From: Truman <seekeththee@...
Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 6:01 AM
Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Speaking of empirical methods (order of appearance)
Truman: The mere facts are not only that fossil specimens are found that are morphologically intermediate between two other types of organisms, but that ALL of those fossil specimens are found in a chronological order:
> > first simple single celled life (prokaryotes) below
> > first simple single celled life (with photosynthesis) below
> > first complex single celled life (eukaryotes) below
> > first multi-cellular organisms below
> > first shelled organisms below
> > first insects below
> > first amphibians below
> > first reptiles below
> > first dinosaurs below
> > first birds below
> > first placental mammals below
> > first apes below
> > first hominids
> > Another mere fact is, according to evolution theory, that in order to be a transitional fossil, no daughter species of that transition can be found before the parent species in that record.
> > Of course if you don't like the "Darwinian explanation/accidental explanation", you could enlighten us on a "designed explanation". But as far as I know, there are no "designed explanations". At least none from the intelligent design think tank. Wouldn't rigorous logic dictate that one go with a working theory that attempts to offer an explanation of the phenomena in question, rather than one that does not?
(Kamran: I've left this part as the preface for this thread. Please read my responses below)
> Truman: What separates evolution theory from ID is that its not just an explanation of the fossil record as observed that strengthens evolutionary theory, but predictions about the fossil record that makes evolution theory state of the art science.
> Kamran: Your grandiose characterization of the status of ToE at a time when challenging evolution has gotten down to common man, is another sign that ToE is on its death bed. To date I have not heard a "state of the art" characterization for any valid and robust branch of science. Are you sure that your sentiments on this issue are not getting ahead of your wiser side?
Yes, I am sure they are not. Pick what you think is a "state of the art University" and go to their biology department and ask them of all the theory of origins they use, what are the top three. I bet the will give them to you in this order:
Kamran: It is indeed somewhat of a mystery as to why so many educated intellectuals remain in a hypnotic state and assume any validity for the ToE. At the same that that their hands are totally empty of any evidence in favor of ToE, many are ardently resistant to the shocking power of evidence against ToE. Where do you want to go from here: follow the herd or objectively examine the evidence for yourself?
> Truman: For example, evolution predicts that no daughter species will be found in the fossil record before a parent species. There is a similar prediction concerning geographic location. That is why of all the places to look for a transitional for a whale, paleontologists predicted that they would be found in the location around Pakistan.
> Kamran: Before evolution can even begin to relate species as "parent" or "daughter," it must offer a viable explanatory path through which a so-called parent species can transform to a so-called daughter species.
Truman: It does. Descent with modification via heritable change. It just like microevolution over many more generations over much long time.
Kamran: Sae for limited adaptive responses, no "modification" has ever been seen in any short- or long-term descent. There is absolutely no evidence in any of the life forms that it can "modify" in the process of descent, in the sense of eventually producing a separate species. You are sold to a story with no evidentiary basis. The inner technological details of the machine of life defy this story (please read more on this below).
Once a theory assumes a relation of parent and daughter between species, it would be a no-brainer to predict that a daughter has to come after a parent.
Truman: Then it should be a no brainer in understanding that finding a daughter before the parent would show the theory to be false.
Kamran: The question is on the scope of conclusions you are making from your theory. What appears before or after does not verify that what appeared first is the founder of what appeared next. For isntance, if according to your chronological order you assume that the following two species represent a parent folowed by a daughter:
- first simple single celled life (with photosynthesis)
- first complex single celled life (eukaryotes)
Evolutionists won't be able to write a single viable sentence or paragraph or page about how the alleged parent would actually go about modifying to the alleged daughter. Despite having nothing to say about this evolutionary process, evolutionists continue to use the parent-daughter terminology. The same is true about all other stages of the alleged evolutionary chronology. No one at all of those "state of the art Universities" will be able to help you in coming up with any explanation. Do yourself a favor and try to gather their opinions about this. Then you'll see that the terms parent and daughter are just another one of those abused terms in ToE, like natural selection, mutation, common descent, etc.
