I have tried to be fair and balanced, weighing up the merits of the main arguments and counter-arguments for both scientific hypotheses at the heart of the ongoing controversy about origins (7 for each).

I have chosen not to include the evidence for a global flood or a young earth because not all creationists accept this (most Muslim, Hindu and Jewish creationists are OECs).

By scoring all the pros and cons, I have come to an objective assessment and final determination about which hypothesis is the more plausible. The outcome may startle you.


CREATIONISM


1. The living cell is irreducibly complex. Scientists accept that as many as 300-400 genes are required for even a parasitic organism, let alone the most primitive free-living bacterium. (Score: 9)

Counter: Chemical evolution may have produced RNA-based proto-cells that did not contain any protein-coding genes at all. Life may, thus, have had even simpler origins than is the case today. (Score: 4)

2. The exquisite information content of DNA can only be explained with respect to an intelligent designer. This includes not only the highly specific codon sequences of genes but also the non-coding control circuits that regulate their expression. There is a “combinatorial inflation” relating to these sequences that is extremely prohibitive to a blind and undirected search for them (Score: 6)

Counter: Natural selection, genetic drift and random mutation (including duplication) – acting within large populations and over deep time - can adequately explain the information content of DNA and all of the functionality represented by it. (Score: 5)

3. The existence of biological molecular machines of extreme perfection, such as the bacterial flagellum and eukaryotic ciliate, can also only be explained with respect to an intelligent designer and not by any stepwise and unguided process with no foresight. (Score: 7)

Counter: Exaptation and co-option can account for how many complex structures arise where there is functional change with structural continuity. Sexual selection may also be important. (Score: 6)

4. There are glaring discontinuities in the fossil record, which mostly shows stasis, that belie the notion of gradual change. Animals and plants have appeared relatively suddenly in earth's history and with no clear precursor (Score: 7)

Counter: The fossil record may be incomplete and, in any case, evolution can be rapid provided the right environmental conditions are present. Punctuated equilibrium explains how this can happen. (Score: 5)

5. There are natural limits to biological change that prove the existence of “created kinds”. We know this from selective breeding. We can get organisms of the same genus or family to produce offspring (such as a horse and zebra) but not a tiger and a wolf. This is because they are different kinds of animal. (Score: 7)

Counter: There is no such thing as a “kind”. Dogs and cats cannot interbreed because their genomes have become far too diverse in terms of organisation and chromosome number to allow this. We still don't know if humans and chimps can have offspring. If they could, this would disprove creationism. (Score: 6)

6. Genomic entropy and Muller's ratchet: The genome is deteriorating from a once pristine created condition due to the accumulation of slightly harmful changes that cannot be weeded out by natural selection. This degeneration is not sustainable over millions of years and would almost certainly result in extinction and not any evolutionary diversification. (Score: 4)

Counter: The effects of the accumulation of deleterious mutations can be counteracted by compensatory mutations and with recombination. Also, extinction is itself a part of the evolutionary process.(Score: 6)

7. Biology is more than just the expression of genomes. Many aspects of the morphology and anatomy of organisms cannot be explained with reference to DNA sequences alone, and their origin lies in information of another kind. Also, many aspects of the human condition, such as consciousness, higher love, abstract thought, defy a materialistic explanation and are best explained by the existence of an animating soul (Score: 8)

Counter: Even if DNA does not account for every aspect of living organisms, this just means that science doesn't have all of the answers yet. There is no need for any supernatural tinkering. Consciousness can, in principle, be explained in terms of physico-chemical processes in the brain. (Score: 4)


SCORE: FOR (48) AGAINST (33). Net Total = 15


EVOLUTIONISM


1. The universal genetic code and phylogenetic comparative analysis of thousands of taxa clearly shows that there is a universal common ancestry amongst all living organisms. Humans share 95% of their DNA with chimps which only makes sense from an understanding of common ancestry (Score: 9)


Counter: The existence of a universal genetic code is indicative of a common designer and not necessarily of common ancestry - the code itself defies explanation by naturalistic processes. Moreover, many genetic commonalities shared between organisms at the genetic level can be attributed to the re-use of existing parts and internal processes. Humans also share as much as 85% of their DNA with mice because they need the same types of genes. (Score: 4)


2. Natural selection and adaption are the best way to explain biological diversity and complexity. There are many observed instances of this in the scientific literature. (Score: 4)

Counter: There are many limits to evolution by natural selection, Haldane's dilemma being just one of them. Selection is mostly a conserving force, that reduces diversity rather than promotes it. Adaptation often works by reducing complexity through the loss of functionality or structures as well. The simplest of all organisms are the most versatile which militates against any complexification. (Score: 6)


