A stupidity of Darwinism: "There was never a time when there were only two humans!"

[Stuu]

What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

evidence /ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/

noun

• the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

The body of facts or information is the accumulated results of many different, relevant experiments, for example those in which a section of the DNA from one organism is spliced into the DNA of a second organism. We can take the gene for bioluminescence from a jellyfish and splice it into a mouse zygote. The mouse's cells read the jellyfish DNA, make the bioluminescent protein, and the mouse glows green.

This indicates that the proposition that living species share common descent is valid. In itself, this evidence does not exclude other propositions, and it does not exclusively prove common descent.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Your questions were answered. Why do you assert they were not? In what way were the answers which were provided insufficient to answer your questions? Simply dismissing an argument without reasoning won't work here, Stuart.

Once again I am flattered that you expect me to have water-tight arguments for everything I claim. I appreciate that you think highly enough of me to set high standards for me. On the other hand, what term would you reserve for one who expects reasoning from another without providing reasoning himself?

Stuu: What is a god?

A "god" (little 'g') is an entity that exists only as a concept.

No objection from me, but you’ve only asserted a definition. There’s no reasoning.

"God" (big 'G') is the Creator of the universe, who is living, personal, relational, good, and loving.

Bald assertion. But even without evidence there is still no reasoning. Living by what definition of life? Personal in what sense? Relational by what definition, and consistent with ‘personal’ how, exactly? Good by what criterion? Loving of Amalekite women and children?

Stuu: How does it interact with matter?

However He wants.

Begs the question of gender, existence and desire. But contains no reasoning whatever.

Stuu: What is the origin of the god.

God always existed.

Bald assertion. No reasoning. No definition of ‘always’ (if you think that’s a trivial question, I have asked christians what ‘death’ means and got at least three different answers). If you mean all of time, then since time has existed for 13.7 billion years, that would put a date of origin on this god. Or do you mean something else?

Stuu: what is the origin of its ability to organise biochemistry?

His very essence.

Apparently a category error. Unless you care to add some reasoning?

Stuu: Do gods arise by natural selection]

No. As stated above, God always existed. There is only one God.

Bald denial, bald assertion, bald assertion (one that may displease Thor greatly, and Baal even more). No reasoning.

Stuu: like the life we know about?

Question begging.

Can you show me where I assumed the conclusion as a premise in the statement?

I expect you to be able to put forth the arguments and reasoning of your position. If you can't do that, or refuse to, why are you on here?

I am more than happy for you to point out whether either my argument or reasoning has been deficient, and offer to correct that. Of course I do wish to stick to my stated aim of presenting evidence for common descent. I wouldn’t want to disappoint Stripe, the one who is most enthusiastic for it.

Is this you saying that you think that "common descent" does not cover the origin of life? Or is this just a really wordy response made in an effort to distract from the question I asked?

I thought I was pretty clear. Common descent necessarily implies the origin of life, but I will not be discussing the first cells, only later cells with DNA. The evolution of DNA does not form a scientific theory currently and anyway is not necessary for establishing the principle of common descent. If you are interested in the origins of life, by all means start a conversation on that topic.

Would you say that cells that do NOT contain DNA are alive?

This question hinges on the definition of alive. What definition would you claim for your use of the term? For comparison, consider whether you would say that a strawberry, sitting in your fruit bowl, is alive.

Since "DNA itself" contains the instructions on how a cell reproduces, how, Stuart, do you propose that cells without DNA reproduced, in order to bring about this "quite extensive adaptation"?

I am not proposing a mechanism. There is no scientific theory of this aspect of origins. That’s not to say there is no attempt being made to model it. There is much work underway. I think it would be wrong to assume that DNA has always been the only means to store and replicate genetic information, even if it appears to be ubiquitous today. It’s pretty obvious that it cannot have always been DNA.

So, how, Stuart, can you propose that life comes from non-life? Or do you?

I haven’t. But until you can give some reasoning on the topic of the nature of the ‘life’ you claim for your creator god, it would be you who is proposing that life comes from non-life. Indeed, Genesis 2:7 literally says that. Dirt and breath, it says.

Because, as you said, "life begets life," and the opposite is true, "non-life begets non-life."

Can you give an example of how I might have experienced non-life begetting anything?

Would you also agree that "non-life cannot beget life"? and the only DNA-containing life that existed billions of years ago was single-celled, How do you know that it was "single celled"?

Because we have reasonably extensive fossil evidence of it.

I'll overlook the fact that you're begging the question with "billions of years ago," which alone brings into question your statement.

