Re: Fact -- a useless concept

On 1 Apr, 09:15, Ivar Ylvisaker <ylvis...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Devils Advocaat wrote:
Okay then Ivar, perhaps you can explain, from the creationist
position, how mankind was able to take the grey wolf and produce over
500 breeds of dog, of which about 150 may qualify as distinct
subspecies since they are reported not to exchange genes.

http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/13/124

And while you attempt this consider what Fr Gregor Mendel wrote in his
paper on "Experiments in Plant Hybridization" in 1865:

"No one will seriously maintain that in the open country the
development of plants is ruled by other laws than in the garden bed."

http://www.mendelweb.org/Mendel.html

I await your response.

I'm not defending creationism.

Aren't you?

I'm criticizing the idea that science
has proven creationism false, e.g., because evolution is a fact and,
therefore, creationism is false.

Science isn't trying to "prove" creationism to be false.

It is the creationists who are claiming that evolution is false.

But they, like yourself, are unable to actually bring any rational
arguments to the table in order to defend their position.

Consider dogs.  A creationist might argue that God exists and that God
micromanages evolution.  To us, mutation appears to be a random process
but, in fact, according to the creationist's hypothesis, it is
controlled by God.  Among other things, the creationist believes that
God arranged for dogs to appear a few thousand years ago.

Can you provide any supporting evidence for this idea that God
"arranged" for dogs to "appear" a few thousand years ago?

There is plenty of evidence that dogs were selectively bred by humans
from the grey wolf.

Of the 500 plus breeds of dog, only around fourteen can be considered
"ancient breeds" as there are very few genetic variations between them
and the grey wolf.

And it is interesting to note that most of the known varieties only
came about in the last few hundred years.

I personally doubt that this hypothesis and can imagine no way for a
creationist to test it.

In science if a hypothesis cannot be tested, it is discarded.

But consider an alternative hypothesis.  Can scientists prove that
mutations are, in fact, random and, hence, that God could not have
controlled them?  

If mutations are not random, can you provide any example of a mutation
that was predicted before it emerged?

It turns out that the answer is no; there is no way to
prove that a process is random.  Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_randomness.  Hence, scientists
could conclude that evolution is a random process even though it is, in
fact, a non-random process controlled by God.

Evolution is not a random process, mutations are random, and the
various mechanisms of evolution remove those mutations that are not
advantageous, leaving those that are advantageous to become the norm.

Ivar

On the subject of random and non-random.

The movement of atoms in a gas cylinder are random, but the non-random
result is the consistent pressure of the gas on the walls of that
cylinder.

The movement of the atoms in a drop of ink allowed to fall into a
container of water are random, but the non-random result is the even
distribution of those atoms throughout the water.

The decay of any atom in a radioactive isotope is random, but the non-
random result is a clearly measureable decay rate for the entire
sample.

Are you going to suggest that God somehow controls all these random
processes so that the outcome is non-random?

If so can you provide any supporting evidence for your position?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Fact -- a useless concept
    ... I'm not defending creationism. ... A creationist might argue that God exists and that God ... mutation appears to be a random process ... God arranged for dogs to appear a few thousand years ago. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fact -- a useless concept
    ... I'm not defending creationism. ... A creationist might argue that God exists and that God ... mutation appears to be a random process ... God arranged for dogs to appear a few thousand years ago. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fact -- a useless concept
    ... To us, mutation appears to be a random process but, in fact, according to the creationist's hypothesis, it is controlled by God. ... To be pedantic, that appears to represent theistic evolution, which is not normally considered to be creationism. ... Hence, scientists could conclude that evolution is a random process even though it is, in fact, a non-random process controlled by God. ... Passing over the impossibility of disproving omphalism, solipsism and simulationism, you appear to have conflated disproving creationism with disproving the involvement of God. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: King David and his son, King Solomon --case closed
    ... day example would be dogs. ... owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little ... 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: ... meaning that simply is not there, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... >> I'm not plotting against you god, ... >> but creationism is a bit too localised for global socierty'. ... between perception and reatliy. ... Dead brain cannot dream. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading