Best Evidence for Evolution.

[mighty_duck]

True or false?: All living creatures must have a living parent.

Note that I'm not talking about the original origin of life. That could be a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space or, yes, even a god or gods. bob's original question concerned whether "all life has descended from a single hypothetical primitive protocell" so there is no need to concern ourselves with original origin of that protocell for now. If we did, that would be a thread in and of itself.

This is a bit question begging. Bob didn't concede there ever was a primypotocell, regardless of origin.

So to answer your question, the answer is "probably, barring the first creature(s)".

 

[bob b]

True or false?: All living creatures must have a living parent.

Like the extrapolation of expansion of the universe backwards without limit this is a paradox, because obviously there would have to be a first living creature that did not have a living parent. The argument among evolutionists and creationists is what was this creature like?

Evolutionist: a single primitive protocell which arose naturally somehow.

Creationist: multiple types of fully functional sea, land and air creatures designed and created by God.

In neither case can people specify anything more specific than that about the first creature.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Like the extrapolation of expansion of the universe backwards without limit this is a paradox, because obviously there would have to be a first living creature that did not have a living parent. The argument among evolutionists and creationists is what was this creature like?

Evolutionist: a single primitive protocell which arose naturally somehow.

Creationist: multiple types of fully functional sea, land and air creatures designed and created by God.

In neither case can people specify anything more specific than that about the first creature.

It's amusing that you can say that and silmutaneously claim to be a "science lover". "Designed and created by God" indeed. You really think that's a rational, scientific statement, don't you? It's a statement of belief based on religious views. Eventually you're going to have to pick a side- science or faith.

 

[bob b]

It's amusing that you can say that and silmutaneously claim to be a "science lover". "Designed and created by God" indeed. You really think that's a rational, scientific statement, don't you? It's a statement of belief based on religious views. Eventually you're going to have to pick a side- science or faith.

You really don't understand either science or religion.

I am a science lover since an early age and still am. I am more recently a believer.

Why did I come to believe.

Because I know enough about science to know its weaknesses and limitations as well as its strengths.

I love science despite its imperfections, just as I love my wife despite the fact she is not perfect either (and she loves me despite my imperfections too).

Science is limited to dealing with the natural world. If there is a spirit world Science is powerless to know and to deal with it.

When one looks at the world around us, any mature person can easily see that it could not possibly have come about by natural means only. This is why most people in the world reject the concept that everything has arisen by natural forces only and believe in some sort of force beyond nature.

And this is despite the intense propaganda in modern societies that currently pushes a nature-only agenda. Thank God that common sense prevails on this subject.

My concern is that many people who believe in God feel they must accept evolution because most biologists seem to support it. So they try to combine the two things so they won't be called stupid by professors or others.

In their effort to avoiding being called stupid they actually become stupid by swallowing a big lie.

Since God exists (which they already believe) there is no reason why He couldn't have created multiple types of land, sea and air creatures at the beginning. And if He did do this it would have been far easier for the creatures to multiply and fill the Earth rapidly. There is nothing in biology that would prevent this, in fact it makes perfect sense because it solves the DNA/protein chicken/egg problem.

Only atheists should have problems with this scenario, and they must be close to brain dead anyway to believe that the universe created itself from nothing and life arose naturally from the primordial ooze.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

You really don't understand either science or religion.

In what way? I respectfully disagree.

I am a science lover since an early age and still am. I am more recently a believer.

Why did I come to believe.

Because I know enough about science to know its weaknesses and limitations as well as its strengths.

I love science despite its imperfections, just as I love my wife despite the fact she is not perfect either (and she loves me despite my imperfections too).

Science is limited to dealing with the natural world. If there is a spirit world Science is powerless to know and to deal with it.

Glad to see you acknowledge that. This is precisely why I find it so amusing when you claim that the idea of animals designed and created by God is "scientific". "If there is a spirit world"- that's a pretty big if, and with as much as time we've had I'd think it should have been painfully obvious if there were.

When one looks at the world around us, any mature person can easily see that it could not possibly have come about by natural means only. This is why most people in the world reject the concept that everything has arisen by natural forces only and believe in some sort of force beyond nature.

