Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Abusing Science

When confronted with their own religious doctrine, evolutionists are quick to deny any such thing. Evolution is based on religious claims, but after making these claims evolutionists insist their religious beliefs are entirely gratuitous. Their religious claims, evolutionists explain, are merely criticisms of design and creation. After all, we need to explain to the creationists why their ideas are not scientifically supported. The fact of evolution, on the other hand, is simply a scientific conclusion. But this evolutionary rendition is, as usual, at odds with the facts.

Darwin's theory of evolution was motivated and justified by on-going theological and philosophical concerns. Though these concerns were spread across different continents, religions and centuries, there is a particular religious perspective at work. And naturally it is from this perspective that evolutionists argue. Their religious arguments are not merely sidebar rebukes of creation.

Consider, for example, Darwin's argument that the pattern, or classification, which the different species fall into would never have resulted if they had been created:

The several subordinate groups in any class cannot be ranked in a single file, but seem clustered round points, and these round other points, and so on in almost endless cycles. If species had been independently created, no explanation would have been possible of this kind of classification.

This is, of course, a metaphysical claim. If the species were independently created then, so the reasoning goes, they would have no pattern of similarities. After all, independently created species must have independent designs. And since we find similar designs, the species must not be created. Instead, they must be derived one from the other. For there can only be two possibilities: created with independent designs or evolved with design similarities.

It is not that the species obviously morph into other species, but rather that they do not appear to have been created. The reasoning, as always, is metaphysical.

And this metaphysical claim is distinctly evolutionary. It is not representative of design or creation. Indeed, Linneaus had constructed his hierarchy revealing the classification described by Darwin. But Linneaus believed god created the hierarchical classification. For Linneaus, independent creation certainly did not imply independent design. And this is no trivial example—Linneaus was the leading scientist of his day, and his views were tremendously influential. The evolutionist Darwin was not so much addressing creationism as it was commonly understood, but rather creationism as it was understood by Enlightenment theology.

Nor was Darwin's religious claim a trivial example. It has been repeatedly proclaimed ever since. As Niles Eldredge more recently explained:

Could the single artisan, who has no one but himself from whom to steal designs, possibly be the explanation for why the Creator fashioned life in a hierarchical fashion—why, for example, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and birds all share the same limb structure?

Of course not. To say that the Creator came up with such a pattern makes no sense according to the evolutionists. Evolution is driven by religious belief. This world is not what we would expect from a creator or designer, and so evolution is mandated.

If this is how evolutionary thought works, then we would expect evolutionists to make truth claims about their theory. If my beliefs dictate that this world is not created or designed, then I will conclude it arose naturalistically, on its own.

Therefore we can make a prediction about evolutionary thought. If it is driven by religious beliefs, then we should find these sorts of truth claims in the literature. This prediction has been fulfilled a great many times over. It would be difficult to tally up the multitude of such truth claims made by evolutionists, both before and after Darwin, in addition to Darwin himself.

The eighteenth century Scottish philosopher David Hume, for example, argued against design. His antagonist Cleanthes made a powerful design argument. The protagonist Philo admitted the argument was a great challenge for him, but it was neutralized by the evil in the world. “I needed all my skeptical and metaphysical subtlety to elude your grasp,” admitted Philo, but “Here I triumph.”

Hume's triumph was not merely that Cleanthes’s metaphysics were wrong. It was that the evolutionary metaphysics of naturalism were right.

Likewise when Darwin argued against his version of special creation he did not merely conclude against that particular view. He believed that that version of special creation was the version of special creation. We might say he believed in that view. If god created the world, then it wouldn't look this way. Therefore evolution must be true. Darwin's religious beliefs allowed him to make a far more comprehensive conclusion. Here is an example:

We cannot believe, that the similar bones in the arm of the monkey, in the fore-leg of the horse, in the wing of the bat, and in the flipper of the seal, are of special use to these animals. We may safely attribute these structures to inheritance.

Darwin does not merely conclude against his particular brand of creation. He concludes against creation in general. Creation must be false, period. And so inheritance must be the explanation.

This method of metaphysical reasoning runs all through the evolution genre. Evolutionists consistently claim their theory is an undeniable fact. And they prove it to be so. But their proofs are always religious.

Pseudogenes for example are sometimes found to be disabled by identical mutations in cousin species. In typical fashion evolutionist Jerry Coyne concludes they wouldn't have been designed that way and that “Only evolution and common ancestry can explain these facts.” [Why Evolution is True, 68]

This is an example of how this religious reasoning is often in the form of an if-and-only-if statement. In this case, if and only if evolution is true, then we would observe such identical mutations in pseudogenes. Here is another example of this non scientific logic:

One of my favorite cases of embryological evidence for evolution is the furry human fetus. We are famously known as "naked apes" because, unlike other primates, we don't have a thick coat of hair. But in fact for one brief period we do--as embryos. Around sixth months after conception, we become completely covered with a fine, downy coat of hair called lanugo. Lanugo is usually shed about a month before birth, when it's replaced by the more sparsely distributed hair with which we're born. ... Now, there's no need for a human embryo to have a transitory coat of hair. After all, it's a cozy 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the womb. Lanugo can be explained only as a remnant of our primate ancestry: fetal monkeys also develop a coat of hair at about the same stage of development. Their hair, however, doesn't fall out, but hangs on to become the adult coat. And, like humans, fetal whales also have lanugo, a remnant of when their ancestors lived on land. [Why Evolution is True, 80]

The religion that motivates and justifies evolution is not an afterthought response to those pesky creationists. It is front and center. It is at the inner core of evolutionary thought. It is what makes evolution a fact. As Stephen Jay Gould explained:

Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce. No one understood this better than Darwin. Ernst Mayr has shown how Darwin, in defending evolution, consistently turned to organic parts and geographic distributions that make the least sense.

Evolution is not about science. But when a mirror is held up and evolutionists are confronted with their own words, they suddenly cry foul. Like Captain Renault, they are shocked, shocked to find religion is going on in here. Evolutionists are their own judge.

130 comments:

  1. I work in robotics and AI and I use Genetic Algorithms, and other evolution related science as tools for developing better robots, and I use robots as a tool for studying biology.

    Does this mean that when I create an artificially evolved robot I'm doing theology not science?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bill:

    "Does this mean that when I create an artificially evolved robot I'm doing theology not science?"
    ======

    Your side hasn't even proven undirected, unguided without goals, purpose or intent biological evolution even ONCE. Now you want us to believe that you observed some artificial undirected or unguidedness of an evolving robot that just happened right before your very eyes without any manipulation or intelligent fingerprints on your part ???

    Genetic Algorithms ??? Show us first how the molecular machines and the massive amounts of intelligent encoded informational communication systems which guides and directs them evolved from nothing more than chemicals and physics without the intelligent fingerprints of a designer, then we'll go ahead and even go a step farther than you did here and lable them not "Genetic Algorithms", but rather "Evolutionary Algorithms".

    Until then all you have is a faith-based belief system.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bill:

    "I work in robotics and AI and I use Genetic Algorithms, and other evolution related science as tools for developing better robots, and I use robots as a tool for studying biology."
    ======

    Actually I think I have a solution for you Bill. Cornelius in his last paragraph said this:

    "But when a mirror is held up and evolutionists are confronted with their own words, . . "

    So the very next time you attempt to write up a computer file or program and lable it "Genetic Algorthims", or even manually start to actually assemble some kind of robot, before hand you should encircle yourself with several giant life sized mirrors and periodically peer into those mirrors as you work on evolving a robot and meditate (not the empty headed Buddhist/Hindu version, but rather intelligent assimilation and digestion of knowledge) on what you see going on. I think that just may give you the answer that is elluding you if you're still having trouble with the issues of unguidedness, undirectedness without purpose or intent.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Eocene, what kind of evidence would you demand to prove "undirected, unguided without goals, purpose or intent biological evolution"? Would the fossil record do it? Or would you demand to know exactly when and where each mutation occurred that led to some species currently alive?

    Personally, I can't imagine any evidence that would prove to a committed believer that God didn't personally create every species, past and present, in a way that would exactly mimic the appearance of Darwinian evolution. That is apparently the hurdle that Cornelius demands science jump over before he will be convinced. How about you?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dave Mullenix:

    "Eocene, what kind of evidence would you demand to prove "undirected, unguided without goals, purpose or intent biological evolution"?
    ======

    That's up to you Dave, not me. Personally, if I was the one believe in such a crack theory, I wouldn't know where to begin. I live and work in a world where mechanisms and informational data and communications systems ALL without exception are the result of an intelligent mind. I can only relate to that. Your side has come late to the discussion table insisting this has not always been the case with brilliant informational communications systems and the extremely complex molecular nano-machines they run. The burden of proof is on you. Thus far all supposed evidence presented to me has been nothing but faith based.
    ------

    Dave Mullenix:

    "Personally, I can't imagine any evidence that would prove to a committed believer that God didn't personally create every species, past and present, in a way that would exactly mimic the appearance of Darwinian evolution."
    ======

    If you are indeed so convinced in undirectedness, no guidance, no purpose with intent, nothing but blind forces of physics and chemicals, then you must have some type of experiment using the scientific method where anyone else can verify without a shadow of a doubt that, YES, most certainly complex sophisticated biological nano-machines and the massive amounts of encoded information that drive them for purposed outcomes did result from nothing. Explain it to us without making it look so supernatural. It's when your explantions take on faith-based statement making as opposed to ONLY observable naturalistic material raw data as demanded by your own doctrines that your worldview becomes suspect. I'm all for you proving your faith, but do it with facts based on your own dogma minus the religious inference.
    ------

    Dave Mulenix:

    "That is apparently the hurdle that Cornelius demands science jump over before he will be convinced. How about you?"
    ======

    I want a strictly material naturalistic explanations minus the religious overtones that demand faith. The "Scientific Method" is supposed to be by strict definition only naturalisitc observation that can be verified by anyone. Materialists everywhere make this point over and over but hypocritically fail to follow their own rules.

