Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

[ativan]

It predicts that diversity in inheritable traits will increase over time.

As to the second part of your question, through a variety of means. Reproduction, mutations, gene exchange, etc.

You can't really answer that question since i don't think opus' theory is about Darwinism (the hypothesis that you share). My question to him is about his theory and not yours. If it turns out that you both have same theory then we all can talk about your common theory. I'm glad though to listen to your own theories.

What you have just answered is way separated from science. You saying that it is enough to have materials and tools to convert F1 into F2. Think again and answer my first question seriously. I can claim same way that ID predicts every single finding we find. Details please.

Oh good grief. 

Exactly. And that is a mystery to me. How a man can call his theory scientific when his answer to real question is "Oh good grief"? That's another "Oh good grief" question for you, i guess

[NicholasMyra]

Not all of them but only those

So, some of them?

[Incognito777]

The theory of evolution was refuted in the latter half of the 20th century. Engage the evidence against evolution, but don't attack the authors.

Darwin on Trial, by Johnson (Last edition where he answers critics of first edition)
Icons of Evolution, by Wells
Refuting Evolution (Two Volumes), by Sarfati
The Evolution Handbook, by Ferrell
The Evolution Conspiracy, by Oakland and Matrisciana

[TheTrisagion]

It predicts that diversity in inheritable traits will increase over time.

As to the second part of your question, through a variety of means. Reproduction, mutations, gene exchange, etc.

You can't really answer that question since i don't think opus' theory is about Darwinism (the hypothesis that you share). My question to him is about his theory and not yours. If it turns out that you both have same theory then we all can talk about your common theory. I'm glad though to listen to your own theories.

What you have just answered is way separated from science. You saying that it is enough to have materials and tools to convert F1 into F2. Think again and answer my first question seriously. I can claim same way that ID predicts every single finding we find. Details please.

Oh good grief. 

Exactly. And that is a mystery to me. How a man can call his theory scientific when his answer to real question is "Oh good grief"? That's another "Oh good grief" question for you, i guess

There comes a point in a conversation when you realize that the person you are talking to has no interest in having a discussion, but instead wishes to make nonsensical arguments. I have reached that point.

TheTrisagion out.

[ativan]

There comes a point in a conversation when you realize that the person you are talking to has no interest in having a discussion, but instead wishes to make nonsensical arguments. I have reached that point.

TheTrisagion out.

Absolutely possible but have you ever thought that it might be us who don't want to answer important questions?

I'll wait for somebody who at least will tell me why my arguments are nonsensical.

[RobS]

I don't think you need to worry about ends to describe diffusion and make predictions about it.

What are you doing when you describe it if not talking about movement towards an end?

Measuring a process. "End" is a vague social idea and has nothing to do with a scientific discourse, except that scientific discourse is always stuck with the narrative structure of language. There is a equivocation here between "end" as a causal prediction and "end" as an intended goal.

Diffusion doesn't have an intent, just a (more or less) predictable result.

See how discourse deludes us? Matter doesn't "seek" anything in the sense of a telos, i.e., intent. It just has measurable processes.

[ativan]

Nothing

Do we humans have intention and purpose? If we do, what is the nature of it? I mean is it material processes in the brain that determine our intention or is it something beyond matter and laws governing it that is the bases of our intentions and purpsoe?

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Nothing

Do we humans have intention and purpose? If we do, what is the nature of it? I mean is it material processes in the brain that determine our intention or is it something beyond matter and laws governing it that is the bases of our intentions and purpsoe?

You are asking a philosophical question, and science is not philosophy. Of course, ask any scientist why science is important and their answer will invariably be philosophical. Evolution is a scientific philosophy, and it has a certain import as such. The problem is that evolution is promoted as an undisputed empirical scientific fact, which it is not. The evolutionists have constructed an intriguing philosophy, and they should uphold it as such and trust the empirical evidence to verify or falsify it over time. But their philosophical zeal precludes their scientific objectivity, and thus science and scientific progress suffer as a result. (For evidence of this, await the following vitriolic reactions to this post.)


Selam

[ativan]

You are asking a philosophical question, and science is not philosophy. Of course, ask any scientist why science is important and their answer will invariably be philosophical. Evolution is a scientific philosophy, and it has a certain import as such. The problem is that evolution is promoted as an undisputed empirical scientific fact, which it is not. The evolutionists have constructed an intriguing philosophy, and they should uphold it as such and trust the empirical evidence to verify or falsify it over time. But their philosophical zeal precludes their scientific objectivity, and thus science and scientific progress suffer as a result. (For evidence of this, await the following vitriolic reactions to this post.)


Selam

I agree with you except for one thing. I would not call Evolutionary theory as scientific theory if definition of science includes search for truth.

[NicholasMyra]

Measuring a process.

Processes are always of .

There is a equivocation here between "end" as a causal prediction and "end" as an intended goal.

You affirm that humans have a disposition to intend things (or at least believe in some sense that they do). One could gloss this as "a disposition to intend things under xyz conditions" and then understand "disposition" in a predictive sense. In doing so, we haven't done away with the language of intent. All we've done is expressed a more cautious position toward the states of affairs in question, approaching the sort of view of causation that Hume took.

Diffusion doesn't have an intent, just a (more or less) predictable result.

But science doesn't assume that "x is a predictable result" is basic. If it did, we would end inquiry into an aspect of a system with the first predictable result we encountered. Rather, inferences are made to explanations and then the process is repeated.

Matter doesn't "seek" anything in the sense of a telos, i.e., intent. It just has measurable processes.

What matter are you talking about? Is the universe just some prime matter + measurable processes? I don't think the empirical sciences have yielded such a conclusion or assume it. Furthermore, we have no empirical evidence of any significance-lacking matter.

[NicholasMyra]

Also I don't think the division between philosophy of science and empirical science is very helpful.

[RobS]

Measuring a process.

Processes are always of .

There is a equivocation here between "end" as a causal prediction and "end" as an intended goal.

You affirm that humans have a disposition to intend things (or at least believe in some sense that they do). One could gloss this as "a disposition to intend things under xyz conditions" and then understand "disposition" in a predictive sense. In doing so, we haven't done away with the language of intent. All we've done is expressed a more cautious position toward the states of affairs in question, approaching the sort of view of causation that Hume took.

Diffusion doesn't have an intent, just a (more or less) predictable result.

But science doesn't assume that "x is a predictable result" is basic. If it did, we would end inquiry into an aspect of a system with the first predictable result we encountered. Rather, inferences are made to explanations and then the process is repeated.

Matter doesn't "seek" anything in the sense of a telos, i.e., intent. It just has measurable processes.

What matter are you talking about? Is the universe just some prime matter + measurable processes? I don't think the empirical sciences have yielded such a conclusion or assume it. Furthermore, we have no empirical evidence of any significance-lacking matter.

1. We'll never get rid of the language of intent. That's my point. It doesn't mean protons have intent.

2. Science seeks to explain regularities, and to find hidden regularities in processes where they are not obvious. That leads to good predictions. Why that is, is unknown and presumably unknowable. But in any case, calling it a telos adds nothing to the usefulness of the prediction.

It sounds like you want to do speculative cosmology. Nothing wrong with that (though I find it uninteresting). But it has nothing to do with science.

[NicholasMyra]

1. We'll never get rid of the language of intent. That's my point. It doesn't mean protons have intent.

And yet we have no empirical evidence of protons without significance. One you get a feel for this, intent seems obvious.

2. Science seeks to explain regularities, and to find hidden regularities in processes where they are not obvious. 

A couple points. First, these explanations necessarily include final explanations. Second, higher order explanations are not somehow 'less empirical' or 'less scientific' than lower order explanations. The processes and tendencies of subatomic particles are what a physical state like "cell regulation" supervenes on; this does not somehow make the subatomic account more precise, direct or empirical.

It sounds like you want to do speculative cosmology. Nothing wrong with that (though I find it uninteresting). But it has nothing to do with science.

I don't know how one could neatly separate cosmology and science.

[minasoliman]

I saw a video once where Fr. George Coyne or Dr. Kenneth Miller (I forget which one) explained that the eventual goal, or one can say telos, of this creation, this cosmos, would probably ALWAYS be intelligent beings.  What we cannot say is in what body habitus such intelligent beings would be in.  Today, we know them to be in mammalian ape bodies.  But if the multifactorial extinction of most dinosaurs did not happen 65 million years ago, it is reasonable to think that intelligent beings, beings with rational souls, could have had reptillian bodies.

In other words, there is an "ordered randomness" in science, but a goal is still present in them.  It may sound philosophical now, but perhaps, empirically we could, maybe even should, consider in every scientific formula that it is not merely a random conclusion, but in a population basis, there should also be a fixed goal or standard.

[William T]

I saw a video once where Fr. George Coyne or Dr. Kenneth Miller (I forget which one) explained that the eventual goal, or one can say telos, of this creation, this cosmos, would probably ALWAYS be intelligent beings.  What we cannot say is in what body habitus such intelligent beings would be in.  Today, we know them to be in mammalian ape bodies.  But if the multifactorial extinction of most dinosaurs did not happen 65 million years ago, it is reasonable to think that intelligent beings, beings with rational souls, could have had reptillian bodies.

In other words, there is an "ordered randomness" in science, but a goal is still present in them.  It may sound philosophical now, but perhaps, empirically we could, maybe even should, consider in every scientific formula that it is not merely a random conclusion, but in a population basis, there should also be a fixed goal or standard.

I get the "ordered chaos" metaphor, I think that's the best way to think about life science.  But the rest, that sounds ultra deterministic.  I don't know if I disagree with it due to more logical premises, or I just don't have a taste for the narrative.  Anyway, do you have a link to the lecture.

[NicholasMyra]

I saw a video once where Fr. George Coyne or Dr. Kenneth Miller (I forget which one) explained that the eventual goal, or one can say telos, of this creation, this cosmos, would probably ALWAYS be intelligent beings.

We know that the universe will always include something intelligent because it is always first disclosed to/with us as a meaningful panorama including ourselves.

[minasoliman]

Here is the video I was alluding to.

http://youtu.be/b6Jvxsp3RLU

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Also I don't think the division between philosophy of science and empirical science is very helpful.

Can you elaborate?


Selam

[NicholasMyra]

Also I don't think the division between philosophy of science and empirical science is very helpful.

Can you elaborate?
Selam

I don't think there are clear lines between 'species of inquiry.' You can't do empirical science without doing philosophy.

[William T]

Also I don't think the division between philosophy of science and empirical science is very helpful.