It’s not begging the question if there is isochron radioisotope dating evidence for billions of years, which there is.

Why couldn't it have been multicellular? Or perhaps a-cellular?

Because the fossils are of single cells.

So, in essence, what you're saying is that everything you've said is, for the most part, just a guess as to how cells evolved, and certainly not a statement of fact on how life arose from non-life?

It’s not my interest to discuss how life arose in this thread. It’s not really on-topic for the OP anyway, whereas common descent is directly relevant. As I have already invited, perhaps you could start a conversation on abiogenesis elsewhere.

Stuart

 

[Clete]

Stuu seems to think that unless there are paragraph length answers given to single sentence questions, that there is no reasoning going on and / or that because an answer was given without explicit argument, that there is no argument that can be (or has been) made.

JudgeRightly answered the questions as asked. If Stuu wanted more information then he should ask for it rather than imply an argument from silence based on the fact that someone only gave concisely direct answers to very simple and direct questions. In other words, if Stuu wasn't satisfied with what he calls bald assertions, then he should have responded to those answers with a "Why?"

This is how rational people have productive discussions. Stuu, of course, is not interested in any such discussion precisely for fear than a Christian creationist might just be able to have such a discussion with a great deal more skill, clarity and substance than any evolutionist, much less Stuu himself, could ever dream of. Instead, it's easier and safer for Stuu to simply resort to condescension and obfuscation.

 

[Clete]

Indeed. It doesn't prove anything. The fact that all known life shares the same system of genetic storage and replication, and the fact that the machinery of any cell can read the DNA of any other cell is evidence for common ancestry. Science doesn't prove things. It builds up a weight of evidence in favour of one model/explanation then seeks to disprove that model by further evidence. The model stands until disproving evidence is found.

Stuart

This assertion that science doesn't prove anything is false. Science proves things all the time. Often, such proof comes by way of proving the impossibility of the contrary where all logical possibilities but one are proved to be impossible but this isn't always the case by any means.

It was once believed that maggots spontaneously appeared from rotting meat. Now we know for a fact that maggots are the larva of flies which lay eggs on the meat.

It was once believed that light only ever travels in perfectly straight lines. Now we know for a fact that light bends its way around stars and other massive bodies.

It was once believed that finding a four leaf clover meant you had the luck of the Irish. Now we know for a fact that, rather than luck, it is a rare genetic mutation that accounts for it.

It was once believed that the Sun and the rest of the whole universe went around the Earth on great celestial spheres. Now we know for a fact (thanks to a Christian scientist) that the Earth is hung on nothing and that it orbits the Sun.

These, and millions of other facts, are all facts that were proven by empirical scientific investigation.

The stupid notion that science cannot prove anything is just a political ploy that has been invented recently to over come the resistance to policies that politicians want to implement in response to what they claim are scientific facts but that they cannot even give good evidence for, never mind prove to be true.

 

[Right Divider]

You are the one who keeps using the term coded information. I have humoured you up to this point, but I reckon it’s time for you to define that term. Otherwise we are all at mortal risk of the equivocation fallacy, or possibly even the fallacy of accent.

There is no "code" in a regular pulse. A pulse at regular intervals is NOT coded information. That is so simple. Why can't you understand it? (Hint: your bias).

It is true that all life uses the same system of storing and transmitting genetic information, and that the cells of any species can read the DNA of any other species. That’s not an assumption.

Who said that THAT was an assumption? (Hint: nobody).

The assumption is that a common CODING system is proof that ALL life shares a SINGLE common ancestor.

That is the evidence.

Again, for the extremely hard of hearing... it is NOT evidence that ALL life shares a SINGLE common ancestor.

God created MULTIPLE "kinds" that all use the SAME common CODING system. No inheritance from a SINGLE common ancestor required.

The only interpretation I have made is that it is evidence for common descent, which it clearly is.

No, it's NOT and it will not become true just because you keep repeating it.

Given the model of common descent that most creationists put up for the appearance of life on earth post-flood, I would be surprised if you were to object to it.

Common descent within the kinds is not a problem for a creationist.

Common code == common Creator.
Common code != all life is descended from a SINGLE common ancestor.

Fair point. That’s why you need further corroborating evidence, which is why I gave you the second piece of evidence, the comparisons between amino acid sequences in the same proteins in different species. That demonstrates that some pairs of species are more closely related than other pairs of species. Together those two pieces of evidence show you there is a tree of life.

There are NUMEROUS ways to "compare" DNA which produce WIDELY different results.

A rare thing, a genuine example of begging the question; using the conclusion of the argument in support of itself in a premise.

