If you could only make one argument...

[Jonathan DeLong]

Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what would it be?

Creationists: If you could make only one argument for Creationism, what would it be?

I only ask that the replies be based in science and evidence be in favor of your side, not attacks on the other.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:04:53 -0800 (PST), Jonathan DeLong
<jonathan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what would it be?

Simplified description of The Nested Hierarchy:

If Descent with Modification (DwM) is true then all organisms share a
common biological ancestor. For closely related species the ancestor is
near in time and for more distantly related species the common ancestor
will be further back in time. Since characteristics are inherited and
(according to evolution) gradually added, lost, or modified; the DwM
model predicts the following pattern of shared inherited
characteristics:

1) closely related organisms will share almost all their
characteristics.

2) more distantly related organisms will share somewhat fewer
characteristics

3) the most distantly related organisms will share the fewest number of
characteristics in common, and those characteristics will tend to be the
most fundamental (difficult to change without rendering offspring
nonfunctional)

- further modified characteristics in closely related (sexually
reproducing) species will invariably be modified versions of existing
characteristics from within that group.

This pattern of shared and inherited characteristics is exactly what we
see in organisms living today. Since it is a necessary consequence of
descent with modification as described by evolution we see the clearest
image that is theoretically possible of evolution at work.


For the visually oriented I found a couple of diagrams which outline a
tiny section of the tree of common descent:

http://understandingscience.whirl-i-gig.com//media/2/85597_evo_resources_resource_image_251_original.gif

http://www.freethoughtdebater.org/images/cladogram.gif


To the best of my knowledge this pattern of descent with modification of
shared inherited characteristics cannot be explained by any other model
except as something like an amazing coincidence or deliberate deception
by a creator with inexplicable motives (which is not an explanation).
Can anyone provide a coherent explanation for the nested hierarchy other
than common descent?

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[TomS]

"On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:04:53 -0800 (PST), in article
<96444448-eea6-44cb...@googlegroups.com>, Jonathan DeLong
stated..."

I would like a clarification wrt evolution.

You ask for an argument for the *theory* of evolution. There are many
theories regarding evolution, such as the theory "random variation with
natural selection", but also the "neutral theory", "sexual selection",
"punctuated equilibria", "Baldwin effect", "Batesian mimicry", ...

I suggest that you would really be interested in "one argument for
evolution", that is, for "common descent with modification" or
"change in inherited traits of populations".

In that case, I suggest that the inference from the "nested hierarchy
of the tree of life" to "common descent", which Friar Broccoli has
given a good summary of, as my prime choice. As far as I know, a nested
hierarchy is always (as in linguistics and manuscripttraditions) an
indication of common descent, and it is so strongly an indication in
biology that no one has suggested an alternative explanation for it
(not counting "that's just a coincidence" as an explanation).


--
---Tom S.

[Richard Norman]

The best argument for evolution is that so many different arguments
all based on quite independent types of data converge on the same
explanation. I refer to embryology (developmental biology),
physiology, biochemistry, morphology, ecology, animal behavior,
biogeography, molecular biology and, oh yes, the fossil record along
with geology and a miscellany of other fields.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Dec 27, 4:04�am, Jonathan DeLong <jonathan.delon...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what would it be?

Argument from Tautology - The ones that survive long enough to
reproduce are more often the ones that are best suited to survive, and
the ones best suited to survive are nearly always the ones that live
long enough to reproduce.

Creationists (and indeed some evolutionists) seem to have a problem
with this line of reasoning, I have never understood why they do.

Evolution, to paraphrase something I heard in a Seinfeld episode, is
something that just simply cannot not happen, given that we have (1)
organisms that reproduce (or not) and (2) an often unkind environment
for those creatures to reproduce (or not) in.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2012-12-26 18:04:53 +0000, Jonathan DeLong said:

> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of
> Evolution, what would it be?

Your question appears to be based on a misconception. The theory of
evolution is not based on "one argument". It is based on a huge body of
coherent evidence. Although Darwin called his book "one long argument"
it actually contained a whole body of argument, even then.

>
> Creationists: If you could make only one argument for Creationism, what
> would it be?
>
> I only ask that the replies be based in science and evidence be in
> favor of your side, not attacks on the other.

That is also based on a misconception. Nothing the creationists say is
"based in science", as you put it. If they had any scientific evidence
we'd have heard it by now.


--
athel

[TomS]

"On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:41:23 +0100, in article
<ak15nc...@mid.individual.net>, Athel Cornish-Bowden stated..."

>
>On 2012-12-26 18:04:53 +0000, Jonathan DeLong said:
>
>> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of
>> Evolution, what would it be?
>
>Your question appears to be based on a misconception. The theory of
>evolution is not based on "one argument". It is based on a huge body of
>coherent evidence. Although Darwin called his book "one long argument"
>it actually contained a whole body of argument, even then.

As Pope John Paul II said, "this theory has been progressively accepted
by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of
knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results
of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant
argument in favour of this theory."

Yet I think it is fair to point out a handful of major themes in
support of evolution which are strong enough independently: taxonomy,
biogeography, direct observation, the existence of a major unifying
theory ("nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of
evolution"), and paleontology.

>>
>> Creationists: If you could make only one argument for Creationism, what
>> would it be?
>>
>> I only ask that the replies be based in science and evidence be in
>> favor of your side, not attacks on the other.
>
>That is also based on a misconception. Nothing the creationists say is
>"based in science", as you put it. If they had any scientific evidence
>we'd have heard it by now.
>
>

But it can be illuminating to see how many of the arguments from the
creationists are arguments *against* evolution, not arguments *for*
something else. Indeed, how little positive substance there is in
creationism: how little there is to argue for.


--
---Tom S.

[Burkhard]

On Dec 26, 6:04�pm, Jonathan DeLong <jonathan.delon...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what would it be?
>
> Creationists: If you could make only one argument for Creationism, what would it be?
>
> I only ask that the replies be based in science and evidence be in favor of your side, not attacks on the other.

OK, the one in the spirit of the question would be along these lines:
Whenever we observe descent with modification - say within families,
or in the transmission of documents, characteristic patterns form that
we do not find anywhere else. In particular, we find naturally
emerging nested hierarchies. This is also the pattern that we find
between species, where any principled classification we could come up
with , e.g. by difference between DNA, comes to the same hierarchy,

My real favourite though would require a bit of cheating: it is still
one argument, but a "meta-argument" that quantifies over several
arguments: Independently of each other, a huge number of disciplines,
from biology to medicine to geology, discovered things that "fit" only
within the framework of an evolutionary theory - forming a web of
knowledge so that if the the theory of evolution turned out to be
wrong, we would also have to revisit pretty much everything else we
though we knew about the world.

[Inez]

On Dec 26, 10:04�am, Jonathan DeLong <jonathan.delon...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what would it be?
>

There's no such thing as magic, therefore life changes over time non-
magically.

[Dale]

http://www.themysticcorner.com

--
Dale

[Dana Tweedy]

Evolution is a fact, and no one disputes this but those with a religious
bias against the theory. To that end, if I could only make one
argument for evolution, I would argue that accepting the science of
evolution does not mean one must reject all religious beliefs.

There are some religious positions which are incompatible with
scientific facts, but not every religious belief is threatened by
evolutionary science. Unfortunately, a discussion over theological
positions is not open to facts, and evidence.

DJT

[Klaus Hellnick]

The genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over time, we have
much evidence, and plausible, testable, mechanisms to explain it.

[chris thompson]

On Dec 26, 1:04�pm, Jonathan DeLong <jonathan.delon...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what would it be?

The fact that all living organisms discovered to date (and I exclude
viruses) use DNA as their genetic material.

>
> Creationists: If you could make only one argument for Creationism, what would it be?

(In the words of creationists): The Bible (as I interpret it) tells
me.

>
> I only ask that the replies be based in science and evidence be in favor of your side, not attacks on the other.

Hope this fits.

Chris

[raven1]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:16:36 -0500, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

www.narcoticsanonymous.org



---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[Ron O]

On Dec 26, 12:04�pm, Jonathan DeLong <jonathan.delon...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what would it be?
>
> Creationists: If you could make only one argument for Creationism, what would it be?
>
> I only ask that the replies be based in science and evidence be in favor of your side, not attacks on the other.

My single best argument for the theory of biological evolution is that
it fits the existing evidence so well that there is no other
equivalent alternative worth beans to put up against it. Really,
creationism isn't even in the same game as the latest ID pretenders
found out and had their faces rubbed in the fact (as did the
scientific creationists before them) that they hadn't even made it
onto the sandlot let alone into the big leagues. They are still
dabbling in astrology by comparison to real science. It doesn't
matter if it is astrology when we didn't know any better, it still
isn't any known any better.

Ron Okimoto

[Ray Martinez]

On Dec 26, 10:04�am, Jonathan DeLong <jonathan.delon...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what would it be?
>
> Creationists: If you could make only one argument for Creationism, what would it be?

Paley's Watchmaker based solely on appearance of design (which
logically implies the work of invisible Intelligence/Designer).

> I only ask that the replies be based in science and evidence be in favor of your side, not attacks on the other.

Darwin said "Natural Theology" was one of only four works that
contributed to the education of his mind in college (the other three
being Paley's "Moral Philosophy," "Evidences of Christianity," and
Euclidean geometry (Autobio: 59).

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Dec 26, 10:28�am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:04:53 -0800 (PST), Jonathan DeLong
>

> http://understandingscience.whirl-i-gig.com//media/2/85597_evo_resour...

>
> http://www.freethoughtdebater.org/images/cladogram.gif
>
> To the best of my knowledge this pattern of descent with modification of
> shared inherited characteristics cannot be explained by any other model
> except as something like an amazing coincidence or deliberate deception
> by a creator with inexplicable motives (which is not an explanation).
> Can anyone provide a coherent explanation for the nested hierarchy other
> than common descent?
>
> --
> � Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
> � �I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

This particular reply *assumes* the discovery of similarity, and
patterns of similarity, means evolution (connected species) has
occurred. The only problem (and a huge one at that) is assumption is
not evidence.

Ray

[jillery]

Well you also need (3) random mutations for creating genetic
diversity, but yeah, you describe a valid case.

[John Harshman]

If there were a credible alternative explanation, you might have something.

[Ray Martinez]

On Dec 26, 12:41�pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@imm.cnrs.fr>
wrote:

We, of course, completely disagree.

With a new year rapidly approaching, one could only hope that this
will be the year that the Evolutionists will finally produce some
evidence supporting their theory.

Ray (Paleyan IDist)

[Ray Martinez]

Really?

Haven't you made a late-night post?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Dec 26, 10:28�am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:04:53 -0800 (PST), Jonathan DeLong
>

> http://understandingscience.whirl-i-gig.com//media/2/85597_evo_resour...

>
> http://www.freethoughtdebater.org/images/cladogram.gif
>
> To the best of my knowledge this pattern of descent with modification of
> shared inherited characteristics cannot be explained by any other model
> except as something like an amazing coincidence or deliberate deception
> by a creator with inexplicable motives (which is not an explanation).
> Can anyone provide a coherent explanation for the nested hierarchy other
> than common descent?
>
> --
> � Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
> � �I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

Moreover, the above explication is concerned with alleged effects. The
question posed in the OP was

"If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what
would it be?"

The theory of (how) evolution (occurs) is concerned with causation. So
the above "explication" offers zero evidence supporting the ToE.

Ray

[TomS]

"On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:47:15 -0800 (PST), in article
<654e8fb0-ca40-4542...@pp8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez stated..."

Think of it as an argument from complexity.

The tree of life has a pattern of extreme complexity. Far more
complex than a watch on a heath, more complex than the vertebrate
eye, more complex than the periodic table. Moreover, the pattern
makes repeated predictions about what will be found, about new
forms of life that are discovered and about new structures in
life, so it is "specified complexity" in that it is not subject
to the "Texas marksman" fallacy.

Therefore, this pattern demands an explanation. It cannot be
accounted for by chance. Common descent is the only proposed
explanation for patterns of this sort, even when they are much
simpler, as in linguistics.


--
---Tom S.

[Ray Martinez]

On Dec 26, 7:17�pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:47:15 -0800 (PST), in article

> <654e8fb0-ca40-4542-8290-0e3f6da40...@pp8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Ray

Agreed.

But the only other option beside chance is design.

Do you now see the importance of establishing cause (as Darwin did)?
Evolution is different (and I'm also talking to you John Harshman).

Until a natural cause is identified, the pattern is created, evidence
supporting the work of *one* Divine Mastermind.

Ray

[TomS]

"On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:28:00 -0800 (PST), in article
<4f785bc9-1bb4-4ad7...@uc4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray

When I say that it cannot be accounted for by chance, I am saying
that it is not a response to say "that's just the way that it
happened to be". And to say that inscrutable designer(s) had their
own reasons, acting without constraint, is telling us "that's just
the way that it happened to be."


--
---Tom S.

[jillery]

Why don't you recognize that your assumption of design is not
evidence?

[Dana Tweedy]

"Design" is an assumption, without any evidence. If you wish to
offer "design" as an explanation, you need to provide some testable
mechanism by which this design was carried out. Merely saying "design"
does not offer any explanation.

>
> Do you now see the importance of establishing cause (as Darwin did)?
> Evolution is different (and I'm also talking to you John Harshman).

Evolution is no different from any other science. You don't need to
know the cause to be able to identify a phenomenon.

>
> Until a natural cause is identified, the pattern is created, evidence
> supporting the work of *one* Divine Mastermind.

That, Ray, is an example of begging the question. Even if one does not
know the cause, assuming the pattern is "created" by some supernatural
being is unwarranted, and illogical.

However, the cause of the nested hierarchy is known. That cause is
common descent.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Which is known. Evolution happens by the accumulation of small changes
in the genetic make up of a population over many generations.

> So
> the above "explication" offers zero evidence supporting the ToE.

What evidence supporting the theory of evolution would you accept?

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 12/26/12 8:10 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Dec 26, 7:02 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 12/26/12 6:47 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>

snip

>>
>>> This particular reply *assumes* the discovery of similarity, and
>>> patterns of similarity, means evolution (connected species) has
>>> occurred. The only problem (and a huge one at that) is assumption is
>>> not evidence.
>>
>> If there were a credible alternative explanation, you might have something.
>
> Really?

Yes, Really. Do you have any credible alternative explanation.

>
> Haven't you made a late-night post?

I didn't think so....



DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

No. The discovery of the patterns of genetic and anatomical similarity
are predictions of evolutionary theory. It's not an assumption, but
what one would expect to see if evolution had happened.

> The only problem (and a huge one at that) is assumption is
> not evidence.

The findings are what one would expect to find if evolution had
happened. That is evidence. It's not an assumption.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 12/26/12 8:03 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Dec 26, 12:41 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@imm.cnrs.fr>
> wrote:
>> On 2012-12-26 18:04:53 +0000, Jonathan DeLong said:
>>
>>> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of
>>> Evolution, what would it be?
>>
>> Your question appears to be based on a misconception. The theory of
>> evolution is not based on "one argument". It is based on a huge body of
>> coherent evidence. Although Darwin called his book "one long argument"
>> it actually contained a whole body of argument, even then.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Creationists: If you could make only one argument for Creationism, what
>>> would it be?
>>
>>> I only ask that the replies be based in science and evidence be in
>>> favor of your side, not attacks on the other.
>>
>> That is also based on a misconception. Nothing the creationists say is
>> "based in science", as you put it. If they had any scientific evidence
>> we'd have heard it by now.
>>
>> --
>> athel
>
> We, of course, completely disagree.

You may disagree, but you would be wrong. Since you don't have any
rational basis for your disagreement, why should anyone take it
seriously?

>
> With a new year rapidly approaching, one could only hope that this
> will be the year that the Evolutionists will finally produce some
> evidence supporting their theory.

There is a massive amount of evidence supporting evolution. For example,
the presence of variation in a population is just one tiny bit of this
evidence. You simply refuse to accept any evidence that supports
evolution, as you'd then have to admit you are wrong. You can, of
course prove that I'm mistaken here. All you have to do is tell what
evidence you would accept for evolution.

So, Ray, what you would you accept as evidence of evolution? What
finding, in your opinion, would convince you that evolution had indeed
taken place?


DJT

[jillery]

Such as... ????

[Dana Tweedy]

On 12/26/12 7:25 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Dec 26, 10:04 am, Jonathan DeLong <jonathan.delon...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what would it be?
>>
>> Creationists: If you could make only one argument for Creationism, what would it be?
>
> Paley's Watchmaker based solely on appearance of design (which
> logically implies the work of invisible Intelligence/Designer).

As I've explained to you, many times, the appearance of design does not
imply the work of a designer, visible or not. It only implies that
humans are hard wired to see "design". It's a logical fallacy to
assume a designer when all one sees is an appearance of design. Your
"argument" is based on a particularly old, and rusty logical fallacy.

>
>> I only ask that the replies be based in science and evidence be in favor of your side, not attacks on the other.
>
> Darwin said "Natural Theology" was one of only four works that
> contributed to the education of his mind in college (the other three
> being Paley's "Moral Philosophy," "Evidences of Christianity," and
> Euclidean geometry (Autobio: 59).