Can you elaborate?
Selam

I don't think there are clear lines between 'species of inquiry.' You can't do empirical science without doing philosophy.

Can I write or play music , or practice carpentry without philosophy?

[minasoliman]

Nothing

Do we humans have intention and purpose? If we do, what is the nature of it? I mean is it material processes in the brain that determine our intention or is it something beyond matter and laws governing it that is the bases of our intentions and purpsoe?

You are asking a philosophical question, and science is not philosophy. Of course, ask any scientist why science is important and their answer will invariably be philosophical. Evolution is a scientific philosophy, and it has a certain import as such. The problem is that evolution is promoted as an undisputed empirical scientific fact, which it is not. The evolutionists have constructed an intriguing philosophy, and they should uphold it as such and trust the empirical evidence to verify or falsify it over time. But their philosophical zeal precludes their scientific objectivity, and thus science and scientific progress suffer as a result. (For evidence of this, await the following vitriolic reactions to this post.)


Selam

I apologize for any vitriol in the past I have given you.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Also I don't think the division between philosophy of science and empirical science is very helpful.

Can you elaborate?
Selam

I don't think there are clear lines between 'species of inquiry.' You can't do empirical science without doing philosophy.

Thanks. That makes sense. I think that's what bothers me so often, when scientific philosophies are promoted as indisputable empirical fact. I'm fascinated by various scientific theories, but I get turned off when I hear scientists assert as fact things that are merely theoretical. Why can't they simply use honest language such as, "according to our estimations, assuming a uniformitarian presupposition, we believe that it's quite possible that..."? But when they toss around speculations as if they were irrefutable facts, they lose integrity.

Selam

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Nothing

Do we humans have intention and purpose? If we do, what is the nature of it? I mean is it material processes in the brain that determine our intention or is it something beyond matter and laws governing it that is the bases of our intentions and purpsoe?

You are asking a philosophical question, and science is not philosophy. Of course, ask any scientist why science is important and their answer will invariably be philosophical. Evolution is a scientific philosophy, and it has a certain import as such. The problem is that evolution is promoted as an undisputed empirical scientific fact, which it is not. The evolutionists have constructed an intriguing philosophy, and they should uphold it as such and trust the empirical evidence to verify or falsify it over time. But their philosophical zeal precludes their scientific objectivity, and thus science and scientific progress suffer as a result. (For evidence of this, await the following vitriolic reactions to this post.)


Selam

I apologize for any vitriol in the past I have given you.

No apology necessary brother. But I too extend my apologies for any sarcasm and vitriol I have given in the past.

Selam

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Also I don't think the division between philosophy of science and empirical science is very helpful.

Can you elaborate?
Selam

I don't think there are clear lines between 'species of inquiry.' You can't do empirical science without doing philosophy.

Thanks. That makes sense. I think that's what bothers me so often, when scientific philosophies are promoted as indisputable empirical fact. I'm fascinated by various scientific theories, but I get turned off when I hear scientists assert as fact things that are merely theoretical. Why can't they simply use honest language such as, "according to our estimations, assuming a uniformitarian presupposition, we believe that it's quite possible that..."? But when they toss around speculations as if they were irrefutable facts, they lose integrity.

Selam

Everything has a philosophy behind it, but that philosophy after acquiring a track record, becomes a "science" that's why evolution is a science and why modern capitalism is seen as a science. Both of those things have track records which fit their philosophies. There is also interpretation involved with evidence and philosophy, no philosophy or evidence explains itself.

[NicholasMyra]

Also I don't think the division between philosophy of science and empirical science is very helpful.

Can you elaborate?
Selam

I don't think there are clear lines between 'species of inquiry.' You can't do empirical science without doing philosophy.

Can I write or play music , or practice carpentry without philosophy?

I don't know.

[NicholasMyra]

Everything has a philosophy behind it, but that philosophy after acquiring a track record, becomes a "science"

Not really where the distinction lies, at least not since the presocratics.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Also I don't think the division between philosophy of science and empirical science is very helpful.

Can you elaborate?
Selam

I don't think there are clear lines between 'species of inquiry.' You can't do empirical science without doing philosophy.

Thanks. That makes sense. I think that's what bothers me so often, when scientific philosophies are promoted as indisputable empirical fact. I'm fascinated by various scientific theories, but I get turned off when I hear scientists assert as fact things that are merely theoretical. Why can't they simply use honest language such as, "according to our estimations, assuming a uniformitarian presupposition, we believe that it's quite possible that..."? But when they toss around speculations as if they were irrefutable facts, they lose integrity.

Selam

Everything has a philosophy behind it, but that philosophy after acquiring a track record, becomes a "science" that's why evolution is a science and why modern capitalism is seen as a science. Both of those things have track records which fit their philosophies. There is also interpretation involved with evidence and philosophy, no philosophy or evidence explains itself.

I tend to agree. I would just point out that most every philosophy has a track record behind it. Our education system has bifurcated things into "arts" and "sciences." But the arts are sciences as well, and the arts cannot really be separated from philosophy. Perhaps it would be more productive if we simply distinguished all aspects of the arts and sciences - and the philosophies behind them - as either logically objective and empirically irrefutable, or creatively subjective and rationally speculative (as opposed to unassailable fact.)


Selam

[NicholasMyra]

Perhaps it would be more productive if we simply distinguished all aspects of the arts and sciences - and the philosophies behind them - as either logically objective and empirically irrefutable, or creatively subjective and rationally speculative (as opposed to unassailable fact.)

