Still dodging CTD.
An hypothesis isn't evidence.
Nor have I said that hypothesis are evidence or fact, so this is just another red herring comment designed to avoid the real issue.
Observations are evidence, evidence of the natural world that surrounds us every day.
Nor are conclusions "evidence" -- conclusions based on those observations are either valid or invalid, depending on (1) the truth of the observations and (2) the logical structure of the argument.
To deal with the argument you need to show that either (1) the observations are false or (2) that the logic is faulty and the conclusions do not follow from the premises (which here are the observations).
The observation that no two individual organisms are identical is not an hypothesis, but an observation of the evidence of the natural world that surrounds us every day.
The observation that some of the differences between individual organisms are hereditary (genetic, genotype), some are due to environmental effects (affect development, phenotype), and some are acquired by the organisms (behavioral, learned, individual traits, memes), is not an hypothesis, but an observation of the evidence of the natural world that surrounds us every day. I believe Mendel figured this one out.
The observation that some (not all) of the difference between organisms enable some (not all) of the organisms to survive and breed more than others, is not an hypothesis, but an observation of the evidence of the natural world that surrounds us every day.
The observation that to affect the whole populations of organisms, traits need to be passed from one generation to the next. Genetic traits are passed by genes, environmental traits are passed by the environment, learned traits are passed by memes. Again, this is not an hypothesis, but an observation of the evidence of the natural world that surrounds us every day.
The conclusion that hereditary traits that result in differences that enable some organisms to survive and breed better, will become more common in following generations of those organisms than hereditary traits that don't, or that hinder survival and breeding, and evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - will occur, is a testable hypothesis based on the observations.
your abuse of the term "cognitive dissonance" ... anyone who doesn't follow your religion is mentally ill.
The problem with these facile portrayals of yours is that they fail to include the fact that everyone is susceptible to cognitive dissonance, nor is it necessarily equated with mental illness. I would be surprised if there were any top scientiest that had not had to deal with cognitive dissonance, particularly when confronted with a new theory. The effects of cognitive dissonance are the same to anyone who has run into it. The question is how a person reacts when confronted with contradictory evidence.
I think the evolutionist is forced to be intellectually dishonest when confronted by the fossil record.
Well, once again we have the problem CTD, that you can say any dang thing you like (and frequently do), but it doesn't mean squat unless you can demonstrate evidence for your position (which you invariably (conveniently ignore?) fail to do). Perhaps you can explain how the fossil record of over 65 million years of foraminifera fossils, showing (relatively) constant change, coupled with "hundreds" of speciation events - places in the evidence where lineages divide from a parent population into different daughter populations, ... perhaps you can explain how this requires "intellectual dishonesty" in order for a scientist to say that it shows the process of evolution, rather than just make a blind unsupported assertion.
The "prediction" says one thing, and the record shows the opposite. Of course none of the phony "predictions" are intended to be falsifiable; they simply mock science.
Do you mean that you think the prediction you quoted is false?
Allow me to elevate LindaLou in your esteem. (bold added for your benefit)
Prediction 5:2 -- Morphological (shape) Change. "Macroevolution requires that organisms' morphologies have changed throughout evolutionary history; thus, we should observe morphological change and variation in modern populations. There have been numerous observations of morphological change in populations of organisms . . ." (Endler 1986, Barsh 1996, Houde 1988, Morton 1990, Johnston and Selander 1973, Futuyma 1998).
Do you think this has NOT happened? Especially when they go on to LIST EXAMPLES?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.htmlThere have been numerous observations of morphological change in populations of organisms (Endler 1986). Examples are the change in color of some organ, such as the yellow body or brown eyes of Drosophila, coat color in mice (Barsh 1996), scale color in fish (Houde 1988), and plumage pattern in birds (Morton 1990). Almost every imaginable heritable variation in size, length, width, or number of some physical aspect of animals has been recorded (Johnston and Selander 1973; Futuyma 1998, p. 247-262). This last fact is extremely important for common descent, since the major morphological differences between many species (e.g. species of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds) are simple alterations in size of certain aspects of their respective parahomologous structures.
Do you claim that those are NOT morphological changes?
The part that I bolded is of particular note, because it also addresses the small degree of variation that is needed for macroevolution as defined by evolutionary biologists in discussing biological evolution (rather than creationists discussing straw man falsehoods).
Of course none of the phony "predictions" are intended to be falsifiable; they simply mock science. All I did was point out the inconsistency in the policy. That you are, or pretend to be, blind to this isn't a surprise. That you think you can fool anyone else with such nonsense is somewhat insulting.
And yet you have not shone that a single one of the predictions on that website cannot be falsified by evidence that contradicts it. Even with this one you have not shone that actual evidence showing an absence of morphological change, and then that speciation occurred, would falsify the prediction. The fact that this is
extremely unlikely does not mean that it is not a falsifiable prediction, just that the theory is very robust due to the prevalence of even everyday experience and observation matching the predictions. No, I am not blind, I just don't confuse evidence with hypothesis and hypothesis with theory.
The fact that rocks keep falling to the ground when you drop them does not mean that the theory of gravity is not falsifiable by one rock NOT falling. Our experience with gravity is so thorough that we do not expect to see this falsification test happen, but that does NOT mean that it would NOT invalidate the theory if it did. Whether you "like it" or not, our everyday experience with evolution is the same: we do not expect to see it falsified, but that does not mean that it won't/can't happen, just that it is as unlikely as floating rocks.
Funny how you snipped out the parts that were directly opposing what you said, and chose to focus on this sentence instead. Coincidence?
This is a typical CTD argument -- introduce a red herring, and then claim your points are not addressed when the red herrings aren't followed. The point was that "Lamarckism" is defined as the theory of acquired characteristecs being hereditary, while one of Lamarcks OTHER theories says that environment can affect the development of organisms.
The fact that what Russ was talking about was the heredity of acquired characteristics -- tanned skin and developed muscles -- and NOT epigenetics or the (Lamarckian) effect of environment on the development of organisms. Thus any discussion of epigenetics or (Lamarckian) effects of environment on the development of organisms does not contradict the argument that
Lamarckism -- the heredity of acquired characteristics -- has been falsified, proven to be false, invalidated.
A mutation could potentially screw up the epigenetic mechanisms? SO WHAT? A mutation could potentially screw up anything to do with genes. This doesn't make epigenetics a non-factor.
Exactly NOT what I said. What I said was that during periods where epigentic factors were modifying development that mutations could occur that would be
neutral to that development, but which would result in the
same development when the epigenetic factors were removed. There would be no selection against those mutations. Or any other mutations rendered neutral by the epigenetic effect.
You seem dead-set on downplaying, distorting, and just plain misstating everything to do with gene expression. I suppose you could be genuinely ignorant, but in that case it would be in your interest to follow some links and learn a thing or two. Your behaviour is not consistent with this. One wonders what you see in these things that frightens you so.
Not in the quotes you mentioned, but in your misinterpretations of them.
Could it be that you're unable to imagine a way for these things to have evolved? I have to say it is very difficult. It might seem to require true junk DNA to evolve as a precursor, and then mutate until it finds a use.
You just contradicted yourself, totally, and now we are back to hereditary traits in genes and away from epigenetics. What this shows is that you are just making up
ad hoc concepts whether they are based on reality or your imagination, and your only purpose is to "downplaying, distorting, and just plain misstating everything to do with" evolutionary biology.
Surely I cannot be expected to conclude either way until I have evidence. Even more surely, if anyone does expect this of me, I intend to disappoint.
Except that you have, and you have done so by ignoring the evidence.
Enjoy.