Which is not evidence that your "argument" above has any validity.


DJT

[John Harshman]

On 12/26/12 7:28 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

Why would a designer create a nested hierarchy that exactly mimics the
pattern expected from common descent?

> Do you now see the importance of establishing cause (as Darwin did)?
> Evolution is different (and I'm also talking to you John Harshman).

If you're talking to me, it would be better to do it in a reply to me. I
agree it's important to establish cause. But it isn't necessary to
establish cause in order to know that a phenomenon exists.

> Until a natural cause is identified, the pattern is created, evidence
> supporting the work of *one* Divine Mastermind.

Why?

[John Harshman]

We can all agree that if you stick several extra words into a sentence
you can make it mean something else. So?

[prawnster]

On Dec 26, 10:04�am, Jonathan DeLong <jonathan.delon...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what would it be?
>

> Creationists: If you could make only one argument for Creationism, what would it be?
>

> I only ask that the replies be based in science and evidence be in favor of your side, not attacks on the other.

The ultimate evo argument:
Assuming God, Odin, and/or the Flying Spaghetti Monster don't exist,
evolution is the best and only explanation for life and its diversity.

The ultimate creationist argument:
All known languages were intelligently designed; DNA and RNA are
languages (as many ardent, strident, unrepentant atheo-Darwinists,
including St. Dawkins, have admitted); thus, all life based on DNA/RNA
was intelligently designed.

So you have one argument based on a question-begging assumption, and
one argument based on a repeatedly observed fact. You do the math.

"When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
hypothesis. When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
called a consensus." ~ The Law of Prawn

[prawnster]

On Dec 26, 10:28�am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:

> [...]

> To the best of my knowledge this pattern of descent with modification of
> shared inherited characteristics cannot be explained by any other model
> except as something like an amazing coincidence or deliberate deception
> by a creator with inexplicable motives (which is not an explanation).
> Can anyone provide a coherent explanation for the nested hierarchy other
> than common descent?
>

You're too cute, sir. Nested hierarchies can be and have been created
for man's creations, too. That's a ultra-weaksauce argument for
Darwinism, and should be permanently retired.

Fail.

[prawnster]

On Dec 26, 11:41�am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> [...]
> The best argument for evolution is that so many different arguments
> all based on quite independent types of data converge on the same
> explanation. �I refer to embryology (developmental biology),
> physiology, biochemistry, morphology, ecology, animal behavior,
> biogeography, molecular biology and, oh yes, the fossil record along
> with geology and a miscellany of other fields.

The typical arguments for evolution is that so many different
arguments all based on quite predictable types of assumptions converge
on the same explanation.

Embryology: debunked.
Physiology: common design.
Biochemistry: common design.
Morphology: common design.
Ecology: tha fuh?
Animal behavior: common design.
Biogeography: fish live better in water; mice live better on land, and
et cetera. Who'da thunk it?
Molecular biology: a thorough knowledge of this will disabuse anyone
of their Darwinist faith. In fact, complex molecular biology was the
definitive end of Darwinism, along with the discovery of the language
called DNA.
Fossil record: a bunch of critters buried suddenly.
Geology: ha ha; not a science.

[prawnster]

On Dec 26, 1:53�pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> There's no such thing as magic, therefore life changes over time non-
> magically.

Honk honk! Fail. You're merely attacking creationism. Try again.

[prawnster]

On Dec 26, 4:11�pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> [...]
> The fact that all living organisms discovered to date (and I exclude
> viruses) use DNA as their genetic material.
>

Wrong. You got it exactly backwards, Cap'n. The fact that all living
organisms use DNA, which is a language, proves that all life was
created.

[John Harshman]

On 12/26/12 9:12 PM, prawnster wrote:
> On Dec 26, 10:28 am, Friar Broccoli<elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> To the best of my knowledge this pattern of descent with modification of
>> shared inherited characteristics cannot be explained by any other model
>> except as something like an amazing coincidence or deliberate deception
>> by a creator with inexplicable motives (which is not an explanation).
>> Can anyone provide a coherent explanation for the nested hierarchy other
>> than common descent?
>>
>
> You're too cute, sir. Nested hierarchies can be and have been created
> for man's creations, too. That's a ultra-weaksauce argument for
> Darwinism, and should be permanently retired.

I would contest your point if there were any hope you would make a
serious argument.

[prawnster]

On Dec 26, 7:02�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> [...]

> If there were a credible alternative explanation, you might have something.

If you had any observable instances of speciation, Darwinists might
have something.

[John Harshman]

On 12/26/12 9:10 PM, prawnster wrote:
> On Dec 26, 10:04 am, Jonathan DeLong<jonathan.delon...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what would it be?
>>
>> Creationists: If you could make only one argument for Creationism, what would it be?
>>
>> I only ask that the replies be based in science and evidence be in favor of your side, not attacks on the other.
>
> The ultimate evo argument:
> Assuming God, Odin, and/or the Flying Spaghetti Monster don't exist,
> evolution is the best and only explanation for life and its diversity.

No such assumption is necessary. We merely have to assume that there is
not a deceptive designer, i.e. one who is actively trying to fool us
into thinking there is evolution when there really isn't.

> The ultimate creationist argument:
> All known languages were intelligently designed;

No they weren't.

> DNA and RNA are
> languages (as many ardent, strident, unrepentant atheo-Darwinists,
> including St. Dawkins, have admitted);

No they aren't, and no they haven't.

> thus, all life based on DNA/RNA
> was intelligently designed.

Even given your premises, that doesn't follow. All that follows is that
the DNA and RNA languages were designed. Your argument applies to the
origin of life (if to anything), not to evolution.

> So you have one argument based on a question-begging assumption, and
> one argument based on a repeatedly observed fact. You do the math.

Neither argument makes any sense. The math seems to be that 0 + 0 = 0.

[prawnster]

On Dec 26, 7:17�pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> [...]

> Think of it as an argument from complexity.
>
> The tree of life has a pattern of extreme complexity. Far more
> complex than a watch on a heath, more complex than the vertebrate
> eye, more complex than the periodic table. Moreover, the pattern
> makes repeated predictions about what will be found, about new
> forms of life that are discovered and about new structures in
> life, so it is "specified complexity" in that it is not subject
> to the "Texas marksman" fallacy.
>
> Therefore, this pattern demands an explanation. It cannot be
> accounted for by chance. Common descent is the only proposed
> explanation for patterns of this sort, even when they are much
> simpler, as in linguistics.
>

The tree of life is literally a figment of your imagination. That you
can organize God's creation into a Great Bush of Being does not negate
the creator, no matter how complex your Bush is. And that you can
imagine missing twigs or branches on your Great Bush, and then
occasionally find them, does not negate the creator. It is a fine
demonstration of your imagination, organization, and analysis
abilities, though. Good job!

I know Chuck D makes an argument against the special creation of
species that vary only somewhat, but his argument, as yours, basically
amounts to: "Boy, that sure seems farfetched to me; therefore, it
can't be true." In other words, it's an argument from incredulity.

[John Harshman]

On 12/26/12 9:20 PM, prawnster wrote:
> On Dec 26, 7:02 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> If there were a credible alternative explanation, you might have something.
>
> If you had any observable instances of speciation, Darwinists might
> have something.

I see you have produced no credible alternative explanation. I'm
supposing that's because you have nothing. In other posts you have just
said "common design", and I'm not surprised you're unwilling to defend that.

There are of course observable instances of speciation. But I don't see
the relevance. Are you claiming that speciation never happens? The
nested hierarchy is itself excellent evidence that it does, even if we
had no directly observed examples.

[prawnster]

On Dec 26, 9:08�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> [...]

> Why would a designer create a nested hierarchy that exactly mimics the
> pattern expected from common descent?
>

Why would General Motors create a troubleshooting flowchart that
exactly mimics the pattern expected from a guy who's trying to fix his
1979 Cadillac Coupe de Ville?

[prawnster]

On Dec 26, 9:24�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> [...]

> No such assumption is necessary. We merely have to assume that there is
> not a deceptive designer, i.e. one who is actively trying to fool us
> into thinking there is evolution when there really isn't.

> [...]
> No they weren't.
> [...]

> No they aren't, and no they haven't.

> [...]

> Even given your premises, that doesn't follow. All that follows is that
> the DNA and RNA languages were designed. Your argument applies to the
> origin of life (if to anything), not to evolution.

Honk honk! You're attacking creationism. Try again.
--------
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say something
so stupid?
--------
Many evolutionary whateverists would disagree with you, but anyone
with an IQ over 90 would certainly disagree with you.
--------
So the aliens intelligently designed the RNA/DNA, and then hit the
road? Tight.

[John Harshman]

On 12/26/12 9:30 PM, prawnster wrote:
> On Dec 26, 9:08 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Why would a designer create a nested hierarchy that exactly mimics the
>> pattern expected from common descent?
>
> Why would General Motors create a troubleshooting flowchart that
> exactly mimics the pattern expected from a guy who's trying to fix his
> 1979 Cadillac Coupe de Ville?

Let me know if you ever want to answer my question.

[prawnster]

You're not smart enough to know it, but I just did.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:47:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Dec 26, 10:28�am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:04:53 -0800 (PST), Jonathan DeLong

>>
>> <jonathan.delon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what would it be?
>>

>> To the best of my knowledge this pattern of descent with modification of
>> shared inherited characteristics cannot be explained by any other model
>> except as something like an amazing coincidence or deliberate deception
>> by a creator with inexplicable motives (which is not an explanation).
>> Can anyone provide a coherent explanation for the nested hierarchy other
>> than common descent?
>>

>> --
>> � Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
>> � �I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

.

>This particular reply *assumes* the discovery of similarity, and
>patterns of similarity, means evolution (connected species) has
>occurred. The only problem (and a huge one at that) is assumption is
>not evidence.

No Ray, the argument does not *assume* that the pattern of similarities
implies evolution. The argument outlines the most obvious consequences
of having characteristics slowly added, lost and modified within a
nested tree over vast numbers of generations. Those obvious
consequences are exactly the ones that we see. Failure to recognize
that all birds (for example) are related requires willful blindness -
and birds are a branch of the evolutionary tree.

Expected traces are evidence.

Can you show:
1) That descent with modification should not produce the consequences
listed?
2) That descent with modification should have other unseen obvious
consequences?
2) That the consequences I have listed are not the ones seen?
3) That there is some reason why special creation of individual species
should leave such a distinctive pattern?

If you can do any of the above you may have a case.

[prawnster]

On Dec 26, 10:38�pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Can you show:
> 1) That descent with modification should not produce the consequences
> listed?
> 2) That descent with modification should have other unseen obvious
> consequences?

> 2) [sic] That the consequences I have listed are not the ones seen?
> 3) [sic] That there is some reason why special creation of individual species

> should leave such a distinctive pattern?
>
> If you can do any of the above you may have a case.
>

Can you show:
1) That intelligent design cannot produce the consequences listed?
2) That the consequences listed are not, in fact, designs?

3) That there is some reason why special creation of individual

species cannot leave this pattern?

If you can do all of the above, you will have proven many negatives.
Good luck!

[Friar Broccoli]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:17:16 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

>Moreover, the above explication is concerned with alleged effects. The
>question posed in the OP was
>

>"If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what
>would it be?"
>

>The theory of (how) evolution (occurs) is concerned with causation. So
>the above "explication" offers zero evidence supporting the ToE.

As Harshman has already noted, the OP did not ask *how* evolution
occurs, he asked to have "evidence for the TOE". Evidence that it
*does* occur (namely that it leaves a vast number of the expected
effects) is certainly "evidence for the TOE".

[Friar Broccoli]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 22:49:21 -0800 (PST), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 26, 10:38�pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Can you show:
>> 1) That descent with modification should not produce the consequences
>> listed?
>> 2) That descent with modification should have other unseen obvious
>> consequences?
>> 2) [sic] That the consequences I have listed are not the ones seen?
>> 3) [sic] That there is some reason why special creation of individual species
>> should leave such a distinctive pattern?
>>
>> If you can do any of the above you may have a case.
>>
>
>Can you show:
>1) That intelligent design cannot produce the consequences listed?

I used *should not* not "cannot". Everyone (including me) agrees that a
trickster God *can* do anything he wants, including leaving us with
completely misleading evidence.

Why would a just God leave misleading evidence?

>2) That the consequences listed are not, in fact, designs?
>3) That there is some reason why special creation of individual
>species cannot leave this pattern?
>
>If you can do all of the above, you will have proven many negatives.
>Good luck!
>
>"When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
>hypothesis. When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
>called a consensus." ~ The Law of Prawn

[prawnster]

On Dec 26, 10:52�pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> As Harshman has already noted, the OP did not ask *how* evolution
> occurs, he asked to have "evidence for the TOE". �Evidence that it
> *does* occur (namely that it leaves a vast number of the expected
> effects) is certainly "evidence for the TOE".
>

So the best argument for evolution is an inferential, circumstantial
one. That may be good enough for a courtroom, but it's not good
enough for science. As they say: one man's reasonable inference is
another man's guesswork and speculation.

"Evo scholars maintain inference infinitely more reliable than
observation." ~ Ray Martinez

[prawnster]

On Dec 26, 10:59�pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> I used *should not* not "cannot". �Everyone (including me) agrees that a
> trickster God *can* do anything he wants, including leaving us with
> completely misleading evidence.
>
> Why would a just God leave misleading evidence?
>

God's perfect justice and His apparent willingness to create ambiguous
evidence are utterly unrelated topics. Nice try, though.

So you can pout in the corner all you want and curse God because you
think He's tried to fooled you, but the deception is all in your
materialist phantasies, not in God's acts of creation.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

The statement by Pope John Paul - representing over half of the world's
Christians - that "The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results
of work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a
significant argument in favor of this theory."

I also like the "arguments not to use" section from AAG which makes the same
point - totally inadvertently, of course :)

[TomS]

"On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 22:49:21 -0800 (PST), in article
<04a75d9b-6dee-415c...@pp8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, prawnster
stated..."

As long as no one gives a description of "intelligent design", of
course it is difficult to show anything about it, in particular
that "intelligent design" cannot do those three things.

I'll add to your list of things:

4) Can anyone suggest even a hypothetical thing which "intelligent
design" did not, would not, or might not, do?


--
---Tom S.

[TomS]

"On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:26:40 -0800 (PST), in article
<9665928e-445c-444c...@n2g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>, prawnster
stated..."

>
>On Dec 26, 7:17�pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Think of it as an argument from complexity.
>>
>> The tree of life has a pattern of extreme complexity. Far more
>> complex than a watch on a heath, more complex than the vertebrate
>> eye, more complex than the periodic table. Moreover, the pattern
>> makes repeated predictions about what will be found, about new
>> forms of life that are discovered and about new structures in
>> life, so it is "specified complexity" in that it is not subject
>> to the "Texas marksman" fallacy.
>>
>> Therefore, this pattern demands an explanation. It cannot be
>> accounted for by chance. Common descent is the only proposed
>> explanation for patterns of this sort, even when they are much
>> simpler, as in linguistics.
>>
>
>The tree of life is literally a figment of your imagination. That you
>can organize God's creation into a Great Bush of Being does not negate
>the creator, no matter how complex your Bush is. And that you can
>imagine missing twigs or branches on your Great Bush, and then
>occasionally find them, does not negate the creator. It is a fine
>demonstration of your imagination, organization, and analysis
>abilities, though. Good job!

The evidence for evolution does not depend on negating the existence
of the Creator. Evolution is something positive. One is able to
describe what happens and when evolution takes place, and that
description stands on its own. Reproductive biology, for example,
tells us how our bodies come to be without saying that we are not
creatures of God.

>
>I know Chuck D makes an argument against the special creation of
>species that vary only somewhat, but his argument, as yours, basically
>amounts to: "Boy, that sure seems farfetched to me; therefore, it
>can't be true." In other words, it's an argument from incredulity.
>
>"When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
>hypothesis. When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
>called a consensus." ~ The Law of Prawn
>

--
---Tom S.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Dec 27, 12:54�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 12:36:41 -0800 (PST), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >On Dec 27, 4:04�am, Jonathan DeLong <jonathan.delon...@gmail.com>

> >wrote:
> >> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what would it be?
>

> >Argument from Tautology - The ones that survive long enough to
> >reproduce are more often the ones that are best suited to survive, and
> >the ones best suited to survive are nearly always the ones that live
> >long enough to reproduce.
>
> >Creationists (and indeed some evolutionists) seem to have a problem
> >with this line of reasoning, I have never understood why they do.
>
> >Evolution, to paraphrase something I heard in a Seinfeld episode, is
> >something that just simply cannot not happen, given that we have (1)
> >organisms that reproduce (or not) and (2) an often unkind environment
> >for those creatures to reproduce (or not) in.
>
> Well you also need (3) random mutations for creating genetic
> diversity, but yeah, you describe a valid case.