There was a rather aggressive article in the NYT arguing against this, on the basis that it makes all non-empirically verifiable things up for grabs.

A more interesting objection is that the division into objective and subjective is itself part of a way of understanding things that we didn't always have and we would be better off without.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Perhaps it would be more productive if we simply distinguished all aspects of the arts and sciences - and the philosophies behind them - as either logically objective and empirically irrefutable, or creatively subjective and rationally speculative (as opposed to unassailable fact.)

There was a rather aggressive article in the NYT arguing against this, on the basis that it makes all non-empirically verifiable things up for grabs.

A more interesting objection is that the division into objective and subjective is itself part of a way of understanding things that we didn't always have and we would be better off without.

Can you elaborate again please? I'm very interested in this. I do worry about jettisoning the concept of objectivity and empiricism and making all things "equally valid." Not suggesting this is what you're saying. Just trying understand the point. Thanks. BTW, do you have a link to the Times article?


Selam

[NicholasMyra]

I do worry about jettisoning the concept of objectivity and empiricism and making all things "equally valid."
Not suggesting this is what you're saying. Just trying understand the point. Thanks.

I think what we construe as objectivity is getting at something, something which made possible our recent advances in science and technology. It's reliable and it works for what it works. I think we can still have this good without the distinction between "objective fact" and "subjective experience". The latter relies on relatively-recent developments in how we understand our minds: As distinct and cut off from the world, only able to access it through reified "experience data." This isn't the old soul/body distinction of the Fathers; this is a distinction that has to do with how we access the world.

BTW, do you have a link to the Times article?

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/why-our-children-dont-think-there-are-moral-facts/ (For the record I don't like this article especially since it bashes the Common Core)

[ativan]

I said that I do not have time, it meant that I have too much on my plate right now. In the near future I can explain based on what I posted. You went back to Darwinianism in your post so it is not clear whether you are limiting me to point mutations rather than what actually happened in the past.

Please clarify on this issue.

I am still waiting for answers. Moreover, I went back and read your posts from 2012. I did not see a shred of evidence offered by you. All I see is just claims that evolution happened, evolution can happen or evolution is possible. I'm going to respond to you posts where you claimed the possibility of evolution and provided to outside links. Meanwhile, I will copy my last response to you:

Enjoy whatever you have on your plate I did not go back to Darwinism. I want two things: 1) Your opinion on whether whatever they teach in the schools, colleges and universities about theory of evolution and whether whatever people like Richard Dawkins teach about evolution and whether whatever whatever evolutionists in this thread subscribe in regards to origin of diversity in life makes any sense at all or not; 2) Yes, I want to know what really happened in the past, but if you claim you know it then show me with enough evidence and valid logic that it is true (or at least has enough causal explanation to the process you will describe).

Now, can we go back to the first question: what does your theory predict and how does it do it?

[ativan]

Also, no scientific method models to support any claim, which is sort required.  No observable experiments (#6). 

Number 6 appears to be a prisoner here and perhaps we can discuss this issue. I still do not know what evidence you want to see. I personally thought that in vitro protein evolution would be a good place to start since it represents a proof of concept that Darwinian-style evolution works. I am not up to date in this area because I have not followed it since the original phage display papers but I could probably catch up with a weekend of reading.

There is a wiki article on this but it is not particularly informative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_evolution

The technique is being used to create enzymes that otherwise do not exist in nature, so it is interesting to read about if you are interested in biotechnology.

As far as evidence for evolution in vivo. This is best done with bacterial and viral examples. Again, I do not know what you want to see. Viruses are important here because they help make evolution work.

Here you have supplied external link that has no pertinence to possible evolutionary process. Even if we create enzymes in vitro or in vivo that do not exist in nature how do these enzymes confer the potential of evolution to a given cell? Please, supply a concrete example and not general hypothetical answers as it is done by evolutionist.

Important thing to mention here is this. There's a clear distinction between micro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution which is just variation of genotype within a given species is not denied by anybody including me. Moreover, this microevolution which evolutionists bring as example of evolution has nothing to do with evolution at all. All it does is it guarantees variation of genetic material within given species. If you want to call it evolution I do not care. Just show us how such variations can bring about novel genetic information coding for novel structure (new biochemical pathways or new cellular and sub-cellular structures).

One more thing. I've gone all the way back and started to read your posts from page 66. You've complained that "new genetic information" does not include mutations with beneficial effect. I don't want to argue about what should be called new information. You can claim if you want to that mutations providing beneficial effect but not creating novel structures or novel biochemical pathways (that are absolutely necessary to drive evolutionary process) create new information. What is important is that you show us how these type of mutations can lead to appearance of novel pathways and structures. Again, we want not just general hypothetical discussions but particular and detailed explanations. The choice of examples is yours.

[Opus118]

I said that I do not have time, it meant that I have too much on my plate right now. In the near future I can explain based on what I posted. You went back to Darwinianism in your post so it is not clear whether you are limiting me to point mutations rather than what actually happened in the past.

Please clarify on this issue.

