Re: Naturalism as the Religious Basis of Evolutionism


Dennis Arndt wrote:
"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.

Still meaningless.
All living organisms contain sub-optimal structures and systems. That's
a consequence of their evolutionary history.



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."

In other words you are picking on features of evolved organisms, and
inventing with no substantiation at all a concept of higher and lower
quality as a post hoc justification.

There is nothing of any predictive value here. It's simply post hoc
rationalisation of what we find.




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.


It included a vague assertion about variability, giving no parameters
and no reason why such variability should be expected.

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.


We know about that variability, and can explain how it derives from the
well-known and extensively studied processes of evolution.

All you have offered is rationalisations of what we find, but with no
evidence whatsoever at the level of process as to why we should find
them. Your "explanation" would be equally applicable if there were no
variation, or greater variation.

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.


Where is the evidence of limits? There are no discontinuities in the
nested hierarchy of living organisms, which would be the consequence of
there being limits. I fail to see why any "intelligent designer",
orderly or not, should create all living organisms in a nested
hierarchy indistinguishable from that produced by evolutionary
processes.



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.

You have not addressed the question of parameters. You have made
unfounded assertions about limits, yet presented no evidence that such
limits exist. The evidence shows that there are no limits.



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.

Which does no alter the fact that it is empty assertion. You have
nothing which can be tested against the evidence. All you have done is
make post hoc rationalisations which "explain" without any basis of
evidence characteristic of evolved systems. We know the processes which
are involved in evolutionary processes and they explain extremely well
what we find.



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.

The difference is that your "theory" is based on nothing but unfounded
assertion, whereas the processes of evolution are extremely well-known
and extensively studied.

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.


You have to start with evidence.
You have none.

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


You have offered nothing which is falisiable! All you have done is
looked at what exists, and made assertions which cannot be tested about
an "orderly designer". This is simply post hoc rationalisation.


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.

I suggest that you educate yourself on phylogentic systematics. The
tools used to carry out such phylogenetic analyses *cannot* show named
common ancestors. It's a limitation of the method.


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

I see discontinuities filled with imagination.

You see a cladogram produced by PAUP or some other similar programme.



So, as I said, it's drivel.

Is it?

Well, yes.

Why not discuss with Sean Pitman and work out how you can decide if
what you see is the result of an "orderly designer", or "common
design", or even the output of some sort of supernatural design studio
as someone else suggested.

How can you determine from the evidence which is the best-supported
"theory"?

RF


Dennis

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... intelligent design has produced these types of functions ... is just evidence that intelligence *can* produce such things. ... there's no proof that evolution did produce it, ... So how is the assertion that specific functions in biological systems ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... intelligent design has produced these types of functions ... is just evidence that intelligence *can* produce such things. ... there's no proof that evolution did produce it, ... So how is the assertion that specific functions in biological systems ...
    (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)
  • Re: Whats the best SALT? IO facts !!
    ... > limits on variety of the breeder's genetic stock (true natural selction ... and limits on your understanding of what evolution ... > those predictions are tested, and evidence is gathered. ...
    (rec.aquaria.marine.reefs)
  • Re: Naturalism as the Religious Basis of Evolutionism
    ... a provision for variations within limits during reproduction. ... It would falsify evolutionary theory. ... The rest is empty assertion. ... I presented evidence of variability within limists in my original ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading