Creationists, You (Hypothetically) Win!!!

[Neatras]

Within this thread, I'm willing to concede each and every sundry point made by Creationists in an attempt to debunk evolution. In here at least, you win! Not only discrediting evolution, but even going as far as to establish Creationism as the only plausible theory. Congratulations!

So, what's next? Why, the next step for any scientific theory. Testing out the wazoo, predictions, studies, and efforts made to improve our understanding of the magnificent reality before us. And despite its... *ahem* notable age, Creationism "Theory" currently doesn't seem to have much of reality mapped out in a way that suits our very skeptical needs. No firmaments to be found, after all.

But what matters isn't how you got here, it's what you do now. What will Creationism bring to the table? In what manner can Creationism explain reality in a way that benefits humanity, especially in ways that evolution just wasn't able to? I want details. After all, to discard a scientific theory, you have to replace it with a theory of equal or greater merit, one with explanatory power to match or exceed the predecessor.

So, Creationists... Let's get started.

By Creationist logic, what kind of fossils should we expect to see in different rock layers?
By Creationist logic, what explains the precision of endogenous retroviral relics in our genome that maps to near perfect similarity to other species'?
By Creationist logic, what methods for interpreting radioactive decay can we use for the purpose of improving industry?
By Creationist logic, what is the best method for preventing and countering viral mutation and ensuring the general health is secured? Any pharmaceutical nuggets of wisdom you can enlighten us with?
By Creationist logic, what mechanism causes/prevents novel traits from appearing in species over successive generations?

By Creationist logic, what can you possibly offer to science to make up for supposedly destroying evolution? When evolutionary theory has not only made successful predictions, withstood 150 years of debate, and even intertwined with geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry, and physics in such a fitting way that it makes itself out to be the only logical explanation for the diversity of life as we see it?

Creationists, I'm tired of beating around the bush. For far too long, I've heard people make the claims that all the evidence backs Creationism. But if it has even an iota of evidence to it, if it has any explanatory power to make predictions about reality as we see it, in ways that evolutionary theory simply can't match, then show it.

Otherwise, quit trying to call Creationism a scientific theory.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 1 by Neatras]

By Creationist logic, what kind of fossils should we expect to see in different rock layers?

Those we actually found: gaps, jumps, stasis, sudden appearances and all. No need for endless artistic impressions of intermediates, and excuses for why they never showed up-

Could you back that statement up with samples of fossils, and show your statement to be true.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 40 by Goat]

The Cambrian explosion.


This was once considered 'an artifact of an incomplete record' and predicted by Darwinian theory to be filled in and smoothed out as more fossils were discovered.

In contrast this (and other explosive events) have become ever more explosive. This is hardly controversial on either side- being acknowledged by 'punctuated equilibrium'


Likewise Horseshoe crabs and other species have been found to have remained in virtual stasis for 100s of millions of years without evolving.


No incremental Darwinian evolution observed in either case. But both are consistent with predetermined biological forms being created according to preexisting information, rather than blind chance, which was always mathematically problematic.


Can you cite what you consider to be the best example of Darwinian evolution actually being observed taking place?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 41 by Guy Threepwood]

Likewise Horseshoe crabs and other species have been found to have remained in virtual stasis for 100s of millions of years without evolving.

Natural selection controls evolution. If a species has no "pressure" to change, there's no reason to expect that it would change. Evolution does not require a species to change over time simply because time has passed. Likewise, natural selection can result in relatively rapid changes over short periods of time if the environmental pressure is significant, and/or sudden, requiring adaptation or death. So the fact that a species may be static for millions of years is not a knock against ToE, and in fact is perfectly compatible with it.

Can you cite what you consider to be the best example of Darwinian evolution actually being observed taking place?

One example is bacteria evolving to survive against antibiotics ... perfect example of evolution at work.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 40 by Goat]

The Cambrian explosion.


This was once considered 'an artifact of an incomplete record' and predicted by Darwinian theory to be filled in and smoothed out as more fossils were discovered.