I beg to differ. The inability to understand the world in scientific terms is hardly a sign of maturity. Think about how much of what we know about the forces of nature was once considered supernatural. The realm of the divine is shrinking as we mature as a species- I'm not saying it will ever disappear, entirely- but let's face it. Reality is not a democracy.

And this is despite the intense propaganda in modern societies that currently pushes a nature-only agenda. Thank God that common sense prevails on this subject.

Conspiracy theories now? When you say "common sense" I'm reminded of a quotation, "For every complex solution there is a simple solution- and it's wrong."

My concern is that many people who believe in God feel they must accept evolution because most biologists seem to support it. So they try to combine the two things so they won't be called stupid by professors or others.

Not just most biologists-almost all of them.

In there effort to avoiding being called stupid they actually become stupid for swallowing a big lie.

Did you ever consider that it is due to an honest desire to understand the world and the way life came to what it is today? I'm pretty sure if you ask a Christian who believes in evolution why they believe, they won;t answer that it was to impress their biology professor.

Since God exists (which they already believe) there is no reason why He couldn't have created multiple types of land, sea and air creatures at the beginning. And if He did do this it would have been far easier for the creatures to multiply and fill the Earth rapidly.

It would also be no big deal for this hypothetical creator to guide life from behind the scenes, or even to simply to start the ball rolling- confident in his omnipotence that man would come about when and where he decided.

Only atheists should have problems with this scenario, and they must be close to brain dead anyway to believe that the universe created itself from nothing and life arose naturally from the primordial ooze.

Not just atheists- anyone who takes a long, hard, honest look at the facts.

 

[macguy]

In what way? I respectfully disagree.

You fail to acknowledge that philosophical principles apply to science. It is an absurd belief especially considering that even mighty_duck agreed... I don't know what makes you think that science can use circular reasoning, contradict itself and then be called science. Philosophy, or should I say logic is inseparable and the only thing the article which I showed you demonstrated is a proper usage of this logic. It's as if you were closing your ears and repeatedly saying that it doesn't apply to science. Doing something like that doesn't prove your case in the slightest.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

You fail to acknowledge that philosophical principles apply to science. It is an absurd belief especially considering that even mighty_duck agreed... I don't know what makes you think that science can use circular reasoning, contradict itself and then be called science. Philosophy, or should I say logic is inseparable and the only thing the article which I showed you demonstrated is a proper usage of this logic. It's as if you were closing your ears and repeatedly saying that it doesn't apply to science. Doing something like that doesn't prove your case in the slightest.

I didn't say philosophy wasn't ever applicable. There is a philosphy of science, after all. What I was trying to say that science is strictly structured in the kinds of arguments that are acceptable reasoning.
I don't accept the argument from ignorance as valid scientific reasoning and neither would most honest people. Did you notice that the whole thrust of the paper was to legitimize the use of the argument in favor of creationism? It's not something anyone who doesn't have something to prove is going to take seriously. I'm afraid I must stand by original statement that argumentum ad ingorantium has no place in serious science.

 

[macguy]

I didn't say philosophy wasn't ever applicable. There is a philosphy of science, after all. What I was trying to say that science is strictly structured in the kinds of arguments that are acceptable reasoning.

It seems you are missing the point of the article as it demonstrates that the argument from ignorance isn't clearly understand because there are ways to formulate the argument in order to avoid such a fallacy. The problem is, you just insisted that

It is not acceptable in science.

Here you seemed to imply that this person's demonstration of proper logic is wrong. He demonstrates that there is a good way to use the argument and an improper way. How is this hard to understand? It's not as if I am denying that incredulity is never a fallacy. Perhaps I made myself unclear because I said "Incredulity is not a fallacious argument for crying out loud!!!" and it could've confused people that incredulity is never a fallacy. However, I meant to imply that the supposed incredulity that you're speaking of is not a fallacious argument. Sorry if I caused any confusion.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

It seems you are missing the point of the article as it demonstrates that the argument from ignorance isn't clearly understand because there are ways to formulate the argument in order to avoid such a fallacy. The problem is, you just insisted that




Here you seemed to imply that this person's demonstration of proper logic is wrong. He demonstrates that there is a good way to use the argument and an improper way. How is this hard to understand? It's not as if I am denying that incredulity is never a fallacy. Perhaps I made myself unclear because I said "Incredulity is not a fallacious argument for crying out loud!!!" and it could've confused people that incredulity is never a fallacy. However, I meant to imply that the supposed incredulity that you're speaking of is not a fallacious argument. Sorry if I caused any confusion.

