Imagination Is Inferred Among The Fossils

The movement of the hand and fingers of a concert pianist is an amazing sight! The necessity of coordination as well as timing in order to play such classics as Beethoven’s “Fifth Symphony” is a feat that is not accomplished by chance nor survival of the fittest. Your hand has been described as the most sophisticated tool in the human body!

It has been designed for maximum dexterity and strength in movement. The had has the ability to perform 58 different movements. These movements allow dexterity and power for a diversity of actions such as playing a piano, threading a needle, picking up a cup, building a house and so on…Modern medicine has written many journals on repairing the hand when it gets injured, but there has never been a surgical technique that has succeeded in improving the movement in a healthy hand.

So instead of just learning about genetic mechanisms and how they work in human limbs, evolutionary scientists claim this in a recent press release

“Sandy Kawano said: “The transition from fins to limbs marks the most dramatic change in orientation of the locomotor forces from contact with the ground. Using these data we can now evaluate the locomotor capabilities of numerous important fossil taxa that spanned the water-to-land transition in tetrapod evolution.”

“We hypothesise that the medial orientation of the forces on pectoral fins would result in unreasonably high bone stresses in early amphibious fish with fins, which would explain why the evolutionary invasion of land by vertebrates was accomplished instead by tetrapods with limbs with digits.”

Have you ever heard of something so silly that is claimed to be science because the conclusion of the inference is evolution? You know what I’m alluding to, right? The claim of putting a force on fins eventually turns those fins into hands. Why don’t they try a lab experiment that places a force on the fins and see if any change happens?

The imagination that occurs in evolutionary research is exceedingly high and sounds more like the occult or from a star wars movie. Quite frankly, they don’t know what they are talking about! How do they know it’s a force rather than was intelligently designed?  How do you think they can confirm that through direct evidence?

Advertisements

50 thoughts on “Imagination Is Inferred Among The Fossils

  1. Shame you are now resorting to insults, Michael (last paragraph especially).
    A few years ago you did not resort to that kind of behaviour … so what has changed in you ?

  2. The movement of the hand and fingers of a concert pianist is an amazing sight! The necessity of coordination as well as timing in order to play such classics as Beethoven’s “Fifth Symphony ….

    Michael’s credibility vaporized in the first two sentences of this post. It would indeed be amazing to watch a concert pianist in Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, because there is no piano part in that symphony..

    Michael’s ignorance extends over a wider range of subjects than we had thought.

  3. I hadn’t caught that one, Olorin … more than a little sad, but at least he did not copy that from a creationist website.

    Probably. But wouldn’t surprise me either if that was so …

    Of course you can play it on a piano if you want to (eg. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zeauxav518g )
    But this was what van Beethoven had in mind:
    piccolo, 2 flutes, 2 oboes, 2 clarinets (B♭, C), 2 bassoons, contrabassoon, 2 horns (E♭, C), 2 trumpets (C), 3 trombones, timpani, string orchestra

    No piano.

  4. Have you ever heard of something so silly that is claimed to be science because the conclusion of the inference is evolution? You know what I’m alluding to, right? The claim of putting a force on fins eventually turns those fins into hands. Why don’t they try a lab experiment that places a force on the fins and see if any change happens?

    As usual, Michael peers at evolution through the wrong end of the telescope. No wonder he can’t seem to understand it. His perspective does not allow him to understand the most basic concept of evolution.

    Evolution is not prospective, it is retrospective. An animal (or plant) does not strive toward an anatomical structure that would allow it to take advantage of an environmental opportunity. Rather, the acquisition of a new structure— by random heritable variation — allows the animal to take advantage of an environmental opportunity. Fish use fins for propulsion in a liquid. Their arrangement of bones and muscles is adapted to this function. But this structure does not allow them to exert forces in directions and amounts required to support its weight against gravity.[0] So, no ability to climb out of the water onto dry land.

    Then a variation in a hox gene — a third cycle added to the two cycles of the gene involved in fin development — produced another set of bones for wrists and digits. These lobe-fin fish could still apply the forces necessary for swimming. But the new structure also allowed them to exert enough force in the downward direction to support some of their weight out of the water. The ecological advantage of this is that it allowed them to survive during periods when the water level fell in their habitat of shallow pools. It further opened up land-based food sources not previously available, and offered protection from predators confined to deeper water

    These advantages increased the reproductive fitness of lobe-finned fish. At first, their new appendages were relatively weak, as shown in the Tiktaalik fossil. Natural selection favored this capability, so selection increased this pre-existing ability to the point that they could spend more time out of the water and enjoy the advantages of land-based living, eventually freeing themselves from an aqueous environment entirely.[1]

    Ray-finned fish never evolved fins able to support heir weight on land. Not because they didn’t “see” the advantages of dry land, nor because they didn’t try hard enough, nor from any failure of a designer, but because they happened not to have participated in a random variation that caused a certain hox gene to undergo a third cycle during their embryonic development..[2]

    Michael has been informed of his backward view of evolution so many times that his ignorance has gone over the edge into stupidity. Anyone with the least understanding of this central concept of evolution can only laugh at the absurd conclusions he draws because of this failure.

    ======================

    [0] This is precisely the result of the experiment that Michael derides in the press release he cites. The question was, Why did no ray-finned fish make it to dry land? The answer was, Because the forces this type of fin can exert does not allow it. This is analogous to a finding that cars can’t fly because the shape of their bodies cannot provide enough lift to raise them off the ground. (Actually, it can, to some degree. The reason for rear wings on some cars is to cancel this lift so as to prevent the rear wheels from losing traction with the road.)

    [1] Some — altho not Michael — may wonder about the capability for breathing air. However, lobe-fin fish reside in the category of lung fish, which already had this ability to a greater or lesser extent. The story of the transformation of fish buoyancy organs to organs for supplying oxygen is another interesting story.

    [2] Hox genes arose as a class shortly before the Cambrian explosion, and were the capability that allowed a proliferation of different body plans during that period. See Wallace Arthur, The Origin of Animal Body Plans: A Study in Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Cambridge U. Press, 2000).

  5. It has been designed for maximum dexterity and strength in movement. The ha[n]d has the ability to perform 58 different movements.

    Although creationists can perform only 57 of them.. They lack the ability to do a face-palm when proven wrong.

    Seriously, though, Michael. Pl erase provide a source listing these 58 different hand movements. I have a strong feeling that many, or even most, of these have nothing to do with the anatomy of the human hand. In fact, the source of many will turn out to be the presence of indirect neurons in the cortical motor center—that is, software rather than hardware.

    At least one movement that recently made the news involves only the shoulder anatomy, and not the hand at all. This one has its evolutionary roots in homo erectus, and is not found in earlier fossils which are definitely hominid. So it must have been added later. God’s afterthought, so to speak.

  6. Quoth Chazing:

    [the last one about imagination is a hoot].

    Why is it a hoot? An educated person would wonder why imagination could possibly be a “failing” of science.

    > Issac Newton imagined a force that attracts masses to each other. He couldn’t see it of hear it, or read about it in the Bible. He had to imagine it.
    > Albert Einstein had to imagine the curvature of space. No one can sense it directly. It is not palpable to anyone. He had to imagine it.
    > John Dalton had to imagine atoms of different elements. They could not be detected with the instruments of his day. He had to imagine them combining in fixed proportions into chemical compounds. Without imagination, he would be trapped in the world of “common sense,” things that can be directly perceived by the senses.
    > James Watt had to imagine a new type of steam engine, different from what others had built Without the imagination to envision a new thing — a condenser — he would never have increased the efficiency of steam engines to the point of practicality.
    > James Clark Maxwell had to imagine that electricity and magnetism, phenomena that had been studied separately for centuries, are in fact related to each other, and can be embraced in a common set of equations. Without this imagination, we would not have radio nor television nor lasers nor anything else that works by electromagnetic radiation.
    > August Kekulé had a dream about a snake swallowing its own tail. Because of that flight of imagination, we now have the benzene ring — and in fact all of the cyclic chemical compounds used in structural materials, fuels, synthetic rubber, many dyes, and other common materials.

    These are but a very few of the scientific discoveries and inventions powered by pure imagination. The formulation of every new theory requires imagination of something that does not exist in the world perceived by our senses.

    If the narrator of the movie trailer believes his comment, then he is against science in all its forms. He will never discover anything new about the world. Even a cave man had to IMAGINE the effect of tying a sharpened flint to a wooden shaft before he built it, because spears did not exist in nature.

    No, the narrator is the one who should be laughed at. His remark is a desperate attempt to deny reality and return to what he imagines to be the safety of his dark corner

  7. Imagination is a scientific starting point but does not apply for a theory (not hypothesis) like evolution which we are told, has overwhelming affirmative evidence. Frontier science requires imagination but established or textbook science (as evolution is supposedly) does not. Thus, if a creationist is asking an evolutionist professor (one who gets paid lots of state money to advocate and study evolution) for the strongest affirmative evidence for evolution, said professor should not accuse creationists of not having enough imaginations (sic).

    Given that at least two of Olorin’s mentioned scientists were YECs, by Olorin’s own argument he should be faulting the professor for not knowing that YECs can show imaginations. Also, the narrator is not a PhD nor a scientist so he should not be faulted if evolutionist PhDs don’t have concrete examples of macro-evolutionary changes that are testable and repeatable.

  8. Also, the narrator is not a PhD nor a scientist so he should not be faulted if evolutionist PhDs don’t have concrete examples of macro-evolutionary changes that are testable and repeatable.

    Why do you say that the biologist did not have an example of macro-evolutionary changes? Did you notice what the narrator did?

    Narrator: Give me an example of evidence for macro-evolution.
    Biologist: There are thousands of examples.
    Narrator: Well give me one of them
    BANG

    The trailer immediately cut to another scene, giving the biologist no chance to respond at all.

    Typical creationist underhanded dishonesty.

    Yet Chazing proclaims from this heavily manipulated exchange that PhDs (plural) cannot come up with any evidence for macro-evolution.

    Horse puckey. I thought engineers had to be smarter than that.

  9. Comfort has admitted that the trailer was spliced for brevity (and some creationists have pointed this out as well so that invalidates your tired claims of creationist dishonesty) but he also urges one to watch the free full movie which will give more time for the ‘experts’ to defend their position.

    I will again warn you on your broadsiding of all creationists by the works of a few (not like that is the case here). Not only is it a fallacy but it is not in keeping with Christian charity. It would be better for you to say “In my experience, this is typical creationist underhanded dishonesty.”

    I have claimed that they could not come up with “concrete examples of macro-evolutionary changes that are testable and repeatable.” This is obviously not the same as “any evidence for macro-evolution.” Should you not be smarter than that Mr. lawyer/engineer/physicist?

  10. Given that at least two of Olorin’s mentioned scientists were YECs, by Olorin’s own argument he should be faulting the professor for not knowing that YECs can show imaginations

    Really? Which ones? And what principles of the theory of special creation did they use in coming up with their discoveries or inventions?

    Today, many scientists are Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists. In what way do any of them employ the principles of their respective holy writings or religious beliefs in formulating new scientific theories, coming up with new discoveries, imagining new inventions?

    At best, religion has a neutral correlation with scientific ability. Sometimes it impacts that ability negatively. For example, Newton did not invent perturbation theory because of his belief that God periodically aligned planetary orbits to keep them from degenerating. Then Laplace came along a century later, explicitly disavowed any divine meddling, and showed that natural law was sufficient. Creationism enshrines this concept. In this post, Michael cannot understand — cannot even imagine — a basic concept of evolution, because of his religious beliefs.

  11. Newton and Maxwell were creationists. All scientists use creationist axioms such as the constancy of natural laws and designer functional intent. That does not mean that an evolutionist framework is also not consistent with those axioms. The bible is a framework not a manual, a point you refuse to consider. You also refuse to admit that you don’t have macro-evolutionary evidence that is not extrapolatory and that micro-evolutionary experimentation is consistent with creationism.

    Religion does not influence science if the axioms are unquestioned. A Buddhist or Hindu scientist operates outside of their own worldviews which view the natural world as maya or illusory. Ditto for any other religion. However, the foundation of modern science was built partially by creationists. This does not mean that creationism is correct but that it should not be presumptuously excluded. Atheists who assume the constancy of laws do so in contradiction to their own worldview as laws can evolve (or co-evolve with nature) as well, so that all logic used by atheists is based on theistic beliefs.

    At base, we need to look at the evidence and question it thoroughly. You are simply not doing that for macro-evolution for whatever reason known only to God and you. The issue is not Michael (misdirection!) but why YOU refuse to hold your evolutionary fairytale to scientific rigour. But let’s wait till the whole movie is out. I suspect that we both will have issues with Comfort’s methods though if I don’t hear an expert provide repeatable experimental macro-evolutionary evidence, I hope you will be the first to take them to task for wasting society’s money and being poor scientists.

  12. Frontier science requires imagination but established or textbook science (as evolution is supposedly) does not.

    This is of course totally false. Laughable. Ridiculous on its face.

    Every science always operates at frontiers. That’s why we call it science — discovering new things about the world we live in, whether those things are great[1] or small.[2]

    =================

    [1] Edwin Hubble, “A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 15:3:168-173 (1929)

    [2] Maddaluno, et al., “EndMT Contributes to the onset and progression of of cerebral cavernous malformations” Nature498:492-496 (2013).

  13. :) More evidence your degrees are outdated and your logic, corrupted. You just committed another fallacy. Bet you can’t figure out which one.

  14. Come now Olorin, you have so much time for Michael’s posts, review Comfort’s 30 minute movie. State where he went wrong.

  15. Roy Comfort didn’t “go wrong.” He started out wrong.

    Note especially that asking for a ‘change of kind’ is not a meaningful question, because neither Comfort nor any other creationist has reliably defined a ‘kind.’ Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that the definition changes greatly. In the 30s, any variation was a different kind. Then, as biology advanced, different species were different kinds. More recently, with the discovery of ring species, the goalposts have been moved to some vague territory of major change.