CODED information does NOT occur naturally. CODED information ALWAYS has an intelligent designer.

I remember BASIC from school.

10 CLS
20 For T=1 to 100
30 If T=100 then goto 40 else next T
40 Print “Big Pulsar Flash”
50 Goto 10

That’s what a pulsar is doing.

A pulsar is running a BASIC program created by an intelligent (or at least slightly so) designer?

:rotfl:

Of course that’s not the mechanism by which it does it, but then it’s not the mechanism by which a computer actually simulates it, either.

Exactly! So your point is pointless.

What relevance does the origin of DNA have to the discussion?

Stuart

Because CODED INFORMATION always has an intelligent designer... ALWAYS.

CODED INFORMATION does not occur in nature... i.e., by itself.

 

[Right Divider]

Indeed. It doesn't prove anything.

Then why did you keep saying that it did?

The fact that all known life shares the same system of genetic storage and replication, and the fact that the machinery of any cell can read the DNA of any other cell is evidence for common ancestry.

:deadhorse:

No... it's NOT.

The CREATOR used a COMMON CODING SYSTEM for creating His MULTIPLE kinds.

A COMMON CODING SYSTEM does NOT, in ANY way, prove that ALL life descended from a SINGLE common ancestor.

Science doesn't prove things. It builds up a weight of evidence in favour of one model/explanation then seeks to disprove that model by further evidence. The model stands until disproving evidence is found.

Stuart

Again... you are hilarious.

 

[7djengo7]

As I mentioned to RD, and in the light of Stripe’s demands to discuss evidence, the god-based explanation for common descent would also need evidence of the god in question. Occam’s razor removes assumptions that do not improve an explanation. So if we add a god to common descent then that god would need to be answering more questions than it caused to be asked.

Think of how many unanswered questions arise once you invoke a god. What is a god? How does it interact with matter? What is the origin of the god, and of its ability to organise biochemistry? Do gods arise by natural selection like the life we know about? I personally think gods do arise by natural selection, but for the present the discussion is simply about the evidence for common descent, regardless of what interpretations people may make of it.

One of your problems, here, is that nobody in your audience has a burden to assume that you are referring to something by your use of the word, "god"--that you aren't just saying the word meaninglessly. Much less do we have a burden to guess what (if anything) you imagine you mean by it. If you want to have a conversation with others, then you have a burden to mean things by the words you say, and you have a burden to tell your target audience what (if anything) you mean by the words you say.

Instead of sounding dumb like you do above by saying, "What is a god?", to others, you should ask yourself questions like the following:

• "Do I mean something by the word 'god'?"
• "If I do, then what do I mean by the word 'god'? To what am I referring by it?"
• "If I don't, then why do I say it?"

Nobody owes you an assumption that you actually mean something by the word, 'god', just because you say the word, 'god'. I certainly do not assume that you mean anything by it, and, that being the case, it does not appear to me that you are even asking a question when you write, "What is a god?" And, when you have asked no question, then why would you expect to receive an answer?

And, so long as you are not using the word, 'god', meaningfully, you necessarily are failing to use, meaningfully, combinations of words built around the word, 'god'. For instance, the question of whether or not using these (and many other) things you write, meaningfully:

• "god-based explanation"
• "the god in question"
• "that god"
• "invoke a god"
• "gods arise by natural selection"
• "I think gods arise by natural selection"
• "What is a god?"
• "How does it interact with matter?"

stands or falls on whether or not you, in the first place, are using the word, 'god', meaningfully.

 

[7djengo7]

You have yet to establish that "life we know about" arises by natural selection.

You’re an intelligent person with an ability to analyse. It is flattering that you expect me to have all the best answers.

Here, you're plainly agreeing with JR that you have not established, and cannot establish, things you pretend to believe, and that you expect others to believe (or, at least, to pretend to believe).

And since we know, and you know--and we know that you know--that you cannot establish the things you pretend to believe, the question arises: what (if anything) are you trying to accomplish by writing your posts on TOL?

 

[Stuu]

Thanks for your reply.

This assertion that science doesn't prove anything is false. Science proves things all the time. Often, such proof comes by way of proving the impossibility of the contrary where all logical possibilities but one are proved to be impossible but this isn't always the case by any means.

It was once believed that maggots spontaneously appeared from rotting meat. Now we know for a fact that maggots are the larva of flies which lay eggs on the meat.

