Falsificationism has always been an important part of science. Many scientists argue that if a theory cannot be falsified, then it does not qualify as genuine science. That view may be overly simplistic—and it is not falsifiable by the way—but certainly falsificationism is an important tradition within science. Theories are based on empirical data, and it is the empirical data which should have the final say on whether the theory makes sense. Therefore it is curious that evolutionists, while insisting on falsificationism for theories they oppose, suddenly drop this favorite criterion when it comes to their own theory.One of evolutionist’s favorite defenses against criticism of their theory is that mere criticism is insufficient. Criticism, they say, is nothing more than a negative argument. What is required, they say, is a replacement theory. So evolutionists, who when looking outward favor falsificationism as much as anyone, later deem it to be insufficient when the spotlight is turned onto their own theory.
When Darwin proposed his theory he asked for a fair-minded analysis. Compare the theory with the evidence. If the evidence does not support the theory, then it should be dropped. That is no longer the position of many leading evolutionists who reject any such analysis as insufficient.
This may be because evolution is, itself, a negative argument. Evolution is, and always has been, motivated by failures of creationism and design. If god did not design or create this world, then it must have evolved. Somehow. Evolutionists perform research to try to figure out how evolution could have happened, but it must have happened—that much they know. That is a metaphysical position, not a scientific position, based on a negative argument. It is not falsifiable.
"Evolution is, and always has been, motivated by failures of creationism and design. If god did not design or create this world, then it must have evolved. Somehow."
ReplyDeleteAgain with this beautiful canard.
There are possible universes in which species do not come from god, but also don't come from other species, hence not resulting in a tree. Ours appears to be one in which they do come from other species, hence resulting in a tree. That's what evolution means; if the word is defined as "Any non-divine origin of species", it's meaningless scientifically. You can't falsify the proposition that evolution occurs without god's help, unless you manage to define and demonstrate god's help in the present or past.
There are possible worlds in which life does not experience constant variation, and/or in which resources are unlimited, and/or in which environments do not change, etc. None of these worlds are evolutionary ones, even though they could still be worlds in which god is not directly involved in the formation of life. Yet no matter how much revision biology undergoes, so long as it doesn't incorporate god or the supernatural, it's still "evolution", by the standards of CH and other IDists.
Anyway, I'm curious what CH and others here would respond to the charge that physicists have refused to allow their theories to be falsified, instead moving the goalposts. I mean, like it or not, Newton was wrong. His calculations do not hold universally. They are false, false, false.
Yet physicists continue to insist that gravitation occurs, even though they don't know what cases it. They simply latch on to ad-hoc notions like relativity and the so-called Standard Model.
How much falsification do they need before they realize that gravitation simply doesn't occur, or that if it does, it is assisted by god? The naturalistic accounts of gravitation have failed again and again. (That's not hyperbole, it's strictly true. Accounts of gravitation have failed, and they were naturalistic ones.)
What would be the evidence needed to falsify the theory of evolution?
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter: What is required, they say, is a replacement theory.
ReplyDeleteAn example of falsification in science was the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Newton's Theory failed to properly predict this observation. It was supposed that some unknown body was affecting Mercury's orbit, but this was shown to not be the case. That left the anomaly.
But we don't just throw out a theory that predicts everything else. Instead, we modify the theory so that we now have Newton's (nearly) Universal Theory of Gravitation (except for the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and it doesn't do too bad with that either).
Fil: What would be the evidence needed to falsify the theory of evolution?
The Theory of Evolution, like most complex scientific theories, is a collection of interrelated claims. We might propose a hypothesis of strict gradualism, for instance, and find it contradicted in some cases. This might falsify the hypothesis without falsifying the entire theory. Or it might mean that strict gradualism works most of the time, but not in certain situations.
On the subject of false expectations, the question I have is this:
ReplyDeleteAre there any "hard" predictions made by the theory of evolution, such that if the prediction failed, the theory of evolution would be falsified?
And I don't mean serendipitous discoveries such as the Cambrian rabbit. I mean a discovery made by some empirical investigation, even if science must wait for some future technology to be able to conduct that investigation.
My own sense is that the theory of evolution cannot make hard predictions as I define the term, because as Zachriel explains, the theory of evolution is a complex theory that contains many interrelated claims.
In the place of hard predictions, it seems that the theory can make only "soft" predictions, or what one might call "expectations". In other words, based on what we know now this is what we would expect to find, but if we don't, it won't falsify the theory. Most likely it was our incomplete understanding at the time that prompted us to have that expectation.
There is nothing wrong with this; science misunderstood something, the misunderstanding was corrected, the "expectation" was corrected, and science continued on.
How long can such a process reasonably continue, before it is decided that enough false expectations have accumulated to cast serious doubt on the theory?
It's like the student who keeps responding to the teacher with a wrong answer, and each time pleads to answer one more time. Sooner or later, the teacher is going to tell the student to sit down and shut up.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCH: "Criticism, they say, is nothing more than a negative argument. What is required, they say, is a replacement theory."
ReplyDeleteEventually, yes, there should be a move to a replacement theory. In the same way that the Big Bang theory has (mostly) replaced the steady state theory. That happened of course not just through criticism of the steady state theory, but through new hypotheses backed up with experimental research.
If a new theory is going to replace evolution it clearly is going to take a very long time (if not decades) for it to happen. But there is much groundwork that can be done now - proposals for new hypotheses, a research program of promising areas. I know that the author of Signature in the Cell, Stephen C Meyer, has at least outlined some possible avenues of research in his book.
What troubles me though about CH is that he seems to have no interest in pursuing new hypotheses - he seems only interested in tearing down the existing theory. He does not seem prepared to put his neck on the block, to postulate some ways in which alternative hypotheses could be explored. I think though if ID (or whatever alternative is proposed) is going to have a future, than somebody at some point is going to have to make that leap, and move beyond criticism to a way forward. Clearly CH doesn't want to go down that road, and prefers to endlessly blog about the shortcomings of evolution without any suggestion of how to move forward. Although CH's blog can be quite interesting at times, it is ultimately extremely unsatisfying because of the lack of courage to propose new ideas or take risks.
Cornelius
ReplyDeleteWanted to know if you are familiar with a book A New Kind of Science by Stephen Wolfram.
If you are, wanted to know your thoughts on it especially in the area of complexity.
Dan Ellwein
CH: "This may be because evolution is, itself, a negative argument. Evolution is, and always has been, motivated by failures of creationism and design. If god did not design or create this world, then it must have evolved.
ReplyDelete(shakes head and chuckles) Ya know, when most creationists hit the bottom of the stupid pit, they stop. You just take out a shovel and keep on digging.
Fil said...
ReplyDeleteWhat would be the evidence needed to falsify the theory of evolution?
There are any number of observations that if made would falsify the current ToE. Having the phylogenetic tree created from the fossil record not match the one created from the genetic record, for instance. Or finding multiple different and incompatible types of DNA in different species. Thing is, no such falsifying evidence has ever been found.
In Douglas Theobald's terrific article at TalkOrigins, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, every section has a description of its falsifiability.
Creationists always confuse not falsifiable with not falsified. ToE is eminently falsifiable, it just hasn't been after 150 years of creationist trying.
There's a sense in which evolution isn't falsifiable any more than gravitation, because it is already widely observed that species change, and that they are related to one another in a way that is almost certainly reproductive. (Just as it is already widely observed that masses are attracted to one another in ways that influence their movement.)
ReplyDeleteIn that sense, while Thorton makes very good points in that last post, it's not quite correct to use those two examples, because we've already made those investigations, and have found the trees to match, etc. Still, further discoveries could change things, but I have trouble imagining them changing things by very much.
What would it take to falsify gravitation?
Even if you threw and apple in the air and it didn't come down, that wouldn't single-handedly disprove that there is some sort of attractive force between masses. There is far to much observational evidence of such. Instead, you would have to modify the theory when it comes to apples, or whatever other circumstances were in play at the time.
What would it take to prove that dinosaurs never existed? (Given that we've already found the fossils.)
What would it take to prove that birds have zero ancestors whatsoever, and simply appeared de novo? (Given that we've already analyzed their morphology and DNA to find strong similarities to reptiles, specifically dinosaurs.)
Both of the above are extremely difficult to answer without resorting to something like, "We could discover that reality itself is an elaborate illusion, a la The Matrix."
Lenoxus makes a good point. There are really two questions
ReplyDelete1. What discoveries would have falsified the ToE when it was first proposed and investigated?
2. What new discoveries could be made now that will falsify the ToE given the 150+ years of positive evidence we already have?
I have already given two example that answer the first question. Douglas Theobald gave a few dozen more. The answer to the second is much harder to imagine. Since no single piece of evidence out of the millions is the linchpin to ToE, falsifying any one piece won't affect all the remaining ones. It would have to be something profound like discovering the world was created intact last Thursday, or discovering we are really just disembodied brains floating in some space alien scientist's jar.
Doublee: My own sense is that the theory of evolution cannot make hard predictions as I define the term, because as Zachriel explains, the theory of evolution is a complex theory that contains many interrelated claims.
ReplyDeleteJust because a theory is comprised of many interrelated claims doesn't mean it doesn't entail clear and specific empirical predictions. What it does mean is that a particular theory of evolution may be replaced by another theory of evolution, if one of the claims is modified. Today's Theory of Evolution is not your father's theory of evolution or Darwin's theory of evolution.
But it wouldn't be a theory of evolution if it posited that life didn't change in stages over time. If you were to show that, then the new theory would probably not be considered a theory of evolution.
Of course, Common Descent and descent with modification are very well-supported. Any new theory has to explain these findings, as well as provide new insights.
Doublee: In the place of hard predictions, it seems that the theory can make only "soft" predictions, or what one might call "expectations".
Keep in mind that, like gravity, there are the mechanisms, and there is the history. Historical claims tend to be less certain. So whether birds descended from theropods or from some more primitive archosaur wouldn't shake the foundations of the Theory of Evolution, as long as they descended from some shared ancestor.
When it comes to the concern that evolution doesn't make "hard" predictions, I can't help but wonder… are there alternatives which do?
ReplyDeleteDoes ID tell us what Earth life will look life in ten million years? If not, that's not really a point against evolution. Or is ID "allowed" to not make hard predictions because you can't really predict the behavior of a mind, as argued by Dembski? (I'm looking for but can't yet find the exact quote.)
Or do the "hard predictions" of ID come down to "We predict that life forms will continue to demonstrate [speciducible infoplexity]"? Because evolution certainly makes more solid predictions than that.
CH: "Evolution is, and always has been, motivated by failures of creationism and design. If god did not design or create this world, then it must have evolved. "
ReplyDeleteThis is CH's favorite mantra. I guess like all mantras, the more you say, presumably the more you feel it becomes real. CH, I know usually when asked for the evidence for this, your routine response is to simply point them to one of your (not very readable) articles. Rather than do this, can you succinctly and articulately provide a summary of why you think this is so in a few sentences?
Aah, found the quote: "Designers are inventors. We cannot predict what an inventor would do short of becoming that inventor."
ReplyDeleteI'm not entirely sure whether or not I agree. I think it is in principle possible to predict the actions of individual agents to an extent (especially if you've got something wired to their brain), and somewhat easier to predict the actions of large groups of agents (which is part of economics, sociology, etc). We're still certainly not at the point where we can say with 100% confidence what an inventor will invent, and perhaps we never can be.
That said, it's trivial to predict what agents will not do. For example, an ordinary human will not "choose" to shoot lasers out of her eyes, and a child is very, very unlikely to "choose" to solve Fermat's Last Theorem. (Either may attempt it, but they can't choose to succeed, despite the fact that they are agents.)
This ceases to be the case if the agent is described as being capable of, and willing to do, anything. God, I would contend, is such an agent, his purported omnibenevolence (which would limit his behavior to that which is moral) notwithstanding. (If the Problem of Evil doesn't falsify an omnimax God, nothing can.)
Darwinian evolution is considered, "a work in progress" in it's philosophy while clinging to billions of dollars of grant money for research. Now it's not only creationism and ID it wants to keep out, but new theories concerning evolution in general. Jerry Fodor comes to mind where he suggested something other than selection causing change rather suggested it could be some laws of organization.
ReplyDeleteMichael Ruse who is a philosopher and defender of Darwinian evolution called Jerry Fodor's questioning of selection, "grotesquely and immorally irresponsible" with going on to state the following, "Today I am deeply ashamed to be a philosopher."
Even if a new invented theory based on evolution that questions or could replace Darwin's version it still considered enormously unacceptable because Darwinian evolution is dogma approved by a church of scientists that are waiting for new revelations to be revealed to them because they consider it to be "a work in progress."
Oh, I should clarify my last comment: by "something wired to their brain", I didn't mean a device which would cause neural activity, but simply one which can examine it.
ReplyDeletepilgrimdan:
ReplyDelete"Wanted to know if you are familiar with a book A New Kind of Science by Stephen Wolfram."
Dan, I have not read it but would like to. I am familiar with the thesis, and wonder why the book is so thick.
CH, the creationist cartoon version of the Theory of Evolution you've been pushing has no discernible connection to reality. Are you arguing that your cartoon fantasy version of ToE is not falsifiable?
ReplyDeleteThat's the only possible thing I can think of that would explain your otherwise inane claim.
Thorton: I would say that CH's version of the ToE is indeed not falsifiable, because CH defines evolution as the set-theoretic complement of design, and/or the application of strict naturalism to biology. In fewer words, CH (and other IDists) believes that evolution is equivalent to "God didn't do it."
ReplyDeleteThis cartoon version is, of course, not really falsifiable, unless we can define God and demonstrate both his existence and his involvement in biology.
I wonder if CH will ever get why "evolution" means so much more than he says it does, insofar as it makes specific claims.
Cornelius, do you really believe that in every possible world that has theism and atheism, the atheists assert the existence of a tree of common descent? Because the contrary to that is just one example of how one could reject both God's involvement and evolution. There are possible worlds in which the dominant non-theistic view is that individual species arise directly from non-living matter, rather than from other species.
Yet by the way you have defined "evolution", that doesn't work — if it doesn't have God in it, and it's a form of biology, it is ipso facto "evolution".
(Wallbang.)
Theories when falsified can be fixed by adhoc explanations for example. The problem with the ToE to me seems to be that we just don't know enough about nature to rule out that something happened naturally even if it can't be explained be the ToE. Theoretically you could calculate if evolution is possible or not if you had the data (mutation rates, generation times, number of mutations required).
ReplyDeleteThe second weak spot is that the ToE makes quantitative predictions only in specific areas namely common descent. Thus falsifying observations are to a great deal subjective.
Zachriel: We might propose a hypothesis of strict gradualism, for instance, and find it contradicted in some cases. This might falsify the hypothesis without falsifying the entire theory. Or it might mean that strict gradualism works most of the time, but not in certain situations.
ReplyDeleteI know you guys are good at proposing these so called hypotheses but can’t you offer scientific empirical evidences instead? Can't you provide the entire pathway of how macroevolutions occurred? How many genetic mutations nucleotide by nucleotide were required? What were the environmental conditions during each of these mutations that made it advantageous? What are the mutation rates? What were the population sizes? What were their substitution costs? How much time was required before these mutations became fixed in their populations? Finally can we recreate it in a lab?
Hunter is absolutely right once again, Darwinists have a double standard when it comes to requiring empirical data for Darwinism. Darwinists will even change what empirical data means when it comes to Darwinian evolution. As long as Darwinists can find two disparate species then that automatically qualifies as empirical evidence. When critics say that is not enough, the Darwinist might retort, what do you want a video tape of the entire process? Or “do you have pictures of every moment of your life?”
If all else fail the atheistic Darwinist's trump card is the multiverse. Or what I call the Las Vegas defense, whatever happens in this universe stays in this universe.
Interesting, so evolutionists fall prey to exactly what they claim about creationists.
ReplyDeleteYou still appear to be confusing different aspect of the Theory of Evolution, some of which concern mechanisms and others with historical reconstructions.
ReplyDeleteteleological blog: Can't you provide the entire pathway of how macroevolutions occurred?
Generally not. No more so than we can trace Caesar's entire lineage. Perhaps, he really is descended from Venus.
teleological blog: How many genetic mutations nucleotide by nucleotide were required?