In contrast this (and other explosive events) have become ever more explosive. This is hardly controversial on either side- being acknowledged by 'punctuated equilibrium'


Likewise Horseshoe crabs and other species have been found to have remained in virtual stasis for 100s of millions of years without evolving.


No incremental Darwinian evolution observed in either case. But both are consistent with predetermined biological forms being created according to preexisting information, rather than blind chance, which was always mathematically problematic.


Can you cite what you consider to be the best example of Darwinian evolution actually being observed taking place?

Let's go take a look at the Cambrian explosion. What was the Cambrian explosion, and let's analyze it first. The Cambrian explosion was when the development of hard parts of organisms developed that allowed for easier fossilization. As for the horseshoe crab , it did not 'suddenly' appear , but rather it evolved from trilobytes.

Now, before I go further, please define what you mean by 'Darwinian evolution'. that isn't a scientific term that is used by actual biologists.

DO you know the scientific definition of biological evolution? Let's level set and see if you understand the scientific definition.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 42 by DrNoGods]

Natural selection controls evolution. If a species has no "pressure" to change, there's no reason to expect that it would change. Evolution does not require a species to change over time simply because time has passed. Likewise, natural selection can result in relatively rapid changes over short periods of time if the environmental pressure is significant, and/or sudden, requiring adaptation or death. So the fact that a species may be static for millions of years is not a knock against ToE, and in fact is perfectly compatible with it.

If an office memo looks identical after millions of copies, you know it's coming from a master copy

& if the Memo suddenly changes to provide an entirely different function, requiring a lot of new specific information, you know it's not just a mistake.

One example is bacteria evolving to survive against antibiotics ... perfect example of evolution at work.

ToE claims that a bacteria-like single celled organism evolved into a human being.


This example is of a bacteria 'evolving' into a ...bacteria. that leaves a little bit to the imagination does it not!?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 43 by Goat]

Let's go take a look at the Cambrian explosion. What was the Cambrian explosion, and let's analyze it first. The Cambrian explosion was when the development of hard parts of organisms developed that allowed for easier fossilization.

Likewise, Sasquatches are apparently very good at concealing their past presence..

For the sake of argument, let's say that this may be absolutely true. But it does not equate to a 'mountain of undeniable evidence' for their existence. 'the dog ate my homework' does not earn a passing grade.

Furthermore we DO have soft bodied fossils AND pre-cambrian fossils, just not the ones that would particularly help with a Darwinian explanation for the cambrian explosion

As for the horseshoe crab , it did not 'suddenly' appear , but rather it evolved from trilobytes.

Now, before I go further, please define what you mean by 'Darwinian evolution'. that isn't a scientific term that is used by actual biologists.

DO you know the scientific definition of biological evolution? Let's level set and see if you understand the scientific definition.

Darwinian evolution/ Darwin's Theory of evolution/ Darwinism

evolution through natural selection acting on random variation- I'm using Darwinian to distinguish it from other definitions of evolution- e.g. change over time

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 44 by Guy Threepwood]

If an office memo looks identical after millions of copies, you know it's coming from a master copy

& if the Memo suddenly changes to provide an entirely different function, requiring a lot of new specific information, you know it's not just a mistake.

I don't see how this relates in any way to horseshoe crabs not changing for millions of years. The offspring of horseshoe crabs are horseshoe crabs. This will continue until some environmental pressure favors mutations which may, over many generations, change their appearance enough that they become another species. I don't see the analogy to a copy machine making copies, or a mistake. I expect the analogy is as unrelated as your Pinto car analogy to actual ToE.

ToE claims that a bacteria-like single celled organism evolved into a human being.

Over about 4 billion years and through millions of variations along the way. What's wrong with that?

This example is of a bacteria 'evolving' into a ...bacteria. that leaves a little bit to the imagination does it not!?

Is this a reference to the artificial terms "micro" vs. "macro" evolution where some arbitrary distinction is made between evolutionary change that involves relatively small phenotypic change, vs. evolutionary change (via the exact same process!) that occurs over longer periods (usually) and creates larger phenotypic change? You asked for an "example of Darwinian evolution actually being observed taking place." Bacteria evolving features that allow them to be unharmed by an antibiotic is an example of exactly this. Did you mean to ask for an example of something else instead?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 46 by DrNoGods]

I don't see the analogy to a copy machine making copies, or a mistake

the cell is quite literally a copying machine, and ToE literally posits copying mistakes in this machine as the creative engine for evolutionary change.

Is this a reference to the artificial terms "micro" vs. "macro" evolution where some arbitrary distinction is made between evolutionary change that involves relatively small phenotypic change, vs. evolutionary change (via the exact same process!) that occurs over longer periods (usually) and creates larger phenotypic change? You asked for an "example of Darwinian evolution actually being observed taking place." Bacteria evolving features that allow them to be unharmed by an antibiotic is an example of exactly this. Did you mean to ask for an example of something else instead?

the 3 points are all related:

it's always tempting to extrapolate small scale superficial observations, into large scale explanations- that was the classical model of physics which Darwinism was a logical extension of in the 19th C, but again, we know now that scales DO matter, things DO work differently across them.

We can randomly vary the parameters controlling text size, shape, and color in this text box. Just as control genes can vary the size shape and color of a dog or finch beak

But if you understand why no amount of tweaking of text parameters, will ever author a new software program, then you understand, in principle at least, the problem with extrapolating observed adaptation into speculative evolution. i.e. it's not just a matter of scale, timeline or improbability of accidental design improvements, (all of which are in themselves problematic) but moreover a paradox inherent to hierarchical information systems.

in short, the capacity for adaptation is a design feature, not a design mechanism. And this is what we observe across the fossil record, direct experimentation, genetics and mathematical simulation- a built in capacity for limited adaptation within a specific range.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 47 by Guy Threepwood]

the cell is quite literally a copying machine, and ToE literally posits copying mistakes in this machine as the creative engine for evolutionary change.

You left out the natural selection part, which seems to always be ignored in these kinds of discussions with anti-evolutionists. Natural selection works in conjunction with these DNA copying errors (ie. mutations) to drive evolutionary change. One without the other is not ToE.

that was the classical model of physics which Darwinism was a logical extension of in the 19th C, but again, we know now that scales DO matter, things DO work differently across them.

How is this relevant to ToE, and why do you think Darwinism was an extension of 19th century physics? You've made this analogy between classical physics and QM before, but I fail to see any relevance at all to ToE. I assume you are trying to suggest that "micro" evolution is acceptable because it involves small changes, while "macro" evolution is not because ??? Enough small change over enough generations, with natural selection operating, can create much larger change. But the mechanism does not change between the two.

QM was developed to explain observations at small scales which could not previously be investigated because of limitations in technology and equipment, which limited studies at such small scales. And QM is compatible with classical physics at larger scales. So it is really an extension of classical physics formulated as new physics for small scales. Evolution requires no such analogy as the mechanism for change is the same on all time frames and scales ... natural selection acting on random mutations. "Micro" and "macro" are purely artificial terms that have no actual meaning in ToE.

But if you understand why no amount of tweaking of text parameters, will ever author a new software program, then you understand, in principle at least, the problem with extrapolating observed adaptation into speculative evolution.

Again, an analogy that does not apply. Many small evolutionary changes over long periods of time (ie. many generations) is what results in more significant change in the organism. There is no "new" mechanism being invoked, or no new capabilities of the core system as you seem to be implying in these analogies. There is no analogy between tweaking text parameters and expecting a software program to eventually appear after enough tweaking (ie. a complete change of capability or function), and the process by which evolution works. It is apples and oranges.

a built in capacity for limited adaptation within a specific range.

Another statement that you don't believe that successive small evolutionary change can result in large evolutionary change. But this is observed in the fossil record. Some types of fish did evolve into amphibians, a type of great ape did evolve into modern Homo sapiens, etc., etc., etc. So called "macro" evolution has been observed repeatedly, as well as so-called transitional forms.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 48 by DrNoGods]

You left out the natural selection part, which seems to always be ignored in these kinds of discussions with anti-evolutionists. Natural selection works in conjunction with these DNA copying errors (ie. mutations) to drive evolutionary change. One without the other is not ToE.

No, natural selection is a selection mechanism, not a creative one, it can only select from changes, not create them, it is not a creative engine- no way around this. And again it goes utterly without saying- any superior designed product, all else being even, will survive to be reproduced in greater numbers- it's a wash and a moot point.

The only question is how superior designs arise in the first place- and ToE falls to pure blind chance alone - random copying errors for this, and that is not holding up as adequate in the 21st C information age.

anti-evolutionists

we prefer 'pro-science'

How is this relevant to ToE, and why do you think Darwinism was an extension of 19th century physics? You've made this analogy between classical physics and QM before, but I fail to see any relevance at all to ToE. I assume you are trying to suggest that "micro" evolution is acceptable because it involves small changes, while "macro" evolution is not because ??? Enough small change over enough generations, with natural selection operating, can create much larger change. But the mechanism does not change between the two.

QM was developed to explain observations at small scales which could not previously be investigated because of limitations in technology and equipment, which limited studies at such small scales. And QM is compatible with classical physics at larger scales. So it is really an extension of classical physics formulated as new physics for small scales. Evolution requires no such analogy as the mechanism for change is the same on all time frames and scales ... natural selection acting on random mutations. "Micro" and "macro" are purely artificial terms that have no actual meaning in ToE.

of course, physical apples still fall from trees, as genetic apples post-Darwinism, still fall not far from their trees.

The mistake in both cases was extrapolating these design features into design mechanisms. One way or another, life is an extension of the chemistry and physics which came before it right? So there was no way around extending classical physics into biology at the time, it was perfectly logical and still worked in a 19th C understanding of reality.

was developed to explain observations at small scales which could not previously be investigated because of limitations in technology and equipment

Right, and again you could be talking about biology, the cell was an indistinct blob of protoplasm in the Victorian age, a presumably simple chemical mixture which spontaneously reproduced, nobody could see, measure, the digital information systems, tiny nanomachines within, far less wrap their heads around them.

Again, an analogy that does not apply. Many small evolutionary changes over long periods of time (ie. many generations) is what results in more significant change in the organism. There is no "new" mechanism being invoked, or no new capabilities of the core system as you seem to be implying in these analogies. There is no analogy between tweaking text parameters and expecting a software program to eventually appear after enough tweaking (ie. a complete change of capability or function), and the process by which evolution works. It is apples and oranges.

There are many parallels, even down to both being operated by digital information systems- and math is the only truly objective measure we have for anything. Genes, like software has a hierarchical structure, as Dawkins commented, it is uncannily computer-like. Gone are the days when these mysteries could be unraveled with a microscope, everything boils down to information systems, and how we understand that they can or cannot work.

You cannot explain gravity with classical physics, or write a new program by adjusting these text attributes, or create a new body plan by tweaking the control genes for a subset of a body plan, it's an insurmountable paradox inherent to hierarchical information systems, no matter where we find them. And so far we only have one proven source for such systems, and it ain't blind luck!

Another statement that you don't believe that successive small evolutionary change can result in large evolutionary change.

correct, because again there is a fundamental difference in the genetic structures that you would have to alter, just like text variables v software application, v operating systems etc- at some point you have to get into re-wiring gene regulatory systems which is at the very least, an entirely different process that mutating the genetic sequence, which we now know cannot possibly create new body plans, you need epigenetics at least-

There are hypothetical materialistic solutions to crossing these mechanisms also, but either way there is no smooth incremental path as once believed