    ReplyDelete
  6. bill this may interest you,

    Constraints vs. Controls - Abel - 2010
    Excerpt: Classic examples of the above confusion are found in the faulty-inference conclusions drawn from many so-called “directed evolution,” “evolutionary algorithm,” and computer-programmed “computational evolutionary” experimentation. All of this research is a form of artificial selection, not natural selection. Choice for potential function at decision nodes, prior to the realization of that function, is always artificial, never natural.
    http://www.bentham.org/open/tocsj/articles/V004/14TOCSJ.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  7. eocene:
    "So the very next time you attempt to write up a computer file or program and lable it "Genetic Algorthims", or even manually start to actually assemble some kind of robot, before hand you should encircle yourself with several giant life sized mirrors and periodically peer into those mirrors as you work on evolving a robot and meditate (not the empty headed Buddhist/Hindu version, but rather intelligent assimilation and digestion of knowledge) on what you see going on. I think that just may give you the answer that is elluding you if you're still having trouble with the issues of unguidedness, undirectedness without purpose or intent."

    I think that will give Bill a lot of insight into people who really don't understand what modeling is all about. I don't think anything I can write will make a true believer understand, but I'll try anyway.

    When you're making a model, you have to intelligently construct an apparatus that mimics some feature of the natural world that you wish to simulate. Bill chooses to simulate the effects of random changes filtered by natural selection, so he builds a model that allows random changes and has a way of selecting the most effective of the changes and propagating them to the next generation.

    Once you've done that, you start your model and watch the simulation run without further intelligent input. In other words, all of the intelligence goes into creating a model that mimics some natural process and then you start that process and let it run to see how it works.

    This may be a surprise to some Intelligent Designists, but you don't normally change the model you've constructed while the simulation is running. That is, you don't change the model's parameters as some on UD have insisted - that would be the equivalent of changing the laws of nature or the parts of the world you are simulating. Nor do you toss your computer out of an airplane if you're modeling parachute drops, as some have also implied. (I'm talking to you, Gil.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dave Mullenix:

    "Would the fossil record do it?"
    ======

    No. All I ever see with the fossil record is speculation, assertions and assumptions on both sides. Nobody was there way back when. Sure there are some details about how the plants, fish, birds, animals, etc lived, their diet, their habits and even the climatic conditions their environment (which has been proven BTW), but beyond that only inserted stories (Divination) has been used where major gaps do NOT tell us anything.
    ------

    Dave Mullenix:

    "Or would you demand to know exactly when and where each mutation occurred that led to some species currently alive?"
    ======

    Mutation ??? Incredible. Scientists use all sorts of intelligent metaphors to describe the complex molecular machinery and the brilliant informational digital componants which direct them, but cannot so much as call something which they consider new information so much as a new program or file. For me (of course this is my personal bias) a mutation should only refer to a cancerous condition, sickness, tumor, death, etc. Yes I do understand how it's used, but it needs desparately to be upgraded.

    Back to your question. How would you first prove that the so-called beneficial mutation wasn't purposed in the first place ??? How do you know it's even a copying error ??? Given the fact that all science has observed in the environment is nothing more than adaptation and survival of a singular species to it's environment, then yes, where's the proof it goes beyond it's species boundaries into an entirely changed animal ??? I know, it's impossible because it would take millions of years of ancestry observation.

    Here's the problem. Every day for the past couple of years science comes out with article explaining the sophistication and complexity of these nano-machines and the computer communication system-like brains that drive them for a purposed outcome. DNA devoting huge resources to error correction mechanisms. Cell kill switches that selfdestruct rather than replicate a flawed copy of itself. Explanation so slowed down for us to understand them, that in reality actually run at faster than supercomputer speeds without any traffic jams.

    So where do you start or begin to explain where any of this change is nothing more than mistaked copying errors that just happen by chance to get lucky ??? It's your dilema, not mine.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dave Mullenix,
    Actually ID does have falsification criteria whereas neo-Darwinism is notorious in its refusal to set any criteria that may be rigorously falsified:

    Here are some tests that would falsify ID:

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

    Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? – ‘The Fitness Test’ – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248

    The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel – Null Hypothesis For Information Generation – 2009
    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: 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.
    http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf
    Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation)
    1) Mathematical Logic
    2) Algorithmic Optimization
    3) Cybernetic Programming
    4) Computational Halting
    5) Integrated Circuits
    6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium)
    7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics)
    8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system
    9) Language
    10) Formal function of any kind
    11) Utilitarian work
    http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag

    Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness – Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke – 2010
    Excerpt: In experimental evolution, the best way to permit various evolutionary alternatives, and assess their relative likelihood, is to avoid conditions that rule them out. Our experiments, like others (e.g. [40]), used populations of cells growing slowly under limiting nutrient conditions, thereby allowing a number of paths to be taken to higher fitness. We engineered the cells to have a two-step adaptive path to high fitness, but they were not limited to that option. Cells could reduce expression of the non-functional trpAE49V,D60N allele in a variety of ways, or they could acquire a weakly functional tryptophan synthase subunit by a single site reversion to trpAD60N, bringing them within one step of full reversion (Figure 6). When all of these possibilities are left open by the experimental design, the populations consistently take paths that reduce expression of trpAE49V,D60N, making the path to new (restored) function virtually inaccessible. This demonstrates that the cost of expressing genes that provide weak new functions is a significant constraint on the emergence of new functions. In particular, populations with multiple adaptive paths open to them may be much less likely to take an adaptive path to high fitness if that path requires over-expression.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.2/BIO-C.2010.2

    This is another ID standard that can be verified or falsified:

    Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681

    ReplyDelete
  10. here are two examples of how neo-Darwinism refuses falsification:

    Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? - Paul Nelson - Feb. 2010
    Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/seeing_ghosts_in_the_bushes_pa.html

    A Primer on the Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - 2009
    Excerpt: The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion, and whenever data contradicts expectations of common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of different ad hoc rationalizations to save common descent from being falsified.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/10651

    ReplyDelete
  11. "This is an example of how this religious reasoning is often in the form of an if-and-only-if statement. In this case, if and only if evolution is true, then we would observe such identical mutations in pseudogenes."

    You're right. The full statement should be something along the lines of, "If and only if evolution is true and there's not some really unintelligent designer out there mimicking Darwinian Evolution, should we observe such identical mutations in pseudogenes."

    In other words, Darwinian Evolution produces such identical pseudogenes naturally due to common descent while no other known natural process can do it. However, it is not logically contradictory that a somewhat dim "intelligent" designer might have done it, if such an entity existed and had a lot of time on its hands and really enjoyed doing lots and lots and lots of dumb, pointless things.

    ReplyDelete
  12. bornagain77, please tell us in your own words what ID's falsification criteria are. Don't bother cutting and pasting a bunch of quotes from DI mavins because that takes only seconds of work and no thought at all and I'm not going to bust my back looking each quote up and telling you what is wrong with them.

    You're a bright person and you have a fine beard so you should be able to tell us your point of view in your own words. If you find you can't do that, then you have some work to do.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Cornelius Hunter: If the species were independently created then, so the reasoning goes, they would have no pattern of similarities.

    No, no, no. Not just a similarity, but a nested hierarchy.

    Cornelius Hunter: Darwin's religious beliefs allowed him to make a far more comprehensive conclusion. Here is an example:

    Darwin: We cannot believe, that the similar bones in the arm of the monkey, in the fore-leg of the horse, in the wing of the bat, and in the flipper of the seal, are of special use to these animals. We may safely attribute these structures to inheritance.

    You left out the context, again. The reason Darwin introduced the discussion is because it was a prevalent view among naturalists. From the beginning of the paragraph you excerpted above:

    Darwin: The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately made by some naturalists against the utilitarian doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. They believe that many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight man or the Creator (but this latter point is beyond the scope of scientific discussion), or for the sake of mere variety, a view already discussed.

    Just "a few words" about a metaphysical belief that Darwin believes is beyond the scope of scientific discussion, precisely contrary to Cornelius Hunter's comment!

    And as Pedant points out, Darwin provides a method of empirical investigation to verify the claim of inheritance. Common inheritance of the arm of the monkey, the fore-leg of the horse, the wing of the bat, and the flipper of the seal, is solidly established by the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dave Mullenix:

    Once you've done that, you start your model and watch the simulation run without further intelligent input. In other words, all of the intelligence goes into creating a model that mimics some natural process and then you start that process and let it run to see how it works.

    This may be a surprise to some Intelligent Designists, but you don't normally change the model you've constructed while the simulation is running."
    =======

    There's no surprize at all there Dave, since this is EXACTLY what the Genesis Creation Account says that after all the intitial creative period set ups were in place, there was no further interference with regards creative activity since the seven period which is still ongoing has no such creative activity or interference. Everything thereafter was allowed to run and simulate whatever variety and variation within a set of orderly rules or Laws of Nature.