I am still waiting for answers. Moreover, I went back and read your posts from 2012. I did not see a shred of evidence offered by you. All I see is just claims that evolution happened, evolution can happen or evolution is possible. I'm going to respond to you posts where you claimed the possibility of evolution and provided to outside links. Meanwhile, I will copy my last response to you:

Enjoy whatever you have on your plate I did not go back to Darwinism. I want two things: 1) Your opinion on whether whatever they teach in the schools, colleges and universities about theory of evolution and whether whatever people like Richard Dawkins teach about evolution and whether whatever whatever evolutionists in this thread subscribe in regards to origin of diversity in life makes any sense at all or not; 2) Yes, I want to know what really happened in the past, but if you claim you know it then show me with enough evidence and valid logic that it is true (or at least has enough causal explanation to the process you will describe).

Now, can we go back to the first question: what does your theory predict and how does it do it?

I haven't had time. I do not know what they teach in school and I have never taken in course in evolution. I do think that the common notions of what is involved in evolution is not correct.

I did not want to relate my own personal observations directly (it is a privacy matter). I do have a list of papers that correspond to my notions:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23587361
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23091803
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23850169
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23801028
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24572480
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201300158/full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24792168
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24756907
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25727355
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25359214
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/45/15865.long
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25036622
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26323764
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25927823
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25894542
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25771806

A lot of the above is macro events, but what makes humans vs mice is primarily macro gene duplication events followed my micro point mutations of transcription factors and nucleosome remodelling factors. You should consider these as minor variations on a theme. the control when genes get turned on and off during development. This is what distinguishes us between flies, mice and humans, not a bunch of novel proteins, just duplicated proteins that are altered by point mutations. What I am currently looking for is a paper about Zn finger transcription factors that greatly expanded in humans.

[Opus118]

Also, no scientific method models to support any claim, which is sort required.  No observable experiments (#6). 

Number 6 appears to be a prisoner here and perhaps we can discuss this issue. I still do not know what evidence you want to see. I personally thought that in vitro protein evolution would be a good place to start since it represents a proof of concept that Darwinian-style evolution works. I am not up to date in this area because I have not followed it since the original phage display papers but I could probably catch up with a weekend of reading.

There is a wiki article on this but it is not particularly informative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_evolution

The technique is being used to create enzymes that otherwise do not exist in nature, so it is interesting to read about if you are interested in biotechnology.

As far as evidence for evolution in vivo. This is best done with bacterial and viral examples. Again, I do not know what you want to see. Viruses are important here because they help make evolution work.

Here you have supplied external link that has no pertinence to possible evolutionary process. Even if we create enzymes in vitro or in vivo that do not exist in nature how do these enzymes confer the potential of evolution to a given cell? Please, supply a concrete example and not general hypothetical answers as it is done by evolutionist.

Important thing to mention here is this. There's a clear distinction between micro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution which is just variation of genotype within a given species is not denied by anybody including me. Moreover, this microevolution which evolutionists bring as example of evolution has nothing to do with evolution at all. All it does is it guarantees variation of genetic material within given species. If you want to call it evolution I do not care. Just show us how such variations can bring about novel genetic information coding for novel structure (new biochemical pathways or new cellular and sub-cellular structures).

One more thing. I've gone all the way back and started to read your posts from page 66. You've complained that "new genetic information" does not include mutations with beneficial effect. I don't want to argue about what should be called new information. You can claim if you want to that mutations providing beneficial effect but not creating novel structures or novel biochemical pathways (that are absolutely necessary to drive evolutionary process) create new information. What is important is that you show us how these type of mutations can lead to appearance of novel pathways and structures. Again, we want not just general hypothetical discussions but particular and detailed explanations. The choice of examples is yours.

I have a bias. There is no such thing as macro evolution. There is only micro evolution over time and under selective pressure that appears to be macro.

[ativan]

Also, no scientific method models to support any claim, which is sort required.  No observable experiments (#6). 

Number 6 appears to be a prisoner here and perhaps we can discuss this issue. I still do not know what evidence you want to see. I personally thought that in vitro protein evolution would be a good place to start since it represents a proof of concept that Darwinian-style evolution works. I am not up to date in this area because I have not followed it since the original phage display papers but I could probably catch up with a weekend of reading.

There is a wiki article on this but it is not particularly informative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_evolution

The technique is being used to create enzymes that otherwise do not exist in nature, so it is interesting to read about if you are interested in biotechnology.

As far as evidence for evolution in vivo. This is best done with bacterial and viral examples. Again, I do not know what you want to see. Viruses are important here because they help make evolution work.

Here you have supplied external link that has no pertinence to possible evolutionary process. Even if we create enzymes in vitro or in vivo that do not exist in nature how do these enzymes confer the potential of evolution to a given cell? Please, supply a concrete example and not general hypothetical answers as it is done by evolutionist.

Important thing to mention here is this. There's a clear distinction between micro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution which is just variation of genotype within a given species is not denied by anybody including me. Moreover, this microevolution which evolutionists bring as example of evolution has nothing to do with evolution at all. All it does is it guarantees variation of genetic material within given species. If you want to call it evolution I do not care. Just show us how such variations can bring about novel genetic information coding for novel structure (new biochemical pathways or new cellular and sub-cellular structures).

One more thing. I've gone all the way back and started to read your posts from page 66. You've complained that "new genetic information" does not include mutations with beneficial effect. I don't want to argue about what should be called new information. You can claim if you want to that mutations providing beneficial effect but not creating novel structures or novel biochemical pathways (that are absolutely necessary to drive evolutionary process) create new information. What is important is that you show us how these type of mutations can lead to appearance of novel pathways and structures. Again, we want not just general hypothetical discussions but particular and detailed explanations. The choice of examples is yours.