Hehe- I was afraid that would happen. I went back and added more to my last post, and it relates to your argument. Please direct your attention upwards a tad.

 

[macguy]

What I was trying to say that science is strictly structured in the kinds of arguments that are acceptable reasoning.

What makes you think that his paper doesn't provide an argument from acceptable reasoning?

Did you notice that the whole thrust of the paper was to legitimize the use of the argument in favor of creationism?

Umm...this is like saying that a paper for evolutionary homology versus the creationist perspective is not valid merely because they favored evolution. Why must evolutionists focus on the bias, rather than on the arguments itself? It's as if they find it perfectly plausible for their side to be biased, or to consider them objective, but anyone who disagrees is biased therefore false. That is a non-sequitor. Would you expect an evolutionist to do so? How would it make it anymore credible? The credibility lies on the article itself then you may establish that this guy is adding bias to his argument.

I will stand with what I said previously that there is a proper way of using of what you would call, argument from ignorance.

Hehe- I was afraid that would happen.

Oh lawl, well hope you didn't mind

 

[PlastikBuddha]

What makes you think that his paper doesn't provide an argument from acceptable reasoning?



Umm...this is like saying that a paper for evolutionary homology versus the creationist perspective is not valid merely because they favored evolution. Why must evolutionists focus on the bias, rather than on the arguments itself? It's as if they find it perfectly plausible for their side to be biased, or to consider them objective, but anyone who disagrees is biased therefore false. That is a non-sequitor. Would you expect an evolutionist to do so? How would it make it anymore credible? The credibility lies on the article itself then you may establish that this guy is adding bias to his argument.

I will stand with what I said previously that there is a proper way of using of what you would call, argument from ignorance.



Oh lawl, well hope you didn't mind

:thumb:
I can respect that, but I didn't find it convincing. He argues that it is a fallacy under one of set of circumstances, but is OK under another. The circumstances that differentiate them seem a bit vague-
QUOTING
Applying this analysis to the “God of the gaps” objection, we can ask whether those who appeal to gaps in our scientific understanding of nature as evidence of supernatural intervention in the course of nature do so solely or simply on the basis of ignorance of how natural causes operate or rather on the basis of presumed positive knowledge of how natural causes operate. If the former, then those who appeal to such gaps as evidence of supernatural intervention are guilty of the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.If the latter, although one may wish to dispute the truth of their conditional premise, one can scarcely accuse them of an error in logic.12
END QUOTE
I believe that in scientific reasoning it is never acceptable to invoke the supernatural, but I also believe that the dichotomy between complete ignorance and presumed positive knowledge is more a fog and that the inexact nature makes it inappropiate for science. I think most of scientific community would agree with me, but I can't verify that.

 

[Evoken]

If choosing art as a measure is arbitrary, then so is anything else you choose to link humans to animals. Similarities in biology are but one side of a two sided coin, at least as far as humans is concerned. The fact is, man extends beyond the dictates of biology, unlike the animals. I choose art, because art illustrates this fact perfectly.

And you seem to be confusing culture with biology.

If evolution is true, then culture emerges from biology or at least is a direct consequence of a change in biology. So, the development of culture should parallel the development of biology whenever it applies.

In the case of the supposed ape ancestor of humans, we should see this development. The fact that we do not is telling. Where is the Pieta of the great apes? Where is the example that shows that the great apes began a modernist painting and man finished it or drew a post modern one? There does not seems to be an evolution of art that goes from the apes into man, rather it appears fully developed in humans.

If we take a human baby and put it on a deserted island (or have it raised by wolves), it wouldn't necessarily have any concept of art. Does that make them an ape?

The baby has the same capacity to be all that he can be in a human civilization. Now, if you put a wolf in a human civilization does he has the capacity to be something other than a wolf? The baby can remain at the level of animals if not educated, and even then he would transcend that state. But the wolf cannot step beyond his boundaries.

Despite what we would like, the line between a human and an ape is not very clear cut at all.

