Two Questions for Christians

[Loffler]

Later evolutionary science proves an earlier evolution postulate wrong, and you count that as a point against evolution. Only a Christian would use that logic.

No, I count it as a lack of evidence for evolution, which is correct.

How can evidence of evolution be lack of evidence of evolution?

Can you quote the prediction? Then you might have something.

You'll have to be more specific, there are millions and millions of predictions from the body of biological science I could choose from, though I don't know if I'd know how to find most of them online. The most basic statement of natural selection is "Individuals within a species that are best suited to their environment will survive and reproduce more than those less suited, thereby passing on their more useful traits and genetic qualities to successive generations." To say this has been "demonstrated" would be as much an understatement as to say germ theory has been demonstrated. For example, if natural selection were not true, animals would not bear superficial and useless resemblances to each other; instead, they do: flightless birds have wings; whales have tiny back leg bones; humans have goosebumps, appendices, male nipples, tiny secondary eyelids, wisdom teeth and a tailbone; cave fish have functionless eyes underneath a layer of skin; dandelions have sex organs; and whiptail lizards have fake sex even tho the entire species is female. This is all evidence species evolve from one into through natural selection.

Some creationists label this an argument from ignorance: scientists don't know the function of vestigial organs, so they assume they serve no purpose. Actually, this is incorrect: scientists do know the function of these organs, because they see them functioning in other species: most birds use wings to fly, land animals use back legs to walk, furry animals have goosebumps as a fear response to make their hair stand up, wood-eating animals use their appendix to digest cellulose, females use nipples for nursing, other animals have fully-developed nictitating membranes, animals with less-crowded mouths can keep their wisdom teeth comfortably, nearly all animals use their eyes to see, other flowers use their sex organs for reproduction, and other lizards (and nearly all animals) use sexual behavior to actually pass genes along.

One of Darwin's predictions comes from his suggestion, based on the evidence available to him at the time, that reptiles evolved from birds. This was demonstrated in 1862 with the discovery of Archaeopteryx. On that note...

As we've seen your citations of Darwin's predictions which did not turn out to be true, here are Darwin's predictions which did turn out to be true:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/pred-nf.html

[Loffler]

Another way to understand how evolution is falsifiable: the famous Piltdown Man hoax.

"The alleged fossil was controversial from the start precisely because it didn’t match evolutionary expectations. It had a modern human skull but an ancient apelike jaw (altered by someone who knew what he was doing), rather than a mix of features on both parts. It was like trying to fake a 1950 car by mixing parts from a 1980 car and a 1920 car. As more and more hominid fossils surfaced, Piltdown Man was increasingly seen as a side branch even if it did turn out to be genuine. It just didn't match the other finds. Piltdown Man actually vindicated evolution." sourceand more

[NearBr0ken]

I can't.  But isn't there more to most things than science?  Music, for instance, is simply your brain's perception of the effect of vibrating air molecules, but there's so much more to a Miles Davis solo than the physics of sound, isn't there?  A cynic would describe emotions as chemical reactions and nothing more, but the feeling I get when I see my wife goes so far beyond chemical reactions.  

What you've described is called emergent behaviour.  Another example is an ant colony.  No single ant is intelligent enough to engineer and build an ant hill.  However, the ant hill created by the colony could only be engineered and created by something more intelligent that a single ant.  Emergent behaviour.  In a way, you're own argument works against you.  You basically said that the way in which religion surpasses science is emotionally.  This classifies religion as little more than mass emotional hype.  I totally agree with you.

[Dickson]

Voter:  as a Christian and a bystander to your back-and-forth with McQ and Loffler, allow me to make a suggestion:  quit trying to pick a fight.  If you're trying to change someone's mind, then you've got to be willing to change your own.  

Loffler:  When you say shit like this

Only a Christian would use that logic.

I've got to call bullshit.  Substitute "vegan" or "atheist" or even "black person" for "Christian."  I'm a Christian and I don't have a problem with Darwin.  Don't let some moderately annoying Christian turn you into a bigot.  

