Re: Wrong!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why are you an expert on what's established or not established as science if you're not a scientist?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because proving that absolute chance exists requires omniscience.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what is science in your opinion?

Re: Wrong!
 

[ QUOTE ]
MidGe - We had this exchange...


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You make a scientific argument in your first paragraph. On that paragraph --- In considering the evolution of something from A1 to A100 Going from A1 to A2 might require lets say 3 changes in the genetic code. From A2 to A3 another 3 changes ..and so on. Now 6 changes to the genetic code is more than twice as hard as 3. 30 changes are far more than 10 times harder than just 3.


[/ QUOTE ]

Chips,

Have you ever had a Genetics course? Evolutionary change is not on a logarithmic scale. Who told you that every successive change in the link is harder than the previous one? It could be easier to go from a99 to a100 than from a1 to a2. It is simply dependent on which genes are mutated. It could be one or more. It is not any harder for one gene to mutate in a human now and have some effect than it is in a pre-historic virus.

Re: Wrong!
 

[ QUOTE ]

I think it was Gould that said that finding the fossil of a modern rabbit in the precambrian strata would crush evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

What about finding all the missing links in human evolution? Wouldn't that crush ID?

Also, as to the rabbit, don't foget HAT (Hopeful Alien Theory).

Re: NotReady is Not Ready
 

[ QUOTE ]

You can't predict what the variability will be, it's random.


[/ QUOTE ]

I thought to be valid a theory has to make accurate predictions.

Re: Wrong!
 

[ QUOTE ]

So what is science in your opinion?


[/ QUOTE ]

I accept most common formulations of the definition of science, at least I don't find anything objectionable. Post one and I'll comment. But a statement that something is totally uncaused (purely random) is unscientific without omniscience because if there's something you don't know empirically you can't know that what you don't know is the cause.

Re: Wrong!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think it was Gould that said that finding the fossil of a modern rabbit in the precambrian strata would crush evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

What about finding all the missing links in human evolution? Wouldn't that crush ID?

Also, as to the rabbit, don't foget HAT (Hopeful Alien Theory).

[/ QUOTE ]

So the onus is on evolutionists, that have supporting data, to debunk IDers, that don't have supporting data?
And the fact that the fossil record isn't perfectly complete is not a legit argument for discounting evolution. What about the long spans of time where evolution is clearly shown?

What's the HAT?

Re: NotReady is Not Ready
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You can't predict what the variability will be, it's random.


[/ QUOTE ]

I thought to be valid a theory has to make accurate predictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep avoiding the bigger picture. Again, you keep taking only one part of the argument. The initial variability is random, the rest isn't.
And even so, because there's randomness in one part the whole thing is crap even though we can explain how the randomness is involved?
What about diffusion to equilibrium for example? You can't predict with accuracy which molecules are going to go where, but you can predict the result accurately. Is it ghosts moving the molecules?

Re: Wrong!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So what is science in your opinion?


[/ QUOTE ]

I accept most common formulations of the definition of science, at least I don't find anything objectionable. Post one and I'll comment. But a statement that something is totally uncaused (purely random) is unscientific without omniscience because if there's something you don't know empirically you can't know that what you don't know is the cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Errors in transcription are often the cause of mutations. What was the point here?

Re: Wrong!
 

[ QUOTE ]

So the onus is on evolutionists, that have supporting data, to debunk IDers, that don't have supporting data?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to get into the burden of proof game. That's just an attempt to set the rules of the discussion to favor one side or the other. As to supporting data, that begs the question. IDers claim they have supporting data, evolutionists don't.

[ QUOTE ]

And the fact that the fossil record isn't perfectly complete is not a legit argument for discounting evolution. What about the long spans of time where evolution is clearly shown?


[/ QUOTE ]

If Darwinism predicts something that doesn't show up in the fossil record it certainly is a vaid criticism of the theory. As to evolution being clearly shown, I'm not arguing about other species and whether the evidence is clear or not - I'm arguing human evolution, human fossils, and the lack of intermediaries expected from a Darwinian prediction.

HAT means aliens did it. I used to use this as first announced by the movie 2001 a Space Odessey but have since learned that Crick suggested it even earlier - perhaps Clarke got it from Crick.

Re: NotReady is Not Ready
 

[ QUOTE ]

You keep avoiding the bigger picture.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've said before I have no objection to using random in a probability sense - like flipping a coin. But it's more often used in the sense of uncaused, which is a religious statement, not a math statement - like the coin flipped itself.