    And the definition depends upon the type of organism. Notice that the narrator keeps plugging the idea that “bacteria are still bacteria” after evolution, thus not a change in kind. Yet there are bacteria that are as different genetically and structurally from each other as humans are from bananas (another of Comfort’s favorite mockery subjects). I guess, any organism that you can’t see with the naked eye is the same as any other organism that you can’t see. Apparently creationists have not yet discovered the microscope.

    Notice also the equivocation of the word ”believe.” Faith-based religious belief and the scientists’ definition, a reasonable certainty based upon cogent evidence, are mashed together as though they were the same. Equivocation is another widespread technique among creationists. (Cf., e.g., “information.)

    You may—or may not—have also noticed some cinematographic techniques designed to make the ‘evilutionists’ appear weak and confused. To someone who knows about this stuff, it is obvious that creationists cannot deal with real scientists on a level field.

    Again, you have convinced yourself. Why is the failure rate for creationists convincing scientists upward of 99.99%? Do you care to offer a new excuse, or do you wish to stick with the well-worn conspiracy theory?

  16. I would agree that Comfort needs to be more careful at his work but since he is not a scientist, I can’t fault him too much for that. Rather, I would fault a PhD evolutionist requiring creationists to have “imaginations” to subscribe to the supposedly scientific view of macro-evolution. However, even if he does not describe a “kind,” the evolutionists failed to provide examples of the logical progression from X to Y via cumulative mutations. In that regard, they are in the same boat as you. You are creating a strawman of the word “believe” as if you have “reasonable certainty based upon cogent evidence” which you do not and the PhDs did not provide that.

    I don’t know which scientific study you are referencing for your 99.99% value and even if that were the case, that would be an appeal to authority and argumentum ad populum. But you know that already and just can’t help yourself to a fallacy, or in this case, two. Even if Comfort is wrong, he has shown that the evidence for macro-evolution is more about “imaginations” and ‘extrapolation’ rather than empiricism. Which is the point but you are too comfortable in the loving accepting embrace of a mythical 99.99%. To that end, you are just like the strawman creationists you despise in that you cannot think for yourself. Or perhaps you don’t have enough “imaginations” to see that you are wrong.

  17. [T]he evolutionists failed to provide examples of the logical progression from X to Y via cumulative mutations.

    They did not fail.. What they did not do is to provide the “repeatable lab experiment” which is impossible to provide within the time scale of human lives. This is the same as claiming that the Sun does not work by nuclear fusion because no one has dragged the Sun into a lab for a “repeatable experiment” or “direct observation.” That’s why the scientists looked confused in the film. The narrator was making ridiculous demands and merely denying the evidence without any cogent reason.. How does one deal with obtuseness like that? PZ and the others were trying hard not to laugh out loud.

    I once knew a girl in college who claimed that the sky ended two feet above her head—because that was as far as she could reach and thus observe directly. That may sound like a reasonable belief to you. But millions would disagree, considering the inferential evidence overwhelmingly against her. .

    Even if Comfort is wrong, he has shown that the evidence for macro-evolution is more about “imaginations” and ‘extrapolation’ rather than empiricism

    It takes no imagination nor wit to merely deny the tons of inferential evidence. In what specific ways is the evidence of evolution wrong? You have nothing. Nothing except an empty-headed denial of what scientists have found—and continue to find every day.

    You are peddling unadulterated horse puckey.

    =================================

    Ah. My Wendy Carlos CD is now playing the Little Fugue in G Minor on her 1960s synthesizer. It is truly amazing what she, Bob Moog, and a couple of others were able to do with such limited technology. I built my first (analog) music synthesizer in 1972, and still have it—somewhere.

  18. One can claim that macro-evolution is testable and I would agree to an extent. On what we do know, cosmological and chemical evolution is impossible. I would grant you that biological and geological evolution is possible. Thus, macro-evolution is at best, a half scientific failure. This does not mean that I am arguing for any of the alternatives, just that I will not accept something as scientific unless it can pass all areas of pertinent science and then provide testable evidence for its claims. Thus, while macro-evolution may be a possibility, it is not scientific. It is tentative or hypothetical. Ditto for creationism and all the syncretist alternatives like panspermia, ID, OEC, theistic evo and BioLogos.