I agree that your statement above is completely reasonable when considering the nature of scientific knowledge. It is a fact based on the inference from observing flies, for example. It is so good a fact it would be perverse to deny it, but as a scientific conclusion it is always provisional on the possibility that further evidence comes to light that causes us to change our view. Science is about finding the most probable explanation then attempting to disprove it: this is a very high probability explanation, and spontaneous generation of life on rotting meat is a very low probability explanation. It is right that you have not used the word ‘proved’. I know it sounds pedantic but it is the right way to consider scientific theories.

It was once believed that light only ever travels in perfectly straight lines. Now we know for a fact that the course light bends its way around stars and other massive bodies.

The light is still travelling in straight lines. It’s just the spacetime it is travelling through has been bent by the massive objects.

It was once believed that finding a four leaf clover meant you had the luck of the Irish. Now we know for a fact that, rather than luck, it is a rare genetic mutation that accounts for it.

Are you saying that ‘The luck of the Irish’ has been replace by ‘Rare genetic mutation’? Each is a different category.

It was once believed that the Sun and the rest of the whole universe went around the Earth on great celestial spheres. Now we know (thanks to a Christian scientists) that the Earth is hung on nothing and that it orbits the Sun.

Let’s not forget that Galileo was put under house arrest for life by the Roman Catholic church for advocating for the heliocentric model. And when you say ‘Hung on nothing’, that wouldn’t be a scientific description of the interaction between mass and spacetime that results in an apparent gravitational force that causes the observed motion.

These, and millions of other facts, are all facts that were proven by empirical scientific investigation.

You can see that there is discussion between you and I on each of these, and if scientists were in the habit of writing the last word on each and closing the book with the word ‘proved’, then science would be stuck with a load of useless and out-of-date knowledge. Things ‘proved’ in the past would make sat nav impossible today, unless all relevant knowledge was provisional on new evidence. Einstein improved on Newton, that was necessary for sat nav.

The stupid notion that science cannot prove anything is just a political ploy that has been invented recently to over come the resistance to policies that politicians want to implement in response to what they claim are scientific facts but that they cannot even give good evidence for, never mind prove to be true.

In layperson’s terms, climate change by anthropogenic carbon emissions and evolution by natural selection (the two that you are thinking of) are proved beyond any doubt. In scientific terms, they are theories that represent the best explanations we have for the observed phenomena, and are always open to further evidence. Knowledge of both is constantly changing in subtle ways but the overall body of evidence only builds up in favour of each, and not to the contrary. Of course you would have no objection to theories about the atom or electricity, but they should be much more controversial than either evolution or climate change. It is only the politics of conservative America that presents these two to you as bogey men because of your political prejudices about what ‘should be’.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

In layperson’s terms, climate change by anthropogenic carbon emissions and evolution by natural selection (the two that you are thinking of) are proved beyond any doubt.

Evolution by natural selection is not an issue. Creationism is fine with that.

What is at issue is your idea that ALL life shares a SINGLE common ancestor. That is false.

AND that life "created itself" from non-life. That is also false.

You really need to up your game. Your schtick is getting old.

 

[Stuu]

There is no "code" in a regular pulse. A pulse at regular intervals is NOT coded information. That is so simple. Why can't you understand it? (Hint: your bias).

No definition then?

The assumption that a common CODING system is proof that ALL life shares a SINGLE common ancestor.

The inference, not the assumption. Big difference.

Again, for the extremely hard of hearing... it is NOT evidence that ALL life shares a SINGLE common ancestor.

No logic, just bald assertion.

God created MULTIPLE "kinds" that all use the SAME common CODING system.

Could be. Would need corroborating evidence of course.

No inheritance from a SINGLE common ancestor required.

Isn’t that the creationist model of descent ‘within a kind’?

No, it's NOT and it will not become true just because you keep repeating it.

And it doesn’t become not true just because you keep denying it
.

Common descent within the kinds is not a problem for a creationist.

Common code == common Creator.
Common code /= all life is descended from a SINGLE common ancestor.

You’re just proposing more single common ancestors than me. It’s the creationist grass model vs the scientific tree model. Both have common descent. We need corroborating evidence. That’s why I’ve given you the second piece of evidence, that which compares amino acid sequences for the same protein in different species.

There are NUMEROUS ways to "compare" DNA which produce WIDELY different results.

Can you be specific about that? Can you give an example?

CODED information does NOT occur naturally. CODED information ALWAYS has an intelligent designer.

Well then, according to your definition of coded information here, the pulsar is not giving coded information. Would you be able to establish whether I should be using your definition too?

A pulsar is running a BASIC program created by an intelligent (or at least slightly so) designer?

No. But the effect is the same, and the pulsar is not an intelligent coder.