Let's just say that the fossil record confirms the above chronology or even let's go further and say that elements of the
above chronology have been found after a prediction is made by the ToE. The same could happen if human population on
earth go extinct and some hypothetical intelligent species from outer space inhabit the earth. If all they had to work with was the remnants of the tools and machines made by man, and if they applied the same simplistic methodology as we see applied by evolutionists, they would come up with a theory of evolution claiming all items from original sticks
and axes to the modern CNC machines were evolved from top down. Their theory would
be able to exactly predict how each tool or machine would be the parent and which would be a daughter and they could even predict the features of a certain item before having seen tangible evidence for it.
Truman: I can tell you the problem right now is that tools don't reproduce and pass on heritable change.
Kamran: Good, now you seem to be giving some weight to the internal features of the phenomenon of life rather than its external resemblances.
But on this improved approach, can you think of a single heritable change in a
prokaryotic cell that can overtime accumulate to vast systemic and size differences that
distinguish a prokaryotic cell from a eukaryotic cell? At the level of complex
organisms, do you mean to tell me that growing a wing is a heritable change?
Has there been any evidence that an alleged parent begins to grow "something" and
passes this down to the next generation until a full wing is perfected many
generations down the line? And at what point in the evolutionary transition do
the evolving daughters (with developing wings) stop reproducing with their parent
species? When wings are being developed, how does evolution take care of all other adjustments in other body parts and designs that are needed to match the specifications and functions of the wings? Has a single fossil evidence been discovered where a species has a
half-wing limb with no function at all? With such transitional disfigurements
and dysfunctional burdens how would a branch of a species that is carrying
forward a so-called "heritable change" even survive until the next evolutionary milestone? Evolution may have formed around the motto of
"survival of the fittest" but the evolutionary story itself is ripe with very
unfit transitional states, such as a turtle carrying a half-built shell. Or is
it the story that heritable change for such systemic changes happens in one
fell swoop and wham you have a daughter that is no longer the same
species? I've seen this happen in
cartoons. If you look closely evolutionary story is its own biggest falsifier. This makes ToE a non-starter or Dead on Arrival.
So long as you are unwilling or unable to appreciate the internal software and hardware architecture of the machine of life and the prohibitive constraints of this machine to fulfill the claims made by the ToE, you are free to attribute any outcome to naturalistic evolution.
Truman: Machines don't have sex and reproduce, passing on heritable change.
Kamran: So-called "Heritable change" never happens in the meaning and scopes you have been led to believe. Minor adaptive responses do not mean heritable change. A skimo's newborn may have somewhat more tolerance for low temperatures compared to an amazon baby but this tolerance is within the limits for which the system is originally designed. No zillions of generational cycles will result in the skimo's becoming a different species and losing the ability to reproduce with those in amazon. You are letting terms that have been abused by ToE take your mind to a dreamland.
Kamran: Your theory never bothers to predict that before a turtle has a full shell, the fossil record should also produce failed half-shelled turtles.
Truman: This sure sounds like a creationist argument. So yes, ToE would not bother with it.
It does predict that one of its ancestors, at one point in time, was not a turtle. If what makes a turtle a "turtle" is the shell, then we expect to find an intermediate or transitional in the fossil record.
Scientists are working on it:
Kamran: Again pointing to fully functional species on an imaginery evolutionary tree totally ignores the prohibitions from getting from one stage to the other (please read more on this below). I don't know what version of Creationsim you are refering to, and you are free to dismiss this as a creationist argument but facts don't go away just because you don't like where they are coming from.
> Kamran: Bacteria also play a major role in the body functions in complex organisms and it would have been impossible for the eukaryotic-based organisms to exist without the specialized service of bacteria cells which actually account for more cells within an organism's body compared to eukaryotic cells constituting that organisms body parts.
> Truman: Why used bacteria? While bacteria are needed by the body, they are also harmful to the body too. I think if I were to come up with a design as complex as a living organism, it could be designed without the need for bacteria. Or is bacteria an essential ingredient?
> Kamran: Before you can question an element of the design, you'd have to specify your alternative purpose for the entire system of existence and offer a redesign for everything else. It would be conceivable that within the rational constraints imposed by his purpose, the Creator wouldn't be able to build the biological machine for complex organisms without employing bacteria.