Yeah, I thought of that just after I hit "Send". I was sure someone
would correct me b4 too long. :)

[jillery]

Yeppers. A pedantic point has as much chance in T.O. as a bug
surrounded by marauder ants.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 23:14:37 -0800 (PST), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 26, 10:59�pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> I used *should not* not "cannot". �Everyone (including me) agrees that a
>> trickster God *can* do anything he wants, including leaving us with
>> completely misleading evidence.
>>
>> Why would a just God leave misleading evidence?
>>

.

>God's perfect justice and His apparent willingness to create ambiguous
>evidence are utterly unrelated topics. Nice try, though.
>
>So you can pout in the corner all you want and curse God because you
>think He's tried to fooled you, but the deception is all in your
>materialist phantasies, not in God's acts of creation.

I'm not pouting or cursing. I think the evidence is pointing me in the
correct direction. Life on earth was created by evolutionary processes.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 23:03:54 -0800 (PST), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 26, 10:52�pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> As Harshman has already noted, the OP did not ask *how* evolution
>> occurs, he asked to have "evidence for the TOE". �Evidence that it
>> *does* occur (namely that it leaves a vast number of the expected
>> effects) is certainly "evidence for the TOE".

.

>So the best argument for evolution is an inferential, circumstantial
>one. That may be good enough for a courtroom, but it's not good
>enough for science. As they say: one man's reasonable inference is
>another man's guesswork and speculation.

So since the fact that the earth orbits the sun is determined only by
inference you're going to follow scripture's clear declarations that the
sun orbits the earth?

The evidence for common descent is in fact much stronger than the
evidence that the earth orbits the sun, because the evidence for common
descent is much much more voluminous.

[TomS]

"On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 07:59:24 -0500, in article
<1dhod8pdh9hggao85...@4ax.com>, Friar Broccoli stated..."

>
>On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 23:14:37 -0800 (PST), prawnster
><zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 26, 10:59�pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> I used *should not* not "cannot". �Everyone (including me) agrees that a
>>> trickster God *can* do anything he wants, including leaving us with
>>> completely misleading evidence.
>>>
>>> Why would a just God leave misleading evidence?
>>>
>
> .
>
>>God's perfect justice and His apparent willingness to create ambiguous
>>evidence are utterly unrelated topics. Nice try, though.
>>
>>So you can pout in the corner all you want and curse God because you
>>think He's tried to fooled you, but the deception is all in your
>>materialist phantasies, not in God's acts of creation.
>
>I'm not pouting or cursing. I think the evidence is pointing me in the
>correct direction. Life on earth was created by evolutionary processes.
>

The odd thing (well, *one* of the odd things) about the accusation that
you think that God has tried to fool you is that it's the creationists
who are saying that the creator/designer(s) left misleading evidence,
not you.

Coherence has never been a strong point among the creationists.


--
---Tom S.

[John Harshman]

On 12/26/12 10:21 PM, prawnster wrote:
> On Dec 26, 10:02 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 12/26/12 9:30 PM, prawnster wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 26, 9:08 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Why would a designer create a nested hierarchy that exactly mimics the
>>>> pattern expected from common descent?
>>
>>> Why would General Motors create a troubleshooting flowchart that
>>> exactly mimics the pattern expected from a guy who's trying to fix his
>>> 1979 Cadillac Coupe de Ville?
>>
>> Let me know if you ever want to answer my question.
>
> You're not smart enough to know it, but I just did.

Try again.

[chris thompson]

On Dec 27, 12:19�am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 4:11�pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > The fact that all living organisms discovered to date (and I exclude
> > viruses) use DNA as their genetic material.
>
> Wrong. �You got it exactly backwards, Cap'n. �The fact that all living
> organisms use DNA, which is a language, proves that all life was
> created.

DNA is not a language; at best it is a code. I suggest you look up the
criteria for "language". I had to do so long ago when I wrote a paper
about language in non-humans. DNA fails on virtually all points. No
syntax; no grammar; no parts of speech like verbs or nouns.

Please try again. I have to admit, this was a bit of a refreshing
change from your usual posting style. Please keep it up.

Chris

[TomS]

"On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 07:07:43 -0800, in article
<s_6dnUPOT-C...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."

Remember that you're dealing with someone who thinks that this
is an explanation:

"Some agent(s) did something so that it turned out that way."

Whether you're asking why the human body is most similar to that of
the chimp among all of today's life forms, or about the wording of
baseball's infield fly rule.


--
---Tom S.

[prawnster]

On Dec 27, 5:31�am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> [...]

> The odd thing (well, *one* of the odd things) about the accusation that
> you think that God has tried to fool you is that it's the creationists
> who are saying that the creator/designer(s) left misleading evidence,
> not you.
>
> Coherence has never been a strong point among the creationists.
>

El wrongo. It's Darwinistas who call the Great Bush of Being
misleading evidence. The Great Bush is a creation of man, which some
men use to organize God's creations. It is, in fact, a handful of men
who mislead themselves through a false inference, a false
interpretation of evidence.

Reading skills have never been a strong point among grade-school
dropouts.

[prawnster]

On Dec 27, 7:41�am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> [...]

> DNA is not a language; at best it is a code. I suggest you look up the
> criteria for "language". I had to do so long ago when I wrote a paper
> about language in non-humans. DNA fails on virtually all points. No
> syntax; no grammar; no parts of speech like verbs or nouns.
>

I'm with you. Now, check this out:
All known codes were intelligently designed; DNA and RNA are codes;

thus, all life based on DNA/RNA was intelligently designed.

All better.

[prawnster]

On Dec 27, 7:59�am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> Remember that you're dealing with someone who thinks that this
> is an explanation:
>
> "Some agent(s) did something so that it turned out that way."
>
> Whether you're asking why the human body is most similar to that of
> the chimp among all of today's life forms, or about the wording of
> baseball's infield fly rule.
>

But remember that I'm dealing with someone who thinks that this is
science:

"Some unobserved process(es) did something so that it turned out that
way."

Whether you're asking why man's body is most similar to that of the

chimp among all of today's life forms, or about the wording of
baseball's infield fly rule.

[Dale]

On 12/26/2012 08:14 PM, raven1 wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:16:36 -0500, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/26/2012 04:53 PM, Inez wrote:
>>> On Dec 26, 10:04 am, Jonathan DeLong <jonathan.delon...@gmail.com>

>>> wrote:
>>>> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what would it be?
>>>>

>>> There's no such thing as magic, therefore life changes over time non-
>>> magically.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.themysticcorner.com
>
>
> www.narcoticsanonymous.org
>
>
>
> ---
> raven1
> aa # 1096
> EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
> BAAWA Knight
>

I haven't used drugs in a long time, I'm waiting for legal ones in heaven

--
Dale

[Kermit]

On 27 Dec, 08:36, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 7:41�am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > DNA is not a language; at best it is a code. I suggest you look up the
> > criteria for "language". I had to do so long ago when I wrote a paper
> > about language in non-humans. DNA fails on virtually all points. No
> > syntax; no grammar; no parts of speech like verbs or nouns.
>
> I'm with you. �Now, check this out:
> All known codes were intelligently designed; DNA and RNA are codes;
> thus, all life based on DNA/RNA was intelligently designed.

Nope. We (some of us) call DNA a code because it is, in some ways,
like a code created by humans.

We refer to laws of nature, but that doesn't mean that they are
written down and that natural processes which refuse to follow them
are punished. Such "laws" are simply our own observation of a natural
behavior that is consistent and can be described in a simple way.

We sometimes remark on an angry storm; this doesn't mean that the
storm is actually mad, or even that the speaker thinks so.

>
> All better.
>
> "Evo scholars maintain inference infinitely more reliable than
> observation." ~ Ray Martinez

kermit

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:36:26 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com>:

>On Dec 27, 7:41�am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> [...]
>> DNA is not a language; at best it is a code. I suggest you look up the
>> criteria for "language". I had to do so long ago when I wrote a paper
>> about language in non-humans. DNA fails on virtually all points. No
>> syntax; no grammar; no parts of speech like verbs or nouns.
>>
>
>I'm with you. Now, check this out:
>All known codes were intelligently designed; DNA and RNA are codes;
>thus, all life based on DNA/RNA was intelligently designed.

Sorry, but no; You're assuming your conclusion, and your
argument is circular:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

>All better.

Well, better than your usual. But still bogus.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[Inez]

On Dec 26, 3:16�pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 12/26/2012 04:53 PM, Inez wrote:
>
> > On Dec 26, 10:04 am, Jonathan DeLong <jonathan.delon...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what would it be?
>
> > There's no such thing as magic, therefore life changes over time non-
> > magically.
>
> http://www.themysticcorner.com
>

> --
> Dale

I didn't claim there weren't stores who would sell things to people
who believe in magic.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:20:55 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com>:

>On Dec 26, 7:02�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> If there were a credible alternative explanation, you might have something.
>
>If you had any observable instances of speciation, Darwinists might
>have something.