    But there are other questions. Was the intitial set up rigged by that intelligent designer to attain purposed outcomes, especially given the historical past of other model submissions by other dishonest failed programs trying to prove randomness ??? Who or what does the end selecting and if nothing more than a blind force , how does it know which programs are viable without that designer programming it in there in the first place ???
    Given the fact that science has shown all of us that the informational systems within DNA, the complex molecular machines they purposely drive and the check control error corrections mechanisms with which they operate, how did that human programmer know that these mechanisms operate with no purpose or intent in the first place ??? Did he (the human intelligent designer inventing this model) just assume they were random based on a biased worldview ??? Or were such unpurposed mistakes actually observed and how exactly did they know they were mistakes in the first place ??? The questions are endless since you opened the door for them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Eocene: So where do you start or begin to explain where any of this change is nothing more than mistaked copying errors that just happen by chance to get lucky ???

    The same way we determine whether a game of chance is a game of chance rather than a cheat. We could measure whether or not mutations are correlated with fitness. We could also measure the overall rate of mutation and compare it to the distribution of mutations.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Cornelius Hunter: Pseudogenes for example are sometimes found to be disabled by identical mutations in cousin species.

    Random changes to pseudogenes are not distributed randomly in different species, but exhibit a nested hierarchy that matches the nested hierarchy derived by other means.

    ReplyDelete
  17. bornagain77: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: 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.

    Sorry, but that is not a useful criteria for falsification. A falsification should be narrowly defined and empirically specific. It's not that the author is merely speculating, but rather, he wants us to accept the hypothesis lacking such an exception, which may be due only to our lack of technical skill or other limitations. It's a negative test, and as such, it is more a measure of our ignorance than a test of any hypothesis.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dave Mullenix:

    "When you're making a model, you have to intelligently construct an apparatus that mimics some feature of the natural world that you wish to simulate. Bill chooses to simulate the effects of random changes filtered by natural selection, so he builds a model that allows random changes and has a way of selecting the most effective of the changes and propagating them to the next generation.
    =======

    But there are those intelligent fingerprints again. You have to use intelligence to set up a simulating program. The question really is how does Bill even know in the first place that things actually working randomly ??? Is this something Bill actually personally has observed, or is it based on a previous biased worldview of what he thinks and hopes how it works ??? Again, this is not what science keeps finding out about the inner workings of these sophisticated mechanisms. It's the other way around.

    Exactly how much rigging has Bill done as far as the end game ??? Does Bill actually do the selecting or did he rig the program to select based on Bill's thoughts ??? Does Bill's selecting represent blind undirected lucky choices or intelligent selection ??? If he programmed the selection in, then is that still not the work of an intelligent designer who diliberately programmed the selecting for as you said there is no further need of intelligence to interfere with selection ??? (Genesis) In what way is it still not the thoughts and ideas of Bill ??? Does not Bill first have to prove his observations were of a real world live cell spitting out copying errored mistakes for no purpose or intent and that absolutely nothing selected for no purpose ??? Again, how does he know all this conjecture is true in the first place ??? If it came from someone else or something he read, how do we know they have it correctly ??? The questions are endless and should be asked for by evolutionists themselves first, not me. But they're not since they simply take them ONLY on faith.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Eocene: But there are those intelligent fingerprints again. You have to use intelligence to set up a simulating program.

    Can we learn anything about saltwater in nature by mixing salt in water? Can we learn anything about how objects fall by rolling balls down an incline? Can we anything about the weather by designing a computer simulation then comparing our results to observation?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Zachriel:

    "Common inheritance of the arm of the monkey, the fore-leg of the horse, the wing of the bat, and the flipper of the seal, is solidly established by the evidence."
    ======

    No, this is called Divination. Reading tea leaves to predict something seemingly intelligent though not from the usual conventional source. Or as Carl Sagan put it in explaining the differences between Astrology and astronomy.

    "There are two ways to look at the stars. The way they really are or the way we wish them to be."
    -------

    Zachriel:

    "The same way we determine whether a game of chance is a game of chance rather than a cheat. We could measure whether or not mutations are correlated with fitness. We could also measure the overall rate of mutation and compare it to the distribution of mutations."
    =======

    This isn't about a roulette table or shooting craps. This is a discussion of complex mechanisms that science has barely scratched the surface of. Proof is the blatant stupid choices they presently are making with regarding the inept and failed custodialship of our planet's ecosystems. Their ideas which are infected with politics and philosophy are dragging everything down, including and especially humankind.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Zachriel:

    "Can we learn anything about saltwater in nature by mixing salt in water? Can we learn anything about how objects fall by rolling balls down an incline? Can we anything about the weather by designing a computer simulation then comparing our results to observation?"
    =======

    We're talking about evolutionary biology, not other branches of science. Do you ever just answer the hard questions that even a simple minded child would get , minus the eastern religious reasoning injection ???

    ReplyDelete
  22. Eocene: No, this is called Divination. Reading tea leaves to predict something seemingly intelligent though not from the usual conventional source.

    Handwaving.

    Eocene: This isn't about a roulette table or shooting craps.

    Handwaving.

    Eocene: We're talking about evolutionary biology, not other branches of science.

    Handwaving.

    Let us know when you are ready to discuss the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Zachriel:

    "Handwaving."
    =======

    Deflection
    -------

    Zachriel:

    "Handwaving."
    =======

    More deflection
    -------

    Zachriel:

    "Handwaving."
    =======

    Even more deflection.
    -------

    Zachriel:

    "Let us know when you are ready to discuss the topic."
    =======

    Are you also a master of hepatoscopy (reading livers) ???

    ReplyDelete
  24. Eocene:

    I'm not sure you really understood my question. I'll try and re-state it.

    IF, as cornelius states, the theory of evolution is not actually a theory but religious dogma, then if I use some of the observed aspects of biological evolution (inheritance, selection, mutation) to create all or part of a robotic system, am I doing science or theology?

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'll repeat what I said on another thread:

    Every scientific theoretical model makes a number of positive assumptions. A model for the evolution of trait(s) X typically makes assumptions about the genetics underlying X, mutation rates, effects of X on reproduction and survival, population dynamics, mating system, life history of the species, etc. Those are all positive assumptions.

    Of course there are also infinitely many assumptions that are NOT being made, such as "and then a miracle happened" or "mutations are guided by an invisible hand" or "a green fairy increases the survival probability by 10% every 17 years".

    Ideally, one should verify the positive assumptions before testing the model predictions. However, it is ludicrous to demand that the assumptions that are NOT being made are all ruled out - i.e. proving a negative - but that is exactly what you [Eocene] are asking!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Bill:

    "IF, as cornelius states, the theory of evolution is not actually a theory but religious dogma, then if I use some of the observed aspects of biological evolution (inheritance, selection, mutation) to create all or part of a robotic system, am I doing science or theology?"
    ======

    Well as I stated Bill, how do you know it's biological EVOLUTION that is even going on in the first place ??? Dave's explantion as to how you developed your system requires an intelligence first. I have no problem with that. Makes sense. I get it.

    But so many explantions out there are always vague and so fuzzied and muddled that faith is required to belief that evolution is what is going on. Science has shown that what goes on inside the microworld is far from randomness without purpose. If you are basing your simulation on nothing more than unproven faith-based ideas, then that is applying a major componant of any religious concept.

    Seriously, look up the dictionary definition of the word Faith. For the evoluionary biologists just to make bolded statements or just hang evolutionary labling on things not proven to be evolutionary, then believing in what he/she says is taking it on faith without physical materialistic naturalistic proofs as demanded by the dogma's own philosophy in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Eocene: "There's no surprize at all there Dave, since this is EXACTLY what the Genesis Creation Account says that after all the intitial creative period set ups were in place, there was no further interference with regards creative activity since the seven period which is still ongoing has no such creative activity or interference. Everything thereafter was allowed to run and simulate whatever variety and variation within a set of orderly rules or Laws of Nature. "

    Isn't this just a version of theistic evolution?

    Eocene: "But there are those intelligent fingerprints again. You have to use intelligence to set up a simulating program. The question really is how does Bill even know in the first place that things actually working randomly ??? Is this something Bill actually personally has observed, or is it based on a previous biased worldview of what he thinks and hopes how it works ??? Again, this is not what science keeps finding out about the inner workings of these sophisticated mechanisms. It's the other way around."

    If I were modelling biology, which I'm not most of the time then I would base my model on observations. Others have done this and discovered, for example, that you can produce irreducible complexity using GA's.

    You hinted that I can't know if something is really random? Quite right, it may be that random mutations only look random but are infact a deity interfering. We can't tell so because it looks random we model it as random - and it works just fine.

    Eocene: "Does Bill actually do the selecting or did he rig the program to select based on Bill's thoughts ???"

    If I'm evolving robots then I will have a goal in mind - a target behaviour - I let evolution work as a design tool to generate a design that fulfils my criteria, but this could be simply to survive long enough to reproduce - just like biology.

    Eocene: "If he programmed the selection in, then is that still not the work of an intelligent designer who diliberately programmed the selecting for as you said there is no further need of intelligence to interfere with selection ???"

    Yes - WELL DONE - I intelligently design simulations (although it can be done without simulation) and observe the results. It is like theistic evolution but I don't regard myself as a god.

    Any agent in the simulation regardless of how intelligent would not be able to emperically determine if their world was created or not, or if any such creator (me) was a god.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Cornelius Hunter said...


    blah blah blah evolution is a religion blah blah blah Darwin wrote blah blah blah metaphysics blah blah blah



    YAWN.

    (pours coffee, opens morning paper)

    Someone pass the word when these goobers want to discuss actual evolutionary theory and not their fantasy clown version of it.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Eocene: "There's no surprize at all there Dave, since this is EXACTLY what the Genesis Creation Account says "

    Isn't this just a version of theistic evolution?

