vendredi 17 février 2012

AronRa linked to someone actually trying to prove evolution.

            The Series:A Man not at all prejudiced against God is criticising Creationism (not me, we'll get back to who it is)
Further to the Geoscience Major at Texas University
Lost In Translation
AronRa linked to someone actually trying to prove evolution.
AronRa, did I mention you are worthless on history?
My Motivation for Arguing Against FFoCr Series
Verifiable Does Not Equal Material and Natural
I Like "Miacis Cognita."
A Letter Arrived from AronRa
Here beginneth our essay:

I have not seen all the fifty-one or fifty-three minutes, but here are my general observations on the kind of proof which Cassiopeia project tries to give in much deeper detail, but not - as far as I could tell from first fifteen minutes - any better kind of argumentation. At least it spares me the chore of going through AronRa's misunderstandings of Creationism without even once getting to the arguments. I warn you it is some time since I saw the video, or rather its beginning, but here goes, it will be from memory after I go through the abstract logics part.

How do you refute an argument of this type?

Basically: "my" theory is selfconsistent and as such predicts a, b, c etc. But a, b, c etc. are true as we know from observation, therefore my theory is true.

First refutation type: your theory is not self consistent.

Second refutation type: your etc. is unspecified, and your a, b, and c. are too few since another theory self consistent or other theories consistent with each other could explain a, b and c.

Third kind of refutation: your theory to be self consistent also predicts d, and we know from observation d is not true.

Fourth kind of refutation: a, b and c are not all of them observed facts but some depend on another theory which we do not know to be true.

Fifth kind of refutation: your a can easily be explained otherwise, but your b and your c weaken each other as arguments.

Sixth refutation type: your theory does not predict one of the obvious things (but this may be because it is incomplete, unless it claims to do otherwise.

Seventh type: an obvious fact contradicts one of your own predictions.

Applied on evolution (this is citing Cassopeia project from memory): a random variation of genes and non-reproduction of specimens with non-functional genes tend to diversify populations until they are no longer directly interbreedable. They can still be indirectly interbreedable through species intermediate in the variation. However, over time some of these intermediate species grown extinct and so the populations not directly interbreedable become not interbreedable at all. They are then free to vary in very different directions, to branch out into cat and dog, into mammal and bird, even into insect and vertebrate if you go far back enough. This obviously goes very far back before we get to the one or very few eucariotic one celled or strictly similar celled species we descend from. Over time - which is very, very long - most traces have been obliterated. This predicts that intermediate forms of less diversification shall be found in earlier fossiles (dating of fossiles is another theory, see dating methods). But most species among earlier ones will not be found at all. Also, the earlier intermediate species will not be random mixtures of later more diversified forms, like they will not be things with fur on one part and feathers on another part of the body. Organs of either vegetative life, perception, or movement will develop through variation and elimination of the unfit, and parts of organs will readapt in later versions of the breed, sometimes leaving non-functional residual forms there.

First refutation type: it is not really self consistent to pretend that organs will arise from organisms lacking them by the random variation with elimination of the unfit. Ear and eye could not have arisen so.

Second refutation type: the variety of species with yet so similar genes and parts of organs are quite as explainable through creation by a common creator, even if we accept the geologic column to be different faunas and floras diversified over time. Intermediate species are explained by God's knowledge of every combination possible and good. Reuse of organ parts as well as genes in other combinations is explainable because of artistic economy in the one common Creator, and avoidance of chimeric forms combining fur and feathers by His sense of artistic coherence..

Third kind of refutation: your theory implies that all mammals have a common ancestor, therefore either that they have same number of chromosomes as original mammal or fewer, or that mammals easily raise the chromosome numbers. But both are false.

Fourth kind of refutation: that the intermediate forms arose very much earlier depends on unproven fossile dating. That the non-found ancestors, intermediate or not, are non-found because of vast time lapse also depends on a dating question and is unproven.

Fifth refutation type: saying most forms are lost without trace contradicts the claim that all intermediate species we need to trace a family tree have been found. Cf. third and fourth refutation types.

Sixth refutation type: evolution does not really at all predict that eyes, ears or mind will arise or even that cell colonies will diversify into multicellular beings with diversified organs. And, unfortunately, it claims, in the atheist version, to be a complete explanation of all that diversifies present species from one celled ancestors.

Seventh type: remember how paradoxic mixtures between diverse diversifications are not to be expected? Ornithorhynchus anatinus! It means "birdsnout the ducklike" - it is a mammal which seems to have a beak. And this is even anatomically a pretty good way to describe it.

So, every kind of refutation this general kind of proof from concurring evidence of verified implications can have, evolution has it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire