Geez MacT alluding to a perponderance of evidence that proves evolution true.

I call that dodging the issue.

I specifically asked for one solid proof. Since you did not provide one solid proof and Ellazimm wanted to know about the nylon bacteria adaptation which was touted as conclusive proof for evolution for a while, let’s look at that “proof”. (I love that word by the way MacT, as I demand solid “proof” for the science I follow!)

http://www.answersingenesis.or.....cteria.asp

P. aeruginosa is renowned for its ability to adapt to unusual food sources—such as toluene, naphthalene, camphor, salicylates and alkanes. These abilities reside on plasmids known as TOL, NAH, CAM, SAL and OCT respectively.2 Significantly, they do not reside on the chromosome (many examples of antibiotic resistance also reside on plasmids)

Well just how long have bacteria been detoxifying the earth of toxins MacT?

I believe the correct answer is billions of years MacT:

Sulfate-reducing bacteria helped prepare the earth for advanced life by “detoxifying” the primeval earth and oceans of “poisonous” levels of heavy metals while depositing them as relatively inert metal ore deposits (iron, zinc, magnesium, lead etc.. etc..). To this day, sulfate-reducing bacteria maintain an essential minimal level of these metals in the ecosystem that are high enough so as to be available to the biological systems of the higher life forms that need them, yet low enough so as not to be poisonous to those very same higher life forms. Needless to say, the metal ores deposited by these sulfate-reducing bacteria in the early history of the earth’s geologic record are indispensable to man’s rise above the stone age to modern civilization.

How about showing some significant change in the DNA of bacteria, over millions of years, to “prove” evolution true MacT?

there are many ancient bacterium fossils recovered from salt crystals and amber crystals that have been compared to their living descendants of today. Some bacterium fossils, in salt crystals, dating back as far as 250 million years have had their DNA recovered, sequenced and compared to their offspring of today (Vreeland RH, 2000 Nature). Scientists accomplished this using a technique called polymerase chain reaction (PCR). To the disbelieving shock of many scientists, both ancient and modern bacteria were found to have the almost exact DNA sequence.

“Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; (The Paradox of the “Ancient” Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes)

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/...../19/9/1637

You say the evidence is strong for evolution, I say you are severely deluding yourself if you think that is true.

Again I ask you MacT

drum roll please,,,

MacT will now bring forth one solid proof for evolution.

we will be waiting with eager anticipation.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Ellazimm, I find your response, er, nonresponsive.

I did not ask about the length of the Cambrian overall. I did not ask to be quizzed about my “stellar” paleontological cv. (I once dug up a bone in my garden, but I think it was just a stick. . . not really sure.) Nor, did I ask to have “crammed together” parsed. I will be the second to admit that “crammed together” is not the most scientific term. On the other hand, I thought that the idea of “crammed together” combined with, “How far “out of place” are those fossils, and by out of place, I mean too many and all in full phyla dress?” would have put enough meat on the bone for you to understand. In that context, then, crammed together actually does mean “out of sequence”.

They are out of sequence because they are side by side. This seems plainly obvious to me. I understand that being different phyla side by side does is not a sequence killer alone. But side by side with no transitional forms along for the ride casts Darwinism in doubt.

For every phyla located in those rocks out of the 40 or so we now delineate shouldn’t we expect to see numerous transitional forms? What is the number of transitional forms that come out of the “explosion”? I honestly don’t know. 0? 1? 10? My point is this: Darwinism would have predicted countless transitional forms. The transitional forms should have outnumbered the static forms by several factors, but the opposite is the case.

It is interesting to note that although I cannot tell the difference between a bone and a stick (it might have been a piece of rope), I actually can understand the nature of the evidence. I can also tell when my question was dodged, so here it is again:

Ellazimm,
“Don’t all of those fossils crammed all together in those Cambrian rocks seem clearly out of place to you?”

Clearly, you think that those fossils are “interpretable”. I say that a basic understanding of Darwin’s doctrine of “slow and incremental change” is disconfirmed by my interpretation of the rocks of Cambria. What do you say? Speaking of fun Cambrian questions, what about this one: When all of those little squishy things were lining up to get themselves a place in history, how did all the ones enjoying stasis know to hop into the press while all the transitional folks chose to rot?

Please spare me the “transitional forms are invisible (just too transient to get recorded)” argument. Although it is good for a laugh now and then, I’d really like a more direct answer.

if species are indeed natural kinds or even individuals

I don’t understand what you’re saying there.

What I’m saying is that:
a) there is no agreement as to what a “species” is, and
b) even if there were there is no reason to believe that (Linnaean) “species” correspond to created “kinds”.

Therefore the fact that a “species” (whatever that is) may produce offspring that will not interbreed with members of the parent population is interesting but proves only that some change is possible at the (Linnaean) “species” level. It does not prove that the new “species” is “fitter” than the parent “species”, nor does it prove that change is limitless (as NDE requires) or that one Biblical “kind” can change into another “kind”.