Don't even know how many mutations occurred in your lineage. Guess biology is bunk.
And so on through the rest of your strawmen.
What we can do is propose testable hypotheses. So, if humans share a common ancestor with other extant apes, then we should be able to find organisms with intermediate features. Of course, a number of smaller-brained hominids have been discovered in the appropriate strata.
teleological blog: As long as Darwinists can find two disparate species then that automatically qualifies as empirical evidence.
ReplyDeleteTwo disparate species do not form a nested hierarchy. Rather, the body of the evidence supports a nested hierarchy of morphology, genomics, biogeography, and fossils in time.
Zachriel: some of which concern mechanisms and others with historical reconstructions.
ReplyDeleteReally? Are we back to fact and theory again? :D
Zachriel: Generally not. No more so than we can trace Caesar's entire lineage. Perhaps, he really is descended from Venus.
Again the picture thing.
Zachriel: What we can do is propose testable hypotheses.
Of course it would help if your “testable” hypotheses are like self fulfilling prophesies. I predict I am going to work today. My prophecy came true when I went to work. The Darwinists knows full well that within microevolution there will be variations within different species. Lo and behold we found one of those variations that is exactly what we predicted. We’ve proved macroevolution. That’s amazing.
…and that those nested hierarchies are superimposable upon each other.
ReplyDeleteDr. Hunter is trying to pretend that because scientists are surprised when the data show that the branching pattern is not what we expected, that there is no branching (nested hierarchy) at all.
Zachriel: Two disparate species do not form a nested hierarchy.
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about? Darwinists do this all the time e.g. birds and reptiles, are they not the same clade?
teleological blog: Again the picture thing.
ReplyDeleteThat was your sophistry with your demand for "innumerable measurable intermediaries," "the entire pathway of macroevolutions" and "nucleotide by nucleotide" histories.
teleological blog: Of course it would help if your “testable” hypotheses are like self fulfilling prophesies. I predict I am going to work today.
More like make a prediction from theory, travel to the wastelands of the Egyptian desert, dig in the rock, and pull out the predicted cetacean with hind limbs. We suppose that's something like going to work.
teleological blog: The Darwinists knows full well that within microevolution there will be variations within different species.
It's a lot more than variations within species. These are extinct species in strata where extant species will not be found. There is a clear transition over time. And it fits the nested hierarchy of related forms.
Smokey said...
ReplyDelete…and that those nested hierarchies are superimposable upon each other.
Dr. Hunter is trying to pretend that because scientists are surprised when the data show that the branching pattern is not what we expected, that there is no branching (nested hierarchy) at all.
Sadly, the demonstrated extent of Dr. Hunter's knowledge of evolution seems be be a small bag of rhetorical phrases that he trots out endlessly:
"evolution is a religion"
"evolution can't be falsified"
"evolution isn't a fact"
"science can't explain every detail of phenomenon XYZ, so everything science knows about evolution is wrong"
As noted by several posters, we are never offered an alternative explanation for any of these things. Pretty sad.
Zachriel: That was your sophistry with your demand for "innumerable measurable intermediaries," "the entire pathway of macroevolutions" and "nucleotide by nucleotide" histories.
ReplyDeleteThis is indicative of why Darwinism is bankrupt as real science if you think this is sophistry. I am not the first one who raised this point about innumerable intermediaries. Guess who? It was your buddy Darwin. “Independently of our not finding fossil remains of such infinitely numerous connecting links” – OoS
This is absolutely required by Darwinian gradualism and please don’t invoke punk eek which amounts to nothing more than magic and pixie dust.
It is also not unreasonable to ask for the entire evolutionary pathway for macroevolution. This is what real science does. What we need to know is that if there are any limits to mutations? How much of the genome can be change without cause genetic death of an organism? Are the allowable mutations sufficient to create the novelties necessary for macroevolution? These are not sophomoric requirements for science. Darwinists are so used to propagating myths and just so stories they don’t know how to do real science any more.
Cetacean evolution is the biggest joke from Darwinian evolution yet. I don’t even want to get into it. It is pointless if Darwinists can’t even understand the basic concepts of science.
"It is pointless if Darwinists can’t even understand the basic concepts of science."
ReplyDeletePretty funny from someone who doesn't understand that populations, not individuals, evolve.
It is also not unreasonable to ask for the entire evolutionary pathway for macroevolution.
ReplyDeleteWell, then, would it be reasonable to ask for the "entire creative pathway"?
So, I ask: what is your answer, TB?
teleological blog said...
ReplyDeleteThis is indicative of why Darwinism is bankrupt as real science if you think this is sophistry. I am not the first one who raised this point about innumerable intermediaries. Guess who? It was your buddy Darwin. “Independently of our not finding fossil remains of such infinitely numerous connecting links” – OoS
Another dishonestly quote-mined quote from you. That's from Ch. 9 of OoS, and Darwin is giving an overview of possible objections to his hypothesis, like demanding infinitely numerous connecting links, and why the objections are wrong.
Is dishonest and misleading quote-mined quotes all you've got?
teleological blog: I am not the first one who raised this point about innumerable intermediaries. Guess who? It was your buddy Darwin. “Independently of our not finding fossil remains of such infinitely numerous connecting links” – OoS
ReplyDeleteThe title of the chapter is "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record."
teleological blog: This is absolutely required by Darwinian gradualism and please don’t invoke punk eek which amounts to nothing more than magic and pixie dust.
Please state the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.
teleological blog: It is also not unreasonable to ask for the entire evolutionary pathway for macroevolution. This is what real science does.
No. What real science does is answer those questions that it can, while extending knowledge where it can.
teleological blog: What we need to know is that if there are any limits to mutations?
Of course, but mutations are not the only type of variation. For instance, genes, chromosomes and entire genomes can be duplicated.
teleological blog: Are the allowable mutations sufficient to create the novelties necessary for macroevolution?
We can show that observed rates of evolution are faster than occur in the historical record. Of course, you have to understand the historical record first.
teleological blog: Cetacean evolution is the biggest joke from Darwinian evolution yet. I don’t even want to get into it. It is pointless if Darwinists can’t even understand the basic concepts of science.
Funny how a Darwinist walked out into the desert and pulled out a whale with hind limbs. Lucky guess!
David: Well, then, would it be reasonable to ask for the "entire creative pathway"?
ReplyDeleteIt is not unreasonable to ask a question. It is unreasonable to pose it as a strawman, as in "Evolution is not even science unless you can show us a fossil of every whale species ever!" Nevertheless, if we can show a nested hierarchy pattern expected of Common Descent, including genomics for extant species, and if we can predict the characteristics of novel observations, then it gives us increasing levels of scientific confidence in our hypothesis.
The entire point of the scientific method of hypothetico-deduction is that is allows to reach tentative conclusions absent complete knowledge.
Zachriel said...
ReplyDeleteThe entire point of the scientific method of hypothetico-deduction is that is allows to reach tentative conclusions absent complete knowledge.
I wonder if these IDC nimrods riding their ridiculous "we have to see every last detailed mutational step or evolution is invalid" strawhorse have ever heard of sampling theory? How do they think poll takers can get a statistically valid result without having to call every single person in the country? How often does an analog signal need to be digitally sampled so it can be reproduced well enough to be recognizable?
Zachriel: The title of the chapter is "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record."
ReplyDeleteAnd you point being?
Zachriel: Please state the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.
Isn’t that the Vegas act of Gould and Eldridge where they put a fish into a hat, sprinkle some pixie dust and pull out an amphibian?
Zachriel: No. What real science does is answer those questions that it can, while extending knowledge where it can.
Yet, without any knowledge or real science to support common descent you call it a fact.
Zachriel: Of course, but mutations are not the only type of variation. For instance, genes, chromosomes and entire genomes can be duplicated.
That is not the point is it? We are looking for de novo novelties in macroevolution.
Zachriel: We can show that observed rates of evolution are faster than occur in the historical record. Of course, you have to understand the historical record first.
This is part of the Darwinian dilemma, a catch 22. However, Darwinists can at least use extent species to create de novo novelties if macroevolution is truly viable. Wait, Darwinists have done that already, but failed as in experiments with bacteria and fruit flies.
