Re: Naturalism as the Religious Basis of Evolutionism

"Richard Forrest" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154708563.794390.66160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dennis Arndt wrote:
"Richard Forrest" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message


A theory is confirmed by hypothesis testing. An hypothesis needs to be
falsifiable, and unless you can propose an observation or measurement
which could *not* be explained by your "theory", it is no more than an
unfounded assertion.

RF


Section 4.5 presented four observations that could falsify the presented
theory of direct creation. This is part of the posting you called
"drivel."

Dennis

Well, let's address this drivel then:

4.4 _A Theory of Direct Creation_

This theory deals with the source of current biological life on the
planet Earth and the diversity of forms of that biological life.

BRIEF FORM: The currently extant life forms are reproductive
descendents of original basic forms of biological life on the
planet Earth that were directly created by an orderly being who
created in an orderly fashion. The basic forms were created
with the ability to reproduce with variation within limits. After
the original creation, life forms were allowed to deteriorate.

FULL FORM: The current diversity of living organisms is a result
of three things:

1. A direct act of creation by an orderly being of a wide
variety of organisms. These organisms were created with
the ability to reproduce other organisms like - but not
necessarily identical to - themselves.

Which is exactly what is observed, and is in fact the basic factor
which makes evolution possible.

2.The reproductive ability of the basic life forms that includes
a provision for variations within limits during reproduction.

Which is sufficiently vague to be meaningless.
What are those limits and how do you establish them?

The limits are a topic for future work.



3. An allowed gradual deterioration in quality of these organisms.
While the initial creation was completely well ordered, the
allowed deterioration resulted in a reduction in the orderliness
of the living organisms.

What on earth is "deterioration in quality" of organisms, and how do
you measure it?

Is a sea turtle higher or lower in quality than a plesiosaur?
Is a modern bird of lower quality than a dinosaur?
Are colonies of blue-green algae of higher or lower quality than
colonies of thermophilic bacteria?

This is completely meaningless

The deterioration is not a comparative quality difference between
or among organisms such as those you mention. It is a
deterioration that results in sub-optimum structures within a
group, such as a species. It also includes structures with no
apparent use of function.

Some specific examples are given at:

http://faculty.buffalostate.edu/penaloj/bio405/outline2.html

* Vestigial traits imply that organisms have histories:
* Morphological examples: wisdom teeth, vermiform
appendix, eyes in sightless cave fish, erectile hairs in
humans, extra digit in chickens, etc.
* Molecular examples
Junk DNA, pseudogenes descended from functional
genes through accumulation of loss-of-function
mutations.

Even some of the structures you might classify as
examples of "unintelligent design."



4.5 _How Theory Could be Falsified_

Before looking at evidence supporting this theory, possible
falsification will be considered. There are a number of ways
this theory could be shown to be incorrect (false):

1. If all descendants of a each life form through multiple
generations were identical in every way, (genetically
speaking, the DNA would not vary in any way across
all such descendants), this would refute variability
in reproduction.

It would falsify evolutionary theory.
The rest is empty assertion. You have neither defined nor set any
parameters on the limits in variability in reproduction.

If there is to be variability the limits must be at leaset loose
enough to allow some differences. If not, there would be no
variability. Point 2 of the Full Form of the presented theory
included a statement of variability.

I presented evidence of variability within limists in my original
post. For example, the evolution of the horse over a
reported 55 million years. That there were limits during
that period is evident from the fact that a population
of four-legged vertebrates underwent changes while
remaining a population of four-legged vertebrates.

Also, the Galapagos finches studied by the Grants
experience a change in population characteristics
during a drought that reversed when the drought
ended. There is another example of variation
within limits - from finches to finches.



2. If a wide variation swing beyond any reasonable
expectations on limits occurred during reproduction
(e.g., if the eggs laid by a single chicken hatched to
produce a trout, a lizard, and a monkey), this would
refute the concept of limits in variability .

It would falsify evolution.
The rest in empty assertion. You have not defined or set any parameters
on the limitations of variability.


I addressed the question of parameters on limits above.


3. If all observable life forms were perfectly formed
at their moment of emergence (e.g. from egg or
womb) and immune from disease or other
deformity and immune from deterioration throughout
their life span, then this would refute the concept
of allowed deterioration.

You have provided no description of the concept of "allowed
deterioration", formed no hypothesis of "allowed deterioration" which
can be tested against the evidence, and provided no evidence to support
your assertion that such a process exists.

More empty assertion.


See above.


4. If closely similar genetic patterns resulted in widely
variant life forms (e.g. 99% match of genes within
a sunflower, a pig, and an eagle) while largely
different genetic patterns resulted in closely similar
life forms (e.g. 65% difference in genes across the
varieties of dogs), then this would refute the concept
of orderliness.

You have provided no description of the concept of "orderliness",
formed no hypothesis of "orderliness which can be tested against the
evidence, and provided no evidence to support your assertion that such
a phenomenon exists.

More empty assertion.

All you have done is to invent a completely unsubstantiated process
whose "predictions" either match those of evolutionary theory, or are
couched in such vague terms as to be completely meaningless. Terms such
as "allowed deterioration", "orderliness", "limits of variability" are
no more than handwaving.

More to the point, you have not offered any evidence whatsoever for
order creation. All the so-called evidence you offer is the evidence
which supports evolutionary theory, and does so because evolutionary
theory makes specific predictions based on an in-depth knowledge of the
processes involved about what evolution can and can't produce. You
offer no hypothesis of process, and therefore your "theory" can be
adapted to explain any possible phenomenon. It isn't testable.

The fact that the evidence presented to support the presented theory
of direct creation also supports evolutionary theory is the point of
the post. When evolution by variation and natural selection was
first proposed, there was no in-depth knowledge of the processes
involved. The discoveries in how organisms reproduce that followed
were simply incorporated into an amended theory. Who knows
what mechanisms could be discovered to be incorporated into
a more robust theory of direct creation? We have to start somewhere.

As to testability, I presented some specific criteria for falsification.
I presented predictions that are open to refutation.


It would be reasonable to assume that a prediction inherent to your
"theory" which are *not* supported by the evidence. It predicts
discontinuities in the nested hierarchy of living organisms. There is
no evidence of any such discontinuities. You evade this lack of
evidence by vague assertions about "orderliness" which, as they are
undefined and unsupported by any evidence, can mean anything.

The continuity you see in the nested hierarchy is questionable when
I find figures of that hierarchy that include things like hypothetical
ancestors and nodes labeled with shared characteristics rather
that a named common ancestor.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html#fig1

I see discontinuities filled with imagination.


So, as I said, it's drivel.

Is it?

Dennis

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Naturalism as the Religious Basis of Evolutionism
    ... which makes evolution possible. ... a provision for variations within limits during reproduction. ... Before looking at evidence supporting this theory, ... The rest is empty assertion. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Naturalism as the Religious Basis of Evolutionism
    ... This theory deals with the source of current biological life on the ... Before looking at evidence supporting this theory, ... It would falsify evolutionary theory. ... The rest is empty assertion. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... On what basis of evidence do you make such an assertion? ... highly significant element of evolutionary theory. ... how does this falsify the claim that evolution can produce new ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... On what basis of evidence do you make such an assertion? ... The crux of the theory of evolution is that populations of organisms ... how does this falsify the claim that evolution can produce new ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Its Gumby Damnit!
    ... I accept many many facets of the natural evolution "database". ... All the evidence suggests that it is, especially as we can trace the ... Only after the fall would extinctions take place. ... ....which is simply empty assertion unsullied by any taint of evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading