Evolution vs Creationism

[Panthera tigris FC]

To CT if he is still about. Just to get off this thread, which takes an inordinate amount of time and after a fair bit of thought on the matter. I think YEC is actually science and makes testable predictions based on their young Earth model some of which have been falsified (remember Moon dust?). I think it is capable of falsification but only by direct experimentation which i have mentioned. I think it has made some successful predictions which I have also mentioned. Other creationism such as TE and ID don't do as well and are not really falsifiable. If you want further thoughts on this please PM me.

If you were thinking of a form of creationism you could present favorably as science in class - YEC is the only candidate I can think of.

YEC is, at best, a failed hypothesis. It has made many claims, none of which are borne out by the evidence. The problem with creationism as science is that it is doing it all backwards. Taking a conclusion and trying to make the evidence fit that conclusion. Science is done in precisely the other way, making observations, coming up with hypotheses to explain those observations and testing those hypotheses. Those that stand are regarded as theories.

In terms of your comments on teaching the context, I do mention Georges Cuvier in my lectures on evolution. He was by no means a 20th century style creationist though.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I certainly do think DNA is coded information. It codes for every teleological looking function in a cell. It builds from a master plan in its self a multicellular organism of staggering complexity. I've even seen DNA expressed in terms of Giga-bytes as well. Do you know of coded blue prints that are the result of 'noise'? Where does the information come from?

Complexity = ID is certainly a fallacy, but this is specified complexity, encoded complexity with a meaning and purpose?Surely this is what SETI is looking for!

The answers you seek are freely available online. These are tired, old arguments.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Demonstrate the evolution of a multicellular differentiated organism from a bacterial colony. Show an actual traceable lineage in the fossil record that changes from one kind to another. Demonstrate the 'unassisted' formation of life from chemicals. Demonstrate the evolution of a completely new complex characteristic never before seen in an organism. Any thing along those lines.

Science. You're doing it wrong.

Science doesn't prove things, it disproves things. Show the evidence that disproves any of the scientific theories you have stated.

Evolution could only be brought down by such evidence. "Rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian" as a classic example.

 

[Djevv]

Science. You're doing it wrong.

Science doesn't prove things, it disproves things. Show the evidence that disproves any of the scientific theories you have stated.

Evolution could only be brought down by such evidence. "Rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian" as a classic example.

I am not trying to falsify evolution here, but YEC. YEC predicts these type of things should not be seen, hence if they are the theory is falsified. Same as evolution predicts 'rabbits in the pre-cambrian' not seen.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

YEC makes plenty of claims that have been shown to be false. The "YE" being a pretty obvious one. Your stated tests are unnecessary.

 

[Djevv]

The answers you seek are freely available online. These are tired, old arguments.

So DNA is not coded information? Sometimes the reason questions keep getting asked is that the answers are not that convincing.

 

[Djevv]

YEC makes plenty of claims that have been shown to be false. The "YE" being a pretty obvious one. Your stated tests are unnecessary.

So has evolution but no-one has thrown that model out either.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

So has evolution but no-one has thrown that model out either.

So what evidence contradicts current evolutionary theory?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

So DNA is not coded information? Sometimes the reason questions keep getting asked is that the answers are not that convincing.

DNA is coded information that is the target of natural selection (amongst other evolutionary processes). As was pointed out in an earlier post, there are numerous mechanisms that provide the raw diversity that adds to 'information' that you refer to.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I am not trying to falsify evolution here, but YEC. YEC predicts these type of things should not be seen, hence if they are the theory is falsified. Same as evolution predicts 'rabbits in the pre-cambrian' not seen.

Surely what is actually being attempted here is to use scientific language and method to create an illusory legitimacy. Creationism isn't a fact finding exercise as any good science should be. Where is the vanguard of secular creationism? If it isn't a religious but a scientific study of life that is. It is a hand wringing argument. These are philosophical games, not science.

 

[Baloo]

So what evidence contradicts current evolutionary theory?

genesis 1:21

 

[evo]

and of course the banana

 

[AngryAnt]

I certainly do think DNA is coded information. It codes for every teleological looking function in a cell. It builds from a master plan in its self a multicellular organism of staggering complexity. I've even seen DNA expressed in terms of Giga-bytes as well. Do you know of coded blue prints that are the result of 'noise'? Where does the information come from?

Complexity = ID is certainly a fallacy, but this is specified complexity, encoded complexity with a meaning and purpose?Surely this is what SETI is looking for!

Of course it is coded information. It's still a false comparison to assume that it has an author in the sense that human language or software code does.

 

[AngryAnt]

So DNA is not coded information? Sometimes the reason questions keep getting asked is that the answers are not that convincing.

You keep forgetting the crucial part of the ID argument that claims that because of the laws of entropy, DNA coded information can never increase but only degrade, thus pointing to an "author" because there is no other way to explain complexity.

I'm wondering why you leave this part of the old, tired, DNA is a code which therefore must have an intelligent author argument out.

Your "DNA is coded information and if SETI considers coded information in radio signals proof-positive of alien intelligence then ipso facto information in DNA must also be authored by an intelligence ie God" is novel, but unconvincing - we know the mechanisms that produce complexity and replication in DNA and they don't require an author.

It is a good question to ask the SETI guys though - what would constitute proof of alien intelligence in terms of a received radio signal.

EDIT this page discusses the premise and approach. http://www.seti.org/faq#obs2

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Of course it is coded information. It's still a false comparison to assume that it has an author in the sense that human language or software code does.

Ant is "DNA as code" a significant statement? Won't humans as pattern recognition machines always seek to understand the world in easily quantifiable ways? We seem instinctively to look for patterns in order to simplify the complexity we find. Information theory is a useful tool but does it's use infer any other properties on the information? The fact that we use the language of "encoding" is really just nomenclature isn't it? It certainly seems so to me, that is why I see Djevv's questions as being philosophical, not scientific.

 

[evo]

Ant is "DNA as code" a significant statement? Won't humans as pattern recognition machines always seek to understand the world in easily quantifiable ways? We seem instinctively to look for patterns in order to simplify the complexity we find. Information theory is a useful tool but does it's use infer any other properties on the information? The fact that we use the language of "encoding" is really just nomenclature isn't it? It certainly seems so to me, that is why I see Djevv's questions as being philosophical, not scientific.

bingo

 

[AngryAnt]

Yes, it is a human metaphor to describe r a natural system -which of course lends itself to abuse in construing an "author" and a "purpose".

 

[Djevv]

Look I want to retract a statement I made about YEC being science and thus allowed to be in the classroom. It is purely religious and doesn't even claim to be science (AIG faith statement). It does make testable claims, but when they are checked out they are inevitably incorrect (I have been doing this a bit myself), overstated or poorly thought through.

I want to re-iterate that I don't think religion in any form should be in the science classroom masquerading as science.

 

[AngryAnt]

Look I want to retract a statement I made about YEC being science and thus allowed to be in the classroom. It is purely religious and doesn't even claim to be science (AIG faith statement). It does make testable claims, but when they are checked out they are inevitably incorrect (I have been doing this a bit myself), overstated or poorly thought through.

I want to re-iterate that I don't think religion in any form should be in the science classroom masquerading as science.

Good work Djevv... all is forgiven.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Look I want to retract a statement I made about YEC being science and thus allowed to be in the classroom. It is purely religious and doesn't even claim to be science (AIG faith statement). It does make testable claims, but when they are checked out they are inevitably incorrect (I have been doing this a bit myself), overstated or poorly thought through.

I want to re-iterate that I don't think religion in any form should be in the science classroom masquerading as science.

Too right. I sometimes feel as though you are testing out various angles and forms of argument on here rather than expressing a vested position. Looking to see if any of our arguments sniff out a logical fallacy that can be removed or reworked. A true devil's advocate if you will. While I enjoy these discussions I would hate to think that we are helping to refine the editing of the next creation science text. Probably just my active imagination. >