Okay, now that I've gotten that off my chest . . .

NearBrOken:
I think I see your point (I think emergent intelligence is a fascinating phenomenon.  Have you heard the RadioLab show about it?  It's fucking amazing) but don't quite get the connection between "mass emotional hype" and emergence.  Interesting idea, though.  

As a preemptive reply--some of the holiest moments I've had have been alone (and, no, I'm not talking about the afternoon I "discovered" the Victoria's Secret catalog in the mail).  Would you chalk this up to some residual emergence that stuck with me after I had left a group?  Or was I carrying the group psychology with me?  These aren't pointed, rhetorical questions: I'm just curious.

[Loffler]

I've got to call bullshit. Substitute "vegan" or "atheist" or even "black person" for "Christian." I'm a Christian and I don't have a problem with Darwin. Don't let some moderately annoying Christian turn you into a bigot.

The fact you have no problem with Darwin does not contradict my statement at all. If you can't figure out why, maybe I'm more right about Christianity and logic than I thought.

[Voter]

Voter: as a Christian and a bystander to your back-and-forth with McQ and Loffler, allow me to make a suggestion: quit trying to pick a fight. If you're trying to change someone's mind, then you've got to be willing to change your own.

I'm not trying to change someone's mind.
I am willing to change my own.
Even if I weren't, that makes no sense.

[Voter]

You'll have to be more specific, there are millions and millions of predictions from the body of biological science I could choose from, though I don't know if I'd know how to find most of them online.

Choose any that you like, although as already noted it would make sense to start with the strongest.

The most basic statement of natural selection is "Individuals within a species that are best suited to their environment will survive and reproduce more than those less suited, thereby passing on their more useful traits and genetic qualities to successive generations."

1. How do we define and test "best suited"?
2. If evolution is true, then apparently deleterious mutations have fixed in species. Most animals can synthesize vitamin C. Primates and guinea pigs cannot.

[Whitney]

Voter: as a Christian and a bystander to your back-and-forth with McQ and Loffler, allow me to make a suggestion: quit trying to pick a fight. If you're trying to change someone's mind, then you've got to be willing to change your own.

I'm not trying to change someone's mind.
I am willing to change my own.
Even if I weren't, that makes no sense.

Actually, it does make sense.  People don't tend to want to bother discussing with someone they percieve to be closed minded.  Plus, ultimately, any debate-like discussion (like this one) has the root purpose of changing someone's mind.  I think Dickson's advice on how to approach conversations like this one was very good advice.

[Dickson]

Actually, it does make sense.  People don't tend to want to bother discussing with someone they percieve to be closed minded.  Plus, ultimately, any debate-like discussion (like this one) has the root purpose of changing someone's mind.  I think Dickson's advice on how to approach conversations like this one was very good advice.

Yeah, well, what the fuck do you know, you immoral godless heathen!  Burn!  Burn!!  

[Jolly Sapper]

1. How do we define and test "best suited"?
2. If evolution is true, then apparently deleterious mutations have fixed in species. Most animals can synthesize vitamin C. Primates and guinea pigs cannot.

Definition of "best suited" in regards to an environment, that which not only can survive the rigors of an environment but also thrives (stays healthy and can reproduce viable offspring, who are probably healthy as well).

Im not exactly sure what you are getting at with the second statement.  Can you expand on it?

[Loffler]

You'll have to be more specific, there are millions and millions of predictions from the body of biological science I could choose from, though I don't know if I'd know how to find most of them online.

Choose any that you like, although as already noted it would make sense to start with the strongest.

I chose to use the example of vestigial organs.

The most basic statement of natural selection is "Individuals within a species that are best suited to their environment will survive and reproduce more than those less suited, thereby passing on their more useful traits and genetic qualities to successive generations."