3. The fossil record is replete with transitional specimens that connect ancestral species with their modern descendants in geological time. Moreover, the rock strata clearly show that species were never contemporaneous: there is no such thing as a rabbit fossil in pre-Cambrian rock, for example. (Score: 6)

Counter: There are actually very few transitional specimens, and none of them can be shown to be ancestral to anything alive today. Many of them are better termed “mosaic” specimens. Archaeopteryx, whether it is to be regarded as a feathered dinosaur, or a perching bird with a bony tail, may not be the ancestor of any avian species. Tiktaalik, even if it is a fish that has morphological features shared with tetrapods, is not the ancestor of all tetrapods (which were around before then). Also, the rock layers only show that the kinds were created at different times, not that one evolved into the other. (Score: 4)


4. Speciation and adaptive radiation have been observed. It naturally follows that all species around today have branched off and are descended from one or more proto-organisms in the ancient past.(Score: 3)

Counter: Speciation explains how the created kinds diversified from a basal ancestor type. But it doesn't logically follow that all species are related to each other, only those species within the same baramin (created kind). (Scorer: 6)


5. Nested hierarchies of morphological traits and comparative anatomy clearly show that universal common descent is a reality. The penadactyl manus of a whale, which is used as a fin, proves that cetaceans evolved from terrestrial animals who used it to support their weight on the ground. (Score: 8)

Counter: Just because humans and apes, for example, share many features in common does not mean they are related, only that it appears that way. Homologous structures among vertebrates, like limbs with digits, may just be a consequence of shared developmental processes – a common design pattern. (Score: 3)


6. The biogeographical distribution of species and the physical isolation of species provides compelling evidence for evolution. The marsupials of Australia, for example, show how an isolated region seems to produce unique animals that are not found elsewhere. (Score: 3)

Counter: Biogeographical anomalies may be caused by migration rather than by evolution restricted to a particular location on earth. African and Asian great apes, for example, are very similar anatomically but live in very different habitats and have different lifestyles. Extinction can also explain why some species are geographically restricted: Lions used to live in Greece and the Balkans 2000 years ago. (Score:4)


7. Vestigial organs, like the vermiform appendix, and pseudogenes are remnants of an evolutionary past that do not make any sense in a creationist narrative. They serve no use and can be removed. (Score: 4)

Counter: It remains to be seen if any organs are vestigial and do not serve their original function. The appendix appears to be part of the immune system and maintaining gut flora. Pseudogenes may be duplicate genes that have since been silenced but many have been found to still be transcribed. (Score: 5)

SCORE: FOR (37) AGAINST (32). Net total = 5

Therefore, on the preponderance of the scientific merits and evidence, Creationism wins over Evolutionism.

A big giant wot lives in the sky dun it all. Eveyboddy noes dat.

How science is done in Wortfish World.

God you're tedious.

felltoearth wrote:How science is done in Wortfish World.

E0DB0D0E-7130-47E4-B463-36808B4ED8F3.jpeg

Scoring is how peer-review in science works: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... /leap.1009

laklak wrote:God you're tedious.

Freudian slip? I have weighed all the arguments. If you put them through a super-computer, it would deliver the same verdict.

Troll better, and less often.

RS

Wortfish wrote:

laklak wrote:God you're tedious.

Freudian slip? I have weighed all the arguments. If you put them through a super-computer, it would deliver the same verdict.

Hence the phrase. Crap in, crap out

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Troll better, and less often.

RS

You can't accuse me of not being fair to both sides.

BlackBart wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

laklak wrote:God you're tedious.

Freudian slip? I have weighed all the arguments. If you put them through a super-computer, it would deliver the same verdict.

Hence the phrase. Crap in, crap out

How would you rationally score the arguments, then?

Oh yes I can. Who are you to be the final arbiter of these matters?

Fair? What a fucking joke. The fact that you give the creotard shit any points at all is clear evidence that this is an exercise in silliness. The fact that you posted this shit after all the threads where you’ve had your tripe exposed for what it is is clear evidence you are trolling. I think you are a Poe, and this is all a big joke to you. It sure is to me. It’s just a piss poor joke is all.

RS

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Oh yes I can. Who are you to be the final arbiter of these matters?

Fair? What a fucking joke. The fact that you give the creotard shit any points at all is clear evidence that this is an exercise in silliness. The fact that you posted this shit after all the threads where you’ve had your tripe exposed for what it is is clear evidence you are trolling. I think you are a Poe, and this is all a big joke to you. It sure is to me. It’s just a piss poor joke is all.

RS

OK. Let's say all the arguments in favor of creationism are to be dismissed. What about those for evolution? Do they not have any good counter-arguments?

Do you actually think I’m going to play your little game?

RS

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Do you actually think I’m going to play your little game?

RS

Then the scoring remains as it is!

Wortfish wrote:I have tried to be fair and balanced,

weighing up the merits of the main arguments and counter-arguments for both scientific hypotheses at the heart of the ongoing controversy about origins (7 for each).

I have chosen not to include the evidence for a global flood or a young earth because not all creationists accept this (most Muslim, Hindu and Jewish creationists are OECs) there is none.

FIFY

By scoring all the pros and cons, I have come to an objective assessment and final determination about which hypothesis is the more plausible. The outcome may startle you.

Somehow I doubt it.

Wortfish wrote:I have tried to be fair and balanced, weighing up the merits of the main arguments and counter-arguments for both scientific hypotheses at the heart of the ongoing controversy about origins (7 for each).

I have chosen not to include the evidence for a global flood or a young earth because not all creationists accept this (most Muslim, Hindu and Jewish creationists are OECs).

By scoring all the pros and cons, I have come to an objective assessment and final determination about which hypothesis is the more plausible. The outcome may startle you.


CREATIONISM


1. The living cell is irreducibly complex. Scientists accept that as many as 300-400 genes are required for even a parasitic organism, let alone the most primitive free-living bacterium. (Score: 9)

Counter: Chemical evolution may have produced RNA-based proto-cells that did not contain any protein-coding genes at all. Life may, thus, have had even simpler origins than is the case today. (Score: 4)

2. The exquisite information content of DNA can only be explained with respect to an intelligent designer. This includes not only the highly specific codon sequences of genes but also the non-coding control circuits that regulate their expression. There is a “combinatorial inflation” relating to these sequences that is extremely prohibitive to a blind and undirected search for them (Score: 6)

Counter: Natural selection, genetic drift and random mutation (including duplication) – acting within large populations and over deep time - can adequately explain the information content of DNA and all of the functionality represented by it. (Score: 5)

3. The existence of biological molecular machines of extreme perfection, such as the bacterial flagellum and eukaryotic ciliate, can also only be explained with respect to an intelligent designer and not by any stepwise and unguided process with no foresight. (Score: 7)

Counter: Exaptation and co-option can account for how many complex structures arise where there is functional change with structural continuity. Sexual selection may also be important. (Score: 6)

4. There are glaring discontinuities in the fossil record, which mostly shows stasis, that belie the notion of gradual change. Animals and plants have appeared relatively suddenly in earth's history and with no clear precursor (Score: 7)

Counter: The fossil record may be incomplete and, in any case, evolution can be rapid provided the right environmental conditions are present. Punctuated equilibrium explains how this can happen. (Score: 5)

5. There are natural limits to biological change that prove the existence of “created kinds”. We know this from selective breeding. We can get organisms of the same genus or family to produce offspring (such as a horse and zebra) but not a tiger and a wolf. This is because they are different kinds of animal. (Score: 7)

Counter: There is no such thing as a “kind”. Dogs and cats cannot interbreed because their genomes have become far too diverse in terms of organisation and chromosome number to allow this. We still don't know if humans and chimps can have offspring. If they could, this would disprove creationism. (Score: 6)

6. Genomic entropy and Muller's ratchet: The genome is deteriorating from a once pristine created condition due to the accumulation of slightly harmful changes that cannot be weeded out by natural selection. This degeneration is not sustainable over millions of years and would almost certainly result in extinction and not any evolutionary diversification. (Score: 4)

Counter: The effects of the accumulation of deleterious mutations can be counteracted by compensatory mutations and with recombination. Also, extinction is itself a part of the evolutionary process.(Score: 6)

7. Biology is more than just the expression of genomes. Many aspects of the morphology and anatomy of organisms cannot be explained with reference to DNA sequences alone, and their origin lies in information of another kind. Also, many aspects of the human condition, such as consciousness, higher love, abstract thought, defy a materialistic explanation and are best explained by the existence of an animating soul (Score: 8)

Counter: Even if DNA does not account for every aspect of living organisms, this just means that science doesn't have all of the answers yet. There is no need for any supernatural tinkering. Consciousness can, in principle, be explained in terms of physico-chemical processes in the brain. (Score: 4)


SCORE: FOR (48) AGAINST (33). Net Total = 15


EVOLUTIONISM


1. The universal genetic code and phylogenetic comparative analysis of thousands of taxa clearly shows that there is a universal common ancestry amongst all living organisms. Humans share 95% of their DNA with chimps which only makes sense from an understanding of common ancestry (Score: 9)


Counter: The existence of a universal genetic code is indicative of a common designer and not necessarily of common ancestry - the code itself defies explanation by naturalistic processes. Moreover, many genetic commonalities shared between organisms at the genetic level can be attributed to the re-use of existing parts and internal processes. Humans also share as much as 85% of their DNA with mice because they need the same types of genes. (Score: 4)


2. Natural selection and adaption are the best way to explain biological diversity and complexity. There are many observed instances of this in the scientific literature. (Score: 4)

Counter: There are many limits to evolution by natural selection, Haldane's dilemma being just one of them. Selection is mostly a conserving force, that reduces diversity rather than promotes it. Adaptation often works by reducing complexity through the loss of functionality or structures as well. The simplest of all organisms are the most versatile which militates against any complexification. (Score: 6)


3. The fossil record is replete with transitional specimens that connect ancestral species with their modern descendants in geological time. Moreover, the rock strata clearly show that species were never contemporaneous: there is no such thing as a rabbit fossil in pre-Cambrian rock, for example. (Score: 6)

Counter: There are actually very few transitional specimens, and none of them can be shown to be ancestral to anything alive today. Many of them are better termed “mosaic” specimens. Archaeopteryx, whether it is to be regarded as a feathered dinosaur, or a perching bird with a bony tail, may not be the ancestor of any avian species. Tiktaalik, even if it is a fish that has morphological features shared with tetrapods, is not the ancestor of all tetrapods (which were around before then). Also, the rock layers only show that the kinds were created at different times, not that one evolved into the other. (Score: 4)


4. Speciation and adaptive radiation have been observed. It naturally follows that all species around today have branched off and are descended from one or more proto-organisms in the ancient past.(Score: 3)

Counter: Speciation explains how the created kinds diversified from a basal ancestor type. But it doesn't logically follow that all species are related to each other, only those species within the same baramin (created kind). (Scorer: 6)


5. Nested hierarchies of morphological traits and comparative anatomy clearly show that universal common descent is a reality. The penadactyl manus of a whale, which is used as a fin, proves that cetaceans evolved from terrestrial animals who used it to support their weight on the ground. (Score: 8)

Counter: Just because humans and apes, for example, share many features in common does not mean they are related, only that it appears that way. Homologous structures among vertebrates, like limbs with digits, may just be a consequence of shared developmental processes – a common design pattern. (Score: 3)


6. The biogeographical distribution of species and the physical isolation of species provides compelling evidence for evolution. The marsupials of Australia, for example, show how an isolated region seems to produce unique animals that are not found elsewhere. (Score: 3)

Counter: Biogeographical anomalies may be caused by migration rather than by evolution restricted to a particular location on earth. African and Asian great apes, for example, are very similar anatomically but live in very different habitats and have different lifestyles. Extinction can also explain why some species are geographically restricted: Lions used to live in Greece and the Balkans 2000 years ago. (Score:4)


7. Vestigial organs, like the vermiform appendix, and pseudogenes are remnants of an evolutionary past that do not make any sense in a creationist narrative. They serve no use and can be removed. (Score: 4)

Counter: It remains to be seen if any organs are vestigial and do not serve their original function. The appendix appears to be part of the immune system and maintaining gut flora. Pseudogenes may be duplicate genes that have since been silenced but many have been found to still be transcribed. (Score: 5)

SCORE: FOR (37) AGAINST (32). Net total = 5

Therefore, on the preponderance of the scientific merits and evidence, Creationism wins over Evolutionism.

What the everloving fuck is this? There is no debate. Consilience is a philosophical principle of science. It is arguably more exacting than even falsification as a principle. When creationism produces models that predict accurately and also account for consilience then phone in.

Wortfish wrote:

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Do you actually think I’m going to play your little game?

RS

Then the scoring remains as it is!

Well of course it does. There's no reasoning or criteria to your scores, so of course they're going to remain the same. They aren't based on anything.

Wortfish wrote:

felltoearth wrote:How science is done in Wortfish World.

E0DB0D0E-7130-47E4-B463-36808B4ED8F3.jpeg

Scoring is how peer-review in science works: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... /leap.1009

I’m sure your scoring method is just as rigorous. Slow clap.

felltoearth wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

felltoearth wrote:How science is done in Wortfish World.

E0DB0D0E-7130-47E4-B463-36808B4ED8F3.jpeg

Scoring is how peer-review in science works: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... /leap.1009

I’m sure your scoring method is just as rigorous. Slow clap.

Agreed. Let's see that scoring rubric.