Nah, it is as clearly divided as white is from black, it has nothing to do with "what we would like". They have biological similarities but thats about it. The apes have not even begun building any sort of civilization nor do they have any culture, nothing that resembles even the most primitive of human inventions. This same fact applies not only to apes but to all animals as well. If evolution is true, then one would expect to find at least some rudimentary development of culture between the animals. But we do not, and like art, it is exclusive to man.


Evo

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

In the case of the supposed ape ancestor of humans, we should see this development. The fact that we do not is telling. Where is the Pieta of the great apes? Where is the example that shows that the great apes began a modernist painting and man finished it or drew a post modern one? There does not seems to be an evolution of art that goes from the apes into man, rather it appears fully developed in modern humans.

You have got to be kidding me! This lack of artistic "evolution" may be due to the extremely limited cognitive ability of apes (in comparison with humans). I don't find reason to believe that the enormous intelligence gap between humans and apes is evidence against TOE.

Example: Animal X survives just fine with limited intelligence in Location A. Part of the Animal X tribe migrates to Location B and increased cognitive ability is evolutionarily advantageous due to more trying environmental conditions. The more intelligent species of Animal X in Location B will survive, thrive, and natural selection will continue to favor those who can outwit their counterparts. The less intelligent species of Animal X in Location B will die off, as they are at a continously greater disadvantage in the search for food/shelter/water. Meanwhile, Animal X in Location A faces little difficulty in surviving since its environment requires little intelligence in order to acquire food/shelter/water. Now, follow this path for a couple million years, and you can begin to understand why there is such an enormous intelligence gap between humans and apes, and why there is no cultural overlap.

I have a hunch that the "old" Evoken would have already pointed this out.

 

[macguy]

:thumb:
I can respect that, but I didn't find it convincing. He argues that it is a fallacy under one of set of circumstances, but is OK under another. The circumstances that differentiate them seem a bit vague

What is the problem of saying when something is a fallacy and what is a proper argument? It's not vague...lain:

I believe that in scientific reasoning it is never acceptable to invoke the supernatural, but I also believe that the dichotomy between complete ignorance and presumed positive knowledge is more a fog and that the inexact nature makes it inappropiate for science. I think most of scientific community would agree with me, but I can't verify that.

The problem here is that you are invoking a naturalistic philosophy here. All science is truly concerned is with the truth and as I explained my stance elsewhere. Also, I don't believe us creationists are saying that God is definitely proved but that we have a justification as does all science. Recall me saying other things about the nature of science?


What do you mean by the laws of nature? If by the laws of nature we mean how we think things work then the supernatural events do occur all the time. The Mpemba effect demonstrates that hot water freezes more quickly than cold water! This of course wouldn’t make sense to us and it would violate the laws of nature as we know them to be. Nevertheless it still occurs and is fully natural even though we don’t understand it. How then, could we define the laws of nature as how we think things work when nature is bigger and more complicated than us? If it is said that all events that we don’t understand is supernatural and don’t study them because it is in violation of the laws of nature then there will cease to be progress. What if we define nature as how things work? If this was the case, the the supernatural realm would bare no meaning because either something happens or it doesn’t. For example, Jesus being born of a virgin is natural because it happened. If he wasn’t then this event isn’t supernatural but is a false story.

In other words, things that happen should be studied but things that do not happen are not supernatural and is simply false and science should prove it false. It should be noted that the laws of nature is defined by scientists as how we think things work. If one doesn’t believe that God exists then you would naturally conclude that it is unscientific to claim that God did one thing and another. However, neither is the premise that God doesn’t exist a scientific position but rather a philosophical position. Whether God does or doesn’t exist are both equally unscientific. To the supernaturalist, the question isn’t about whether miracles are supernatural or not, but rather on whether it even occurred. God either does things or He doesn’t. Going back to the previous example, either Jesus rose from the dead or He did not. Despite the incredible claim, it is still a question whether it actually happened. Therefore science must permit creationism as a possibility. If God created the universe and life itself then it is history and we should find evidence consistent with this theory. If it did not occur, then the event is simply false and not supernatural and science has the job of refuting it.

 

[macguy]

Sorry to repost this but I think you ignored the argument from the nature of science.

Because if the cell is really irreducibly complex, then there is no other sane possibility except that God did it. We are getting to the point where we cannot reduce the cell to anything else but complex. You don't know? How then, are you justified in saying that God did it is not an explanation when you don't know? In the naturalistic world-view there can't be a God therefore there must be a natural explanation yet what if there is simply no way to account for the origin of life without a designer? Perhaps we should call your argument, nature of the gaps or mystery of the gaps. Why would it be irrational to say God did it? Yes, of course we cannot absolutely say that God did it but we can say it with great affirmation. There's not only a lack of a natural explanation but evidence against it. Every model from the past to today has failed. Admit that at least the evidence for the origins of things fits very well with the theistic world-view. This is faith and one could say that forever. At least we try to be rational instead of just saying the origin of life is a mystery. Thus all in all, I am justified in believe that God created everything. There are only two explanations (design or nature) and if nature is shown to be improbable, then it is completely warranted to say that God is a more reasonable explanation. God is not in the least improbable and it would seem that from the data we know, life was designed.

Of course naturalists don't know! If they did, we might as well give up theism...since invoking God would be made unnecessary. What is unknown about God? The minimalist definition is very straightforward and follows logically from the data:



The problem is, we know something about why the data resists a naturalistic explanation.

Paley's theory: An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

This theory is science because it is explanatory. This explains the origin of life and a intelligent designer is demanded by the data. Second, it's testable. It specifically makes predictions against certain observations - that is, observations which would falsify it. If the origin of life can be explained through natural processes then paley's theory would be refuted. This theory has been assaulted by the best minds of science yet has returned stronger than ever. Some may argue that this proves nothing, yet nothing in science definitely proves anything. They are always vulnerable to further observations which is what makes it science. Tentativeness is an essential characteristic of science. We are not close-minded, but the theory does precisely what every theory must do - it denies certain observations. This makes it testable.

To add on to the IC argument, I should say that it would be the most reasonable answer. Science could always refute it but I see no problem with that since this is the way it works! You are excluding a possible entity that might be true, and how then could we find the truth if the scientists is already trying to define what truth is limited to?

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

If the origin of life can be explained through natural processes then paley's theory would be refuted. This theory has been assaulted by the best minds of science yet has returned stronger than ever.

Give it time, my friend. Abiogenesis is a relatively new scientific field.

 

[macguy]

Give it time, my friend. Abiogenesis is a relatively new scientific field.

There is evidence against it, not a lack of explanation. There has never been a satisfactory evidence and people are realizing this by turning to life coming from space. Information is another MAJOR problem for it. Anyways, that's precisely what makes Paley's theory scientific. You merely have faith in naturalism.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Sorry to repost this but I think you ignored the argument from the nature of science.




To add on to the IC argument, I should say that it would be the most reasonable answer. Science could always refute it but I see no problem with that since this is the way it works! You are excluding a possible entity that might be true, and how then could we find the truth if the scientists is already trying to define what truth is limited to?

Naturalistic science is materialistic science by definition since it is the study of the nautural world. The scientific method is not a tool suited for the spiritual world and appeals to it are not appropiate. It is not defining what truth is- only what science is.

 

[macguy]

Naturalistic science is materialistic science by definition since it is the study of the nautural world.

Inferences on nature can conclude a designer. It's not as if we are studying the supernatural, but whether there is any evidence for a supernatural force in the natural world. Design can be recognized and ID has done precisely that.

[edit]: There is a difference between saying that all we can study is the natural world and saying that nature is all there is.

The scientific method is not a tool suited for the spiritual world and appeals to it are not appropiate. It is not defining what truth is- only what science is.

I am not saying that! Obviously you are misinterpreting what I am stating. Read back.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Inferences on nature can conclude a designer. It's not as if we are studying the supernatural, but whether there is any evidence for a supernatural force in the natural world. Design can be recognized and ID has done precisely that.

I disagree. So do the vast majority of those who study biology. This "design" seems to be obvious only to those with an emmotional stake involved.

[edit]: There is a difference between saying that all we can study is the natural world and saying that nature is all there is.

Maybe so- but that is not what science is for. It is for studying and understanding this world.

I am not saying that! Obviously you are misinterpreting what I am stating. Read back.

If so, I apologize. It was my impression that you were arguing that by ignoring the possibility of the supernatural, science is ignoring what may in fact be the truth- that the supernatural was the cause. That reasoning is not based on science, however- it springs from faith.