Evolutionary maybes

The difficulty of discussing evolution with those who stake their entire worldview on it is that it gets caught up in the maybes.  It’s quite humorous to me, for its hypocrisy.  What I mean is religious adherents are often criticized by skeptics when they are asked something like “Why would God…” or, “Why didn’t God just…” when the answer is: “Well, maybe God…”, because maybe isn’t good enough.  It’s as if the skeptic really believes that if the Christian — or whomever — doesn’t have a definitive answer which is also satisfactory to him that the skeptic is justified in rejecting the existence of God.

I bring this up because evolutionists are chock full of maybes, but it’s OK.  It’s OK because we don’t have to know exactly how an amoeba turned into a human being eventually, because, you see, evolution is true so we don’t have to know, it just happened.  So maybe is a perfectly acceptable answer, and it’s not science-of-the-gaps at all.

Special pleading and self-beneficial exceptions aside, I read a post last night and it aroused a question I have often wondered about when it comes to evolution.  Perhaps there’s a perfectly good answer which doesn’t require speculation and extensive use of one’s imagination, then again, maybe there isn’t (see what I did there).

Instinct.  Instinct amounts to pre-programmed information — instructions, so to speak.  Instinct tells the organism the where, when, what materials to look for how to use them, and how to do certain things.   Instinct amounts informational content, it’s more than trial and error, more than figuring it out.  Instinct already supplies the correct answers and applications.

For example, a spider doesn’t discover it can produce silk whenever it chooses to then try and form it into a web, it knows it can and just does it.  It knows how to build a web; it knows where to build it; it knows why to build it; and it knows what to do when it’s built.  The same is true in the butterfly example in the blog post, caterpillars know how, when, and where to build cocoons.

Information is goal oriented and is meant to be communicated and understood with a purpose in view.  So how does a random process with no goal in mind produce real complex information to be understood and applied already pre-installed?

Comments

  1. “The difficulty of discussing evolution with those who stake their entire worldview on it is that it gets caught up in the maybes. ”

    Are there people who stake their entire worldview on evolution? Because I don’t, and haven’t met any who do. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any, of course. Just that I’ve never seen it.

    ” Instinct amounts informational content, it’s more than trial and error, more than figuring it out. ”

    And it came from trial and error. The animals that felt it was a good idea to do something that got them killed ended up killed. If they were killed before they could breed, the traits that encouraged them to do the thing that got them killed were less likely to be passed on. The animals that felt it was a good idea to do something that benefited them were benefited. It’s not 100% either way, of course. Which is why so many species have died off, because they couldn’t change fast enough.

    What we see today are the species that were able to change and adapt fast enough and well enough that more of them survived than died.

    • Please forgive me, but how the hell are you going to tell me that one organism’s experience is passed down? I call bull on that explanation.

      • The experience isn’t passed down. The chemical process within the animal’s brain has the potential to be passed down when it breeds, so that its offspring will have similar chemical processes.

        If the chemical process in your brain, what we call ‘instinct’, inspires you to march up to a sabre toothed cat and make friends…you are then more likely to die, and less likely to pass on your genes. And thus, the next generation of your species is less likely to act in the way that you did.

  2. Evolution isn’t a “random process”.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

    • Z

      Sure it is. A mutation which has no end in view happens, by chance, and if it helps “maybe” it’s passed down to help others, if it’s passed at all. If it harms, then “maybe” it hurts enough to not be passed down.

      NAS

      It sounds like youre saying youy believe in determinism, is that right?

  3. “It sounds like youre saying youy believe in determinism, is that right?”

    I don’t claim to follow, understand or care for philosophy. Merely explaining what I know of evolution, which is a fact shown by science, and has little to nothing to do with my worldview.

  4. Sorry, John, you obviously don’t have an understanding of evolution.

    Oh, and by the way, since you think the story of Noah and the ark is actual history, let me remind you that there are easily over a million different species on the planet. (http://www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/Plants-Animals/number-species.php)

    It’s difficult to have a rational conversation about science with anyone who actually believes the Noah story to be anything other than a complete fabrication.

    • Z

      You do know one pair after each kind doesn’t entail one pair of each species, right?

      And yes, my summary was also a summary of what you presented as an appropriate description. Unless you believe mutations are intentional, and not accidental.

  5. Ooooh, So 1 pair of one kind of ant leads to over 22,000 species of ants? right.

    You maybe referring to the genetic drift that may occur throughout the evolutionary process. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift)

    Seriously, just read any of the sites I posted.

  6. Notascientist, there are exactly two world views. Either everything came from nothing for no reason and life evolved, or everything was created. I don’t know another alternative.

  7. Did you know that one cycle of the monarch butterfly’s migration takes three generations of monarchs to complete? Talk about instinct! How do a bunch of insects know to go back to their grandparent’s home? It’s truly amazing. And the kind of information that John is talking about.

  8. “Notascientist, there are exactly two world views.”

    Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the false dichotomy. Study it well.

  9. At the risk of sounding condescending, C2C, if you have any intention of really arguing against evolution, I suggest reading a few of the links provided and learning more about it.

    • Z, you don’t sound condescending, you sound hypocritical. You never learn from links I provide. You repeatedly make the same misrepresentations and caricatures.

  10. And what would your view of the extent of the flood be?

    • I am more inclined to accept a regional flood covering the reaches where man had inhabited. But since this isnt really the topic, we’ll leave it there.

    • I’m willing to admit that some stories in the bible may be wrong. Either way, it has little to do with the question at hand. If I told you that I have proof that the flood story was a complete fabrication, we’d still have the same question. Was there a creator or not? Can evolution explain everything, including John’s question about instinct?

      It seems like you’re taking one story that seems silly and saying that everything else its believers believe can’t be taken seriously. Kind of a crappy way to argue, I must say.

      • C2C

        Don’t you see the pattern? “The bible contains at least one account of a story I believe is difficult to believe, therefore God doesn’t exist”

  11. “Yeah, NAS, there’s either a Creator, or there is not a Creator. Umm, what’s the third option?”

    There’s a creator who created everything and then disappeared, allowing natural non-supernatural events to take place. There’s a creator who created everything and then used evolution to do her work.

    So that would make a total of 4 options, off the top of my head.

    • I’m pretty sure that a belief in a creator of the heavens and the earth includes a belief that the same creator created life and types of animals.

      I’ve never known evolutionists to praise the wonderful creation of evolution.

      • There are a fair amount of scientists who are also religious. They understand that evolution is a fact, but still think a god exists. I think they’re wrong about that, but at least they acknowledge science.

        • If you can name a religious scientist who believes the big bang was creation, but all life on earth came from a single abiogenetic ancestor for no reason, I’ll concede that I have offered a false dichotomy as far as worldviews are concerned.

          • I’ll give you two, off the top of my head. Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller.

          • “but all life on earth came from a single abiogenetic ancestor for no reason”

            Oh, and no scientists believes it the way you’ve worded it, because the way you worded it is not what science says. But thanks for playing.

            • What part of the way I worded it is inconsistent with abiogenesis? “Life started from chemical reactions and all life forms came from that”. Is that not to say that there was no reason for it to have occurred?

              As for Collins and Miller, it seems that they fit into the latter category: everything was created (with a purpose in mind).

              It would even seem that they, both being believers, think that evolution was divinely intended to produce things like instinct. Clearly, they are not atheist evolutionists, which is what I’m talking about.

  12. John, you seem to get very confrontational any time you say anything to me.

    Please enlighten me:

    1. Hypocritical about what exactly?
    2. What links have you referred me to? C2C’s post about butterflies?
    3. What misrepresentations exactly?
    4. What caricatures exactly?

    • Z

      I’m talking about over the years. I’ve tried to correct your misrepresentations and you have used them even after. I find it humorous that you expect others to do what you refuse to.

  13. Thank you for supplying examples.
    Oh well… just another typical end to our dialogue.

    • Z

      Are you suggesting I dig through your comments from the past 2 years to search for an example? Is it that important to you, or are you just bloviating for the sake of bloviating in an attempt to make it seem like I’m over generalizing?

  14. “Don’t you see the pattern? “The bible contains at least one account of a story I believe is difficult to believe, therefore God doesn’t exist””

    Don’t you see the pattern? “Evolution contains at least one account of biology I believe is difficult to believe, therefore God exists.”

  15. @John
    I would like you to make your comments relevant to the current conversation.

    @C2C
    You may be willing to admit that, but most Christians, including John, do NOT – because it compromises its credibility as a reliable source for anything. John loves to misrepresent my position.

    So, the main point that both of you are trying to make here is “Instinct exists, therefore evolution isn’t true?”

    I would suggest a bit more research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct

    • How would you go about somehow drawing a link from Noah to instinct being passed through evolution? Perhaps you’ll post your own blog on the subject, make your case with reason and not ridicule and mockery (cause that doesn’t invite discussion) and we’ll take it up there.

  16. Ok, apparently my tangent about Noah and the sheer number of species was too much of a distraction – my apologies.

    Let’s get back to your post.

    I said evolution was not a “random process” and you disagree.

    I gave you some links to help you better understand the position you seem to be arguing against.

    Not all genetic information proves to have a purpose and this information is not “goal oriented”.

  17. On what basis do you make this statement?

    • On the basis that on naturalism everything is chemicals reacting, like dominoes falling one domino cannot help but being struck and striking the next. They dont intend to do anything, there is no information in falling and reacting.

      Instinct entails intention and information.

  18. Z, I see you are quick to ridicule John and anyone who disagrees with evolution. But when I brought up some hard-core science a few days ago to underline my argument for fine-tuning of the universe, you abruptly left the conversation. Please read my post about fine tuning and let me know your thoughts. We can chat by email if you’d rather since it is off-topic for this post. You know how to reach me.

  19. By the way, great post John. I *am* a scientist and I agree completely. Certainly the earth is very, very old. Life is very, very old. But the evidence for common descent is flimsy at best. I’m perfectly willing to believe it if the evidence was conclusive. It wouldn’t threaten my faith in the slightest. (I don’t take the creation account literally anyway)

    On the other hand, modern scientists absolutely HAVE to believe in common descent because any other solution clashed with their worldview. I sometimes wonder what sort of discovery would EVER convince an evolutionary biologist that common descent wasn’t reasonable.

  20. Tumeyn,

    I don’t think I’m ridiculing John, just trying to point him (and anyone else interested) to some sources that might educate him on the position he doesn’t agree with.

    As for replying to your answer, you ran off on a tangent based on misreading what I said.

    I said “There really is no reason to think that if these constants varied at all that some other variation of life would not have evolved.”

    You ran off with a lot of speculation about the impossibility of any variation of forces and energy states. It’s too bad we can’t prove or disprove any of that.

    As for what parts of the bible you accept and don’t accept, I guess there are always folks like Glenn who believe you’ll probably spend an eternity in hell. You religious folks sure can be entertaining at times…

  21. Z, you wrte: “You ran off with a lot of speculation about the impossibility of any variation of forces and energy states. It’s too bad we can’t prove or disprove any of that.”

    Have you tried? Are you suggesting that theoretical physics isn’t a valid science? The facts I quoted are widely published and acknowledged – even Richard Dawkins acknowledges them in his debates. Steven Hawking discusses them at length. Atheist Rodger Penrose tackles this issue too. He is the major driver behind the multiverse hypothesis to try and overcome this problem. (but he DOES acknowledge the problem) These are not some facts cooked up by a potshot young-earth creationist on his home PC. These are published in all the major science journals of today. You might as well dismiss the entire concept of the Big Bang as speculative if you dismiss these! But I assume you don’t want to go down that road.

  22. So your reasoning concludes that a god exists because instinct exists?

  23. John, not only that. There is no room for free will. If naturalism is true, then our everyday choices (including our choices about naturalism!) are just an illusion. I believe in God simply because the dominoes have fallen down the “theism” pathway. ZQTX believes atheism simply because his dominoes have fallen down the “atheism” pathway. Naturalism leaves no room for free choice. The most ardent atheists (Dawkins, Carrier, and Harris) readily acknowledge this fact. But it leaves me wondering why they even bother debating if they really believe that free-choice is an illusion.

  24. T – what does free will have to do with instinct? Are they interchangeable to you?

  25. Z, certainly they are not interchangable. They are two distinct problems. The problem of instict arising through evolution is a concept of information generation. (ie, how does non-information become information? An instinct, after all, is simply information.)

    The problem of free will is a separate issue. How does something that is supposedly controlled solely by natural forces “rise up” over his/her destiny to gain any control? It’s a simple problem to understand really. Think about a computer. Computers make choices based on inputs. They don’t have “free will”. A given set of inputs will always give a defined output. Humans don’t seem to be subject to this limitation. This is obvious in our criminal justice system: we hold people morally accountable for their actions. But if naturalism is true, then we are no more accountable for our actions than a tree is responsible when blown over by a hurricane. The facts of physics dictated that it would fall over. If naturalism is true, then my theism and your atheism are just brute facts of nature. We can do no other. But the fact we are having this debate suggests that you think otherwise.

  26. No one is discussing free will. Please stop trying to muddy the water.

    The question was “So your reasoning concludes that a god exists because instinct exists?”, and to that I guess both of you say “yes”.

  27. That is ONE of the lines of evidence, yes. Alongside that I put these evidences:
    1) The fine-tuning argument that I laid out yesterday
    2) The existence of free will
    3) The religious experience of myself and others (mysticism)
    4) The cosmological argument (the “something from nothing” problem)
    5) The moral argument (objective morality requires a supernatural explanation)
    6) The origin of the New Testament accounts of Jesus
    7) Our sense of beauty, love, and altruism
    8) The origin of information – particularly the molecular machinery governing DNA replication and protein synthesis.

    Alone, any of these points could be dismissed. But together, they all seem to point in the same direction. This universe is not self-contained. There is something “other” or “beyond”. You seem to dislike dealing with multiple evidences simultaneously. But we have to do that in court cases all the time. There is rarely a single piece of knock-down evidence. Cases are cumulative, based on the preponderance of the evidence.

    You can ignore the free-will problem and stay focused on the small picture if you like. But I prefer to take a broader look at why theism is indeed quite rational in the face of a variety of human experiences. Explain them away individually, sure. But collectively the evidence is hard to ignore.

  28. TerranceH says:

    The way its taught, evolution is complete and utter bull-thistle.

    And I don’t know how believers can say the earth is very old when, in Genesis, you know the earth was created with the appearance of age. Adam & Eve didn’t have to plant anything or wait for plants to bear fruit; they were fully grown already. That alone tells you the earth had the appearance of age even in Adam & Eve’s day. A believer wishing to stay true to science must consider that possibility.

  29. TerranceH says:

    I *am* a scientist and I agree completely.

    Yes. And thankfully you help create medicine to better humanity, while people like Richard Dawkins tear it down.

  30. The issue is not “instinct exists, therefore God exists”. The question is: how does evolution explain instinct?

    Isn’t it interesting how humans have to learn, and mere ants just go to it?

    • Sorry… Accidental incomplete thought.

      The point is that young animals of all sorts have it programmed into them to do what they do. The spider and its web is a great example. There’s no way that chemical reactions just make a spider start building a trap. Or for that matter, wrap up the food that gets caught in it. The spider seems to be programmed with a plan.

      If evolution can explain it, I’d love to hear it.

  31. “I am more inclined to accept a regional flood covering the reaches where man had inhabited. But since this isnt really the topic, we’ll leave it there.”

    Yes, John, “creationist maybes” are not the topic.

  32. John,

    “Information is goal oriented and is meant to be communicated and understood with a purpose in view. So how does a random process with no goal in mind produce real complex information to be understood and applied already pre-installed?”

    The information is stored in chemistry.

    Steps:
    1. There are random changes of chemistry which result in information changing.
    2. The information which optimize the survival result is more likely to reproduce and to overide the less optimized.
    3. Go back to step 1.

  33. @ John,
    There is really no need to deny or doubt that Noah’s flood happened. Here are some things about Noah’s flood that point to its validity.
    1. Over 200 worldwide legends of a worldwide flood. Pretty much every culture has one.
    2. Historical references like Josephus and others mention how people used to go and visit the site that the ark landed at.
    3. There are credible eyewitnesses that have made claim to seeing it on top of a high mountain. Some of their details do correspond. Although, there is no physical proof of these claims that can make them irrefutable.
    4. Fossils are created when an organism is trapped in sediments and quickly buried. The best way for this to happen is in rapidly moving water. The sheer volume of fossils worldwide is good evidence. Especially in fossil grave yards, on top of mountains and places with no water in site. These reasons point to a worldwide catastrophe. Imagine what kind of force it would take to bury a complete dinosaur. Although that is rare, it still has happened. There are also plenty of fossils that show organisms in the middle of an action when it was buried and fossilized, which points to catastrophe.
    5. Most arguments against the flood are superficial and lack to recognize the difference of how the world would have looked like prior to the flood and how it looks now.
    6. The argument of how many animals Noah needed to bring on the ark shows a complete lack of understanding of the creationist explanation. They think the creationists don’t believe in natural selection so they think Noah would have to bring 2 of every species. But that is a caricature of the position. Noah didn’t need to bring 2 of every canine species. He needed to bring 2 wolves and possibly a couple of other canine’s that aren’t descended from wolves.
    The problem is with how evolution is indoctrinated to people. They’ll say we can see evolution in action by the fact that bacteria can evolve the ability to become resistant to antibiotics. Or they say organisms have adapted to their environment and therefore have become better. This gives a completely distorted view of what natural selection really is. In reality, what happens is there are always a variety of traits within a species and the species with the best traits to survive in a given environment are the ones that survive. It is survival of the fittest and not arrival of the fittest. Organisms don’t respond to the environment by adapting, they either have the traits to survive or don’t have the traits to survive. As an example, when bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics. The way antibiotics work is by binding to a protein that allows the antibiotic to kill the bacteria. However, some bacteria have a mutation that doesn’t allow it to make that protein; therefore the antibiotic can’t bind to it and kill it. So what is happening is this. These mutated bacteria are always being reproduced. In an environment without antibiotics the healthy bacteria that don’t have the mutation thrive and kill off the mutated bacteria. When the antibiotic is introduced into the environment, it starts killing off the healthy bacteria and the person gets to feeling better. Eventually, however, the mutated variety will start to thrive the more the healthy bacteria die out. The more the mutated ones thrive, the antibiotic will become ineffective. The point is, there is no actual response by the organism to adapt or become better to survive the new environment. There are just different varieties of the organism and the ones that have the best set of traits to survive in a given environment are the ones that will survive. Sometimes multiple set of traits will work in an environment. The other thing to point out is the varieties of traits are in color, shape, size and amount. Sometimes, the loss of genetic information will allow a species to survive, like in the bacteria example. Ultimately, varieties in traits are vertical and downward. They are never upwards or towards better genetic fitness. So in reality, natural selection is the opposite of organic evolution where things have progressed from one celled creatures up to humanity. All the arguments used to prove evolution are to distort natural selection or to use speculation, assumption and wishful thinking. We have done all kinds of breeding experiments on dogs, cats, bacteria and fruit flies. We constantly get the same answer; you can’t gain genetic fitness or information.
    There is also no valid reason for accepting the long ages as factual either. Even though the testing methods and laboratory part is highly scientific, all dating methods have their roots in assumptions about the past and starting conditions. Things that you can’t know for fact, since nobody was there when the rocks where formed. They don’t know how much parent element or daughter element was present when the rocks were formed. They don’t know if there was any loss or gain of these elements from the surrounding environment. They can’t say absolutely that the decay rates haven’t changed. They sound good, but the fact is some methods have been given up in favor for others. They have also come up with ways to try and account for the known faults of some of the methods. Heck, you’ll even catch an evolutionists admit to an assumption being wrong without even realizing it. Like when you tell them that a creationist had a rock from Mt. St Helens tested and it was dated to millions of years even though it’s nowhere near that old. They do it all the time. It’s how they can justify changing dates when the date doesn’t correspond to what they believe happened. Just change the starting condition by trying to find a reason why it was wrong.