Because CODED INFORMATION always has an intelligent designer... ALWAYS.

CODED INFORMATION does not occur in nature... i.e., by itself.

Because you say so?

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

<NO ANSWER>

evidence /ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/

noun

• the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

What fact do you have to support your claim that what you call "fact" is fact?

If you speak in accordance with what you just handed me from OED, then whenever you say something is evidence, you're saying it is fact. So, you've gotten yourself nowhere, my friend.

 

[7djengo7]

No logic,

Says the anti-logic, logic-despising clown who openly flouts the law of the excluded middle by saying that some things are neither human nor non-human, in reaction to a question I asked you:

By your phrase--"the whole population of hominins that were in the process of acquiring traits that you might call human"--to which are you referring? To humans or to non-humans?

Neither, obviously.

Obviously, you're nobody to be trying to instruct others about logic.

 

[Right Divider]

No definition then?

Really.... coded information is information that uses a CODE.

The inference, not the assumption. Big difference.

It's NOT an "inference".

No logic, just bald assertion.

You are the illogical one here.... you are making a claim that you cannot support.

You simply BEG THE QUESTION repeatedly.

Could be. Would need corroborating evidence of course.

Just like YOU need corroborating evidence of course.

You have NO evidence that what you claim is true and YET you just keep barfing up that claim.

Isn’t that the creationist model of descent ‘within a kind’?

Yes, that is scientifically demonstrable.

Just like the Bible says... after their kind.

And it doesn’t become not true just because you keep denying it

:juggle:

Try to think logically for a change.

You’re just proposing more single common ancestors than me.

That is a retarded statement.

It’s the creationist grass model vs the scientific tree model.

The "tree" that has all life descending from a SINGLE common ancestor is NOT "scientific". It is an atheist fantasy.

Both have common descent. We need corroborating evidence.

Yes, we do... we have God's Word... you have man's opinion.

That’s why I’ve given you the second piece of evidence, that which compares amino acid sequences for the same protein in different species.

Can you be specific about that? Can you give an example?

I have an idea... do your own research before you make your claims.

DNA is extremely complex and cannot just be simply "compared" like you might compare to strings of letters in a sentence. Your understanding of DNA needs some serious work.

I'll bet that you still think that there is "junk DNA".

Well then, according to your definition of coded information here, the pulsar is not giving coded information. Would you be able to establish whether I should be using your definition too?

There is NO CODE in a repeating pulse.... this is kindergarten stuff.

Because you say so?

Feel free to show us were it does.

 

[7djengo7]

just bald assertion.

So, when you baldly assert that X is evidence, you're somehow not guilty of "just bald assertion", but you accuse Right Divider of "just bald assertion" when he declares that, on the contrary, X is not evidence?

 

[Stuu]

Stuu: Indeed. It doesn't prove anything.

Then why did you keep saying that it did?

If you read carefully you might see I’ve only ever used the word ‘proved’ to highlight the difference in the common usage and the scientific non-usage of that term. See my reply to Clete for more.

The CREATOR used a COMMON CODING SYSTEM for creating His MULTIPLE kinds. A COMMON CODING SYSTEM does NOT, in ANY way, prove that ALL life descended from a SINGLE common ancestor.

You’re repeating yourself. The ad nauseam fallacy. It’s really just repetition of bald assertion. I refer you to Stripe. Get back to us when you are willing to discuss evidence. I can only imagine his disappointment at this part of the conversation.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Here, you're plainly agreeing with JR that you have not established, and cannot establish, things you pretend to believe, and that you expect others to believe (or, at least, to pretend to believe).

This analysis takes that part of our conversation out of context. But then, creationists have always had a penchant for quote-mining.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

It is right that you have not used the word ‘proved’.

Then, by all means, Professor, do tell us, according to you, just when--under what condition(s)--it is right to use the word, 'proved', regarding the proposition, P, such as in "P has been proved," or "It has been proved that P".

 

[Stuu]

Instead of sounding dumb like you do above by saying, "What is a god?", to others, you should ask yourself questions like the following:

• "Do I mean something by the word 'god'?"
• "If I do, then what do I mean by the word 'god'? To what am I referring by it?"
• "If I don't, then why do I say it?"

All right, I’ll make a worthless, hollow promise to do that sometime.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

This analysis takes that part of our conversation out of context. But then, creationists have always had a penchant for quote-mining.

You're obviously taking out of context what I have written. But then, Darwin cheerleaders have always had a penchant for quote-mining.

Here you can see just how easy it is for a non-fool such as myself to mimic a fool such as yourself.