What I’m also saying is that:
a) there is no agreement as to what “science” is, and
b) even if there were there is no good reason to believe that philosophising about historical events (after all, nobody can do an experiment on a past event or events) must necessarily exclude consideration of non-material (i.e., intelligent) causes. There are plenty of sociological reasons why one group rather than another gets attributed with “cognitive authority” (see Kuhn, Feyerabend and Fuller) and receives the prizes that follow from that.

But what has that to do with the search for truth about what is most likely to have happened to cause the existence of us and everything else in the universe?

The simple fact is that no matter how much or how little any person knows about genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, or whatever, every person wants to know where they came from because the answer to that question provides answers to the other two major questions of life – why am I here, and where am I going? Those who use their currently accepted “cognitive authority” to impose a materialist answer to the first question on everyone who attends school are, as far as I’m concerned, a stain on the face of humanity, a disgrace. They want to be able to choose for themselves what they believe but have no compunction about using the “cognitive authority” they have to persuade even little children that they have no choice at all. That is nothing but a form of child abuse.

No one can prove, scientifically, that materialism is true. In calling materialism “science”, and insisting that the materialist version of origins can be the only one allowed in schools, what the materialists are actually doing is brainwashing children just as their parents, and maybe even their grandparents, were brainwashed with the same sort of materialist dogma. You can believe it if you want but you have no right, or good reason, to impose it on other people in the way that it is imposed today through compulsory “education”.

what is the baramin? is it different for different kinds of organisms? I have always been interested in this line of reasoning but I have never seen a coherent explanation.

Then I suggest not only that you keep looking but that you try to keep looking with a mind that is open to being changed. That’s not easy when you’ve been brainwashed as a child, but it can be done if you value truth.

Interesting. I observe on points:

1] DD, 47: ontological proofs are mere affirming the consequent vs Anton, 48: Or alternatively: Inference to the best explanation

Anton is right, and it should be observed that I EXPLICITLY spoke of IBE in my comment on the ontological issue at 45: “. . . we need to look at them in light of the issue of inference to best explanation across comparative difficulties.”

But it does not stop there. For, the basic scientific inductive inference is an IBE argument and is itself open to the affirming the consequent objection. For instance, consider a theory, T and its body of supportive observations, O:

–> We argue, in science, in effect: IF T Then O; O , so T is confirmed.

–> But substitute, T = “Tom is a pig.” And, O = “Tom is an animal.”

–> Immediately, we see: “If Tom is a pig, then Tom is an animal; Tom is an animal, so Tom is a pig. But what if Tom is in fact a cat? [This is the actual example I first used ~ 20 years ago in the training of student Christian leaders on handling issues connected to reasoning and believing at worldviews level.

--> Thus, we come to the point that scientific inferences are provisional and competitive, and subject to falsification and/or correction in light of further evidence. They ALSO work by inference to best explanation, in short.

--> Thus, to make the objection to the ontological issue raised in an explicit IBE context, that it "affirms the consequent," is to fall into selective hyper-skepticism, thence logical incoherence.

So, now, can we get back to addressing the real issue, as at the end of 45: "what best makes coherent and elegantly simple sense of the facts? Why?"

2] Tim in 51:

. . . don’t all of those fossils crammed all together in those Cambrian rocks seem clearly out of place to you?

Let’s put it this way, before ANYBODY dug up ANYTHING, wouldn’t Darwin’s theories of evolution have predicted that we should have found something else, something completely different? Yes or no!!

I just don’t get it . . . how big an “explosion” will it take if the Cambrian explosion is not enough? How far “out of place” are those fossils, and by out of place, I mean too many and all in full phyla dress?

Because of examples as obvious, explanatory and PARSIMONIOUS as the Cambrian Explosion, Darwinism IMO is so plainly unfalsifiable in principle that I find it difficult to listen to its proponents and trust that they are making any scientific sense at all.

H’mm, and what happened when Stephen Meyer submitted an article on precisely this case that passed peer review by “renowned scientists,” and was published by a fair-minded Editor, a certain Rick Sternberg?

Why is there no Earth-shaking scandal over that, with serious consequences for the perpetrators?

What is that telling us about the state of science in leading, Taxpayer-funded Science institutions? [Much less, in the media and education systems?]

3] SteveB, 52: If there is no ontological barrier between, say, ape and man, then there is no ontological barrier between man and (superman). Put another way, if all species are constantly evolving into new forms, then, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a species.

Correct. And, the road to H^ell yawns open — a road all too frequently travelled over the past 100 years, as was predicted by a certain Mr Charles Darwin in this excerpt from a July 3, 1881 letter to a certain Mr William Graham:

I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turk, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.