    • Wiley

      Thanks for the comment. I don’t doubt the Noaic flood. However, I’m not trying to go off on that tangent. What happens is a commenter like Z will try to discuss a post they wish I wrote instead of the one I actually wrote. Then instead of writing their own post for discussing on a blog they come here.

      So let’s stay on topic.

  34. Isu, I enjoyed your little outline. The problem is that step 1 presupposes information content. Why do’t you try again and propose a model where information comes from non-information. Then (and only then) will you have a point.

  35. I just read a description of the yucca moth. Amazing how they live, die, and are solely responsible for the continuation of the yucca plant. If evolution were responsible for every living being we know, then the relationship between the yucca and the yucca moth is truly an example of a one in a thousand trillion chance. It’s this kind of thing that makes me ever more certain of creation.

    Though it may not be proof, this evidence of what I have faith in is compelling (to me).

    I have faith in a creator. When confronted by such examples like the yucca and its moth, evolutionists seem to have faith in chance and time. I’d like to know what statistically is the chance that both the yucca and the yucca moth evolving at the same time really is.

  36. tumeyn

    Your request is a non sequitur fallacy. John’s comment has nothing to do with non-information.

    According to evolution, complex information is not “not goal” oriented not “with a purpose in view”, it is a consequence of random information change (from simple information) and information optimization by survival.

  37. Tumeyn,
    Good luck getting Isu to answer your questions. He doesn’t seem to like that very much.

    Isu,
    I hate to break it to you, but everything has to do with information. What is DNA, if not information? I see that you make an unsupported leap to “complex information” without any sort of explanation where the simple information came from. Perhaps you could be so kind as to provide an explanation where information comes from non information. I’m sure it would be interesting if you could lay out your thesis on this.

  38. Craig,

    The issue is theory of evolution and it postulates life. The theory explains the species diversity from simple live. So your question is out of theory of evolution vs. creationist dogma controversy.

  39. Isu,
    I’m at a loss. First you won’t answer the questions. Then you contradict yourself in a three sentence comment.

    The issue (as per the topic of the post) is how people who cling to evolution are completely comfortable with a double standard when it comes to “maybes”.

    Also, evolutionary theory dodges the question of the origin of life. It’s pretty convenient. However, the questions being asked of you are “How does life come from non life?”, “How does information come from non information?”, and “How does information accumulate through multiple generations of a species?”. How about instead of the constant dodging, you tackle those.

    Evolutionary theory can explain how differences within individual species occur (micro-evolution), unfortunately if fails to demonstrate any trans species evolution (macro evolution). Now folks like you may say “It’s just a matter of time before they find real transitional fossils.” or “Given enough time and chance of course a dog will evolve into a whale.”. But, at some point you have to back up the claims.

    Finally, I love how your response to questions is to redefine the conversation so as to make questions you don’t like off topic.

    I guess, it’s a strategy. I just don’t see it being successful.