    As per solar fusion:
    1. There is little contention that it is not fusion [I read of one guy saying otherwise].
    2. Solar fusion is a model, it can be proven incorrect. There are no sacred cows in science unless you are a macro-evolutionist. Then and only then you claim that macro-evolution is a fact and all alternatives by necessity are incorrect.
    3. Solar fusion does not have theological and philosophical repercussions.
    4. The fusion model’s extrapolations about the sun from its emitted light RIGHTLY assumes the CONSTANCY and CONSISTENCY of decay. Evolution cannot make said assumptions as it is variant with somewhat random mutations, multiple random environmental pressures (temperature, water, chemicals, geological formations, pressures [geological, atmospheric], organism form, past/present/transient functionality of organs, evolutionary progress, possibility of mating, survival of the fittest, EM fluctuations, gases [types, volumes, combinations, reactivity], etc), individual organism intent, perception ability, interference of one organ’s function due to problems in another, etc. Frankly, macro-evolution has too many variables for the creation of any reasonably predictive model.

  19. As for the film, PZ Myers could not have looked confused because he knows the standard creationist argument. He thus should have taken the time to explain himself better. The same problem occurs with Comfort who does not explain what is a ‘kind.’ Comfort’s apologetic methods rankles some evangelicals so I will save you having to lie that there is not criticism of his methods. If I argue that there is a pink fairy on your shoulder but it is moving too fast that you can’t detect it, you would think me crazy. Well, the claim that evolution happens too slow for us to observe it is also crazy.

    Let us assume the claim of lengthy macro-evolution. You could simply show limited macro-evolution functionality being derived from accumulated nearly neutral mutations. You could easily find the probability a la Lenski of a beneficial function derived from mutations and then have us analyze the data from said organism’s ability to survive. Where is this experiment? Have you not had over 100 years and government support? Where is your data? Even then you would have to explain how nothing can make something and non-life can make life. Biological macro-evolution rests on the foundation of cosmological and chemical evolution, so they have to be addressed first. Do proceed to enlighten us accordingly.

    It takes no imagination nor wit to merely deny the tons of inferential evidence.

    Sweet vindication. I suspect that flew over your head.
    And for the record, I don’t deny the “tons of inferential evidence.” I deny the conclusion when it is macro-evolution. Is that distinction too much for a scholarly legal/research science/engineering mind like yours?

  20. I deny the conclusion when it is macro-evolution. Is that distinction too much for a scholarly legal/research science/engineering mind like yours?

    No. It is merely selective denialism, rather than total denialism. How do I know this?

    As per solar fusion:
    1. There is little contention that it is not fusion [I read of one guy saying otherwise].
    2. Solar fusion is a model, it can be proven incorrect. There are no sacred cows in science unless you are a macro-evolutionist. Then and only then you claim that macro-evolution is a fact and all alternatives by necessity are incorrect.
    3. Solar fusion does not have theological and philosophical repercussions.
    4. The fusion model’s extrapolations about the sun from its emitted light RIGHTLY assumes the CONSTANCY and CONSISTENCY of decay.

    >Reason #3 is the real reason that you do not outright deny solar fusion.
    >As to #1: There no disagreement among scientists whatever that macro-evolution occurred, so this is not different from solar fusion.
    >Reason #2: Evolution is a model, and it has not been proven incorrect, so is no different from solar fusion in that regard.
    >Reason #4:: Macro-evolution’s extrapolations from observable evolution have been tested, and comport with the laws of physics and chemistry. How do you know that the speed of light is constant, or atomic decay rates? YECs deny both, and spend hour upon feckless hour trying t disprove them. So you admit assumptions as to fusion, but not as to evolution. Can you say “inconsistency.”.

  21. No. It is merely selective denialism, rather than total denialism.

    That is comical given that you selectively deny that experiments claimed to illustrate evolution (by showing micro-evolution) actually also support creationism.

    There no disagreement among scientists whatever that macro-evolution occurred, so this is not different from solar fusion.

    I am still waiting for the source of your 99.99% claim. I predict that you will never provide it. Perhaps it needs to big bang into existence and evolve into an actual worldwide study.

    Evolution is a model, and it has not been proven incorrect, so is no different from solar fusion in that regard.

    It takes a long time for entrenched ideas to become replaced. Macro-evolution has been shown to be inconsistent in some areas of the science we do know.

    Macro-evolution’s extrapolations from observable evolution have been tested, and comport with the laws of physics and chemistry.

    Circular reasoning, re-definition of terms and limiting of definition. Observable micro-evolution can be extrapolated to macro-evolution but is invalidated by engineering design (form and function) constraints. However, it cannot be derived from the big bang where laws were not applicable (as there was nothing for the laws to act on) or abiogenesis where non-life happens upon GRIMNER all at once.

    YECs deny both, and spend hour upon feckless hour trying t disprove them.

    What YECs do is their business. Your business as an evolutionist is to show how it is possible.

    So you admit assumptions as to fusion, but not as to evolution. Can you say “inconsistency.”.

    I do admit it and have explained why it is a valid assumption. Evolution cannot assume uniformitarianism as every aspect of the cosmos would be under evolutionary change and thus the laws (describing those changes) would also change. It’s a simple concept. Can you say “simplistic”?