We do. Many. A large number of which have been referenced
here.

So thanks for conceding that "Darwinists" have something.

[TomS]

"On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:29:30 -0800, in article
<i7WdnZ35BIM...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."

>
>On 12/26/12 9:20 PM, prawnster wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 7:02 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> If there were a credible alternative explanation, you might have something.
>>
>> If you had any observable instances of speciation, Darwinists might
>> have something.
>

>I see you have produced no credible alternative explanation. I'm
>supposing that's because you have nothing. In other posts you have just
>said "common design", and I'm not surprised you're unwilling to defend that.
>
>There are of course observable instances of speciation. But I don't see
>the relevance. Are you claiming that speciation never happens? The
>nested hierarchy is itself excellent evidence that it does, even if we
>had no directly observed examples.
>

As you said, what we're getting is a frantic attempt to change the point:
there is no alternative to evolution. I'd note that, while there are
observable instances of speciation, we don't even know what it would be
like to observe "intelligent design" taking place. In the by-now famous
question, what is an example of something *not* "intelligently designed"?

And, although this is a distraction from that point about so-called
"intelligent design", even "Answers in Genesis" has something to say
about speciation: It's on their list of

Arguments that should never be used
8. No new _species have been produced
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use>


--
---Tom S.

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:04:53 -0800 (PST), Jonathan DeLong

<jonathan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what would it be?

A: "Go to school!"

> Creationists: If you could make only one argument for Creationism, what would it be?

A: "Go to hell!"

> I only ask that the replies be based in science and evidence be in favor of your side, not attacks on the other.


--
Nemo me impune lacessit.
"He might say he's a comedian but deep down he knows [Desertphile] is a
very seriously deranged individual." --- Alarmist "falcon"

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:36:26 -0800 (PST), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 27, 7:41�am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> [...]
>> DNA is not a language; at best it is a code. I suggest you look up the
>> criteria for "language". I had to do so long ago when I wrote a paper
>> about language in non-humans. DNA fails on virtually all points. No
>> syntax; no grammar; no parts of speech like verbs or nouns.
>>
>
>I'm with you. Now, check this out:
>All known codes were intelligently designed; DNA and RNA are codes;
>thus, all life based on DNA/RNA was intelligently designed.
>
>All better.

Try this: DNA and RNA are self-organizing codes. Thus all known codes
are not intelligently designed.

What you forgot to do was to bury your assumptions in BS.

[jillery]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:20:55 -0800 (PST), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 26, 7:02�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> If there were a credible alternative explanation, you might have something.
>
>If you had any observable instances of speciation, Darwinists might
>have something.

Apparently you disagree that Darwinists have observed instances of
speciation. Perhaps you would describe what an instance of speciation
that satisifes you should look like?

[Ray Martinez]

On Dec 26, 8:27�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:47:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>
> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >On Dec 26, 10:28�am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:04:53 -0800 (PST), Jonathan DeLong
>

> >> <jonathan.delon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what would it be?
>

> >> Simplified description of The Nested Hierarchy:
>
> >> If Descent with Modification (DwM) is true then all organisms share a
> >> common biological ancestor. �For closely related species the ancestor is
> >> near in time and for more distantly related species the common ancestor
> >> will be further back in time. �Since characteristics are inherited and
> >> (according to evolution) gradually added, lost, or modified; the DwM
> >> model predicts the following pattern of shared inherited
> >> characteristics:
>
> >> 1) closely related organisms will share almost all their
> >> characteristics.
>
> >> 2) more distantly related organisms will share somewhat fewer
> >> characteristics
>
> >> 3) the most distantly related organisms will share the fewest number of
> >> characteristics in common, and those characteristics will tend to be the
> >> most fundamental (difficult to change without rendering offspring
> >> nonfunctional)
>
> >> - further modified characteristics in closely related (sexually
> >> reproducing) species will invariably be modified versions of existing
> >> characteristics from within that group.
>
> >> This pattern of shared and inherited characteristics is exactly what we
> >> see in organisms living today. �Since it is a necessary consequence of
> >> descent with modification as described by evolution we see the clearest
> >> image that is theoretically possible of evolution at work.
>
> >> For the visually oriented I found a couple of diagrams which outline a
> >> tiny section of the tree of common descent:
>
> >>http://understandingscience.whirl-i-gig.com//media/2/85597_evo_resour...
>
> >>http://www.freethoughtdebater.org/images/cladogram.gif
>
> >> To the best of my knowledge this pattern of descent with modification of
> >> shared inherited characteristics cannot be explained by any other model
> >> except as something like an amazing coincidence or deliberate deception
> >> by a creator with inexplicable motives (which is not an explanation).
> >> Can anyone provide a coherent explanation for the nested hierarchy other
> >> than common descent?

>
> >> --
> >> � Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
> >> � �I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
>

> >This particular reply *assumes* the discovery of similarity, and
> >patterns of similarity, means evolution (connected species) has
> >occurred. The only problem (and a huge one at that) is assumption is
> >not evidence.
>
> Why don't you recognize that your assumption of design is not
> evidence?

We see or observe design (it's intuitive). We explain what is seen as
corresponding to the work of an invisible Designer.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Dec 26, 8:28�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Moreover, the above explication is concerned with alleged effects. The
> > question posed in the OP was

>
> > "If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what
> > would it be?"
>

> > The theory of (how) evolution (occurs) is concerned with causation.
>
> Which is known. �Evolution happens by the accumulation of small changes
> in the genetic make up of a population over many generations.
>
> > So
> > the above "explication" offers zero evidence supporting the ToE.
>
> What evidence supporting the theory of evolution would you accept?
>
> DJT

"ToE" means "the theory of how evolution occurs." So, your burden is
to provide evidence supporting the existence of natural (non-
supernatural) causation.

Ray

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:23:21 -0700, Desertphile
<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:04:53 -0800 (PST), Jonathan DeLong
><jonathan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what would it be?
>
>A: "Go to school!"
>
>> Creationists: If you could make only one argument for Creationism, what would it be?
>
>A: "Go to hell!"

Pithy and powerful. I like it!

[Ray Martinez]

On Dec 26, 8:32 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/26/12 7:47 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 10:28 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:04:53 -0800 (PST), Jonathan DeLong
>

> >> <jonathan.delon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what would it be?
>

> > This particular reply *assumes* the discovery of similarity, and
> > patterns of similarity, means evolution (connected species) has
> > occurred.
>

> No.  The discovery of the patterns of genetic and anatomical similarity
> are predictions of evolutionary theory.  It's not an assumption, but
> what one would expect to see if evolution had happened.

You've restated the fact euphemistically; replacing "assumption" with
"prediction."

And where did you obtain the idea that discovery of similarity means
evolution has occurred (past tense)? Darwin, perhaps? Why can't said
discovery support the work of *one* Divine Mastermind?

> > The only problem (and a huge one at that) is assumption is
> > not evidence.
>

> The findings are what one would expect to find if evolution had
> happened.  That is evidence.   It's not an assumption.
>
> DJT

The evidence of similarity discovery assumes occurrence. Whether you
call it an "expectation" or "prediction" all we are talking about is
existence of similarity. In and by itself "similarity" does not
support or identify an agent of causation. Therefore the belief that
discovery of similarity means evolution has occurred is an assumption.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Dec 26, 8:37 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/26/12 8:03 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 12:41 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@imm.cnrs.fr>
> > wrote:

> >> On 2012-12-26 18:04:53 +0000, Jonathan DeLong said:
>
> >>> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of
> >>> Evolution, what would it be?
>

> >> Your question appears to be based on a misconception. The theory of
> >> evolution is not based on "one argument". It is based on a huge body of
> >> coherent evidence. Although Darwin called his book "one long argument"
> >> it actually contained a whole body of argument, even then.