I have a bias. There is no such thing as macro evolution. There is only micro evolution over time and under selective pressure that appears to be macro.

Please, do not dodge questions. Whatever your bias is I will not dispute it. Just give us detailed explanation of how micro-evolution (which is nothing but genetic variation within given species) can lead to emergence of new biochemical pathways and cellular structures. I do not really want to keep repeating myself but you give me no choice. I've asked you several times to bring particular examples with detailed explanations. You can provide such a link if you want to. You have provided several links above but those links were a response to my question about prediction power of your evolutionary theory. If you have linked anything pertinent to this question (Even if we create enzymes in vitro or in vivo that do not exist in nature how do these enzymes confer the potential of evolution to a given cell?) then can you specify which link is appropriate?

[ativan]

I said that I do not have time, it meant that I have too much on my plate right now. In the near future I can explain based on what I posted. You went back to Darwinianism in your post so it is not clear whether you are limiting me to point mutations rather than what actually happened in the past.

Please clarify on this issue.

I am still waiting for answers. Moreover, I went back and read your posts from 2012. I did not see a shred of evidence offered by you. All I see is just claims that evolution happened, evolution can happen or evolution is possible. I'm going to respond to you posts where you claimed the possibility of evolution and provided to outside links. Meanwhile, I will copy my last response to you:

Enjoy whatever you have on your plate I did not go back to Darwinism. I want two things: 1) Your opinion on whether whatever they teach in the schools, colleges and universities about theory of evolution and whether whatever people like Richard Dawkins teach about evolution and whether whatever whatever evolutionists in this thread subscribe in regards to origin of diversity in life makes any sense at all or not; 2) Yes, I want to know what really happened in the past, but if you claim you know it then show me with enough evidence and valid logic that it is true (or at least has enough causal explanation to the process you will describe).

Now, can we go back to the first question: what does your theory predict and how does it do it?

I haven't had time. I do not know what they teach in school and I have never taken in course in evolution. I do think that the common notions of what is involved in evolution is not correct.

I did not want to relate my own personal observations directly (it is a privacy matter). I do have a list of papers that correspond to my notions:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23587361
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23091803
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23850169
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23801028
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24572480
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201300158/full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24792168
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24756907
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25727355
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25359214
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/45/15865.long
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25036622
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26323764
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25927823
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25894542
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25771806

A lot of the above is macro events, but what makes humans vs mice is primarily macro gene duplication events followed my micro point mutations of transcription factors and nucleosome remodelling factors. You should consider these as minor variations on a theme. the control when genes get turned on and off during development. This is what distinguishes us between flies, mice and humans, not a bunch of novel proteins, just duplicated proteins that are altered by point mutations. What I am currently looking for is a paper about Zn finger transcription factors that greatly expanded in humans.

I'll go through these links one by one and hopefully it will not be waste of time. I'm expecting those links will answer so far asked 2 questions: 1) what does your theory predict and how does it do it? and 2) Gives us detailed explanation (and not just theoretical and baseless ideas) of how known mutational processes can lead to formation of new structures and new biochemical pathways.

A lot of the above is macro events, but what makes humans vs mice is primarily macro gene duplication events followed my micro point mutations of transcription factors and nucleosome remodelling factors. You should consider these as minor variations on a theme. the control when genes get turned on and off during development. This is what distinguishes us between flies, mice and humans, not a bunch of novel proteins, just duplicated proteins that are altered by point mutations. What I am currently looking for is a paper about Zn finger transcription factors that greatly expanded in humans.

Now, are you claiming that by mutating one type of genome somehow (though gene duplications and point mutations) we can get from mice genome to human genome or vice versa? If you don't then your story here is irrelevant and I don't need to proceed any further. If you do claim that then tell us so and we can discuss it further. Secondly, there're multiple biochemical pathways and cellular structures that exist in different eukaryotic and procariotic species. Take for example bacterial flagellum or Krebs cycle. Are these type of things too evolved through gene duplication and point mutations?

[Opus118]

Also, no scientific method models to support any claim, which is sort required.  No observable experiments (#6). 

Number 6 appears to be a prisoner here and perhaps we can discuss this issue. I still do not know what evidence you want to see. I personally thought that in vitro protein evolution would be a good place to start since it represents a proof of concept that Darwinian-style evolution works. I am not up to date in this area because I have not followed it since the original phage display papers but I could probably catch up with a weekend of reading.

There is a wiki article on this but it is not particularly informative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_evolution

The technique is being used to create enzymes that otherwise do not exist in nature, so it is interesting to read about if you are interested in biotechnology.

As far as evidence for evolution in vivo. This is best done with bacterial and viral examples. Again, I do not know what you want to see. Viruses are important here because they help make evolution work.

Here you have supplied external link that has no pertinence to possible evolutionary process. Even if we create enzymes in vitro or in vivo that do not exist in nature how do these enzymes confer the potential of evolution to a given cell? Please, supply a concrete example and not general hypothetical answers as it is done by evolutionist.

Important thing to mention here is this. There's a clear distinction between micro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution which is just variation of genotype within a given species is not denied by anybody including me. Moreover, this microevolution which evolutionists bring as example of evolution has nothing to do with evolution at all. All it does is it guarantees variation of genetic material within given species. If you want to call it evolution I do not care. Just show us how such variations can bring about novel genetic information coding for novel structure (new biochemical pathways or new cellular and sub-cellular structures).