1. How do we define and test "best suited"?

We compare a trait with other traits, predict which trait would be the best for surviving in a given environment, then study to see if we are correct. Animals which retain counter-productive traits within their environment would be evidence against evolution.

2. If evolution is true, then apparently deleterious mutations have fixed in species. Most animals can synthesize vitamin C. Primates and guinea pigs cannot.

Unless and until evolution can explain this, it is a point against evolution. In the same way a mosquito could conceivably kill an elephant.

[Voter]

Actually, it does make sense.  People don't tend to want to bother discussing with someone they percieve to be closed minded.

Incorrect. I perceive loffler to be closed minded. He probably thinks the same of me. Yet, here we are, bothering to discuss.

Plus, ultimately, any debate-like discussion (like this one) has the root purpose of changing someone's mind.

There are other purposes. Personally, I find it entertaining, like doing a crossword puzzle. I also like to check on the continuing validity of my own position from time to time.  But in all the years I've been doing this, I've never seen one of the debaters, on either side, switch over. I've seen outspoken atheists convert to Christianity, twice, but they still cling to evolution. So I have to disagree that the root purpose is necessarily changing someone's mind.

I think Dickson's advice on how to approach conversations like this one was very good advice.

Which advice is that?

[Loffler]

Incorrect. I perceive loffler to be closed minded. He probably thinks the same of me. Yet, here we are, bothering to discuss.

I don't think you're close-minded. You're obviously just uneducated on the subject of biology. Since you don't know the basics of evolution, you lack an 8th grade science education.

[Whitney]

Which advice is that?

Um....the advice I was quoting in my post.

[Voter]

I don't think you're close-minded. You're obviously just uneducated on the subject of biology. Since you don't know the basics of evolution, you lack an 8th grade science education.

(Waiting for McQ to jump in, berate the ad hominem, and keep things on track. Not holding my breath, though.)

Unless and until evolution can explain this, it is a point against evolution.

Evolution has explained it, as I mentioned in an earlier post:
"This is explained in two ways: temporary environmental factors could make a generally deleterious mutation neutral, and so it would have a tiny but nonzero chance of fixation; or, the piggy-back effect, in which a deleterious mutation appears in the location of a much more beneficial mutation. These explanations preserve natural selection, but remove falsifiability."

In the same way a mosquito could conceivably kill an elephant.

One of the two primary mechanisms of evolution is shown to be either falsified, or non-falsifiable. To me, that's a serious consideration.

Moving on to vestigial organs:

flightless birds have wings; whales have tiny back leg bones; humans have goosebumps, appendices, male nipples, tiny secondary eyelids, wisdom teeth and a tailbone; cave fish have functionless eyes underneath a layer of skin; dandelions have sex organs; and whiptail lizards have fake sex even tho the entire species is female. This is all evidence species evolve from one into through natural selection.

Some creationists label this an argument from ignorance: scientists don't know the function of vestigial organs, so they assume they serve no purpose. Actually, this is incorrect: scientists do know the function of these organs, because they see them functioning in other species: most birds use wings to fly, land animals use back legs to walk, furry animals have goosebumps as a fear response to make their hair stand up, wood-eating animals use their appendix to digest cellulose, females use nipples for nursing, other animals have fully-developed nictitating membranes, animals with less-crowded mouths can keep their wisdom teeth comfortably, nearly all animals use their eyes to see, other flowers use their sex organs for reproduction, and other lizards (and nearly all animals) use sexual behavior to actually pass genes along.

most birds use wings to fly- another strike against natural selection, as flight has several strong benefits
wood-eating animals use their appendix to digest cellulose - ability to eat wood sounds handy, wonder how that went away
females use nipples for nursing - if this is vestigial, that means males could formerly nurse - a huge advantage that has been lost. Another blow to natural selection.
animals with less-crowded mouths can keep their wisdom teeth comfortably - smaller jaws are another deleterious mutation that fixed.
This is all evidence species evolve from one into through natural selection. - the above are all evidence that natural selection doesn't work