But all of this, in a sense, is incidental.

4] Back on topic

As the OP puts it by citing the editorial, the central issue is the “proper” definition of science.

Namely, Nature Methods’ editors argue:

Because it invokes a supernatural origin for something one cannot yet explain, and because it does not generate testable hypotheses and cannot be subjected to empirical inquiry, ID is not science.

This is so distorting of easily accessible facts — and note the concession of prolonged explantatory failure by Evo mat! — as to be due to gross, culpapble negligence, or else to willful deception indented to eliminate the “weak” through predatory behaviour. Here, career busting being good enough in Science.

Sorry, if that sounds harsh, but that is what is plainly going on. And, it needs to stop. NOW.

Then, if we have acknowledged explanatory failure — after 150 years of trying — on one option, what should that tell us about its [want of] explanatory power?

Worse, we have in hand another alternative that shows us how empirical data (through an explanatory filter that does not beg the question by eliminating reasonable options) can account for the actual evidence we do observe on CSI, IC and OC.

This is an option that just happens to be well within the views and approach of most of the founders of modern science, and that of the founders of many of the key sub-disciplines. So if it is “unscientific” somebody has changed a definition without notifying us on its implications.

So, if that option is now ruled “unscientific” on a false claim that it is not falsifiable, and failing to explain within the evo mat circle of acceptable causes, does that not plainly reveal that the root problem is politically correct metaphysical imposition of a questionable redefinition, by the materialists who happen to hold power in key institutions; not the “correct” workings of real-world, empirically anchored science across time?

Finally, given the sort of moral consequences SteveB has brought out, shoud we not pause and think again, before it is — again! — too late?

GEM of TKI

I will not presume to put words in the mouth of one (Janice) who writes so well, but, for my part, it is the alternative view that lacks coherency. Try this:

If species are mutable, then they resemble each other in ways that defy the very definitions being used. If there is no ontological barrier between, say, ape and man, then there is no ontological barrier between man and (superman). Put another way, if all species are constantly evolving into new forms, then, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a species.

If organisms are always in flux, that is, if they are always losing some traits and gaining others, then which traits do you choose to identify and define the species. Under the circumstances, there can be no “type,” so it makes no sense to speak of one type morphing into another. All you would have is a changing organism with a passing and arbitrary identity that could be given a temporary name even though that name could not possibly signify anytyhing. It means, further, that there can be no such thing as a “human being” or any such quality as “human nature”.

Therefore, any discussion about speciation seems irrational since there is no definitive species from which an organism can emerge or to which it can evolve. I don’t think Janice’s perspective is anywhere near that problematical.

To which Ellazimm responded, in part:
“I’m sure you’ve heard this before but a fossil “clearly out of place”. . . ”

I have no expertise in this area, Ellazimm, but don’t all of those fossils crammed all together in those Cambrian rocks seem clearly out of place to you?

Let’s put it this way, before ANYBODY dug up ANYTHING, wouldn’t Darwin’s theories of evolution have predicted that we should have found something else, something completely different? Yes or no!!

I just don’t get it. Ellazimm, how big an “explosion” will it take if the Cambrian explosion is not enough? How far “out of place” are those fossils, and by out of place, I mean too many and all in full phyla dress?

Because of examples as obvious, explanatory and PARSIMONIOUS as the Cambrian Explosion, Darwinism IMO is so plainly unfalsifiable in principle that I find it difficult to listen to its proponents and trust that they are making any scientific sense at all. They sound more and more like they are just speaking out of willfulness.

The elephant is still in the room and it just sat in the bean dip! Isn’t anybody from Darwin’s camp going to get a paper towel? No? Pass the chips? What???

There’s that word again . . . proof. it doesn’t work that way, never did. Science 101: A scientific theory is accepted based on the preponderance of supporting evidence. In the case of evolution theory, acceptance is nearly universal because the evidence is strong. That does not constitute proof of evolution, merely current strength in competition with alternatives. If evidence that is contrary to evolution theory builds to the point that the theory is no longer useful or tenable, then it will be abandoned. That may even start with ideas born out of the ID community, but so far the credibility based on solid lab work is sorely lacking.

Don’t take my word for it. Do the hard work. Examine the evidence yourself. If you are trained in biology or a cognate discipline, design experiments and produce the data yourself. If not, get trained. Indulging in intellectual games is not research, and won’t cut it in science.

I’m waiting in eager anticipation.

It’s because there is that pesky massive body of evidence, based on actual experiments that produced actual data.

And the drum roll please while MacT brings forward just ONE PROOF for evolution that can withstand scrutiny….

We will be waiting with eager anticipation MacT.

zzzzzzzzzzz

The nylon example has been discussed multiple times on UD. Use google.

“ontological proofs are mere affirming the consequent”

Or alternatively: Inference to the best explanation