    Eocene: "But there are those intelligent fingerprints again. You have to use intelligence to set up a simulating program. The question really is how does Bill even know in the first place that things actually working randomly ???"

    If I were modelling biology, which I'm not most of the time then I would base my model on observations. Others have done this and discovered, for example, that you can produce irreducible complexity using GA's.

    You hinted that I can't know if something is really random? Quite right, it may be that random mutations only look random but are infact a deity interfering. We can't tell so because it looks random we model it as random - and it works just fine.

    Eocene: "Does Bill actually do the selecting or did he rig the program to select based on Bill's thoughts ???"

    If I'm evolving robots then I will have a goal in mind - a target behaviour - I let evolution work as a design tool to generate a design that fulfils my criteria, but this could be simply to survive long enough to reproduce - just like biology.

    Eocene: "If he programmed the selection in, then is that still not the work of an intelligent designer .."

    Yes - WELL DONE - I intelligently design simulations (although it can be done without simulation) and observe the results. It is like theistic evolution but I don't regard myself as a god.

    Any agent in the simulation regardless of how intelligent would not be able to emperically determine if their world was created or not, or if any such creator (me) was a god.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Oops, sorry for the double post

    ReplyDelete
  31. To make the falsification simpler for you Zach, just show us any material process whatsoever forming a symbolic representation of itself (i.e. forming a code)

    The DNA Code - Solid Scientific Proof Of Intelligent Design - Perry Marshall - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060532

    "A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. ,,,there is no known law of nature and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. Werner Gitt 1997 In The Beginning Was Information pp. 64-67, 79, 107."
    (The retired Dr Gitt was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology.)

    Codes and Axioms are always the result of mental intention, not material processes
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1PrE2Syt5SJUxeh2YBBBWrrPailC3uTFMdqPMFrzvwDY

    The GS (genetic selection) Principle – David L. Abel – 2009
    Excerpt: Stunningly, information has been shown not to increase in the coding regions of DNA with evolution. Mutations do not produce increased information. Mira et al (65) showed that the amount of coding in DNA actually decreases with evolution of bacterial genomes, not increases. This paper parallels Petrov’s papers starting with (66) showing a net DNA loss with Drosophila evolution (67). Konopka (68) found strong evidence against the contention of Subba Rao et al (69, 70) that information increases with mutations. The information content of the coding regions in DNA does not tend to increase with evolution as hypothesized. Konopka also found Shannon complexity not to be a suitable indicator of evolutionary progress over a wide range of evolving genes. Konopka’s work applies Shannon theory to known functional text. Kok et al. (71) also found that information does not increase in DNA with evolution. As with Konopka, this finding is in the context of the change in mere Shannon uncertainty. The latter is a far more forgiving definition of information than that required for prescriptive information (PI) (21, 22, 33, 72). It is all the more significant that mutations do not program increased PI. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces formal function. No increase in Shannon or Prescriptive information occurs in duplication. What the above papers show is that not even variation of the duplication produces new information, not even Shannon “information.”
    http://bioscience.bio-mirror.cn/2009/v14/af/3426/3426.pdf
    http://www.us.net/life/index.htm

    The Sheer Lack Of Evidence For Macro Evolution - William Lane Craig - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023134

    ReplyDelete
  32. Eocene: "Well as I stated Bill, how do you know it's biological EVOLUTION that is even going on in the first place ??? Dave's explantion as to how you developed your system requires an intelligence first. I have no problem with that. Makes sense. I get it."

    Maybe the universe needed an intelligence to create it, I have no problem with that.

    As for how I know that biological evolution is going on - observation - like I said, my work is based on observations by biologists - they observe inheritance, mutation and selection. These are key, but not exhaustive, aspects of EVOLUTION as described by the scientific theory.

    Now, any chance that you or cornelius will get around to answering the question - If I'm using mutation, selection and inheritance to evolve robots, am I doing theology?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Bill:

    "Isn't this just a version of theistic evolution?"
    ======

    No not at all. The bible describes natural laws of genetic barriers or boundaries that cannot be crossed with the expression with regards replication/breeding "according to their kinds". Theistic evolution goes along with the same atheist version of common decent from a single cell to all living organisms. Theisitc evolutionists also never explain why they believe in any god. I'm refering to variation and variety within the same type/kind of animal like dogs, cats, deer, bear, Pinus, Quercus, Populus, Alnus, Salvia, Artisema etc. The observed natural world denotes a high level of order (or at least it use to) not the chaos demanded for by evolution.

    Examples of continued changes within the same kind of animals are dolphin and whale breeding to give us the Wholphin.
    ------

    Bill:

    "If I were modelling biology, which I'm not most of the time then I would base my model on observations. Others have done this and discovered, for example, that you can produce irreducible complexity using GA's."
    ======

    Even if you were doing things for the NASA Genetic Algorithms - Simulation (which they actually have attached a lable "evolution" to), the intelligent designing fingerprints are still all over it. I won't go back and describe the simulation done again with regards genetics, but clearly they are not unpurposely spitting out mistakes for just no reason, they are actually thinking and designing. First it has to be proven that these genetic algorithms are even evolutionary in the first place. They've failed with the exception of story creation which involves faith. That doesn't work for me. I certainly don't let other religions get away with it and I don't let evolutionary philosophy get away with it.

    On another note however, I do enjoy and have no problem with the work you are involved with. I appreciate it. I'm also working on a model of an early Earth hydrological cycle which could model for a free energy creation, but I have to rely on others, such as yourself to interpret what I've observed, tested amd located in the research of others in order to come up with a real workable machine from the model. Needless to say it's really been fun.

    ReplyDelete
  34. pseudogenes are false:

    Here is a detailed refutation of the Vitamin C (GULO) 'pseudogene' argument that is used by evolutionists to try to establish human/chimp common ancestry:

    Excerpt Of Conclusion:
    When examined in detail, the full pseudogene dataset we collected does not lend itself to a reasonable neo-Darwinian interpretation.
    http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_118-127.pdf

    The following article highlights what I feel is perhaps the most crushing objection that can be urged against the 'Junk DNA' argument:

    Arriving At Intelligence Through The Corridors Of Reason (Part II) - April 2010
    Excerpt: ,,, since junk DNA would put an unnecessary energetic burden on cells during the process of replication, it stands to reason that it would more likely be eliminated through selective pressures. That is, if the Darwinian account of life is to be believed. “It would make sense” Johnson writes “that those useless nucleotides would be removed from the genome long before they had a chance to form something with a selective advantage….there would be no advantage in directing energy to useless structures”.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/arriving-at-intelligence-through-the-corridors-of-reason-part-ii/

    This study backs up the preceding observation:

    Experimental Evolution of Gene Duplicates in a Bacterial Plasmid Model
    Excerpt: In a striking contradiction to our model, no such conditions were found. The fitness cost of carrying both plasmids increased dramatically as antibiotic levels were raised, and either the wild-type plasmid was lost or the cells did not grow. This study highlights the importance of the cost of duplicate genes and the quantitative nature of the tradeoff in the evolution of gene duplication through functional divergence.
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/vp471464014664w8/

    This following study, that discovered a 'Second Regulatory Code" on top of the protein coding DNA code, should have, by all reasonable accounts, completely stopped the neo-Darwinian claim for 'Junk DNA' dead in its tracks. But alas, the neo-Darwinian model is a 'zombie-like monster' that refuses to die no matter what evidence comes forward against it:

    Nature Reports Discovery of “Second Genetic Code” But Misses Intelligent Design Implications - May 2010
    Excerpt: Rebutting those who claim that much of our genome is useless, the article reports that "95% of the human genome is alternatively spliced, and that changes in this process accompany many diseases." ,,,, the complexity of this "splicing code" is mind-boggling:,,, A summary of this article also titled “Breaking the Second Genetic Code” in the print edition of Nature summarized this research thusly: “At face value, it all sounds simple: DNA makes RNA, which then makes protein. But the reality is much more complex.,,, So what we’re finding in biology are:

    # “beautiful” genetic codes that use a biochemical language;
    # Deeper layers of codes within codes showing an “expanding realm of complexity”;
    # Information processing systems that are far more complex than previously thought (and we already knew they were complex), including “the appearance of features deeper into introns than previously appreciated”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/05/nature_reports_discovery_of_se.html

    ReplyDelete
  35. "The observed natural world denotes a high level of order (or at least it use to) not the chaos demanded for by evolution."
    Evolution doesn't demand chaos - it wouldn't really work if the world was chaotic but fortunatly the world is structured, it obeys rules. Was the universe designed like this - I don't know.

    "The bible describes natural laws of genetic barriers or boundaries that cannot be crossed with the expression with regards replication/breeding "according to their kinds"."

    Have you come across ring species?

    "First it has to be proven that these genetic algorithms are even evolutionary in the first place."

    I don't think I understand this statement? They are 'evolutionary' because they use mutation, selection and inheritance.

    What do you mean by the term 'Evolutionary'? Perhaps you are using a different definition that that used by scientists.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Bill said...

    Now, any chance that you or cornelius will get around to answering the question - If I'm using mutation, selection and inheritance to evolve robots, am I doing theology?


    Forget theology. If evolution is a religion, I want to be a pope! It would be so cool to walk into our lab wearing one of those big pointy hats, and have our college new-hires kiss my ring!