One more thing. I've gone all the way back and started to read your posts from page 66. You've complained that "new genetic information" does not include mutations with beneficial effect. I don't want to argue about what should be called new information. You can claim if you want to that mutations providing beneficial effect but not creating novel structures or novel biochemical pathways (that are absolutely necessary to drive evolutionary process) create new information. What is important is that you show us how these type of mutations can lead to appearance of novel pathways and structures. Again, we want not just general hypothetical discussions but particular and detailed explanations. The choice of examples is yours.

I have a bias. There is no such thing as macro evolution. There is only micro evolution over time and under selective pressure that appears to be macro.

Please, do not dodge questions. Whatever your bias is I will not dispute it. Just give us detailed explanation of how micro-evolution (which is nothing but genetic variation within given species) can lead to emergence of new biochemical pathways and cellular structures. I do not really want to keep repeating myself but you give me no choice. I've asked you several times to bring particular examples with detailed explanations. You can provide such a link if you want to. You have provided several links above but those links were a response to my question about prediction power of your evolutionary theory. If you have linked anything pertinent to this question (Even if we create enzymes in vitro or in vivo that do not exist in nature how do these enzymes confer the potential of evolution to a given cell?) then can you specify which link is appropriate?

I will try to get into this, but I said at the outset of this discussion that I do not have time and if you are going to be belligerent suggesting that I am dodging when I have been working on it, you haven't read what I have posted. If this conversation spreads over six months, that is just the way it is.

If I make a statement you are going to want the details, even though you might imply that you will not. That means that before I make a statement, I have to have the references ready. Why do I not have the references already in my head? Because they are not important for my research and I am having trouble keeping 40 years of papers that I have read, that are important, in my head.

The answer to your question is genetic isolation. That is the difference.

A single point mutation in DNA that encodes an enzyme can alter substrate specificity (there are examples you can easily look up yourself). A change is substrate specificity = a new enzyme. However, I do not think you are interested in this. You are interested in the big things like gong from insects to humans and that is what I was concentrating on. If I am wrong, I can save myself a lot of reference work.

[ativan]

I will try to get into this, but I said at the outset of this discussion that I do not have time and if you are going to be belligerent suggesting that I am dodging when I have been working on it, you haven't read what I have posted. If this conversation spreads over six months, that is just the way it is.

If I make a statement you are going to want the details, even though you might imply that you will not. That means that before I make a statement, I have to have the references ready. Why do I not have the references already in my head? Because they are not important for my research and I am having trouble keeping 40 years of papers that I have read, that are important, in my head.

The answer to your question is genetic isolation. That is the difference.

A single point mutation in DNA that encodes an enzyme can alter substrate specificity (there are examples you can easily look up yourself). A change is substrate specificity = a new enzyme. However, I do not think you are interested in this. You are interested in the big things like gong from insects to humans and that is what I was concentrating on. If I am wrong, I can save myself a lot of reference work.

My apologies if I seem belligerent. But I would describe myself as being more persistent then belligerent. If somebody claims something I want logical and detailed explanations that is strengthened by experimental evidence. This is what every scientist should be doing.

I'm interested in everything that evolutionary theory will claim. This includes "big" things as well as "small" things.

[Opus118]

I said that I do not have time, it meant that I have too much on my plate right now. In the near future I can explain based on what I posted. You went back to Darwinianism in your post so it is not clear whether you are limiting me to point mutations rather than what actually happened in the past.

Please clarify on this issue.

I am still waiting for answers. Moreover, I went back and read your posts from 2012. I did not see a shred of evidence offered by you. All I see is just claims that evolution happened, evolution can happen or evolution is possible. I'm going to respond to you posts where you claimed the possibility of evolution and provided to outside links. Meanwhile, I will copy my last response to you:

Enjoy whatever you have on your plate I did not go back to Darwinism. I want two things: 1) Your opinion on whether whatever they teach in the schools, colleges and universities about theory of evolution and whether whatever people like Richard Dawkins teach about evolution and whether whatever whatever evolutionists in this thread subscribe in regards to origin of diversity in life makes any sense at all or not; 2) Yes, I want to know what really happened in the past, but if you claim you know it then show me with enough evidence and valid logic that it is true (or at least has enough causal explanation to the process you will describe).

Now, can we go back to the first question: what does your theory predict and how does it do it?

I haven't had time. I do not know what they teach in school and I have never taken in course in evolution. I do think that the common notions of what is involved in evolution is not correct.

I did not want to relate my own personal observations directly (it is a privacy matter). I do have a list of papers that correspond to my notions:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23587361
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23091803
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23850169
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23801028
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24572480
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201300158/full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24792168
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24756907
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25727355
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25359214
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/45/15865.long
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25036622
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26323764
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25927823
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25894542
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25771806

A lot of the above is macro events, but what makes humans vs mice is primarily macro gene duplication events followed my micro point mutations of transcription factors and nucleosome remodelling factors. You should consider these as minor variations on a theme. the control when genes get turned on and off during development. This is what distinguishes us between flies, mice and humans, not a bunch of novel proteins, just duplicated proteins that are altered by point mutations. What I am currently looking for is a paper about Zn finger transcription factors that greatly expanded in humans.