Truman: How would you know this with out knowing what or who the creator is? How do you know what the limits of design and construct are for the creator? Why do you call the unknown intelligent designer the Creator with a capital "C"?
Kamran: Creator is a term that refers
to one who creates. Since I infer that the creation of life and its matching
host environment is the work of the same entity, I use the capital
"C" to refer to a single creator. I may not know exactly what the
Creator is (or just have developing ideas about it), but that doesn't stop me from
knowing that the Creator exists because that's the most logical inference of tangible
facts. Of course I deduce that the Creator is essentially an active entity and his activity can be traced and even tested in events, especially those affecting human individuals and societies. The parameters of testing the Creator will be very complex and the premises and conclusions of the tests will be very controversial.
> Kamran: Unless you can really offer a substitute functional system that makes sense within a specified purpose, I suggest that you don't pursue your ideas in the patent office.
Truman: And I suggest that you don't pursue publishing your speculations and ad hoc explanations in a science journal.
Kamran: Ok I won't, but I would still be interested in you telling me where I have "speculated" and what you mean by "ad hoc explanations" given by me.
> Truman: What does this have to do with the fossil record for something like the appearance of reptiles before the appearance of mammals, and based on the morphological similarities in the jaws and skulls of those to organisms, evolution predicts the existence of transitional fossils to not only be found after the appearance of reptiles, but NEVER before?
> Kamran: I also predict that steam engines will only be found after the appearance of pressure vessels and never before.
Or that steel ships will only appear after the discovery of iron and never before.
Truman: OK. So you are saying that transitional fossils are really modifications and upgrades by direct intervention of a Creator?
Kamran: I am saying there is no such thing as "transitional fossils" if by these terms you mean one species can autonomously and independently transform to another. The science and technology of making any model of life ever seen does not exist (and has not existed) in any other model of life. Based on what we can now see in the systems constituting life forms, all life forms can functions within the limits of their specification and can adapt to the conditions of their environment within limits defined in their software/hardware specification. They can not originate all new components and systems which were not pre-specified in their original software and hardware package. The science and technology variations between distinct species comes from "outside" of these systems and logically from the same source that originated the very first life system when there was absolutely nothing before it to even generate any alleged "descent with
Kamran: How many examples do you need to understand that peekaboo ideas do not constitute as scientific explanations for underlying causes of the appearance of certain phenomena, especially the models of the machine of life which are the most sophisticated machines/systems known in existence.
Truman: You are more than welcome to pick an animal group, and point out where the 'Creator' intervened and made changes and upgrades like what happened with steam engines and ships.
Kamran: As I said when hard irrefutable evidence proves that the science and technology does not exist inside the machine of life to generate the transformations alleged by the ToE, then it must be inferred that the relevant designs, development and implementation have an external causation or source (please read more in the below sections to come). If you don't like the term Creator for that external causation, you are free to choose a term of your liking.
> Kamran: Unless you want to reduce science to a guessing game based on timings and appearances, the sequential appearance of different species, such as different cell types, does not at all verify an evolutionary path.
> Truman: Huh? What is a "guessing game"? If you mean that it's by testing hypotheses, then that is pretty much all of what science is. But its not a game, its how you gain reliable knowledge.
> Kamran: When you are not offering a single piece of robust evidence on how the internal elements and systems in the machine of life work to independently produce different models, you are only guessing that this is happening autonomously and independent of a creative cause that is external to the machine itself.
Truman: It may or may not have had/has a creative cause. Since we don't know what our who is causing what and where, or even why, and no theory to apply, maybe it is you that needs to offer something.
Kamran: First based on the evidence at hand you need to acknowledge that the Creator exists. There is more than enough to reach that conclusion. Since he must be operating from a supernatural state (and nature has to be his creation), it is fair to say that we shouldn't waste our time in searching for a physical entity or embodiment for the Creator. But that doesn't mean we can not trace his acts and verify the profile and consistency in those acts to give ourselves even more certainty. But the trouble is that if someone is not intellectually convinced or ready to acknowledge the Creator despite the overwhelming evidence at hand, he/she would not be intellectually prepared to go any further in figuring out more about him.
> Truman: The fact that you or any IDer for that matter CANNOT make a short list, let alone comprehensive list of the so called "stages", "systems" or "cut-off points" sure does not validate anything other than an evolutionary path.
> Kamran: You obviously haven't been paying attention. I can't repeat everything, everytime.
I don't have the time to follow every thread. I am in a position that I accept the theory that is taught, and has been taught as science in almost every leading University in the world. Every leading science dealing with biological sciences has articles on evolution. I have no stake in the status of evolution theory other than it seems to me that that is just the way it is. Intelligent desgin theory does not seem to offer any explanation other than what Christian evangelists want to here. ID is more important to them than to scientists who want to understand natural history.
If you don't want to repeat it, it must not be that important.
Kamran: OK we can go back to prokaryotes and eukaryotes example. In these two systems you will see giant design leaps that cut one off from ever reproducing itself as anything but itself, and certainly nothing that even closely resembles the other. Similarly cells can not independently and autonomously form a complex organism because there is almost an infinite amount of additional information and design consideration that is needed in bringing billions and trillions of cells into forming a complex organism. None of this information or design and development capability can be indentified from what we see inside a single cell that is living on its own. Moreover the structure and information content you see in the cells of an organism had to be designed at the same time the entirety of that organism and the relations and DNA switching mechanism/profiles for all cell types in that organism was designed. Cells just can't sit around a table and deside
that they should all generate comprehansive raw codes for many different functions (eg. brain cells, skin, bone, blood, etc.) and then agree that each turn off code regions for all but one of the functions and then reproduce themselves and get together and form a complete species. When you dig far enough, the ToE is not only a false nonstarter idea, it borders on madness.
> Kamran: To the contrary, the inner structural and systemic details of the two systems rules out that one can undergo independent "natural" change to become another; today this is an indisputable engineering fact. The same holds true for any other two distinct species set apart by the reproductive barrier. The reproduction barrier between distinct species is a very strong evidence that the there are design cut-off points between them,
> Truman: What structures and systems? What species are we talking about? What is an example of a design cut-off point of one of them?
> Kamran: We are talking about all distinct species that can't reproduce together.
Can you name them?
Kamran: Man and monkey for one. Cats and dogs . Doilphines and sharks. Bears and Hippos. etc.
Kamran : This demonstrates that there are discrete gaps in software and hardware features between these species which inhibits reproductive matching.
Truman: Can you name some of them?
Kamran: There are no exemption, take any two distinct species you like.
> >Kamran: otherwise you would be seeing borderline reproductions all over the biosphere between distinct species deemed to be marginally apart on the same evolutionary stream.
> Truman: Can you give an example of a species in question? Borderline reproductions all over the world would be something you would expect with intelligent design.
> Kamran: I can't give an example because I am telling you that it is not happening, whereas if evolutionary explanation was correct, you would be seeing a gradual transition from one species to another and in much of this transition the departing species would be able to still reproduce with its "parent" species until it gets to a point of full systemic distinction.
Truman: I am not sure what you are trying to say then. However, fossilization is a rare event. If every single transition form was fossilized, then it would show a gradual transition. But depends on how fast you observed the transition, as the fossil record shows that those changes are at different rates.
Kamran: I fully agree that fossilization is a rare event and this is another very good reason to realize that evolutionists are reading too much into the fossil record. They should however ponder that if ToE (studied through the rarity of fossil record) is to hold any water, they should at least find one or a few examples of species in transit, rather than always point to fully functional species and limbs and say this came from that. But to cut a long story short, we don't need to torment ourselves with the rarity of the fossil record to identify the evolutionary properties of life because the actual systems are right in front of us and with modern science and technology we can gather evidence on whether these machines and systems have the evolutionary properties alleged by the ToE or not. Hard evidence tells us that there is no evolutionary property in this system but since many evolutionary paleontologists and biologists don't even have the
relevant academic tools to even decipher the inner technological and operational details of the machine(s) of life, they prefer to stick to their "impressions" from fossil record.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]