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Forget theology. If evolution is a religion, I want to be a pope! "

    Great idea - all that money, the unquestionable authority, the power ... You get to condem gay people, lament the poor and cover up institutional child abuse whilst wearing a frock and sitting on a guilt throne.

    ReplyDelete
  38. bornagain77: To make the falsification simpler for you Zach, just show us any material process whatsoever forming a symbolic representation of itself (i.e. forming a code)

    It has nothing to do with simplicity. A falsification should be narrowly defined and empirically specific. For example, if we posit Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, then we can make specific predictions about the half-life of specific particles which depend on their specific relative velocities. We simply measure these half-lives, and if they don't match the prediction, that means at least one of our assumptions is incorrect. The Theory has to be modified or discarded.

    What you have proposed is not specific, but vague, and may even require an exhaustive search of the entire domain. Add in the equivocal terms, then falsification becomes wrought with problems.

    bornagain77: A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor).

    If a code system is defined as a result of a mental process, then the claim is tautological. If, on the other hand, it is defined as a x-to-one correspondence between sets, then codes are found in other phenomena, such as spectral lines encoding the composition of distant stars.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Zach a code is not 'defined' as a result of a mental process. A code is "ALWAYS OBSERVED" to be the result of a mental, and intelligent, process. Thus the scientific burden is on you, and other neo-Darwinists, to prove that material processes can do what nobody has ever seen them do (generate codes and arbitrary axioms) since you guys are the ones making the absurd claim that 'accidents' filtered by differential death can produce levels of functional information that are unmatched in our most sophisticated machines. That materialists have not even provided even this minimal level of proof is very telling of the 'religion' that undergirds evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  40. further note to Zach:

    Skeptic's Objection to Information Theory #1:
    "DNA is Not a Code" - Perry marshall
    http://cosmicfingerprints.com/dnanotcode.htm

    ReplyDelete
  41. bornagain77: a code is not 'defined' as a result of a mental process. A code is "ALWAYS OBSERVED" to be the result of a mental, and intelligent, process.

    There is evidence that the canonical code evolved from simpler relationships.

    bornagain77: Thus the scientific burden is on you,

    Let's assume there is no evidence for the origin of the genetic code. So?

    bornagain77: since you guys are the ones making the absurd claim that 'accidents' filtered by differential death can produce levels of functional information that are unmatched in our most sophisticated machines.

    While the origin of the genetic code is still a mystery, evolution of other structures is well-established.

    bornagain77: further note

    We haven't argued about codes, but noted possible equivocation on the term. The genetic code is a many-to-one-correspondence.

    Your cite, though, has substantial problems.

    1.Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.

    "Agreed upon" implies teleology, yet just a moment ago you said the definition did not encapsulate "mental, intelligent processes."

    4.DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.

    We'll keep Shannon in mind when discussing information with you in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Zach you state:

    "There is evidence that the canonical code evolved from simpler relationships."

    That statement is false:

    it is found, due to Shannon Channel capacity, that the original genetic code in life has to be at least as complex as the ‘optimal’ present DNA code that we find:

    Shannon Information - Channel Capacity - Perry Marshall - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5457552/

    “Because of Shannon channel capacity that previous (first) codon alphabet had to be at least as complex as the current codon alphabet (DNA code), otherwise transferring the information from the simpler alphabet into the current alphabet would have been mathematically impossible”
    Donald E. Johnson – Bioinformatics: The Information in Life

    Biophysicist Hubert Yockey determined that natural selection would have to explore 1.40 x 10^70 different genetic codes to discover the optimal universal genetic code that is found in nature. The maximum amount of time available for it to originate is 6.3 x 10^15 seconds. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that is optimal. Put simply, natural selection lacks the time necessary to find the optimal universal genetic code we find in nature. (Fazale Rana, -The Cell's Design - 2008 - page 177)

    Deciphering Design in the Genetic Code
    Excerpt: When researchers calculated the error-minimization capacity of one million randomly generated genetic codes, they discovered that the error-minimization values formed a distribution where the naturally occurring genetic code's capacity occurred outside the distribution. Researchers estimate the existence of 10 possible genetic codes possessing the same type and degree of redundancy as the universal genetic code. All of these codes fall within the error-minimization distribution. This finding means that of the 10 possible genetic codes, few, if any, have an error-minimization capacity that approaches the code found universally in nature.
    http://www.reasons.org/biology/biochemical-design/fyi-id-dna-deciphering-design-genetic-code

    Collective evolution and the genetic code - 2006:
    Excerpt: The genetic code could well be optimized to a greater extent than anything else in biology and yet is generally regarded as the biological element least capable of evolving.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10696.full

    ReplyDelete
  43. Zach you then falsely state:

    'While the origin of the genetic code is still a mystery, evolution of other structures is well-established.'

    but the fact is:

    in spite of the fact of finding molecular motors permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system.

    "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject."
    James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist

    The following expert doesn't even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,,

    ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,,

    Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,,

    ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’
    Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.
    *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA

    Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/

    “The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.”
    David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology

    Zach you then falsely state this:

    "Agreed upon" implies teleology, yet just a moment ago you said the definition did not encapsulate "mental, intelligent processes."

    I said no such thing, I said codes are ALWAYS OBSERVED!!! to be the result of mental intelligent processes.,,

    Unfortunately for you I hold the three strikes you are out rule,,, you lied to me three times thus you are out in my book!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Thank goodness batshit77 has decided to expand from Uncommonly Dense and bless CH's blog with his gibberish laden walls of unintelligible C&P'ed text and YouTube videos.

    Lucky us.

    ReplyDelete
  45. bornagain77: it is found, due to Shannon Channel capacity, that the original genetic code in life has to be at least as complex as the ‘optimal’ present DNA code that we find

    We may have a simpler code with simpler messages, then additions to the code allowing for a broader range of messages.

    Because of Shannon channel capacity that previous (first) codon alphabet had to be at least as complex as the current codon alphabet (DNA code), otherwise transferring the information from the simpler alphabet into the current alphabet would have been mathematically impossible

    That doesn't even begin to make sense. If we have a written language with 24 letters, and add a new letter, that doesn't render the old language incomprehensible.

    Zachriel: While the origin of the genetic code is still a mystery, evolution of other structures is well-established.

    bornagain77: but the fact is: in spite of the fact of finding molecular motors permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system.

    If you read the statement as "the evolution of all existing biological structures other than the genetic code is known in detail," then you misread the statement. Rather, there are many structures which we do know the evolutionary history in some detail, including the mammalian middle ear and the origin of vertebrate tetrapods. (There is also quite some evidence about the evolution of microbiological structures.)

    bornagain77: I said no such thing, I said codes are ALWAYS OBSERVED!!! to be the result of mental intelligent processes.

    We know what you said. Here it is:

    bornagain77: A code is not 'defined' as a result of a mental process. A code is "ALWAYS OBSERVED" to be the result of a mental, and intelligent, process.

    But then YOU pointed to this definition:

    1.Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.

    Which apparently contradicts your statement. This is why we suggested some inconsistency over the definition.

    ReplyDelete
  46. bornagain77: Unfortunately for you I hold the three strikes you are out rule,,, you lied to me three times thus you are out in my book!

    That's the difference between us.

    Even though the vast majority of biologists consider Intelligent Design to be poppycock, we have treated your views with respect and responded to your position on the merits.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @Eocene
    I would like to follow up on the question of what evidence you would except since I asked you the same before in another thread. This is not so much a question about concrete evidence but your standards of evidence.

    There are intrinsic limits to what evidence can be provided thus it may be possible there will never be any evidence according to your standards which would make the discussion rather pointless. We will for example never see a cat evolve into a dog. (I choose this example to give you the opportunity to dodge the question and complain about it.)

    ReplyDelete
  48. Your analysis is clear as a bell.
    Thanks Dr. Hunter.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Thorton in good mood

    Forget theology. If evolution is a religion, I want to be a pope!

    I say amen!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Zachriel,

    You are being inconsistent when thinking that designed products can only be arbitrarily grouped into a nested hierarchy.

    You apply different standards of comparison to living organisms. Your argument is faulty for very simple reasons. For example, humans have several of the same genes as sea sponges and various vehicles can have 350 engines. How does similarity of "parts" force a hierarchy to be arbitrary? It doesn't.

    Now, what about the variety of "options" in the same model vehicle? Your reasoning is that options force the hierarchy to be arbitrary. This is not accurate. You are just not choosing to point out the differences between organisms of the same species or family.

    For example:

    Color? Vehicles come in various colors. Organisms of the same genus (and species) often have different colors. Can someone have curly blond hair or curly red hair? Does curly hair mean that someone will always have red hair?
    These are real genetic differences, yet you do not have a problem grouping them.

    Features? Facial features vary from person to person. Can you predict facial features based on size? The mixing and matching of color, features, size, etc is huge. Could humans with black skin color have oriental eye features? Certainly.

    When you see a F250 on the road you do not have to inquire as to whether it has heated seats or not in order to know it is an F250.

    Auto factory assembly lines are setup and prepared for building a certain model. The have a definite limit to the parts they have in stock and each model is built within precise specs.

    Those that design web site databases for vehicles would not understand you saying that vehicles are arbitrarily classified.

    There is a reason why vehicles can be listed by model. When you select for a Navigator, you would not expect a compact category of car to be listed.

    Perhaps you are taking a distant view when it comes to viewing the features of a species and classifying them, but a very granular view when you view the features of vehicles and say they are all arbitrary.

    ReplyDelete
  51. The one aspect of all "genetic" and "evolutionary" algorithms, that totally undoes the whole of the claims being made here such as Bill's and DM's is that intelligence is always smuggled into t he whole system all while the designers deny it!