I do believe that punctuated equilibrium is an attempt to explain why species to species chaneg is absent from the fossil record. It says that evolution happens to fast to get caught. It is an apologetic.
ReplyDeleteDavid said...
ReplyDelete"Well, then, would it be reasonable to ask for the "entire creative pathway"?
So, I ask: what is your answer, TB? "
I will play along on this one.
My answer would be... by all means it will be reasonable to expect a full investigation of the acts of intelligence. With mutation and natural selection out of the way, dumped in the trash can of bad ideas along with methodological naturalism, science can proceed to explore actual and observed acts of intelligence.
The thing you forget is that when intentionality is part of a scientific investigation the approach has to evaluate evidence to expose intention (not the color of the eyes of the "killer"), e.g. forensic science and behavioral science.
However, if it is pure physics and chemistry without any influence of intentionality, then you are supposed to apply just the laws of physics (and logic) to achieve a complete description of the mechanism... including the entire path way of evolution, like the path of a body moving through space. Without intent it should be easy to experimentally proof the entire process.
The fact that the laws of physics is not enough to account for the origin of life should be an indicator, of intent. Even M&NS relies on unwarranted but necessary intentionality.
Zachriel: The title of the chapter is "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record."
ReplyDeleteteleological blog: And you point being?
Darwin answered your objection about innumerable intermediaries 150 years ago.
Zachriel: Please state the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.
teleological blog: Isn’t that the Vegas act of Gould and Eldridge where they put a fish into a hat, sprinkle some pixie dust and pull out an amphibian?
Nope.
teleological blog: Yet, without any knowledge or real science to support common descent you call it a fact.
Common Descent is strongly supported with evidence from everything from genetics to geology, and leads to testable empirical predictions.
teleological blog: We are looking for de novo novelties in macroevolution.
It's best to place the transitions in historical context. That means Common Descent, and that means considering the evidence for the nested hierarchy as it applies to morphology, genomics, embryonics, biogeography, and fossils in time.
Michael, thank you for your comments. May I conclude from them that you have identified the necessary intentional agent that accounts for life and its origins?
ReplyDeleteIf you have identified the entire creative pathway of the necessary intentional agent, would you post it here?
natschuster: I do believe that punctuated equilibrium is an attempt to explain why species to species chaneg is absent from the fossil record. It says that evolution happens to fast to get caught. It is an apologetic.
ReplyDeleteNot quite. Punctuated equilibrium is primarily a gradualistic theory. It explains some observed discontinuities in the fossil record by positing that evolution can occur in small isolated populations that then overtake their parent population. As small populations are much less likely to fossilize, it gives the appearance of a sudden transition. It's actually not a new idea, and dates to Darwin, but was developed in its modern form by Eldredge and Gould.
But evolution was never posited to always occur at a steady rate. It can occur gradually, or in spurts followed by relative stability. More modern models with regards to the evolution of networks indicates that we should see lots of small changes, a few large changes, and the rare revolution.
Adaptive radiation into a new niche usually occurs as a rapid spurt followed by relative stasis. But there are also ample examples of gradual change in the fossil record.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMichael: However, if it is pure physics and chemistry without any influence of intentionality, then you are supposed to apply just the laws of physics (and logic) to achieve a complete description of the mechanism... including the entire path way of evolution, like the path of a body moving through space. Without intent it should be easy to experimentally proof the entire process.
ReplyDeleteAnother clueless IDCer who thinks that if science doesn't know every detail then it doesn't know anything.
Michael, I don't believe you qualify as a member of the human species. Please provide the name, place of birth, time of birth and death, height, weight, hair color, eye color, and shoe size of every one of your ancestors on both sides of your family for the last 4500 years. If you can't, then we'll assume you hatched out of a test tube labeled FAILURE.
BTW, have you figured out yet the difference between a naturally occurring chemical reaction and the human produced symbolic language used to describe the reaction?
David said...
ReplyDelete"Michael, thank you for your comments. May I conclude from them that you have identified the necessary intentional agent* that accounts for life and its origins?
If you have identified the entire creative pathway of the necessary intentional agent, would you post it here?**
=====
Like most anti-ID proponents on this blog you also argue around your self-created gravity. Be free David... Be free...
* I made it clear that the agent of intentionality is not the object of research, but describing intention in its own right is worth studying. The vast amount of insight into biological reality is and will be astonishing with this intentional hypothesis.
** I made it clear that the modeling of a physical state caused by intentionality is not the same as an unintentional cause. Yet you want to apply the same rules you refuse to adhere to. What is the argument in this position of yours? Is it that you don't actually belief your naturalistic hypothesis is different from an intentional hypothesis? If so... welcome to reality and stop this methodological naturalism crap.
Why have you not denied that natural selection requires intentionality? Is it because some great minds has recently showed that it cannot be seen as anything other than a claim of intentionality?
http://www.amazon.com/What-Darwin-Wrong-Jerry-Fodor/dp/0374288798/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276003477&sr=1-1
Enjoy arguing this one till it is locked into orbit around your little reality.
P.S. Can't you see that you intuitively assume intentionality in everything you study about living organisms? You call it Natural Selection and then deny it to be intentional, that is evidently irrational.
Michael said...
ReplyDelete* I made it clear that the agent of intentionality is not the object of research, but describing intention in its own right is worth studying. .
** I made it clear that the modeling of a physical state caused by intentionality is not the same as an unintentional cause.
"I posted loads of meaningless woo" does not equal "I made it clear".
Can't you see that you intuitively assume intentionality in everything you study about living organisms? You call it Natural Selection and then deny it to be intentional, that is evidently irrational.
Natural selection is intentional the same way gravity intentionally makes water flow downhill.
Thorton,
ReplyDeleteThe Flaws is strong with you...
Michael said...
ReplyDeleteThe Flaws is strong with you...
And the arrogant stupidity is strong with you. I can fix my flaws...
Tell us again how rocks intentionally roll downhill, and how opposite electric charges intentionally attract one another.
Michael:
ReplyDeleteI made it clear that the agent of intentionality is not the object of research, but describing intention in its own right is worth studying.
Please give an example of something worthwhile that has come from a description of intention in relation to the origin of life and its diversification on Earth.
The vast amount of insight into biological reality is and will be astonishing with this intentional hypothesis.
Can you give us a hint of what this vast insight might be?
Michael:
ReplyDeleteI made it clear that the agent of intentionality is not the object of research...
Why not? Is there an obstacle to identifying the agent? Is there a reason why characterizing the agent is out of bounds?
David said...
ReplyDelete"Please give an example of something worthwhile that has come from a description of intention in relation to the origin of life and its diversification on Earth."
You can read the book of Stephen Meyer:
"Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design."
Find for yourself that only the intention of an intelligent being can be logically and scientifically considered to be the cause of life, because it is the only known phenomenon that could intentionally achieve an outcome against the insurmountable odds that is stacked against its random natural occurrence.
But don't try to side track me into your little gravity well. You have to show me the purely natural act of "natural selection" without intentionality.
Michael, I'm disappointed that you have not been responsive to my earnest questions about your claims.
ReplyDeleteI was hoping for more from you than evasions and rhetoric.
But I thank you for your time and attention.
Michael said...
ReplyDeleteFind for yourself that only the intention of an intelligent being can be logically and scientifically considered to be the cause of life, because it is the only known phenomenon that could intentionally achieve an outcome against the insurmountable odds that is stacked against its random natural occurrence.
Sorry Michael, but you don't have anywhere near enough information to calculate such probabilities accurately enough to support such a grandiose claim. No one does.
Your premise is false, so your conclusion is invalid.
Michael: "My answer would be... by all means it will be reasonable to expect a full investigation of the acts of intelligence. With mutation and natural selection out of the way, dumped in the trash can of bad ideas along with methodological naturalism, science can proceed to explore actual and observed acts of intelligence."
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you are waiting for commonly accepted evolution theory to be abandoned before science can proceed. I think CH has said something similar. Which is a bit peculiar really - on the one hand CH and others have zero faith in the current science establishment, yet appear to be waiting for them to "catch up" and start research on the new paradigm.
But of course there is nothing to stop the ID community to start doing this now. I know there are little pockets of this (Biologos), but so far output is minimal at best. And others, like CH, seem more focused on dismantling evolution, rather than exploring "actual and observed acts of intelligence" as you suggest.