  40. Ahhh, the faith of an evolutionist (NotAScientist, et al.) They are more zealous in their faith in evolution than an evangelical in his. If only Christians, who actually have evidence for their faith (the actual, historical event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ) would be as sure about what they believe as those who believe in the religion of evolution.

  41. Craig.

    I didn’t contradict myself. It’s a wicked false accusation.

    The evolutionary issue is included in the general issue and John asked questions explained by evolution.

    The theory of evolution doesn’t dodge the question of the origin of live since it’s not a question within its scope. It isn’t an “all-explains” theory.

    “How does life come from non life?”
    There are abiogenetical hypothesis not proved.
    But, even if simple life is directly created by God, that isn`t the creationism you stand for.

    “How does information come from non information?”
    That question could be explained as the previous one.

    “How does information accumulate through multiple generations of a species?”
    Through DNA mutation and its storage.

    “Evolutionary theory can explain how differences within individual species occur (micro-evolution), unfortunately if fails to demonstrate any trans species evolution (macro evolution).”

    Theories do not demonstrate. They explain facts and are demostrated by facts.

    “Now folks like you may say “It’s just a matter of time before they find real transitional fossils.””

    Real transitional fossils, as Archaeopteryx, have already been found Those are facts that prove theory of evolution.

    “or “Given enough time and chance of course a dog will evolve into a whale””

    I wouldn’t make such claim.

    “But, at some point you have to back up the claims.”

    Theory of evolution has transitional fossils back up.

    “Finally, I love how your response to questions is to redefine the conversation so as to make questions you don’t like off topic.”

    Another false accusation.
    Abiogenesis is off topic because it isn’t included in the topic. That isn’t a redefinition.
    I love the way you reveal your wickedness.

    “I guess, it’s a strategy. I just don’t see it being successful.”

    Diverting to off topic questions and making false accusations is a strategy only successful among the wicked ones.

  42. Isu,
    for the first time I am aware of you’ve actually answered questions. This is a step in the right direction for you. You still have problems with the whole on/off topic thing.

    A sew thoughts. You actually did contradict yourself, and pointing out that fact is not wicked. Perhaps you don’t quite understand what contradict and wicked mean.

    . “The issue is theory of evolution and it postulates life.” Evolutionary theory either “postulates life”

    “The theory explains the species diversity from simple live.” Or it “explains diversity”, it doesn’t do both.

    Hence contradiction.

  43. Sorry “few”. I need to leave I’ll deal with the rest later.

  44. Glenn,

    ““The issue is theory of evolution and it postulates life.” Evolutionary theory either “postulates life””

    “it” was referring to “theory of evolution” not “the issue”. Anyway, two different things postulating the same is not a contradiction.

    ““The theory explains the species diversity from simple live.” Or it “explains diversity”, it doesn’t do both.””

    I didn’t say “explains diversity”.

  45. Sorry, it was Craig.

  46. Isu,

    you said “explains the species diversity”. I’m not sure how you can claim you didn’t say what I copy pasted from your actual comment. Of course, that dodges the contradiction.

    “There are abiogenetical hypothesis not proved.” The key words are “not proved”. Why would you offer unproven hypothesis as an answer for anything.

    You are right about the fact that the theory of evolution doesn’t explain the origin of life.
    That doesn’t mean, you’re off the hook for providing some sort of answer to the question.

    “But, even if simple life is directly created by God, that isn`t the creationism you stand for.”
    Thank you for presuming to tell me what I stand for. Even in an incoherent sentence, it’s still presumptuous.

    Re, information you say that you have no idea where it came from, but that it is passed on “Through DNA mutation and its storage.”. No argument here that DNA is the mechanism. Yet your position presumes the existence of information, which you can’t explain. It also provides no explanation about how this information gains meaning. At some point there must be a transition from random unconnected bits of data, and actual meaningful information transfer from generation to generation.

    “Theories do not demonstrate. They explain facts and are demostrated by facts.” A meaningless non answer. How about you provide some “facts” that demonstrate macro evolution?

    “Real transitional fossils, as Archaeopteryx, have already been found…” Next you’re going to trot out Piltdown man or Haekels embryos to make your point. Archaeopteryx, pretty much ceased to be a transitional form years ago, Even if I grant your point, you are left with one (that’s right one), “transitional form” on which to hang your entire worldview. FYI, the German for Archae. is Urvogel. This translate as “first bird”, not transitional bird.

    “I wouldn’t make such claim.” I didn’t say you would. That doesn’t stop others who share your worldview from saying exactly this.

    “Theory of evolution has transitional fossils back up.” According to you it has one. Not impressive, when compared to the Cambrian explosion.