    As Robert Marks points out, he's never seen any genetic or evolutionary mimicry based system that did not have the information and intelligence brought in by the programmers.

    Neither have I. Indeed, it is impossible to create a real functional program without it.

    Prescribed, formal information in any coded form intrinsically implies intelligence.

    People who claim otherwise are missing it because they don't understand it.
    And that no matter how good they may be at software architecture and programming.

    ID and prescribed information are always there in the code somewhere; in the "fitness" functions, in the "mutations" functions, in the knowledge base ... its always there somewhere and visible to analysis.

    Like Dawkins' weasel, its usually easy enough to spot. The complex the underlying programming, the more of it there is.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Tedford the idiot said...

    You are being inconsistent when thinking that designed products can only be arbitrarily grouped into a nested hierarchy.


    That's still not Zachriel's argument no matter how many times you misstate it.

    The argument is

    Objects related by common descent with modification always produce non-arbitrary 'best fit' nested hierarchies.

    Objects not related by common descent will not produce a single 'best fit' nested hierarchy but can be grouped by any number of arbitrary and equally valid hierarchies.

    Grouping of individuals in a single population by an arbitrary selection of hair texture or eye color is not the same as determining a 'best-fit' hierarchy formed by common descent over generations.

    Why don't you look up the definition of the term 'common descent', because you don't seem to understand what it means.

    Those that design web site databases for vehicles would not understand you saying that vehicles are arbitrarily classified.

    The hierarchical classifications used in vehicle databases are completely arbitrary. They tend to be alike because they all follow established social convention, not because there is a single 'best fit' version. You could create equally valid hierarchies for all vehicles with the top level based on color, or engine size, or length, or gas mileage.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Evolution is driven by religious belief. This world is not what we would expect from a creator or designer, and so evolution is mandated.

    Scientific theories represent explanations about phenomena. These explanations are then used to make predications. In the case of an abstract designer, we lack an explanation which could lead us to predict the concrete biological complexity we observe.

    It's really that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Gary said...

    The one aspect of all "genetic" and "evolutionary" algorithms, that totally undoes the whole of the claims being made here such as Bill's and DM's is that intelligence is always smuggled into the whole system all while the designers deny it!

    As Robert Marks points out, he's never seen any genetic or evolutionary mimicry based system that did not have the information and intelligence brought in by the programmers.

    Neither have I. Indeed, it is impossible to create a real functional program without it.

    Prescribed, formal information in any coded form intrinsically implies intelligence.


    LOL! No one is arguing that intelligence isn't used in creating the simulation. What you can't show is that the results of the output of GAs had additional information 'smuggled in'.

    You IDiots must think that if NASA uses intelligence in writing a gravity simulation program to calculate spacecraft trajectories, then that means real gravity in deep space is intelligently controlled.

    The simple fact is, in both these simulations and the real world the 'information' for the results comes from the organisms' interaction with their environment. Random (WRT reproductive fitness) variations supply the raw materials, the environment supplies the rest of the 'information' needed to continue the process and shape the output.

    Using intelligence to model a real world biological system doesn't imply the real world system required intelligence to create. People who claim otherwise are missing it because they don't understand either modeling or biology.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Scott:

    "Scientific theories represent explanations about phenomena. These explanations are then used to make predications. In the case of an abstract designer, we lack an explanation which could lead us to predict the concrete biological complexity we observe.

    It's really that simple."

    Yes, it really is that simple. I work with evolutionary models, and I'd love to to add some ID terms to the equations, but so far nobody has come forward with suggestions how to do that. I promise I will make you a co-author on any paper resulting from such a suggestion. Go for it, ID-guys!

    ReplyDelete
  56. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Fixed some typos and simplified the examples.

    Neal Tedford: You apply different standards of comparison to living organisms. Your argument is faulty for very simple reasons. For example, humans have several of the same genes as sea sponges ...

    You really don't understand this nested hierarchy thing, do you? We expect there to be similarities. Sponges are metazoans. They have a complex eukaryotic cell structure with a nucleus and mitochondria, and are organized to ingest other organisms for food.

    Neal Tedford: and various vehicles can have 350 engines.

    It's not just similarity, but nesting. Here is what it would look like if engines were properly nested with vehicle type:

    truck 450
    truck 350
    car 305
    car 283

    Then it would be nested like this:

    {truck 450, truck 350}
    {car 305, car 283}

    But that's not the reality of vehicles. Instead we have this:

    truck 450
    truck 350
    car 350
    car 283

    If we group type before engine, then engine doesn't nest. 350 is found in both supersets.

    {truck 450, truck 350}
    {car 350, car 283}

    If we group by engine before type, then the types don't nest.

    {450 truck}
    {350 truck, 350 car}
    {283 car}

    That's because designers don't respect the nested hierarchy. Why should they? The whole point is to mix-and-match. Humans dream up centaurs and sphinxes, cars with truck engines, and any manner of chimeras.

    Another way to think of it is by correlation. If we have a 350, we can't tell if it's in a truck or not. If we have a truck, there's no way to tell if it's a 350 or not. But if an organism has mammary glands, then it also has a eukaryotic cell structure, ossicles, lungs, sternum, etc. The traits are nested.

    Neal Tedford: When you see a F250 on the road you do not have to inquire as to whether it has heated seats or not in order to know it is an F250.

    Indeed, it may have the same leaf springs as an F-350, the same body panels as the F-150, and the same engine as an economy van or a sports car. Ford engineers borrow across lineages, as any reasonable designer would do. There is no clear nesting of traits.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Bill /Zach,

    Your claims that creating models that correspond to the evidence supports darwinian evolution does not make them true. It merely makes them practical and useful.

    It is like Newton's theory of gravity. Equations derived from his work are still used because they are useful. But Einstein's work disproved Newton's theory.

    In a nutshell, you can make an argument from utility. But you cannot make a truth claim in favor of Darwinian evolution.

    Different animals.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Steve said...

    Bill /Zach,

    Your claims that creating models that correspond to the evidence supports darwinian evolution does not make them true. It merely makes them practical and useful.


    It does way more than that. It demonstrates that the observed mechanisms of evolution are quite capable of creating observed physical and behavioral phenomena, which makes reliance on any posited supernatural explanation unnecessary.

    It is like Newton's theory of gravity. Equations derived from his work are still used because they are useful. But Einstein's work disproved Newton's theory.

    No, Einstein's work on relativity didn't disprove Newton's work, it was an addendum to Newton's work under special conditions of extreme velocity and extreme mass. Where do you creationists come up with such tripe?

    In a nutshell, you can make an argument from utility. But you cannot make a truth claim in favor of Darwinian evolution.

    The results of the modeling are more positive evidence for evolutionary theory, which is all they ever claimed to be.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Steve wrote:

    In a nutshell, you can make an argument from utility. But you cannot make a truth claim in favor of Darwinian evolution.

    What you're describing is instrumentalism. If we do X we expect Y to occur. However, what's lacking is explanation as to why performing X causes Y. This is where theories such as evolution come into play.

    Take the following thought experiment.

    Imagine a mysterious oracle-like device appears out of nowhere at NASA headquarters. Using some sort of human to device interface, we can describe an experiment to the oracle and it will tell us what the results would be. For example, you could describe the plans for a space craft to the oracle and ask what would happen if someone tried to take it for a spin. However, while the device would tell us if the flight would succeed or fail, we would only receive the outcome. No explanation would be provide as to why that particular outcome occurred.

    Would having such an oracle be useful? Of course. But, it's usefulness would clearly be limited.

    For example, if the oracle revealed the ship would explode on the launch pad, all we could do is posit a explanation to the failure based on conjecture, change the design assuming that explanation is true and ask the oracle again. Nor would the oracle tell us if any conditions outside the specific experiment, such as a higher temperature, would still result in a successful launch unless we explicitly ask. Should we want to build a faster ship, the process would be the same, as the oracle does not tell us why the flight succeeded either.

    Essentially, the oracle operates like the real world, in that neither can actually tell us why X causes Y. All we can do is create a theory, make multiple predictions that are as unique to that specific theory as possible, and try to falsify them. While this doesn't guarantee the explanation actually matches reality, it goes much farther than mere utility.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Bill:

    "I don't think I understand this statement? They are 'evolutionary' because they use mutation, selection and inheritance."
    ======

    Bill, I'm not talking about the mechanical processes by which an organism's inner-workings of data systems and engineered nano-machines adapt the living thing to survive it's environment. On that small micro-level scale DNA guides and controls with purpose and intent all those nano-machines for which it purposely engineers a solution for survival to environmental change. These mechanisms have been hijacked by attaching evolutionary iconic lables, but nowhere does any of the literature ever PROVE where these brilliantly running mechanisms come from. Especially since the religious philosophical dogma states that no intelligence was required to put together such purposed engineering.

    Hence the E-coli bacteria adjusting themselves to assimilate any foreign substance never encountered or Alder trees adjusting their bud break regulators forwards or backwards depending on the seasonal changes never encountered within a new climatic environmental have nothing to do with the dogma's insistance that nothing in particular caused life in the first place to go from single primitve cell to mankind (Goo to You or Mud to Man).