Janfeld,
ReplyDeleteI am very far removed from the ID research efforts so I am not qualified to comment on exactly what the strategy is. I agree that as an outsider sympathetic to the ID movement I would also like to know why more resources is not channeled to pure research.
But a sympathetic view might be that the ID movement has a far greater revolutionary agenda than an isolated research agenda. It sounds plausible seeing that ideologies like Darwinism and Methodological Naturalism are the primary dogmas of science preventing any form of ID to be pursued, by any free thinking scientist in the field currently.
In that sense it might be good that ID only prepare the field for all scientists who should which to play on it, regardless of their metaphysical presuppositions.
Janfeld,
ReplyDeleteI hope the implications of my previous post highlight to you that I personally do not expect the evolutionary body of knowledge to be destroyed before ID could replace it. In all honesty, I can not see why you would read Dr. Hunder's blog to imply the necessity to destroy practical evolutionary research.
Thorton,
ReplyDelete"Sorry Michael, but you don't have anywhere near enough information to calculate such probabilities accurately enough to support such a grandiose claim. No one does."
=====
Since you know so much about the boundaries of probability, could you share with us all; What is your credentials in the field of probability theory?
It would be very helpful if your claims could be substantiated by some authority.
Michael: "I agree that as an outsider sympathetic to the ID movement I would also like to know why more resources is not channeled to pure research."
ReplyDeleteThat puzzles me also. At times I think the Discovering Institute seems more interested in lawyering-up and PR rather than promoting science.
Michael: "It sounds plausible seeing that ideologies like Darwinism and Methodological Naturalism are the primary dogmas of science preventing any form of ID to be pursued, by any free thinking scientist in the field currently."
I don't know if I agree with that. Certainly people like Dembski, Behe, and Stephen Meyer are fully free to explore ID, and do regularly write books. And don't forgot that Einstein did some of his seminal work while employed as a patent clerk!
And surely there are sympathetic institutions where this research could easily happen (e.g., Liberty University, Biola etc). And if funds are an issue, surely churches or sympathetic individuals could be tapped to fund research. But there seems very little activity to promote such funding or research, but a whole lot of finger-pointing at the establishment.
I appreciate that some research may be costly, but again creating some basis hypotheses is a relatively cheap exercise. I just think the ID community as a whole seems very reluctant to do this (CH has certainly made it clear that he has no interest here). Nobody in the ID community wants to put forth even a preliminary explanatory framework, even if it is speculative. Why are they so tentative, or even afraid of their own convictions?
Michael said...
ReplyDeleteThorton,
"Sorry Michael, but you don't have anywhere near enough information to calculate such probabilities accurately enough to support such a grandiose claim. No one does."
=====
Since you know so much about the boundaries of probability, could you share with us all; What is your credentials in the field of probability theory?
It would be very helpful if your claims could be substantiated by some authority.
Sorry again Michael, but you're the guy making the outlandish claim, remember?
Michael: "the intention of an intelligent being can be logically and scientifically considered to be the cause of life, because it is the only known phenomenon that could intentionally achieve an outcome against the insurmountable odds that is stacked against its random natural occurrence."
So let's see your work. Please provide the calculations for these 'insurmountable odds', and the source of the data you used for the above claim. Don't forget to list any assumptions you may make, and provide the scientific evidence that those assumptions are valid.
Have at it Michael. Time to put up or shut up.
Janfeld,
ReplyDeleteI think you assume your own position if you disregard the explanatory framework that has already been presented. As opposed to a truly critical unbiased evaluation of the material already on the table.
My experience is that successful theoretical understanding and assimilation of the ID hypothesis are only resisted by people with irrational commitment to political, religious and/or other metaphysical biases, like atheism.
Zachriel: Not quite. Punctuated equilibrium is primarily a gradualistic theory. It explains some observed discontinuities in the fossil record by positing that evolution can occur in small isolated populations that then overtake their parent population. As small populations are much less likely to fossilize, it gives the appearance of a sudden transition.
ReplyDeleteThis is why you shouldn’t feed a Darwinist when they ask for a definition. They are masters of equivocation some like Zachriel probably sincerely believe what they are saying. Punk Eek is not a gradualistic theory as claim by its supporters. Notice what Zach said PE occurs in isolate populations, or as Gould would like to say something like evolution happens in long periods of stasis punctuated with instances of rapid change. Well hello if it is in stasis then it is not evolution is it? And all this “rapid change” is suppose to happen magically just because you have a small isolated group? As I’ve said pixie dust act.
So Thorton...
ReplyDeleteYou will not give evidence for your strongly worded claims about the ability to apply probability theory to the origin of life studies?
I have already referenced Stephen Meyer's latest book. With your probability credentials you could make a clear cut case against his arguments and even try to support your own position, stated above. Get going...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMichael said...
ReplyDeleteSo Thorton...
You will not give evidence for your strongly worded claims about the ability to apply probability theory to the origin of life studies?
I have already referenced Stephen Meyer's latest book. With your probability credentials you could make a clear cut case against his arguments and even try to support your own position, stated above. Get going...
Your admission that you cannot describe or produce your claimed probability calculations for these 'insurmountable odds', and that you were just mindlessly regurgitating some ID propaganda hereby noted.
Another ID blowhard who can't produce when his bluff gets called.
Michael: "I think you assume your own position if you disregard the explanatory framework that has already been presented. As opposed to a truly critical unbiased evaluation of the material already on the table.
ReplyDeleteMy experience is that successful theoretical understanding and assimilation of the ID hypothesis are only resisted by people with irrational commitment to political, religious and/or other metaphysical biases, like atheism."
I'm not aware that there is an existing explanatory framework from ID. There are a bunch of ideas (e.g., CSI, IC etc), but that's about it. When it comes to explanatory power (e.g., ask an IDer to explain the Cambrian explosion - they won't and can't it seems), or ask them to explain intermediate fossils, ID fulls very short. Unless of course somebody can explain here how ID interprest the Cambrian explosion?
Michael said...
ReplyDeleteI think you assume your own position if you disregard the explanatory framework that has already been presented.
I too would like to ask what explanatory framework would that be? Every single time I've requested the ID explanation for some physical phenomenon being discussed (like atavistic legs in whales, ORFan genes, bat echolocation, etc.) all I get is a chorus of you goobers going "ID IS NOT ABOUT EXPLANATIONS!!"
Think you'll ever get your story straight?
So evolution happens in small populations so it isn't recorded in the fossil record. But the new species has to take over the range of the old species. Does this get caught in the record? If not, why not?
ReplyDeleteteleological blog: Punk Eek is not a gradualistic theory as claim by its supporters.
ReplyDeleteSimply redefining a theory doesn't constitute an argument.
teleological blog: Notice what Zach said PE occurs in isolate populations, ...
The overall pattern is called punctuated equilibrium.
teleological blog: Well hello if it is in stasis then it is not evolution is it?
Evolution still occurs during periods of equilibrium.
teleological blog: And all this “rapid change” is suppose to happen magically just because you have a small isolated group?
That's why it's a gradualistic theory. Evolution in the isolated population is rapid in terms of geological time, but slow in terms of generations.
natschuster: So evolution happens in small populations so it isn't recorded in the fossil record.
ReplyDeleteOr is less likely to be preserved in the fossil record.
Consider a colonizing species on an island. It rapidly diversifies to occupy the available niches, then more-or-less stabilizes once that has occurred. The parent and intermediate species may only exist for some thousands of years, while the terminal species may exist for millions of years. The evidence of the transitions is probably going to be less well represented in the fossil record.
Zachriel: Simply redefining a theory doesn't constitute an argument.
ReplyDeleteI am not the one doing the redefining. Tell me what is gradual about PE?
Zachriel: Evolution still occurs during periods of equilibrium.
If that is true we wouldn’t need PE and we wouldn’t have all the gaps in the fossil record, we wouldn’t need a “small isolated population”, we would see infinitely numerous transitional fossils.
Zachriel: That's why it's a gradualistic theory. Evolution in the isolated population is rapid in terms of geological time, but slow in terms of generations.
This is total hogwash. You are just making this up aren’t you? Even Gould doesn’t believe what you are saying. If macroevolution is a result of gradualism then there is continuous change throughout the span of all generations. You can’t have stasis and still call it gradual. Stasis means stopped, not gradual.
