Design must make inferences also.

One such inference is that intelligence cannot itself be the result of Intelligent Design. If ID asserts that its designer is alive, then similarly life also cannot be the result of Intelligent Design. Some sort of intelligent non-living alien supercomputer would avoid the second of these inferences.

 

[Andreas]

Evolution also has improved instruments. Neither Darwin nor Mendel had access to DNA sequences. That more accurate data has further confirmed evolution. Unlike with Newton, who was shown to be incorrect.

We can now see exactly what changes mutations make in DNA by comparing parent(s) with offspring.

Do you have an example specifically where an accumulation of mutations goes beyond just making two groups that were the same species unable to breed? Any novel organs? Any new specified information in the DNA?

 

[rossum]

Do you have an example specifically where an accumulation of mutations goes beyond just making two groups that were the same species unable to breed? Any novel organs?

Inability to interbreed is the definition of species. See Lyko (2017) for an example. A single mutation made a new parthenogenic species from a previously sexually reproducing species of crayfish.

Any new specified information in the DNA?

How do you define "specified information", and how is it measured? For scientific purposes, the measurement must objective, not subjective of course.

 

[Andreas]

One such inference is that intelligence cannot itself be the result of Intelligent Design. If ID asserts that its designer is alive, then similarly life also cannot be the result of Intelligent Design. Some sort of intelligent non-living alien supercomputer would avoid the second of these inferences.

You're being too narrow in your philosophy here.

What hard evidence are your inferences based upon? Do you have one example where new intelligence (specified complexity) originated without intentional design?

Your second inference assumes a closed system where life exists, and no other life exists beyond that closed system (our cosmos).

The Biblical view of creation and God the creator is that He is eternal and never began to exist. He is uncaused. Secondly, the Bible teaches that the earth and our cosmos had a beginning (Genesis 1:1). Third, the Biblical creator God exists transcendent of his creation. In other words, He is not dependent on the resources or time/space of our system. Forth, the Bible speaks of a reality called Heaven (i.e. the 3rd Heaven) that is not based upon the laws of our cosmos.

An infinite regress of creators, whether intelligent or not, is irrational and logically unworkable.

Lastly, "nothing", as in what a rock thinks about, can't do anything. To believe that "nothing" can create a finely tuned universe is definitely not as rational or logical as an uncaused, eternal and intelligent agent creating a finely tuned universe. Quantum fields are not nothing. Speculative multiverses takes us back to the infinite regress logic problem. The best explanation for the specified complexity in our universe is intelligence design by an uncaused agent. With inferences about the beginning, "the best explanation" is acceptable, or it least it should be. That you are passionately irrational against such a reasonable inference, such that your hormones and emotions run rampant is not a good long-term lifestyle choice.

 

[Andreas]

Here is a summary..

Good ole Theobald, my friend. Do you know if he has done anything new lately? His old site is getting stale.

The nested hierarchy thing is getting worse for him all the time.

An evolutionist could decide to group phyla according to early developmental processes, or according to symmetry, they can take their pick. If they weigh one trait a lot, you’ll get a specific tree, but if they weigh another trait, they'll get another different tree. When they use one character set to create their tree, then the other character set is no longer distributed in a treelike fashion, and vice versa. This is a huge issue.

It's all very messy. Certainly not a nice and clean nested hierarchy but a forest, a mosaic of traits. Some traits are shared between animals that are said to be far apart in the hierarchy, while supposed close animals in the hierarchy seemed to have totally lost the traits they should have inherited. This pattern of incongruence is one of the reasons for EES adding theories on how traits are supposedly acquired horizontally and unexpectedly lost. It's a mess from a nested hierarchy viewpoint. It all smells contrived and convenient that when the nested hierarchy pattern is not fitting, then traits must have somehow been lost or gained inexplicably. Life is a nested hierarchy expect when it isn't. Life is a nested hierarchy but they have a forest of trees. Take your pick, based on what traits you like to include.

It's like families going out to find the Christmas tree they like. Everyone has their own preferences.

What evolutionists have done is assume a nested hierarchy and then try to force fit animals into it. Take the raw data and you get trees. As in plural trees.

 

[rossum]

Do you have one example where new intelligence (specified complexity) originated without intentional design?

Yes. The intelligence inherent in the original Intelligent Designer was not designed.

Your second inference assumes a closed system where life exists, and no other life exists beyond that closed system (our cosmos).

ID assumes an open system where life exists outside our universe. We only have scientific evidence of life inside our universe.

The Biblical view of creation...

... is that the earth is set on pillars. The Bible is not a science textbook.

An infinite regress of creators, whether intelligent or not, is irrational and logically unworkable.

I agree. That is why the intelligence in the first creator was not intelligently designed. ID is self-refuting because it requires at least one complex entity to exist without having been designed be some previous entity.

 

[rossum]

What evolutionists have done is assume a nested hierarchy and then try to force fit animals into it.

No. The hierarchy was noticed long before evolution. See Linnaeus (1735) and many subsequent publications.