    It would seem that it is presumptuous for you to define the scope of the argument. The topic of the post is that folks like you have a double standard when it comes to the “maybes” of your pet theory. So why is it off topic (or wicked) to ask a question designed to determine the underpinning of your worldview. Evolution doesn’t exist in a vacuum, to be able to explain the theoretical mechanism of diversity without being able to explain where that life came from, doesn’t really explain much. Nor does it account for information or meaning.

    “I love the way you reveal your wickedness.”
    “Diverting to off topic questions and making false accusations is a strategy only successful among the wicked ones.”

    First, I’m not sure you understand what the word wicked means in English. The fact that I disagree with you is not evidence of wickedness.
    Asking questions is not a diversion, it’s an attempt to get additional information.
    Name calling is pretty much a universal sign of lack of substantive arguments.

  47. Craig,

    I didn’t claim I didn’t say “explains the species diversity”. I claimed I didn’t say “explains diversity”. I bet you could invent better lies.

    “The key words are “not proved”. Why would you offer unproven hypothesis as an answer for anything.”

    Pretty funny question from someone who offers an unproven dogma.
    By the way, hypothesis aren’t answers but potential answers.

    “Thank you for presuming to tell me what I stand for. Even in an incoherent sentence, it’s still presumptuous.”

    There is no incoherence in my sentence.
    Thanks for not telling that my presumption is incorrect. I’ll keep it.
    Anyway, being presumptuous shouldn’t be a problem for someone who sistematically make wrong assumtions about me and keep them when I tell him they are wrong.

    “Re, information you say that you have no idea where it came from, but that it is passed on “Through DNA mutation and its storage.”. No argument here that DNA is the mechanism. Yet your position presumes the existence of information, which you can’t explain.”

    There are potential explanations, no more no less.

    “It also provides no explanation about how this information gains meaning. At some point there must be a transition from random unconnected bits of data, and actual meaningful information transfer from generation to generation.”

    Well, to be precise DNA doesn’t work with bits of data.
    The explanation is that random changes set new data, some improve survival rate and therefore this news information remains and overrides the older data.

    “A meaningless non answer.”

    It is not an answer to any of your question, nor it’s meaningless.
    It’s a response to your rethoric statement about what theory don’t do.

    “How about you provide some “facts” that demonstrate macro evolution?”

    I provided facts: transitional fossils.
    I know that for creationist dogmatics “facts” means “something impossible to achieve”.

    “Next you’re going to trot out Piltdown man or Haekels embryos to make your point.”

    Another blatant lie.

    “Archaeopteryx, pretty much ceased to be a transitional form years ago, Even if I grant your point, you are left with one (that’s right one), “transitional form” on which to hang your entire worldview. FYI, the German for Archae. is Urvogel. This translate as “first bird”, not transitional bird.”

    Archaeopteryx is transitional between feathered dinosaurs and modern birds. “Archae” cames from greek.
    In Spanish we have the word “arcaico” which means ancient. Archaeopteryx means “ancient feather” or “ancient wing”.

    ” “I wouldn’t make such claim.” I didn’t say you would. That doesn’t stop others who share your worldview from saying exactly this.”

    If you talk about the ones “who stake their entire worldview on it” (evolution), I’m not one of them.

    ““Theory of evolution has transitional fossils back up.” According to you it has one. Not impressive, when compared to the Cambrian explosion.”

    I don’t understand what you mean with “one”, nor the comparison with Cambrian explosion.

    “It would seem that it is presumptuous for you to define the scope of the argument.”

    It not me but the message with defines the scope.

    “The topic of the post is that folks like you have a double standard when it comes to the “maybes” of your pet theory. So why is it off topic (or wicked) to ask a question designed to determine the underpinning of your worldview.”

    Wrong. I mentions “those who stake their entire worldview on it”. I don’t.

    “Evolution doesn’t exist in a vacuum,”

    Where does the theory mention that “is in a vacuum”?

    “o be able to explain the theoretical mechanism of diversity without being able to explain where that life came from, doesn’t really explain much”

    As I said, the theory explains the species diversity from simple live. “much” or “some” it is an explanation.

    “Nor does it account for information or meaning.”

    Why doesn’t?

    “First, I’m not sure you understand what the word wicked means in English. The fact that I disagree with you is not evidence of wickedness.”

    The fact that you make false accusations on purpose is an evidence of wickedness.

    “Asking questions is not a diversion, it’s an attempt to get additional information.”

    Using additonal information to avoid talking about relevant information is a diversion.

    “Name calling is pretty much a universal sign of lack of substantive arguments.”

    Do you refer to my mention of your “wickedness” or John’s mention to (according to you) my “hipocrisy”?

  48. “I don’t understand what you mean with “one”, nor the comparison with Cambrian explosion.”
    Archaeopterix is one “transitional” fossil. If you want to base your entire worldview on one “transitional” fossil feel free. I’m surprised that one so informed isn’t aware of the Cambrian explosion. It’s pretty well known.