  22. Evolution cannot assume uniformitarianism as every aspect of the cosmos would be under evolutionary change and thus the laws (describing those changes) would also change.

    SAY WHAT????!!!!??!!

    This one has to take the prize for non sequturs. The Olympic gold medal for faith-based illogic.

    Why in heaven’s name would evolution change the rules by which it occurs???

    Ridiculous.

  23. That is comical given that you selectively deny that experiments claimed to illustrate evolution (by showing micro-evolution) actually also support creationism.

    In the first place, that’s just not true. Tell me, for example, how Lensji’s experiment supports creationism. Ridiculous.

    Second, even if it were true, so what? Kuhn said that facts overdetermine theory, so that any set of facts is “consistent with” any number of theories. For example, Lenski’s experiment is consistent with bacterial evolution by means of morphogenetic fields that Rupert Sheldrake claims pervade the universe. Which do you think is more likely?.

  24. Face it. The only conceptual difference between evolution and solar fusion vis-à-vis your 4 criteria is #3,

    3. Solar fusion does not have theological and philosophical repercussions.

    But philosophical and theological implications are irrelevant to the truth of a physical theory.

    I am surprised that you cannot remember this basic principle.

  25. Why in heaven’s name would evolution change the rules by which it occurs???

    He stares at the pink elephant in the macro-evolutionary room and still sees nothing.

    Tell me, for example, how Lensji’s (sic) experiment supports creationism.

    I did, long ago, multiple times. If you have to ask this, it is clear that you don’t understand creationism and thus would invalidate much of your criticism.

    For example, Lenski’s experiment is consistent with bacterial evolution by means of morphogenetic fields that Rupert Sheldrake claims pervade the universe. Which do you think is more likely?.

    The one which can be empirically tested.

  26. Face it. The only conceptual difference between evolution and solar fusion vis-à-vis your 4 criteria is #3,

    Nope, you are doing the bulverism again. #3 is only to state that there are different levels of interest/debate. #4 pertains to the logic as to how your comparison is illegal. Which of course, is why you stay clear of it and focus on #3 even though #4 is 11 times longer than #3. You’re so easy to read.

    But philosophical and theological implications are irrelevant to the truth of a physical theory.

    Contradiction: if a theory is an absolute truth, then it cannot be a theory.

    Also,
    1. Philosophy cannot be divorced from theology (worldview) and
    2. Natural philosophy (sciences) cannot be divorced from philosophy.

  27. Why in heaven’s name would evolution change the rules by which it occurs???

    He stares at the pink elephant in the macro-evolutionary room and still sees nothing.

    The pink elephant is one of your delusions. Why in heaven’s name would evolution change the rules by which it occurs???

    I thought not.

    Tell me, for example, how Lensji’s (sic) experiment supports creationism.

    I did, long ago, multiple times.

    No, you did not. :Please point out your telling. Eelco, do you remember Chazing explaining why Lenski supports creationism? Michael? Anyone?

    I thought not. But I do remember requesting your qualifications in research several times, which you dodged. All we know id that you are some kind of engineer studying whether God or gravity determines when coconuts will fall from the tree.

    For example, Lenski’s experiment is consistent with bacterial evolution by means of morphogenetic fields that Rupert Sheldrake claims pervade the universe. Which do you think is more likely?.

    The one which can be empirically tested.

    It can be tested as much as special creation can. Actually more; a couple brave souls actually tried it. Results of course were negatory. Can you devise a test with observable results for creation by fiat?

    I thought not Last time I asked, you claimed that special creation could not be tested experimentally at all, because … because… well. just because.

  28. But philosophical and theological implications are irrelevant to the truth of a physical theory.

    Contradiction: if a theory is an absolute truth, then it cannot be a theory.

    Go back to remedial philosophy of science 01. Why would anyone think that a scientific theory is an absolute truth?

    I thought not.

    Nope, you are doing the bulverism again. #3 is only to state that there are different levels of interest/debate.

    The why was it listed equally with the other 3 as a reason why the theory of solar fusion differs from the theory of evolution, the others all dealing the truth of falsity of evolution?

    I thought not. You are guilty of nonparallelism.

    Nope, you are doing the bulverism again. #3 is only to state that there are different levels of interest/debate.

    You should look up the term “bulversism” again. It does not mean whatever you want it to mean at the moment. Or is it a term like “liberal” that Michael hurls at anything he disagrees with?

    I thought so.

  29. Olorin: “Eelco, do you remember Chazing explaining why Lenski supports creationism? ”

    Nope …

  30. I thought not.

    Yup, you didn’t think.

    But I do remember requesting your qualifications in research several times, which you dodged.

    I did not dodge the question, I said it was fallacious like most of your comments.

    All we know id (sic) that you are some kind of engineer studying whether God or gravity determines when coconuts will fall from the tree.

    I wonder what type of engineer that would be?

    Can you devise a test with observable results for creation by fiat?

    Are you confirming that you are an atheist? Why would a Lutheran have issue with creation by fiat?

    I thought not Last time I asked, you claimed that special creation could not be tested experimentally at all, because … because… well. just because.

    Here’s that research experience speaking. The specific initial event cannot be replicated. Have you asked your evo brothers to replicate the big bang or abiogenesis? Perhaps, you also ‘didn’t think’ to ask them.

  31. Go back to remedial philosophy of science 01. Why would anyone think that a scientific theory is an absolute truth?

    Contradiction: if it is not absolute then it is not a truth.

    I thought not.

    I would agree with you here, you again didn’t think. I suspect you are incapable of logical thought.

    You are guilty of nonparallelism.

    Fine, you are definitely guilty of being incapable of logical thought.

    You should look up the term “bulversism” again.

    The word, dear illogical Olorin, is BULVERISM. Perhaps you looked up another word.

  32. That was a conclusion.

    Olorin does not need any help, obviously. You’re mostly shooting yourself in the foot …

  33. All we know id (sic) that you are some kind of engineer studying whether God or gravity determines when coconuts will fall from the tree.

    I wonder what type of engineer that would be?

    It’s rather obvious. A nutty engineer.

  34. But I do remember requesting your qualifications in research several times, which you dodged.

    I did not dodge the question, I said it was fallacious like most of your comments.

    It was not a question, it was a request. And a request cannot be “fallacious.”

    In any event, you have never provided any qualifications in your background or education as to your knowledge of research science.

    Therefore, you remain a poseur, a blagueur, a saltimbanque, whose opinions carry no more weight than the fleeting elections they are written on.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The system is now playing “Reflections on Bach,” wherein jazz pianist offers his interpretations of Bach fugues. There are a lot a these around. “Bach on Abbey Road” interprets in the style of the Beatles. The Swingle Singers have several recordings of vocalized Bach keyboard works (and Mozart, and Beethoven, etc.) We heard a Tongan ukulele player, Taimane Gardner, do a Bach repertoire in Maui — she used an 8-string uke, which I had never seen before. (She was from O’ahu, but quite a few Tongans live on Maui.). You can listen to her on YouTube.

  35. Therefore, you remain a poseur, a blagueur, a saltimbanque, whose opinions carry no more weight than the fleeting elections they are written on.

    You have contradicted yourself as it is clear that your ‘request’ is for ad hominem.

  36. You have contradicted yourself as it is clear that your ‘request’ is for ad hominem.

    No, the request was not for ad hominem; you have already given us plenty of that. The request was for qualifications, for some basis for credibility. Which you have not given us.

  37. We are also waiting for any reasoning behind your egregious opinion that Lenski supports creationism. We may have to wait forever while Chazing makes something up.

  38. Since you know your way around YEC sites and can hopefully use a search engine, there is no need for me to remake the wheel.

    Also, are you admitting that you are ignorant about one of the most basic YEC views by asking this question? If you are, we can dismiss much of what you have stated on this entire site thus far.

  39. What topic does your last comment relate to? Which question are you referring to?

    Meanwhile, of course, we await your qualifications to expound upon the subject of research science and how it is conducted.

  40. If your comment was intended to avoid giving evidence that Lenski supports creationism, then you are mistaken.

    I have reviewed creationist sites since the Lenski results were published,[1] and hive found no specific positive evidence whatever Lenski’s work supports creationism or ID. Several,, including Michael Behe, have claimed that Lenski’s E.Coli did not demonstrate evolution, and that this in itself is evidence for ID.

    Of course, that claim is a transparent false dichotomy. That Michael Behe said it shows his desperation. Even if Behe were correct that Lenski was not “evolution” in the field where Behe moved the goalposts to, that does not constitute evidence FOR or support of, creationism/ID.

    In fact, Behe gets himself hoist on his own petard. He claims that evolution requires a gain in information,[2] and that Lenski’s bugs suffered an information LOSS. Yet a cornerstone of ID is that design entails a GAIN of information. So he is in effect trying to persuade us that Lenski’s LOSS of information is evidence for design! Can you say BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA.

    Behe ran into this problem in the Kttzmiller trial as well, when a number of his answers on cross-examination tended to contradict the principles he was espousing for design

    So, Chazing, the field is still wide open. No one has yet given any specific reason or evidence that Lenski supports creationism. Far from remaking the wheel, you have a golden opportunity to invent the wheel. We await your evidence with unabated breath..

    ===========

    [1] The incident with Andrew Schlafly’s’ demand for Lenski’s raw data was especially entertaining. (This is the same guy who claims that black holes are a liberal conspiracy, and that Jesus invented comedy.)