Zachriel: Or is less likely to be preserved in the fossil record. … Consider a colonizing species on an island. It rapidly diversifies to occupy the available niches,
ReplyDeleteThis is the reason why Darwinism is not science and can’t be anything more than a collection of just so stories. You have no idea if this was capable of creating macroevolutionary changes. When you reduce the population size the cost of acquiring beneficial mutation is substantially increased. In fact it would slow down the probability of macroevolution rather than increase it. This is why a detail pathway is need for Darwinism to become serious science.
teleological blog:
ReplyDeleteDo you think a "macroevolutionary change" has ever occurred? By that I mean (and I understand you to mean) a population existed, and then after some time had passed, some portion of that population's descendants existed, but were different from the original in some way that constituted a "macroevolutionary" change?
Can you describe any examples of this occurring? What is the smallest time frame in which we know a macroevolutionary change has occurred?
John: Do you think a "macroevolutionary change" has ever occurred?
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not think there has ever been a macroevolution event. There is no evidence that it occurred nor is there any evidence that it can occur.
teleological blog said...
ReplyDeleteJohn: Do you think a "macroevolutionary change" has ever occurred?
No, I do not think there has ever been a macroevolution event. There is no evidence that it occurred nor is there any evidence that it can occur.
By what evidence would you identify a macroevolution event if you saw one? How much morphological or genetic change would a species have to undergo to qualify? Please be specific and justify your answers.
thorny: By what evidence would you identify a macroevolution event if you saw one?
ReplyDeleteA fish into an amphibian, a prokaryotic organism into an eukaryotic organism, a fox like mammal into a whale.
teleological blog said...
ReplyDeletethorny: By what evidence would you identify a macroevolution event if you saw one?
A fish into an amphibian, a prokaryotic organism into an eukaryotic organism, a fox like mammal into a whale.
You were asked to be specific as to what sort of evidence would indicate macroevolution, not just give end points. You were also asked to justify your answers. You did neither.
Try again. What is the minimum amount of change a dog could undergo before you consider it a macroevolved non-dog?
I can show you lots of evidence for the macroevolution of amphibians from early lobe-finned fish. Shall we go over it together, and you can explain why it doesn't qualify?
Zachriel said...
ReplyDelete"Consider a colonizing species on an island. It rapidly diversifies to occupy the available niches, then more-or-less stabilizes once that has occurred. The parent and intermediate species may only exist for some thousands of years, while the terminal species may exist for millions of years. The evidence of the transitions is probably going to be less well represented in the fossil record."
Is this an example of an explanatory framework for the Cambrian explosion in terms of Evolution?
And I thought an explanation should be given for reality and not trying to fit reality into a fantasy.
The explanatory framework of intelligent causation is simple. If a pattern has complex specificity the only reasonable conclusion is that it was caused by the intentional act of intelligence. Thorton... even your irrational ramblings can rationally be accounted for as being complex specified information (CSI).
If you don't understand complex specified information: The letter "A" is not complex or specified, a random list of letters "AFRBPODEWS" is complex but not specified, and "METHINKS THORTON IS A WEASEL" is both complex and specified to a very telling degree.
With algorithmic information (like genetic information) it is easy to account for CSI both by looking at ensuing function as well as the improbability of it coming into existence by chance processes (undirected unintentional processes).
All the doubters of this explanatory framework has only one rational objection - their commitment to materialism. It might be a rational metaphysical position but it certainly does not muster the required epistemic resources to be universally convincing.
P.S. This reminds me that Thorton has to sue all casinos because the machines they purport to be random chance machines are all actually very intentional e.g. Gravity intends the ball to fall in the "wrong" place... and he loses all the time, therefore there must be design involved.
Thorton,
ReplyDeleteYou just sound like a bigoted fool demanding specifics when you only present morphological just so stories, with genetic similarities and differences that is all over the place. It is not teleological blog's responsibility to solve the problems Darwinist fantasies created. The study of organisms' physical properties can ignore the patently flawed Darwinian assumptions when it apply the new hypothesis. Intuitively most modern scientist are doing this already.
Why don't you buckle up and supply credible evidence for whale evolution? Wake up and take responsibility for the evolutionary fairy tales you sell as dogma. The majority of new data in the field of life sciences does not comport with your fantasy and the problems keep piling up. Engage the issues Dr. Hunter share with the blog community.
Any self respecting scientist should get fed up with an hypothesis that is based on flawed logic and consistently contradicted for more than 150 years. But maybe they don't respect reality more than they respect their metaphysical commitments.
If anyone is interested in the "evo-assumptions-can-not-be-falsified" behavior of scientists read about this blog exchange.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/the_factfree_science_of_mathes035521.html
It is about "Junk DNA". If you have the capacity to evaluate the implications for Darwinian predictions, about "Junk DNA", then your insight will be enriched. Else you can default into denial.
How about this peer reviewed conclusion?
ReplyDelete=====
From:
The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity
David L. Abel The Gene Emergence Project, The Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc. 113-120 Hedgewood Dr. Greenbelt, MD 20770-1610 USA. E-Mail: life@us.net; Tel. 301-441-2923; Fax: 301-441-8135
Received: 6 November 2008; in revised form: 27 December 2008 / Accepted: 4 January 2009 / Published: 9 January 2009
The Conclusion:
The capabilities of stand-alone chaos, complexity, self-ordered states, natural attractors, fractals, drunken walks, complex adaptive systems, and other subjects of non linear dynamic models are often inflated. Scientific mechanism must be provided for how purely physicodynamic phenomena can program decision nodes, optimize algorithms, set configurable switches so as to achieve integrated circuits, achieve computational halting, and organize otherwise unrelated chemical reactions into a protometabolism. To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it:
“Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut [9]: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.”
A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis."
=====
P.S.
* Let me know if direct quotes from peer reviewed articles are not allowed. Copy Right issues etc.
* Thorton, read the article before you babble about your precious dogma.
Michael: "If you don't understand complex specified information: The letter "A" is not complex or specified, a random list of letters "AFRBPODEWS" is complex but not specified, and "METHINKS THORTON IS A WEASEL" is both complex and specified to a very telling degree."
ReplyDelete"METHINKS THORTON IS A WEASEL" is only specified because the English language existed before the fact to provide the specification.
Where is your before the fact specification for a genome, or for any biological entity? Any moron can map an object, even a complex one after the fact and claim it is specified.
It's the lottery fallacy one more time from the IDiots. There is ample evidence that iterative natural processes like genetic variation filtered by selection can produce complexity. So merely mapping existing complexity doesn't tell you a single thing about 'design'.
I notice you're still too dense to understand the difference between a naturally occurring object and the human produced symbolic language used to describe the object.
Michael said...
ReplyDelete(snip whole pile of self-aggrandizing blithering)
You IDiots are too funny! Go take a look out the window Michael. Look at all the thousands of colleges, universities, hospitals, biotech companies etc. doing successful research using the evolutionary paradigm. Now look at the ones using your ID explanatory framework. Oops! Not a single one!
Bottom line is, science and industry uses what works. Your ID brain fart doesn't. Pretty much all it's good for is providing comic relief in the form of blustering morons like you who think empty rhetoric is a good substitute for actual working science.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete""METHINKS THORTON IS A WEASEL" is only specified because the English language existed before the fact to provide the specification."
ReplyDelete=====
This is exactly the point... specification or the intent to specify exist apart from the code baring medium that instantiate the complex specified information (In the intelligent minds that brought the English language into existence). This statement of yours confirm this and then you argue against this in the very next paragraph.
The ability to decipher almost any type of message is a known property of mind. Ask Sherlock Holmes... It's elementary dear Watson, elementary. You use the faculty of deduction.
Michael: "The explanatory framework of intelligent causation is simple. If a pattern has complex specificity the only reasonable conclusion is that it was caused by the intentional act of intelligence. "
ReplyDeleteI'd still like to see you attempt to explain an event such as the Cambrian Explosion using the ID explanatory framework.
Michael said...
ReplyDelete""METHINKS THORTON IS A WEASEL" is only specified because the English language existed before the fact to provide the specification."
=====
This is exactly the point... specification or the intent to specify exist apart from the code baring medium that instantiate the complex specified information (In the intelligent minds that brought the English language into existence). This statement of yours confirm this and then you argue against this in the very next paragraph.
You forgot to provide the before the fact specification for a genome, or for any biological entity. Any moron can map an object, even a complex one after the fact and claim it is specified.
Michael said...
ReplyDeleteThe ability to decipher almost any type of message is a known property of mind.
The ability to decipher almost any type of human produced message by assuming a before the fact human produced specification is a known property of mind.
Ask Sherlock Holmes... It's elementary dear Watson, elementary.
Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character. Unlike you, the scientific community prefers reality based evidence over your ID fantasies.
teleological blog: Tell me what is gradual about PE?
ReplyDeleteAdaptation is gradual in terms of generations, but rapid in terms of geological time.
teleological blog: If that is true we wouldn’t need PE ...
Punctuated Equilibrium only explains some transitions. Many other transitions are better explained by phyletic gradualism, where change is more-or-less continuous.
teleological blog: ... and we wouldn’t have all the gaps in the fossil record, ...
You can quote-mine Darwin, but apparently haven't tried to read his chapter "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record."
teleological blog: ... we wouldn’t need a “small isolated population”, ...
Small isolated populations are a fact of biology, whether you want them or not.
teleological blog: ... we would see infinitely numerous transitional fossils.
There will always be gaps in the fossil record.
teleological blog: If macroevolution is a result of gradualism then there is continuous change throughout the span of all generations. You can’t have stasis and still call it gradual. Stasis means stopped, not gradual.
That's like saying someone couldn't have driven across town because they had to stop at the lights. In any case, evolution occurs even during periods of equilibrium. Nor is punctuated equilibrium considered the only mode of evolutionary change.
teleological blog: You have no idea if this was capable of creating macroevolutionary changes. When you reduce the population size the cost of acquiring beneficial mutation is substantially increased.
We already have some good idea of the range of variation in organisms. The variations that led to the poodle or maize were natural variations.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJanfeld said...
ReplyDelete"I'd still like to see you attempt to explain an event such as the Cambrian Explosion using the ID explanatory framework."
I'd be happy to oblige:
Link:
http://www.discovery.org/a/2177
"Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories
By: Stephen C. Meyer
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
May 18, 2007
Conclusion:
An experience-based analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally adequate--and perhaps the most causally adequate--explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals and the novel forms they represent. For this reason, recent scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists continue to wrestle with the problem of the origination of biological form and the higher taxa."
Michael said...
ReplyDeleteJanfeld said...
"I'd still like to see you attempt to explain an event such as the Cambrian Explosion using the ID explanatory framework."
I'd be happy to oblige:
Link:
http://www.discovery.org/a/2177
"Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories
By: Stephen C. Meyer
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
May 18, 2007
Ah, you mean the worthless piece of dreck that creationist Richard Sternberg dishonestly sneaked past the peer review process, and which caused the Biological Society of Washington to issue this disclaimer:
"The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history."
When are you going to provide the before the fact specification for any genome or any biological entity? Any moron can map an object, even a complex one after the fact and claim it is full of "complex specified information".
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThorton,
ReplyDeleteDo you think I have not seen "Expelled!". Sternberg's prosecution is evident for all to see, but it pose no argument against Meyer's work.
Michael said...
ReplyDeleteThorton,
Do you think I have not seen "Expelled!". Sternberg's prosecution is evident for all to see, but it pose no argument against Meyer's work.
Most people have seen Disney's Fantasia too but they don't think dancing hippos in tutus are real.
When will you be providing the before the fact specification for any genome or any biological entity? Is there a reason you're dragging your feet on this simple request?
Michael: "An experience-based analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally adequate--and perhaps the most causally adequate--explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals and the novel forms they represent. For this reason, recent scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists continue to wrestle with the problem of the origination of biological form and the higher taxa."
ReplyDeleteWell I suppose Meyer deserves some credit for at least being willing to speculate. I wish more IDers would be willing to do that.
But I have to say I'm not sure it is much of an "explanation". There is no mechanism described, no timeline. Evolutionary biologist can and have provide a very detailed, plausible explanation of the Cambrian. Instead this is little more than "the designer did it but I don't know how".
This honestly seems more of an assertion or a "suggestion". If it looks designed, than it must be. But I think I understand the problem - to really know how ID could explain the Cambrian would require insight to the designer's mind wouldn't it. And it's become quite evident that the designer (despite being apparently super-intelligent) has absolutely no interest in divuluging those secrets.
I think if an evolutionary biologist had come up with this, there would be cries of "just so story" by now.
Thorton said...
ReplyDelete"When will you be providing the before the fact specification for any genome or any biological entity? Is there a reason you're dragging your feet on this simple request?"
I have given you your answer to the degree that serves a stupid question like this. You clearly don't even know what you are asking for. You ask me to provide the intelligence that caused the specification... Open your heart and you might meet HIM.
This is still my answer:
"This is exactly the point... specification or the intent to specify exist apart from the code baring medium that instantiate the complex specified information (In the intelligent minds that brought the English language into existence). This statement of yours confirm this and then you argue against this in the very next paragraph."
Why are you completely silent about the article I posted?
"The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity"
David L. Abel
Michael said...
ReplyDeleteThorton said...
"When will you be providing the before the fact specification for any genome or any biological entity? Is there a reason you're dragging your feet on this simple request?"
I have given you your answer to the degree that serves a stupid question like this. You clearly don't even know what you are asking for. You ask me to provide the intelligence that caused the specification.
I know exactly what I'm asking, and why you're stalling. I'm asking for the actual specification. IDiots went out and measured the genome after the fact, and declared the results to be specified. Any moron can map an object, even a complex one after the fact and claim it is full of "complex specified information". If you can't provide a before the fact specification, you don't have squat. It's still the lottery fallacy, claiming after the fact that the lottery number picked was too improbable so must be intelligently guided. It's still BS no matter how many meaningless buzzword phrases you come up with to describe it.
This is still my answer:
"This is exactly the point... specification or the intent to specify exist apart from the code baring medium that instantiate the complex specified information (In the intelligent minds that brought the English language into existence). This statement of yours confirm this and then you argue against this in the very next paragraph."
That's still not an answer, it's an evasive rhetorical handwave. But since empty rhetoric is all you've got, I guess that's the best you
can do.
Why are you completely silent about the article I posted?
"The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity"
Another piece of ID dreck full of meaningless buzzwords and unsupported assertions? What's to comment on?
Open your heart and you might meet HIM.
Who's HIM? I though ID wasn't about religion, no siree bob!
This is it Thorton... You had your share of my attention and you won't have it any more.
ReplyDeleteZachriel: That's like saying someone couldn't have driven across town because they had to stop at the lights.
ReplyDeleteI don’t see how that is analogous.
Zachriel: We already have some good idea of the range of variation in organisms. The variations that led to the poodle or maize were natural variations.
And how does this even remotely address the problem of acquiring advantageous mutations in a small population, especially in species with low reproductive rates?
Zachriel: You can quote-mine Darwin, but apparently haven't tried to read his chapter "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record."
Frankly I don’t need to quote-mine anyone to make this point because it is self-evident that numerous transitional are required if macroevolution is true. But I love that every once in awhile that a Darwinist, in this case your religious founder Darwin himself, admits to some truth that is detrimental to your myth. The truth is that if minute gradual changes are needed for macroevolution then there has to be numerous transitional, that is exact what Darwin admits to.
=== quote ===
By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the natural and domestic varieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient forms; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth.
ON THE LAPSE OF TIME, AS INFERRED FROM THE RATE OF DEPOSITION AND EXTENT OF DENUDATION.
Independently of our not finding fossil remains of such infinitely numerous connecting links, it may be objected that time cannot have sufficed for so great an amount of organic change, all changes having been effected slowly. It is hardly possible for me to recall to the reader who is not a practical geologist, the facts leading the mind feebly to comprehend the lapse of time.
=== end quote ===
So if his theory and common descent is true then there must be “inconceivably great number of intermediate and transitional links”. Do we have these “infinitely numerous links”? No. Does this mean that Darwinism is falsified? Darwin forbid, Darwinism over facts. Let’s create some cockamamy excuse of geological time. So much time has passed the evidence for these “inconceivably great number of intermediate and transitional links” were destroyed.
In other words, the evolutionary dog ate my homework.
Michael said...
ReplyDeleteThis is it Thorton... You had your share of my attention and you won't have it any more.
LOL! Another Intelligent Design Creationist gets caught being long on bluster but short on scientific evidence, decides to head for the door.
Shouldn't you at least tell me I'm going to burn in hell for not believing in HIM? Isn't that the standard parting shot?
Don't worry Michael. I'll still be here pointing out your ignorance and stupidity whether you respond on not. No need to thank me. :)
Janfeld,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Meyer's approach were far to tentative in this publication. The reason might be because of the biased peer review process, I don't know.
What I do know is that his latest book (Signature in the Cell) takes this argument to maturity. He approach it systematically from the position of looking at the origin of life itself. Which seems like a less contentious starting point.
He develops his method and arguments far better. He also makes predictions and propose research subjects.
I think the epistemic resources supplied by the evolutionary account of the Cambrian Explosion are far from closing the case and this article of Meyer expose that very effectively. Why can't evolution just stick to the prediction that Darwin made about the fossil record and agree that the prediction was wrong? That is what science would have done.
Zachriel: That's like saying someone couldn't have driven across town because they had to stop at the lights.
ReplyDeleteteleological blog: I don’t see how that is analogous.
The claim is that the person drove across town a bit at a time, as opposed to say teleporting hither and thither. Just because the speed may change, or even stop, that doesn't mean the person didn't drive across town.
teleological blog: When you reduce the population size the cost of acquiring beneficial mutation is substantially increased.
Zachriel: We already have some good idea of the range of variation in organisms. The variations that led to the poodle or maize were natural variations.
teleological blog: And how does this even remotely address the problem of acquiring advantageous mutations in a small population, especially in species with low reproductive rates?
Because it shows that natural variation displays enough variation to turn a wolf into a minature poodle, or a wild grass into maize, within a few thousand years.
teleological blog: Frankly I don’t need to quote-mine anyone to make this point because it is self-evident that numerous transitional are required if macroevolution is true.
That's correct. But that wasn't your demand, but that we show you all the innumerable intermediaries, the entire pathway of how macroevolutions occurred, every mutation nucleotide by nucleotide.
teleological blog: So if his theory and common descent is true then there must be “inconceivably great number of intermediate and transitional links”.
Yes, that is correct, the vast majority of which are extinct and left no remains.
teleological blog: Do we have these “infinitely numerous links”? No.
No, because we don't expect every organism to fossilize. We don't have the bones of all your ancestors since 4004 BCE either.
Zachriel: The claim is that the person drove across town a bit at a time, as opposed to say teleporting hither and thither. Just because the speed may change, or even stop, that doesn't mean the person didn't drive across town.
ReplyDeleteThere you go again, changing the meaning of words. A more accurate analogy would be, Darwinian gradualism “states” the car drives across town slowly without any perceivable stops. PE “states” the car drives across town rapidly making long stops. They are contradictory to each other. In reality your teleportation example is more accurate for PE than driving, because PE leaves no evidence of movement between point A and point B.
Zachriel: Because it shows that natural variation displays enough variation to turn a wolf into a minature poodle, or a wild grass into maize, within a few thousand years.
No, try again. The examples that you gave are artificial selection for specific trait across the entire population of a species. No one is suggesting that they started with a limited number of founders to create these variations. But the bigger problem is that even with the entire population at your disposal and artificial selection. Darwinian evolution is still incapable of creating the macroevolutionary changes required, e.g. turn the wolf into a whale.
Zachriel: That's correct. But that wasn't your demand, but that we show you all the innumerable intermediaries, the entire pathway of how macroevolutions occurred, every mutation nucleotide by nucleotide.
That was my proposal for a scientific approach to test Darwinism, since you have no evidence because the dog ate your homework. This method is meant to recreate the putative pathway required by Darwinian macroevolution.
Zachriel: No, because we don't expect every organism to fossilize.
Yes, the evolutionary dog ate your homework, but we should take your word that it is a fact you did your homework.
Zachriel: We don't have the bones of all your ancestors since 4004 BCE either.
You keep using this inane line of argument I am beginning to think that you sincerely believe this is a rational argument.
teleological blog said...
ReplyDeleteThere you go again, changing the meaning of words. A more accurate analogy would be, Darwinian gradualism “states” the car drives across town slowly without any perceivable stops. PE “states” the car drives across town rapidly making long stops. They are contradictory to each other. In reality your teleportation example is more accurate for PE than driving, because PE leaves no evidence of movement between point A and point B.
There is nothing in evolutionary theory that says evolutionary rates for all species must be the same. As I tried to explain to you before, evolution acts like a feedback loop and tracks changes in the environment. If a particular environmental niche changes rapidly, you can get rapid evolutionary changes for the creatures in that niche. If a niche is stable for a long time, you can get relatively slow evolution. If the niche changes gradually you can get gradual evolution. It's not an either-or situation. The fossil records shows both clear cases of gradualism and clear cases of PE for different species.
You could read about this yourself with a few minutes' searching of Google. But first you have to want to learn.
teleological blog: There you go again, changing the meaning of words. A more accurate analogy would be, Darwinian gradualism “states” the car drives across town slowly without any perceivable stops.
ReplyDeleteThe proper term is phyletic gradualism, meaning that evolutionary change occurs at a more-or-less regular rate. Darwin, on the other hand, stated that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."
teleological blog: In reality your teleportation example is more accurate for PE than driving, because PE leaves no evidence of movement between point A and point B.
If you make a movie of a car moving, it turns out that there are gaps. It could be due to teleportation, but we can show that these gaps are the result of the recording process. Fossilization is rare and largely happenstance, so we have a diffuse sampling, at best.
teleological blog: The examples that you gave are artificial selection for specific trait across the entire population of a species.
Yes, but the variations are natural.
teleological blog: That was my proposal for a scientific approach to test Darwinism,
Yes, your strawman demonstrates your ignorance of the scientific method. The whole point of the scientific method is that it allows us to reach tentative conclusions absent omniscience.
teleological blog: ... since you have no evidence because the dog ate your homework.
There's plenty of *scientific* evidence.
teleological blog: This method is meant to recreate the putative pathway required by Darwinian macroevolution.
Because the Theory of Common Descent is so strongly supported, this provides us the historical framework for understanding the mechanisms involved in those transitions.
teleological blog: You keep using this inane line of argument I am beginning to think that you sincerely believe this is a rational argument.
You have several times insisted that we should be able to provide not just every ancestor, but every mutation for the transition from land mammal to modern extant whale. You can't seem to provide your own genealogy over a few thousand years, or the bones of your ancestors from 6000 years ago, yet you expect that if whales descended from land mammals tens of millions of years ago, we should be able to show you not just the complete skeletons, but know every mutation.
Zachriel said...
ReplyDelete"The proper term is phyletic gradualism, meaning that evolutionary change occurs at a more-or-less regular rate. Darwin, on the other hand, stated that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."
=====
The point is that even this hypothesis you prefer is not supported by the fossil record. Take a moment and try to create a plausible narrative for the mechanisms of fossilization that account for what we actually see and what you and Darwin proposed.
If you expect a post modern critique of the Darwinian narrative, then you are naive to the highest degree. The laws of nature & logic are not a subjective set of suggestions of how reality can be like. It is the core reality that enable us to achieve successful scientific inquiry.
Michael said...
ReplyDeleteThe point is that even this hypothesis you prefer is not supported by the fossil record. Take a moment and try to create a plausible narrative for the mechanisms of fossilization that account for what we actually see and what you and Darwin proposed.
Once again you are demonstrating your near total ignorance of evolutionary theory. Here, let me help:
All you need to know about Punctuated Equilibrium (almost)
If you expect a post modern critique of the Darwinian narrative, then you are naive to the highest degree. The laws of nature & logic are not a subjective set of suggestions of how reality can be like.
Actually Michael, it is reality that is not subject to your ignorance based bloviating and armchair philosophizing.
You really ought to try learning at least a little about a topic before you make yourself look like a fool by attacking your pathetic misunderstanding of it.