>
> >>> Creationists: If you could make only one argument for Creationism, what
> >>> would it be?
>

> >>> I only ask that the replies be based in science and evidence be in
> >>> favor of your side, not attacks on the other.
>

> >> That is also based on a misconception. Nothing the creationists say is
> >> "based in science", as you put it. If they had any scientific evidence
> >> we'd have heard it by now.
>
> >> --
> >> athel
>
> > We, of course, completely disagree.
>
> You may disagree, but you would be wrong.   Since you don't have any
> rational basis for your disagreement, why should anyone take it
> seriously?
>
>
>
> > With a new year rapidly approaching, one could only hope that this
> > will be the year that the Evolutionists will finally produce some
> > evidence supporting their theory.
>
> There is a massive amount of evidence supporting evolution. For example,
> the presence of variation in a population is just one tiny bit of this
> evidence.  You simply refuse to accept any evidence that supports
> evolution, as you'd then have to admit you are wrong.   You can, of
> course prove that I'm mistaken here.  All you have to do is tell what
> evidence you would accept for evolution.
>
>    So, Ray, what you would you accept as evidence of evolution?   What
> finding, in your opinion, would convince you that evolution had indeed
> taken place?
>
>    DJT

I've answered this question many times; once again:

Any evidence supporting the existence of natural (non-supernatural)
causation.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Dec 26, 8:41 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/26/12 7:25 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On Dec 26, 10:04 am, Jonathan DeLong <jonathan.delon...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:

> >> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what would it be?
>

> >> Creationists: If you could make only one argument for Creationism, what would it be?
>

> > Paley's Watchmaker based solely on appearance of design (which
> > logically implies the work of invisible Intelligence/Designer).
>
> As I've explained to you, many times, the appearance of design does not
> imply the work of a designer, visible or not.   It only implies that
> humans are hard wired to see "design".    It's a logical fallacy to
> assume a designer when all one sees is an appearance of design.   Your
> "argument" is based on a particularly old, and rusty logical fallacy.

Contradictions and illogic galore.

The only issue: why can't the author see it?

Answer: One is only obligated to point out that the author is a
Evolutionist.

> >> I only ask that the replies be based in science and evidence be in favor of your side, not attacks on the other.
>

> > Darwin said "Natural Theology" was one of only four works that
> > contributed to the education of his mind in college (the other three
> > being Paley's "Moral Philosophy," "Evidences of Christianity," and
> > Euclidean geometry (Autobio: 59).
>
> Which is not evidence that your "argument" above has any validity.
>
> DJT

Just the opposite is true.

The point is: there was a time in history where Paley's view was the
accepted scientific view, which wholly satisfies the request made in
the OP in behalf of Creationism.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Dec 26, 9:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 12/26/12 7:28 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 7:17 pm, TomS<TomS_mem...@newsguy.com>  wrote:
> >> "On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:47:15 -0800 (PST), in article
> >> <654e8fb0-ca40-4542-8290-0e3f6da40...@pp8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> >> Martinez stated..."

>
> >>> On Dec 26, 10:28 am, Friar Broccoli<elia...@gmail.com>  wrote:

> >>>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:04:53 -0800 (PST), Jonathan DeLong

>
> >>>> <jonathan.delon...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>>> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of
> >>>> Evolution, what would it be?
>

> >>> occurred. The only problem (and a huge one at that) is assumption is
> >>> not evidence.
>
> >> Think of it as an argument from complexity.
>
> >> The tree of life has a pattern of extreme complexity. Far more
> >> complex than a watch on a heath, more complex than the vertebrate
> >> eye, more complex than the periodic table. Moreover, the pattern
> >> makes repeated predictions about what will be found, about new
> >> forms of life that are discovered and about new structures in
> >> life, so it is "specified complexity" in that it is not subject
> >> to the "Texas marksman" fallacy.
>
> >> Therefore, this pattern demands an explanation. It cannot be
> >> accounted for by chance.
>
> > Agreed.
>
> > But the only other option beside chance is design.

>
> Why would a designer create a nested hierarchy that exactly mimics the
> pattern expected from common descent?

You are asking: Why was a specific pattern created?

Answer: To indicate the work of *one* Divine *Mastermind.* (There are
other answers as well.)

Where did you obtain the idea that said pattern supports common
descent (as opposed to a preceding and/or on-going act of creation)?

The only possible answer is: the assumptions and requirements of your
interpretive philosophy.

> > Do you now see the importance of establishing cause (as Darwin did)?
> > Evolution is different (and I'm also talking to you John Harshman).
>
> If you're talking to me, it would be better to do it in a reply to me. I
> agree it's important to establish cause. But it isn't necessary to
> establish cause in order to know that a phenomenon exists.

Until cause is identified, the question (has evolution occurred?) is
being begged. Note that JH has no confidence at all in natural
selection. This is why he must maintain evolution can be known to
occur absent cause. The point here: Dr Harshman's biological thought
is not mainstream. Any mainstream worker would immediately interject
the facticity of natural selection----none would argue as JH has
("[I]t isn't necessary to establish cause in order to know that a
phenomenon exists").

I can rightly cite John Harshman's views as evidence against the
scientific veracity of Darwinism.

: )

> > Until a natural cause is identified, the pattern is created, evidence
> > supporting the work of *one* Divine Mastermind.
>
> Why?

Because "independent creation" of "each species" was the majority view
before Darwin published (Darwin, "On The Origin" 1859:6; London: John
Murray).

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Dec 26, 9:10 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> > Moreover, the above explication is concerned with alleged effects. The
> > question posed in the OP was
>

> > "If you could only make one argument for the Theory of Evolution, what
> > would it be?"
>

> > The theory of (how) evolution (occurs) is concerned with causation. So

> > the above "explication" offers zero evidence supporting the ToE.
>

> We can all agree that if you stick several extra words into a sentence
> you can make it mean something else. So?

A doctor of evolutionary biology who doesn't know what "ToE" means?

Are you joking?

Ray

[jonathan]

"Jonathan DeLong" <jonathan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:96444448-eea6-44cb...@googlegroups.com...

> Evolutionists: If you could only make one argument for the Theory of
> Evolution, what would it be?
>

> Creationists: If you could make only one argument for Creationism, what
> would it be?

"Two lengths have every day.
It's absolute extent
And area superior
By hope or heaven lent."


Has is occurred to anyone that all visible order is the product of both?
Both camps, science and religion, or the deterministic and
the mysterious, or the objective and subjective....represent
different halves of creation/evolution.

Part properties and Emergent system behavior.

The two great camps of reality are not merely opposites in scale.
One is a thing, the other a behavior. Apples and oranges.

Each incomplete with the other. Complexity is the source
not the simplicity each opposing camp hopelessly believes
can and should be found.

Evolution and creation are best understood by looking
at the famous Mona-Lisa smile. When one can't tell
which opposite dominates, when neither camp can
be defined, is the great attractor.

From nothing, the enigmatic smile, as if by magic, producing
spontaneous cyclic order and relentless hill-climbing.

Creation and evolution!


Jonathan



"I Died for beauty, but was scarce
Adjusted in the tomb,
When one who died for truth was lain
In an adjoining room.

He questioned softly why I failed?
"For beauty," I replied.
"And I for truth,-the two are one;
We brethren are," he said.

And so, as kinsmen met a night,
We talked between the rooms,
Until the moss had reached our lips,
And covered up our names."




By E Dickinson


s

[John Harshman]

Do any of the other answers make more sense than that one? How does
human similarity to chimpanzees, and after that to gorillas, and after
that to orangutans, etc., demonstrate the work of a mastermind of any sort?

> Where did you obtain the idea that said pattern supports common
> descent (as opposed to a preceding and/or on-going act of creation)?

Because it's the predicted and obvious outcome from a process of common
descent, but not of anything else.

> The only possible answer is: the assumptions and requirements of your
> interpretive philosophy.

As you can see, that isn't the only possible answer.

>>> Do you now see the importance of establishing cause (as Darwin did)?
>>> Evolution is different (and I'm also talking to you John Harshman).
>>
>> If you're talking to me, it would be better to do it in a reply to me. I
>> agree it's important to establish cause. But it isn't necessary to
>> establish cause in order to know that a phenomenon exists.
>
> Until cause is identified, the question (has evolution occurred?) is
> being begged. Note that JH has no confidence at all in natural
> selection. This is why he must maintain evolution can be known to
> occur absent cause. The point here: Dr Harshman's biological thought
> is not mainstream. Any mainstream worker would immediately interject
> the facticity of natural selection----none would argue as JH has
> ("[I]t isn't necessary to establish cause in order to know that a
> phenomenon exists").

Your ability to understand my motivations or the response of any other
person is exceeding poor.

> I can rightly cite John Harshman's views as evidence against the
> scientific veracity of Darwinism.
>
> : )

I presume from that smiley that your remark was facetious, so I won't
tell you how stupid it was.

>>> Until a natural cause is identified, the pattern is created, evidence
>>> supporting the work of *one* Divine Mastermind.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because "independent creation" of "each species" was the majority view
> before Darwin published (Darwin, "On The Origin" 1859:6; London: John
> Murray).

That isn't an argument.

[John Harshman]

You might consider the possibility that I do know what it means but you
don't.

[jillery]

The reason you are asked this question many times is because you keep
posting the same non-answer. What would that evidence look like,
which you would accept as evidence supporting the existence of natural
causation?

[jillery]

*You* explain design that way. Normal people do not. They make a
distinction between human-caused patterns and self-organizing
patterns.

