Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

What kind of evidence is acceptable?

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    David Williams: My introduction to biofilms was an infection in my leg. The streptococcus banded together and cooperated. There was a central slime city that
    Message 1 of 119 , Dec 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      David Williams: My introduction to biofilms was an infection in my leg. The
      streptococcus banded together and cooperated. There was a central slime
      city that tunneled through my flesh in a radial pattern. At the end of each
      radius, was a new colony. The bacteria exhibited a rudimentary
      intelligence, communicating with each other through chemical signals. When
      they do this, they are harder to get rid of.

      Charles P: Please join us to use the evidence from molecular science to
      explain to everyone here on Origins Talk the updates that will eventually
      replace the unscientific parts of the old Theory of Evolution. I respect
      your philosophies even when they are negative toward religions, but those
      negative ideas have no place in discussions about the description for the
      origin and diversity of life.

      Charles P: http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/ Though you may consider
      this Darwin or Design video to be bogus, you have to admit that there is
      some value to staying within the boundaries of The Rule of Methodological
      Naturalism mentioned at Time 38:14 of the video.

      Charles P: http://www.discovery.org/ The statements of science must
      invoke only natural things and processes. That means that dissing The
      Discovery Institute is unscientific. That means that dissing Intelligent
      Design is unscientific. Interpretations of evidence that are different
      from your interpretations are not bogus just because you say so. The only
      kind of evidence that is acceptable must be empirical and verifiable by
      others.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Charles Palm
      D R Lindberg (To Jim in Missouri): You agreed that intermediate fossils can be identified independently of of theory. That eliminates any circularity. Charles
      Message 119 of 119 , Jan 18, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        D R Lindberg (To Jim in Missouri): You agreed that intermediate fossils
        can be identified independently of of theory. That eliminates any
        circularity.

        Charles P: The old idea of *transitional fossils* from the old Theory of
        Evolution is not acceptable as empirical and verifiable evidence. Naming
        them *intermediate* or some other name is a distinction without a
        difference. Arguing *circularity* draws attention away from the central
        issue. Look at this unscientific collection of intermediate fossils that
        does not even meet the standards of Wikipedia. This page was last modified
        on 14 January 2013 at 03:13.

        List of transitional fossils:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils.

        1 This article needs additional citations for verification.

        2 This documentation needs attention from an expert in Palaeontology.

        Introduction to cladistics:
        http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad1.html There are three basic
        assumptions in cladistics: (1) Any group of
        organisms are related by descent from a common ancestor. Please read (2)
        and (3) for additional information.

        Charles P: Everyone understands human genealogy and the concept of *common
        ancestor* for humans. Everyone understands dog genealogy and the concept
        of *common ancestor* for dogs. Why should anyone consider the concept of a
        *common ancestor* between living things that are self-evident as being very
        different?

        Phylogenetic trees:
        http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Phylogenetic+trees Limitations.

        1 Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or
        genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they
        have important limitations.

        2 When extinct species are included in a tree, they are terminal nodes, as
        it is unlikely that they are direct ancestors of any extant species.

        3 Scepticism must apply when extinct species are included in trees that
        are wholly or partly based on DNA sequence data, due to the fact that
        little useful "ancient DNA" is preserved for longer than 100,000 years, and
        except in the most unusual circumstances no DNA sequences long enough for
        use in phylogenetic analyses have yet been recovered from material over 1
        million years old.

        Understanding homology and analogy:
        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/similarity_hs_01 Note:
        There is no empirical and verifiable method for determining *common
        ancestry* between non-related living things.

        Charles P: Common ancestry is assumed in the science of cladistics.
        Transitional fossils are assumed to be intermediate between other fossils.
        Transitional fossils are extinct species. Transitional fossils are
        terminal nodes. Transitional fossils are unlikely to be direct ancestors
        of any extant species.

        **********************************************

        Charles P: The skeptic does not have to qualify as a *creationist*. The
        skeptic does not have to qualify as an *Intelligent Design Theorist*. The
        skeptic does not have to qualify as *anti-science*. All a skeptic needs is
        to do their homework to verify for themselves what is scientific and what
        is not scientific.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.