    These observed adapting examples are NOT the dogma proofs of changes accomplished from one kind of animal turned into a completely different kind animal. These brilliantly run fine tuned mechanisms for which evolutionists has no explanation for are ONLY an ASSUMED, ASSERTED, SPECULATED, CONJECTURED, GUESSED, IMAGINED, DIVINED, etc into believing they must never the less be the mechanism by which the philosophy of evolutionary doctrine must work.
    -----

    Bill:

    "What do you mean by the term 'Evolutionary'? Perhaps you are using a different definition that that used by scientists."
    -----

    I'm using the definition of the dogma's original intent. Species coming from a common ancestry (religious iconic tree) from that not so simple(with the exception of fable fabrication) single celled organism(for which there are zero proofs of it's life from nonlife origins) into higher forms of life (hence in simplistic terms, Mud to Man) which s what this whole thing is about anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Bill:

    ME: "The bible describes natural laws of genetic barriers or boundaries that cannot be crossed with the expression with regards replication/breeding "according to their kinds"."

    BILL: "Have you come across ring species?"
    ======

    You do understand that the biblical "Kind" and modern term species are not the same ? Tho sometimes they are used interchangeably. Even amongst scientists this term species continues to be messed with. I am constantly running across certain historical listed species of plants suddenly having it's listing being changed because some experts gut feeling believes it should be elsewhere. Therefore they claim there is nothing unique about the individual under scrutiny and it should be classified as a sub-species of a certain kind of plant. Whatever !!!

    Those ring species interbreedings are nothing more than different species of the same "Kind" animal, bird, fish, amphibian, reptile, etc whatever. I don't understand the problem with that. That has nothing to do with evolution.

    For example, when I speak of the term species boundaries or barriers (these very terms are used by GMO companies like Monsanto), I'm refering to the obvious(no arguement or fuzzy debate) differences like the GMO Franken-Organism creation by splicing spider genes to tomato for fruit skin toughness or cold water Arctic Fish genes to Soybean for cold weather crop production. Beyond that the interbreeding of the same kind of living thing has nothing to do with evolution. It is simply hijacked as such and used as a terrible example of the overall evolutionary dogma itself which has not been satifactorily proven except with methphysical fable insertion where the huge gaps cannot be explained and ONLY assumed. I'm actually curious as to why you bring that up since it actually has nothing to do with the program you claim to have developed other than the word/term "Evolution" being attached for nothing more than a symbolic iconic philosophical lable.
    ------

    Bill:

    "I don't think I understand this statement? They are 'evolutionary' because they use mutation, selection and inheritance."
    ======

    Bill, I'm not talking about the mechanical processes by which an organism adapts to survive it's environment. On that small micro-level scale DNA guides and controls with purpose and intent all those nano-machines for which it purposely engineers a solution for survival to environmental change. Hence once again the E-coli experiments, trees adjusting their bud break regulator forwards or back depending on the environment encountered, etc. These are NOT the dogma proofs of changes accomplished from one kind of animal turned into a completely different kind animal. These brilliantly run fine tuned mechanisms for which evolutionists has no explanation for are ONLY an ASSUMED, ASSERTED, SPECULATED, CONJECTURED, GUESSED, IMAGINED, DIVINED, etc into believing they are the mechanism by which the philosophy of evolutionary doctrine must work.

    Your program (and I'm not so sure it is even closely identical to the actual processes since we learn things new each and everyday) is nothing more than copying the observed purpose goal oriented informational driven molecular machinery that doesn't in any way mimic blind, unguided nondirected forces. You can call it random and even rig the program to randomly act, but if it were truly modeled after what all the political idealogical philosophers insist upon in their writings, your program would be an utter complete failure. As Dave said, intelligence is needed at the beginning. Yes with that I agree. I see no other way out of that.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Dave Mullenix:

    "Eocene, what kind of evidence would you demand to prove "undirected, unguided without goals, purpose or intent biological evolution"?
    ======

    eocene: "That's up to you Dave, not me. Personally, if I was the one believe in such a crack theory, I wouldn't know where to begin."

    Actually, since you are the one asking for proof, it IS up to you to tell us what kind of proof would satisfy you.

    I don't think you can do that because you seem to have fallen prey to the Fallacy of Selective Hyperskepticism that Gordon Mullings has warned us about. As he says here (http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Selective_Hyperskepticism.htm#shsdefn):

    "Selective Hyperskepticism: that fallacy which seeks to reject otherwise credible evidence by demanding an inappropriately high type or degree of warrant not applicable to matters of fact, i.e. the general type of question being discussed. Especially, where the same standard is not exerted in assessing substantially parallel cases that make claims that one is inclined to accept."

    Indeed, you don't seem to believe that any kind of evidence at all could ever convince you.

    Gordon goes on to tell us that the "mirror-image fallacy" of "selective hyper-credulity" does not occur, at least among the faithful although he's rather unclear on why it doesn't. Perhaps you could read his piece two or three times and then discuss it with him on UD.

    Thanks for sparing us the oil of ad homineum

    ReplyDelete
  64. ba77 quoting somebody else's words:
    "Arriving At Intelligence Through The Corridors Of Reason (Part II) - April 2010
    Excerpt: ,,, since junk DNA would put an unnecessary energetic burden on cells during the process of replication, it stands to reason that it would more likely be eliminated through selective pressures. That is, if the Darwinian account of life is to be believed. “It would make sense” Johnson writes “that those useless nucleotides would be removed from the genome long before they had a chance to form something with a selective advantage….there would be no advantage in directing energy to useless structures”.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/arriving-at-intelligence-through-the-corridors-of-reason-part-ii/"

    Well, which is it? First, the existence of junk DNA disproves evolution because functions have been found for a small portion of it, now junk DNA disproves evolution by its very existence because it puts an unnecessary energetic burden on cells during the process of replication. Can you guys make up your mind?

    If you do, please tell us IN YOUR OWN WORDS why Psilotum nudum (sometimes called the "whisk fern") manages to continue to exist when its genome has 3000 times more DNA in it than the much more complex plant, Arabidopsis thaliana. Why does that tiny ultra simple plant (it has no true leaves, flowers, or fruit) have a LARGER genome than human beings? Is it because humans also have no leaves, flowers, or fruit?
    http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/G/GenomeSizes.html

    Wait, I know! Because God made it so. Oops, that's theology. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Dave Mullins:

    "Thanks for sparing us the oil of ad homineum"
    ======

    Thanks for proving that political idealogy and philosophy are the true foundational legs by which your Church Doctrine stands or FALLS.
    ======

    Dave Mullenix:

    "Indeed, you don't seem to believe that any kind of evidence at all could ever convince you."
    ======

    No, I want hard evidence, FACTS. I don't want conjectured unproven faith-based statements. For example here's a solid fact:

    ****************************************
    Dave Mullenix:
    "When you're making a model, you have to intelligently construct an apparatus that mimics some feature of the natural world that you wish to simulate."

    "Once you've done that, you start your model and watch the simulation run without further intelligent input. In other words, all of the intelligence goes into creating a model that mimics some natural process and then you start that process and let it run to see how it works."
    *******************************************

    Sure enough and I agreed. This is exactly what Genesis says, except rather than a model, it's the reality, but you still agreed with it. And I have no problem with Bill modeling anything if it is EXACTLY as nature does it, but then that's the question now isn't it ??? Then you said this:

    ***************************************
    Dave Mullenix:
    "Bill chooses to simulate the effects of random changes filtered by natural selection, so he builds a model that allows random changes and has a way of selecting the most effective of the changes and propagating them to the next generation."
    ***************************************

    Really ??? Natural Selection ??? How exactly does Bill know what Natural Selection is ??? Is this not the programmer Bill's version of Selection as opposed to anything natural ??? Or in this case, is Bill simply to be considered an animal(as the philosophy/idealogy/dogma dictates) and therefore he himself qualifies as a part of nature anyway, so that anything he imputs is religiously acceptable to the Scientifism's Orthodoxy ???
    -------------------

    Dave Mullenix:

    "mirror-image fallacy"
    ======

    YES, I actually do find your political idealogical philosophy and the Fundy religious-right to be the exact "mirror-image of each other", so I guess we agree on that as well. While both sides(your's and their's) dirty each other up in the mud wrestling sewer pit called politics(which initself is another ultimate spin game with neither side having fruitful answers), our natural world is bastardized by the both of you. I've yet to have one atheist(or I guess for that matter other religious) here show where they are pursuing practical solutions and applications for the benefit of mankind and the Natural World as being their first priority ahead of proving their god's very existance. Here's a clue for the both of you. The answer has nothing to do with anything materialistic or fleshly. In otherwords it's not political.

    ReplyDelete
  66. eocene:
    "You do understand that the biblical "Kind" and modern term species are not the same ? Tho sometimes they are used interchangeably."

    When I read the Bible, "kind" seems to be used exactly like "species":

    http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=kind&version1=31&searchtype=all&bookset=3&limit=bookset

    "Even amongst scientists this term species continues to be messed with."

    Funny thing about that - there really isn't a good definition of species. "Animals that can mate and produce fertile offspring" is the closest to a standard definition that I know of, but it's completely inapplicable to animals that reproduce by budding or fission (all single celled organisms) and multi-celled animals that reproduce by budding. And let's not even talk about parthenogenesis.

    But of course, if evolution is true and new species diverge from older ones, then the world is pretty much the way we would expect it to be.

    Now if we could only figure out why an intelligent (as opposed to dumb) designer would make so many beetles - one out of four known species/kinds is a beetle! Is this a sign of an inordinate fondness for the critters?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Dave Mullenix:

    "When I read the Bible, "kind" seems to be used exactly like "species":

    http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=kind&version1=31&searchtype=all&bookset=3&limit=bookset

    "Even amongst scientists this term species continues to be messed with."