[Dana Tweedy]

Sorry, Ray, this is not Opposite Day.

> The point is: there was a time in history where Paley's view was the
> accepted scientific view, which wholly satisfies the request made in
> the OP in behalf of Creationism.
>

Ray, as explained to you over and over, Paley's religious apologetics
were never a scientific view.

That Darwin mentioned reading Paley's book does not make it
scientific. It remains as it always was, a religious belief.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

How about providing a rational answer this time?

>
> Any evidence supporting the existence of natural (non-supernatural)
> causation.

And what exactly would you consider evidence of natural causation?
To a scientist, all "causation" is natural, even if that scientist
believes there is a supernatural being behind it all.

Perhaps you could give an example of something that you would consider
to have been caused by a natural process? If you claim there is no
such process, then you'd have to admit evolution is a "supernatural"
process as well.

DJT

[Friar Broccoli]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:20:17 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Dec 26, 8:32 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

....

>> The findings are what one would expect to find if evolution had
>> happened.  That is evidence.   It's not an assumption.
>>
>> DJT
>
>The evidence of similarity discovery assumes occurrence. Whether you
>call it an "expectation" or "prediction" all we are talking about is
>existence of similarity. In and by itself "similarity" does not
>support or identify an agent of causation. Therefore the belief that
>discovery of similarity means evolution has occurred is an assumption.

An example similarity might help you understand:

*ALL* vertebrates (from chimps to deep sea sharks) without any known
exceptions are similar in having an inverted retina (as well as
vertebra), while no known Arthropod (from crabs to insects) or Gastropod
(from Octopus to slugs) has a similar vision structure.

From a function/design point of view this type of similarity is
incoherent, but it is a clear example of the descent with modification
model.

[Dana Tweedy]

There are several theories combined into what is sometimes referred to
as the theory of evolution. A theory in science describes and
coordinates a set of observations. One of those observations is that
species change over time. Another is that species produce a natural
nested hierarchy, which strongly indicates common descent.

The explanation of how evolution works is by variation and selection
over generations.

> So, your burden is
> to provide evidence supporting the existence of natural (non-
> supernatural) causation.
>

To science, all causation is natural, as there is no other "causation"
that can be studied. The default position in science is that the
natural world exists, and that only testable causes may be proposed.
This holds whether or not the individual scientist believes there is a
supernatural being behind the natural causes. The burden of proof is
on those who claim supernatural interaction with the natural world.

But you are claiming not just that there is no natural causation, but
that there is no change in the genetic make up of species at all.
Whether or not the ultimate cause of the change in species is natural,
the fact remains that species are not fixed. They change by a process
of variations accumulating in populations isolated from other members
of the same species.

So, my question remains unanswered. Whatever the supposed cause,
natural ,or supernatural, what evidence supporting the theory of

[Dana Tweedy]

It's not a euphonium, it's an entirely different idea. Scientific
theories don't make assumptions, they make testable predictions.
Only with methodological naturalism can any idea permit predictions.

>
> And where did you obtain the idea that discovery of similarity means
> evolution has occurred (past tense)?

Not only in past tense, but in the present, and ongoing tense. The
pattern of similarity is found in divergent species. It's not just
similarity, but the differences as well. If all life were the exact
same form, that would be evidence against evolution. That life is
diverse, but shares similarities that can only be rationally explained
by common descent is strong evidence that evolution has not only
happened in the past, but is still happening.

> Darwin, perhaps? Why can't said
> discovery support the work of *one* Divine Mastermind?

Because it would not be a rational explanation. There is no reason a
single designer would retain similarities that make no functional
sense. For example, why would a creature that lives its life in the
sea have lungs, that require it to surface at regular intervals? Why
would that creature's genetic make up most closely resemble land
dwelling species with cloven hooves? Why are there dozens of species
of those sea dwelling creatures, all with the same basic body and
genetic structures, but are different?

Moreover, there is no physical evidence of such a being. There is no
way to determine its presence, or absence. Assuming the presence of
such a being, when there is a perfectly good explanation which is
testable, and can be observed is unnecessary. No one will stop you if
you choose to believe in this being but it can't be a scientific
explanation.

>
> > > The only problem (and a huge one at that) is assumption is
> > > not evidence.
>
> > The findings are what one would expect to find if evolution had
> > happened.  That is evidence.   It's not an assumption.
>
> > DJT
>
> The evidence of similarity discovery assumes occurrence.

No, the discovery of similarity among vastly divergent forms is a
strong indication that those forms are linked by common descent. no
known designer builds in similarities when they are sub optimal or
even non functional.

> Whether you
> call it an "expectation" or "prediction" all we are talking about is
> existence of similarity.

Yes, patterns of similarity within divergent creatures. The only
rational, testable, and falsifiable explanation is common descent with
modifications.

>. In and by itself "similarity" does not
> support or identify an agent of causation.

Which is why it's the patterns of similarity among divergent groups
that indicate common descent, not just similarity. Common descent
causes similar structures, and similar DNA among divergent species.
It is the only process known that does.

> Therefore the belief that
> discovery of similarity means evolution has occurred is an assumption.

Now Ray, that's a non sequitur. Your "therefore" does not follow
from you premises. Te discovery of similarities among diverse species
is a strong indication of common descent. Since evolution is known
to,produce divergence, it explains why these diverse creatures became
diverse, while common descent explains why they retain similarities.
A "divine mastermind" can only be assumed, and never tested, or
falsified. That makes proposing such a being useless as an explanation

DJT

>
> Ray

[Ernest Major]

In message
<209ec0f6-732e-4bfe...@t6g2000pba.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes

As occasionalism is a position not subject to empirical refutation I
infer that the above is a euphemism for "none".
>
>Ray
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[TomS]

"On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 21:56:44 -0800 (PST), in article
<4f3ec925-d10e-4524...@oi3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Dana Tweedy
stated..."

>
>On Dec 27, 5:20 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...snip...]

>> Darwin, perhaps? Why can't said
>> discovery support the work of *one* Divine Mastermind?
>
>Because it would not be a rational explanation. There is no reason a
>single designer would retain similarities that make no functional
>sense. For example, why would a creature that lives its life in the
>sea have lungs, that require it to surface at regular intervals? Why
>would that creature's genetic make up most closely resemble land
>dwelling species with cloven hooves? Why are there dozens of species
>of those sea dwelling creatures, all with the same basic body and
>genetic structures, but are different?

FWIW, I find the problem with "Divine Masterminds" is not that it is
unlikely that they would form all of these things, but that they
could do anything at all (unless one puts some limitations on them).

Why wouldn't they make any of the creatures of mythology? Why would
they restrict life to certain kinds of molecules - why not compounds
of helium or plutonium? The hypothesis that things are "intelligently
designed" doesn't serve as a replacement for common descent with
modification because it doesn't tell us "why this, rather than
something else".

>
>Moreover, there is no physical evidence of such a being. There is no
>way to determine its presence, or absence. Assuming the presence of
>such a being, when there is a perfectly good explanation which is
>testable, and can be observed is unnecessary. No one will stop you if
>you choose to believe in this being but it can't be a scientific
>explanation.

[...snip...]

It doesn't serve as an explanation, scientific or otherwise.

If someone asks about the origins of the infield fly rule in baseball,
it doesn't help at all to say that it is intelligently designed. Of
course it is intelligently designed, but there has to be more said
in order to explain it. Why is the distance from the plate to the
mound 60 feet 6 inches? "Intelligent design" doesn't explain that,
because the intelligent designers of baseball could have decided on
60 feet. (BTW, the Wikipedia article on "Baseball field", under
"History" says, "The very specific pitching distance of 60 feet 6
inches is one of those sports oddities that seems like a mistake
unless one considers the history". This makes one think of an
analogy to evolution. Did Gould, who was a baseball fan, ever write
about this?)


--
---Tom S.

[TomS]

"On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:09:49 +0000, in article
<vnakvFK9...@meden.invalid>, Ernest Major stated..."

I don't pay much attention to Ray, but that last sentence of his got
my attention. Is that to be taken with respect to any science? How
about the atomic explanation of chemical reactions?


--
---Tom S.

[Ernest Major]

In message <366697904.000...@drn.newsguy.com>, TomS
<TomS_...@newsguy.com> writes

I'm not convinced that Ray has a coherent position, but he seems to hold
that atomic theory does not exclude occasionalism, but that the theory
of evolution does. (The last is Ray's pet strawman - it's perfectly
possibly to be an occasionalist-evolutionist.) But Ray does deny in some
instances that God did things as described by the theory of evolution.
For example he claims that new species are produced from a clay-like
ground, rather than with genealogical connections to preexisting
species.
--
alias Ernest Major