I'll go through these links one by one and hopefully it will not be waste of time. I'm expecting those links will answer so far asked 2 questions: 1) what does your theory predict and how does it do it? and 2) Gives us detailed explanation (and not just theoretical and baseless ideas) of how known mutational processes can lead to formation of new structures and new biochemical pathways.

A lot of the above is macro events, but what makes humans vs mice is primarily macro gene duplication events followed my micro point mutations of transcription factors and nucleosome remodelling factors. You should consider these as minor variations on a theme. the control when genes get turned on and off during development. This is what distinguishes us between flies, mice and humans, not a bunch of novel proteins, just duplicated proteins that are altered by point mutations. What I am currently looking for is a paper about Zn finger transcription factors that greatly expanded in humans.

Now, are you claiming that by mutating one type of genome somehow (though gene duplications and point mutations) we can get from mice genome to human genome or vice versa? If you don't then your story here is irrelevant and I don't need to proceed any further. If you do claim that then tell us so and we can discuss it further. Secondly, there're multiple biochemical pathways and cellular structures that exist in different eukaryotic and procariotic species. Take for example bacterial flagellum or Krebs cycle. Are these type of things too evolved through gene duplication and point mutations?

Don't read the references Ativan. Those are to get you up to date with post Darwinian evolution so that we are talking about  the same thing.

In regard to bacteria. The existence of flagella possibly evolved into existence and there are pathways for that, but I think that is a waste of time when one considers that evolution on earth does not explain the existence of  bacteria and/or archaea.

[ativan]

Don't read the references Ativan. Those are to get you up to date with post Darwinian evolution so that we are talking about  the same thing.

In regard to bacteria. The existence of flagella possibly evolved into existence and there are pathways for that, but I think that is a waste of time when one considers that evolution on earth does not explain the existence of  bacteria and/or archaea.

Can you explain this more clearly please: do you mean that you don't think bacteria and/or archaea did not (or could not have) evolved on earth?

[Opus118]

Don't read the references Ativan. Those are to get you up to date with post Darwinian evolution so that we are talking about  the same thing.

In regard to bacteria. The existence of flagella possibly evolved into existence and there are pathways for that, but I think that is a waste of time when one considers that evolution on earth does not explain the existence of  bacteria and/or archaea.

Can you explain this more clearly please: do you mean that you don't think bacteria and/or archaea did not (or could not have) evolved on earth?

If one or both of these are the original organisms on earth, evolution has nothing to do with their initial creation. Evolution is only applicable to living and reproducing organisms, not some fanciful RNA molecule which to date cannot replicate itself and is too unstable to be a viable source for the random appearance of a self replicating RNA.

I am going to bed.

[RobS]

Also I don't think the division between philosophy of science and empirical science is very helpful.

Can you elaborate?
Selam

I don't think there are clear lines between 'species of inquiry.' You can't do empirical science without doing philosophy.

Hi Nick, this is where our difference is and to be honest I'm not sure why you think that. Science is a method, and isn't a philosophy. Science doesn't ask the question well which method works the best and why? It already assumes that methodological naturalism is the best way for explaining facts that lead to useful predictions over other methods (like oracles and such).

Science really can't ask any metaphysical questions because its method doesn't allow it to do so nor does it require any metaphysics. So perhaps we disagree on what philosophy is. My view is philosophy has always been about who we are, it is precisely the opposite of pragmatic. So the "conclusions" it reaches have nothing to do with making ontic discoveries (like science), but rather they are about the examined life and its meaning. None of which makes an impact on methodological naturalism.

Like I said before, the confusion here is methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism, which is what Gebre rightly has criticized scientists on. They are separate domains.

As to discussions of how we got here, does that really matter? We're already here.

[ativan]

Don't read the references Ativan. Those are to get you up to date with post Darwinian evolution so that we are talking about  the same thing.

In regard to bacteria. The existence of flagella possibly evolved into existence and there are pathways for that, but I think that is a waste of time when one considers that evolution on earth does not explain the existence of  bacteria and/or archaea.

Can you explain this more clearly please: do you mean that you don't think bacteria and/or archaea did not (or could not have) evolved on earth?

If one or both of these are the original organisms on earth, evolution has nothing to do with their initial creation. Evolution is only applicable to living and reproducing organisms, not some fanciful RNA molecule which to date cannot replicate itself and is too unstable to be a viable source for the random appearance of a self replicating RNA.

I am going to bed.

Based on you conditional statement ("If one or both of these are the original organisms on earth ...") it follows that in your theory of evolution there's no way you could know which bacterial or archeal species were original organisms and which ones were evolved - whether all of the species of bacteria and/or archea or some of the species of these 2 domains were originals or evolved. Consequently in your theory about bacterial and/or archeal species evolution nothing could be scientific. It is just random statement. If I'm wrong and your theory explains what species within this domain were original and which ones evolved then can you name those species that were original and those ones that were evolved? And can you also define what you mean by "original organisms"?

[ativan]

Why would you consider diffusion teleological? What's the purpose of this physical process, or to put it another way intended it?

Do we humans have intention and purpose? If we do, what is the nature of it? I mean is it material processes in the brain that determine our intention or is it something beyond matter and laws governing it that is the bases of our intentions and purpose?

[ativan]

Above questions were asked because of this claim of yours:

There doesn't seem to be anything teleological about the universe, except humans and their intents.