    “It not me but the message with defines the scope.”
    This makes no sense. The writer of the original post sets the scope. During the course of the comment thread things may follow different directions. It’s what many refer to as a conversation. When one party doesn’t understand something or seeks information they ask a question. It’s pretty normal. Dodging the questions, is less normal.

    “Where does the theory mention that “is in a vacuum”?”
    Nowhere, “in a vacuum” means that you can’t separate evolution from origins. I know it’s easier to try.

    “The fact that you make false accusations on purpose is an evidence of wickedness.”

    Now I have to wonder if you understand the meaning of “false” as well as “wickedness”

    “Using additonal information to avoid talking about relevant information is a diversion.”

    I’m not sure what your point is. It could be that you are attempting to set yourself up as the arbiter of relevant, or that you somehow assume that I have avoided talking about relevant information. Either way, why are you so resistant to answering questions?

    “Do you refer to my mention of your “wickedness”…” Yes, I don’t keep track of John. This continued unfounded reference to wickedness shows either a lack of understanding or a willful mis characterization.

  49. Craig,

    “Archaeopterix is one “transitional” fossil.”

    You are pretty aware that it was just a sample. There are many more.

    “If you want to base your entire worldview on one “transitional” fossil feel free.”

    I didn’t talk about “entire worlview” or just “one”.
    Your rethorical tricks won’t avail you.

    “I’m surprised that one so informed isn’t aware of the Cambrian explosion. It’s pretty well known.”

    I was aware of the cambrican explosion. I said that I didn’t understand the comparison you made between “one” and cambric explosion.

    “This makes no sense. The writer of the original post sets the scope. During the course of the comment thread things may follow different directions.”

    It’s not the writer but the writer’s message.
    “may” doesn’t mean that I “must” follow the different directions you want.

    “It’s what many refer to as a conversation.”
    I may not take a conversation out of the scope.

    “When one party doesn’t understand something or seeks information they ask a question. It’s pretty normal. Dodging the questions, is less normal.”

    When one party insist on out of the issue questions, questions which response was already known, along with spreading false accusations, it’s pretty normal that this party don’t lack of understanding or seeks for information.

    “Nowhere, “in a vacuum” means that you can’t separate evolution from origins. I know it’s easier to try.”

    Evolution is one issue, origins is another. I can separate two different issues.

    “Now I have to wonder if you understand the meaning of “false” as well as “wickedness””

    Playing dumb is wicked.

    “I’m not sure what your point is. It could be that you are attempting to set yourself up as the arbiter of relevant, or that you somehow assume that I have avoided talking about relevant information. Either way, why are you so resistant to answering questions?”

    I’m resistant to answer rethorical question such as this one.

    ““Do you refer to my mention of your “wickedness”…” Yes, I don’t keep track of John.

    It’s in the topic and you have made assertions about the topic, so you must have read it.

    “This continued unfounded reference to wickedness shows either a lack of understanding or a willful mis characterization.”

    It’s founded in your false accusations and your rethorics which show your real characterization.

    I don’t want futher discussion which fake inquirers in this subject.

  50. Isu,
    I don’t see how it is possible to have a reasoned conversation with someone who insists on characterizing one who disagrees with him as wicked false accusations of false accusations.

    I’m sorry that it makes you uncomfortable to answer questions that lead outside of your comfort zone. I’m sorry that you feel it necessary to engage in name calling and mis characterizing my comments.

    I have made no “fake inquirers” (whatever that means), in this thread. I have attempted to use a popular technique of asking questions in order to gain information. I sincerely apologize if this makes you uncomfortable. I would hope that you will become more comfortable answering questions, and more willing to go beyond your preconceived notion of what topics you are willing to discuss.

    As I said, I know it’s easier to separate origins from evolution, but just because it’s easier doesn’t mean you can just choose to ignore the entire topic. If it gives you some degree of comfort to believe that life came from non life and that information came from non information, that’s great. I find that worldview entirely unsatisfying. You talk of proof, yet provide none. You say you are aware of the Cambrian explosion, yet don’t appear to understand how undirected mindless evolution can’t explain it.

    Finally, I find any worldview where someone can decide that someone else is “playing dumb” and then pronounce this “playing dumb” to be wicked. How does undirected, mindless evolution lead you to a system of morality that decrees objectively that “playing dumb” is wicked? Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Franco, these are wicked people. Your insistence that “playing dumb” is wicked doesn’t make any sense in the context of any definition of the term wicked.

    It’s your call. But I really fail to see how you can choose to move beyond the intentional mis characterizations and name calling. But I’m willing to give you the chance if you’d like

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: