Origins: The Evidence

By the way, since you seem to know so much, what is my position on the theory of evolution? You will find it in previous threads on the subject.

 

Yes. What else could I have been suggesting? What is so hard to understand? Do you have some reason to believe nature does not always abhor a vacuum? Why does anyone take "energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another" as gospel? Why not describe that as an "aphorism"? I accept what appears to make sense as working "truth" until provided good reason to operate otherwise. That "first law of thermodynamics" has never made a lick of sense to me. Energy is always being "destroyed and created" or used to be precise. Heating water on a stove requires energy , much wasted heating the environment or "nature." Lost - gone - finis - irretrievable - "destroyed." Obviously. Nature supplies ("creates") it all to begin with and eventually takes it all back. Always has. Always will. Take that to the bank.

 

I will repeat the model for the ToE.. for any who want to examine the scientific basis for this belief system. UNLESS we can parse the science from the assertions, we will not be able to have a rational, scientific based discussion. I am being very strict, here, & requiring a scientific & rational analysis of the subject, & i reject the emotional hysteria, assertions, & fallacies that are used to promote or defend religious beliefs. So lets try again. Here is the model for the ToE, which for convenience, i have abbreveated as 'universal descendancy', as it describes the 'theory' better.

I'll take a look at the model for universal descendancy.. the theory of evolution.. & examine the predictions & conditions of life, if we assume this model. I'll abbreviate it as UD, to differentiate between ID, ok?

What would we expect, if the model of UD is the truth about origins of species?

1. all living things are related, since they are universally descended.
2. there should be many transitional forms, where species are becoming another, in every family/genera. Old ones dying out, & new ones adapting.
3. New traits, genes & adaptations should be happening all the time, demonstrating this transition.
4. There should be many exact copies, as well as close similarities within the genetic structure of living things. The dna should exhibit this descendancy, with a few nearly identical genes, if not quite a few exact copies, that did not 'need' to change to adapt.
5. If the fossil record is assumed over long evolutionary time periods, then we should expect to see many transitional forms, between the different species.
6. The mechanism for this transition should be easy to observe, define, & test, if this is a current & common condition of living things, even under the time assumptions.
7. Reproduction between species in a close family/genus phylogenetic type should be relatively easy, to make the transitions possible.
8. There should be many vestigial conditions, that show the old traits from the transitional species.
9. It should be easy to force, under laboratory conditions, the transition between a species & a new one, If new traits are constantly being created by living things, then these new traits should be coming up in a way that demonstrates the UD phenomenon.
10. It should be difficult to isolate a species in a specific morphological condition, as it would be continuously adapting & creating new traits.

There are probably some more. So what do you think? Are these reasonable expectations for the UD model? I'll examine the ID model later, but wanted to get this one established, first. I welcome a critique of these predictions. Do you agree or disagree with any of them? Why? Why not?

 

If you are going to state a premise, such as 'nature abhors a vacuum', then you are tasked with supporting it. But merely redefining an aphorism or saying, & declaring it a 'scientific principle!' is unscientific, & a fallacy.

So your first task, is to provide evidence that 'nature abhors a vacuum'. I say it does not. Here are my arguments & facts that support my premise:

1. 'Nature' cannot 'abhor' anything. It does not have a human mind, will, or emotion to project such a trait.
2. A vacuum exists in probably most of the universe.. as far as we can tell. 'Nature' hasn't done anything about this vacuum, & does not seem to abhor it, at all.
3. The ONLY place we 'know' that life exists is earth, where 'nature' seems to thrive. But the conditions of this life are very unique, & we know of no other conditions like this in the visible universe. All speculations about life supporting planets are mere conjectures.
4. HOW... does this undefined 'nature' abhor a vacuum? You provide no repeatable, observable method or mechanism for this phenomenon.

Some of your other comments about energy are irrelevant to your initial premise. You should also study the issue of 'energy' a bit more, before making dogmatic statements. Facts, sound reason, & empirical evidence are the tools here.. not assertions, opinions, or bluff.

Your statement, 'Energy is always being "destroyed and created" or used to be precise,' is a flawed opinion. Science has demonstrated the opposite. Energy changes states, but it is not 'destroyed' or 'created', nor is it 'used', But, as i said, this tidbit has no bearing on your 'nature abhors a vacuum' premise. I only mention it to warn you that baseless assertions will likely be caught & exposed. And UNSCIENTIFIC baseless assertions will be doubly exposed.

 

I replied to a point in a public thread. I did not interrupt a private conversation.

I am trying. I am hopeful that the posters can get to a rational discussion about the science, here. but it is a difficult transition, as most threads of this topic do degenerate, as you said. I think you would like such a discussion, but it is a difficult thing to get going. Remember what i said in the OP about feeding the trolls, & try to avoid being baited into irrelevant, emotional name calling, & perhaps we can have this discussion.. at least in part.

I said it was upcoming. I posted one for the ToE, or UD, as i abbreviated it. Nobody has even responded to that post, so what is the point of calling for a 'debate' over origins, if we cannot even get a defined model accepted? I will present the ID model in much the same way.. stating the predictions & conditions we would expect, if the ID model is assumed. But i first wanted to get a consensus on the ToE model, for this specific 'theory' of origins.

 

Try completely absurd. Your opinions of what is "scientific", "rational", "emotional", "hysteria", "assertion", "fallacy" are just that and nothing more. Obviously. No one died and appointed you "The Arbiter Tyrant of Truth" regarding any subject, not just this one. Yes, indeed this is a public forum. One starts a topic to invite discussion. Moderators serve to try and keep things reasonably contained. You cannot. At all. So stop kidding yourself that you can or that it's wise to try. We bounce our ideas off others here and take what comes. That's it - in a nutshell. No guarantees, just like in real life. Be happy you get any response at all after so many retries.

 

Nevertheless, i will require science & reason, & will either expose or ignore any heckling, hysteria, or fallacies. I do not claim to be able to moderate this thread, & i said in the OP i would not. All i have is the intelligence & reason of the other posters, to willingly participate in a discussion like this. You can certainly disrupt it, if you wish, or can deliberately try to sabotage any rational discussion. I have no control (and no desire) to restrain you. That is your choice, & you can do as you wish. I can only ignore or point out the irrational fallacies being used. I cannot make anyone be rational.

 

and i notice you snipped out the WHOLE POINT of this thread, to provide a premise for an origins model, to address a request for reason & science. You expose yourself as a saboteur, only, not a rational debater.

 

But you are incorrect when you do that.

Lol, no.

 

Well, nyeh, nyeh, nyeh, nyeh to you too. You reap what you sow, complain about it, then sow the same nonsense again expecting a different result. A definition for insanity. Good luck with that.

 

I didn't call you any names, but I do agree there is no point to this thread and it is a waste of time. There are literally thousands of books, articles and papers in support of evolution. There is only one book in support of creationism and its validity is highly suspect.

 

I am addressing the concepts.. and of course, the science behind the concepts, of a simple dichotomy.

Origins. Natural or supernatural?

Those have been the most common 'beliefs' of man for millennia, & still are. There are no doubt millions, if not billions of current human beings, who believe in either model. This thread is an examination of the evidence for each model. If you have 'thousands of books' that 'support' your belief, then this thread is an outlet for expressing the evidence in those books. There will be a little bit of work.. sifting through the assertions, & presenting sound reason & science for the support of those beliefs. But mere bandwagon assertions, or arguments of authority will not pass for 'arguments'.

Billions of people throughout human history have believed in a 'supernatural' model of origins.. it is hardly the sole domain of bible thumpers.

So how about it? Real evidence? Reason? or just 'thumping', whether it is the bible or origin of species?

 

Now at the conclusion/climax of this thread I will stick with the 5 Monkeys Hypothesis.

 

conclusion/climax? We're just getting started! I've only just presented some predictions for the model of the ToE, or universal descendancy. And, of course, nobody is intending to persuade anyone from their beliefs.. this is just about evidence FOR those beliefs. ..an examination of that evidence.

 

"Origins {..} supernatural" is not a "model":

The supernatural is a matter faith by definition:

False dichotomy.

 

You're projecting.

 

So you think that if a hypothesis has a deficiency then it is still valid? LOL, by your reasoning we should be using Newtonian physics for everything, relativity be damned. That explains a lot about the evolutionists obsession, an obsession bordering on fanaticism, even religion.

 

Its not always either evolution or creationism. So many people make it into a binary choice, evolution or creationism, science or god. That's why evolution cannot be discussed, not even its flaws, because people are afraid that if any part of evolution is found wanting then it means god wins.

In these general forums, its not really about science, its about keeping religion out.

 

This thread is a chat crap. As usual.

 

You need to counter an accepted theory, with mountains of evidence supporting it, with evidence of your own. Simply stating "I think this is wrong" is meaningless.

 

I agree. But turning a blind eye to criticism is just as bad, its in effect simply stating "I think its perfect", and nothing is perfect, every theory is temporary.

 

It takes more than simply being criticism to warrant time being wasted.

 

It's been a constant human trait that those things deemed to be outside of possible understanding are attributed to a supernatural power.

So, when I see that reaction, it certainly doesn't move me toward acceptance of the proposed supernatural power.

 

If this thread deals with the supernatural, then it belongs in the Religion section, not the science section.

 

Science is about the natural world, not the supernatural.