    [2] Which is false, of course.

  41. I have reviewed creationist sites since the Lenski results were published,[1] and hive found no specific positive evidence whatever Lenski’s work supports creationism or ID.

    Here’s the thing about that. If you were conversant about the YEC and ID worldviews as you pretend to be, you would not need to ask me for evidence or look for any. And since you have presented faulty evidence for macro-evolution but refuse to see it as faulty, there is no reason to assume that you COULD even see a positive case for YEC as legitimate.

    He claims that evolution requires a gain in information,[2] and that Lenski’s bugs suffered an information LOSS. Yet a cornerstone of ID is that design entails a GAIN of information. So he is in effect trying to persuade us that Lenski’s LOSS of information is evidence for design! Can you say BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA.

    Should you be laughing at your fellow theistic evolutionist like that? Or would you like to finally come out of the atheistic closet?

    So, Chazing, the field is still wide open. No one has yet given any specific reason or evidence that Lenski supports creationism. Far from remaking the wheel, you have a golden opportunity to invent the wheel. We await your evidence with unabated breath..

    First answer ALL the questions I have directed your way which you dismissed. Then and only then will I waste my pearls before your porky intellect.

    The incident with Andrew Schlafly’s’ demand for Lenski’s raw data was especially entertaining.

    Yes it was, because despite his antics, he is right. If a uni lecturer is doing research with public funds, the data set should be available even if someone will interpret it incorrectly.

    Which is false, of course.

    Right again, it requires a NET gain of information with strongly correlated, punctuated, intermediate gains of NOVEL functionality.

  42. Here’s the thing about that. If you were conversant about the YEC and ID worldviews as you pretend to be, you would not need to ask me for evidence or look for any

    You’re right, of course. I already know there is no evidence. So I’m really just rubbing your face in the lack of evidence.

    And since you have presented faulty evidence for macro-evolution but refuse to see it as faulty, there is no reason to assume that you COULD even see a positive case for YEC as legitimate.

    The whole problem here is that creationists seem to have a totally different idea as to what constitutes evidence than scientists do. So why don’t you simply let creationism be a faith-based concept, and stop trying to dragoon science in as a masquerade.[1]

    As to whether I could recognize positive evidence for creationism, you could always try and see. So far, you refuse even to try.

    Should you be laughing at your fellow theistic evolutionist like that? Or would you like to finally come out of the atheistic closet?

    You have said this several times, but it still makes no sense.

    First answer ALL the questions I have directed your way which you dismissed.

    Ah, the ultimate cop-out. I am no longer in doubt that you are completely unable to come up with anything at all. That you are all foam and no beer.[2]

    Yes it was, because despite his antics, he is right. If a uni lecturer is doing research with public funds, the data set should be available even if someone will interpret it incorrectly.

    No, the humorous part was that all the evidence was available, but Schlafly didn’t know enough to even identify it Nor did he have any equipment with which he could evaluate the evidence. Plus, the government looks askance at sending potentially hazardous materials to people who have not the vaguest clue as to how to store or handle them properly.

    Right again, it requires a NET gain of information with strongly correlated, punctuated, intermediate gains of NOVEL functionality.

    Again, false. Where do you pick up these ridiculous ideas?

    .

    This is becoming tiring. You have not advanced your argument at all, and demonstrated an abysmal lack of understanding of the subject matter. If you would tell us your qualifications, at least we might understand why this is the case.

    =====================

    {1] Actually, I do know why. Because the cloak of Science lends an air of respectability to your theory of the world. If you claim creationism as a purely religious theory, most people would laugh in your face.

    [2] I did answer a lot of your questions, but you did not accept the answers. That’s your fault, not mine. Also, many of your questions were repetitious and/or meaningless.

  43. You have said this several times, but it still makes no sense.

    Cognitive dissonance but consistent with your ignorance on topics on which you pontificate.

    Ah, the ultimate cop-out. I am no longer in doubt that you are completely unable to come up with anything at all. That you are all foam and no beer.

    Whatever you wish.

    No, the humorous part was that all the evidence was available, but Schlafly didn’t know enough to even identify it Nor did he have any equipment with which he could evaluate the evidence.

    Did he want petri dishes or raw data?

    Again, false. Where do you pick up these ridiculous ideas?

    This would be logical implicit conclusions of macro-evolution. Again, a drunk amoeba with some effort could figure this out.

    If you would tell us your qualifications, at least we might understand why this is the case.

    Olorin, asking for qualification is ad hominem. You, for instance, are not qualified in evolutionary biology. Nor is Eelco AFAIK. If you and Eelco are researchers, then something is clearly wrong with the current state of research methodology.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s