    Funny thing about that - there really isn't a good definition of species."
    ========

    Funny, isn't this all what I even said Dave ???

    The term kind wasn't meant to be "Panel of Peer Approved" terminolgy to satisfy the overbloated egos of some future modern day Elitists sitting on condescending judgement seats.

    It was given originally to a people with little or no education to understand the complex systems we know exist, but rather nothing more than a simple terms of the beginnings explantion of the natural world around them for which Genesis 1 & 2 spends very little time on specifics/mechanics, but then in chapter 3 from that point forwards spends huge amounts of time and resources on the purpose on the why the bible was written for in the first place. While there are people out there claiming to be Christian on a mission of some type of "Creation Theology", biblically there is no such purpose other than some individual self-appointment of such.
    The main purpose/reason for the Bible's existance is the moral issue of Universal Sovereignty(God's right to rule), something that most claiming to be Christian don't even get. Proof of this truth is that there exists a historical record of religious leaders in bed with politicians, so you are not along in this ignorance of the bible's original purpose and intent.

    ReplyDelete
  68. DM: "Indeed, you don't seem to believe that any kind of evidence at all could ever convince you."
    ======

    Eocene: "No, I want hard evidence, FACTS. I don't want conjectured unproven faith-based statements."

    Michael Behe gave us an example of the kind of hard evidence and FACTS that ID demands:

    "what I ask of Darwinian claims — a mutation-by-mutation account of critical steps (which will likely be very, very many), at the amino acid level. ... And not only a list of mutations, but also a detailed account of the selective pressures that would be operating, the difficulties such changes would cause for the organism, the expected time scale over which the changes would be expected to occur, the likely population sizes available in the relevant ancestral species at each step, other potential ways to solve the problem which might interfere, and much more."*

    What was Gordon's definition of hyper-skepticism again? Oh yes, "Selective hyperskepticism: that fallacy which seeks to reject otherwise credible evidence by demanding an inappropriately high type or degree of warrant not applicable to matters of fact, i.e. the general type of question being discussed. Especially, where the same standard is not exerted in assessing substantially parallel cases that make claims that one is inclined to accept."

    But maybe you can provide a similar amount of detail for your hypothetical Intelligent Designer, right?

    Right?

    You can't? Why ... why ... fap ... then I'd be guilty of selective hyper-credulity if I believed you.

    * From www.idthefuture.com/2005/05 but it doesn't seem to be up there any more. I found it at http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/regulatory-evol.html, but a Google search will turn it up all over the intertubes.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Eocene: "It was given originally to a people with little or no education"

    Oh yeah! People too ignorant and stupid to understand something like, "We put one pair of each kind on the ark and they then produced every type of similar animal we see today. For instance, We put a pair of cats on the ark and they then produced housecats, lions, tigers, bobcats and every other animal which we label with "cat" today." Any man smart enough to build a seaworthy ark from a one paragraph description could understand that last sentence. If you say he couldn't, then you're just being selectively hyper-credulus.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Wow! Excuse me, not a paragraph of information on how to build an ark, more like four sentences!

    "So make yourself an ark of cypress[c] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.[d] 16 Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit[e] high all around.[f] Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks."

    The Intelligent Designer allegedly gives Noah a material list (cypress) and the outside dimensions, orders him to put rooms and a roof on it, add a window, three decks and a door and cover it with pitch, inside and out. With that pathetically meager description, Noah builds a humongus wooden boat that rides the storm tossed seas for a full year and keeps its cargo alive and intact!!

    That's not a man too dumb to understand one pair of cats evolving into a group of different cats!

    The only question is whether selective hyper-skepticism or selective hyper-credulity is at work here.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Dave Mullenix:

    "Oh yeah! People too ignorant and stupid . . "
    ======

    The word stupid is your word. I didn't say they were stupid as it would imply some kind of mental retardation. That's your injection.
    ------

    Dave Mullenix:

    " . . to understand something like, "We put one pair of each kind on the ark and they then produced every type of similar animal we see today. For instance, We put a pair of cats on the ark and they then produced housecats, lions, tigers, bobcats and every other animal which we label with "cat" today." Any man smart enough to build a seaworthy ark from a one paragraph description could understand that last sentence. If you say he couldn't, then you're just being selectively hyper-credulus."
    =======

    More of the usual word game playing and insults when nothing of value is to be found in the bio-database called a brain. Do you ever talk straight without the injection of philosophyical spinning ???

    BTW, do you know that science has proven that such an ancient hydrological cycle as described at Genesis 2:5&6 - 10-14 actually once existed and are at a loss to explain it ???

    Did you know that the flood mechanism came predominently from this same exact hydrological feature as opposed to the Human observed cloud formation rainfall event which was nothing more than a secondary consequence of the primary mechnaism used in triggering the catastrophic extinction event in the first place ???

    Were you even remotely aware that after this large global catastrophic extinction event, rapid biodiversity of all living things according to their kinds actually occured speedily as opposed to the slow gradualism insisted by the Darwinian Fogma ??? Think this comes from some off the wall creationist from some long ago outdated research ??? Think again!!!

    Here, November 9, 2010 - "Darwin's Theory of Gradual Evolution not Supported by Geological History, Scientist Concludes"

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-darwin-theory-gradual-evolution-geological.html

    ReplyDelete
  72. Dave Mullenix:

    "With that pathetically meager description, Noah builds a humongus wooden boat that rides the storm tossed seas for a full year and keeps its cargo alive and intact!!"
    =======

    Wow, why should I even try to help you pull your foot out of your own mouth when you're just going to go back and stick it in there once again. You're now on your own.

    Oh BTW, did you know that the Ark wasn't any type of boat whatsoever, but rather a large rectangular sea worthy structure that was quite simply blueprinted for in those simple instructions ??? See, it didn't have to sail or travel anywhere. Don't feel bad, even people labling themselves as Christian don't even understand that, but then once again, YES you are every equal the mirror-image of them.

    ReplyDelete
  73. There's no game playing on my side, just a simple description of the hole Biblical literalists have talked themselves into.

    I've heard of the hydroplate theory and many other examples of YEC silliness. Do you know that according to the Bible, the Flood occurred while the Egyptians were building the pyramids?

    Isn't that just like a bunch of heathens to be totally drowned by a flood that covered the mountain tops and not even notice it? Only a bunch of proto-Muslims would do that!

    Are you really claiming that all of the millions of species we see today evolved from the passengers of Noah's Ark in what, a few hundred years? The Bible lists the generations, figure a generous 100 years per generation, then calculate how fast evolution would have to be to produce literally millions of species in that time. While leaving fossils of 99 times more species buried in the rocks?

    Then try building a wooden boat the size of the ark that manages to say afloat in a quiet lake for one year and get back to me.

    Here's an inference to the best explanation: Genesis is wrong, the earth is old.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Steve: Your claims that creating models that correspond to the evidence supports darwinian evolution does not make them true.

    It lends support to the hypothesis. As we propose and test related hypotheses, collecting additional evidence, our confidence and knowledge of the particulars can increase.

    Steve: But Einstein's work disproved Newton's theory.

    Newton's Theory was modified to only apply within certain restricted domains.

    Steve: But you cannot make a truth claim in favor of Darwinian evolution.

    What we can say is that it is true that the scientific evidence strongly supports evolutionary theory, while Intelligent Design is scientifically sterile.

    Steve: Different animals.

    Eppur si muove.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Eocene: As Dave said, intelligence is needed at the beginning. Yes with that I agree. I see no other way out of that.

    You've never resolved the issue of teleology in experimentation. Can experiments, which are by their very nature teleological, tell us anything about the natural world? If so, then how can we distinguish between experiments which do and which don't?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Dave Mullenix:

    "Here's an inference to the best explanation: Genesis is wrong, the earth is old."

    "There's no game playing on my side, just a simple description of the hole Biblical literalists have talked themselves into."

    "I've heard of the hydroplate theory and many other examples of YEC silliness."
    ======

    Man I just eat this up with a spoon.

    No, Genesis is correct, the Earth is old. You must have thought you were feeding off some Fundy ??? BTW, I'm not a YEC, get over it.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Eocene said: "No, Genesis is correct, the Earth is old."

    Where does Genesis give an age (even a relative one) for the earth?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Zachery:

    "You've never resolved the issue of teleology in experimentation."
    ======

    Interesting, you've never once resolved all the idealogy, philosophy and religious secularistic inference in one single evolutionary experimental example Cornelius has highlighted in his blog.
    ------

    Zachery:

    "Can experiments, which are by their very nature teleological, tell us anything about the natural world? If so, then how can we distinguish between experiments which do and which don't?
    =======

    "Okay once again. So as not to conveniently fuzzy it up for all the lurkers out there, here exactly is how good ol'Dave Mullenix explained what Bill was trying to do in his own words.

    **********************************
    Dave Mullenix:
    "When you're making a model, you have to intelligently construct an apparatus that mimics some feature of the natural world that you wish to simulate."

    "Once you've done that, you start your model and watch the simulation run without further intelligent input. In other words, all of the intelligence goes into creating a model that mimics some natural process and then you start that process and let it run to see how it works."

    AND

    "Dave Mullenix:
    "Bill chooses to simulate the effects of random changes filtered by natural selection, so he builds a model that allows random changes and has a way of selecting the most effective of the changes and propagating them to the next generation."
    ******************************

    Interesting, so all Bill was trying to do was simulate what he had been told by evolutionary biologists say happens in Nature. His model is a complete picture of the reality, right ???

    Now add to that Dave Mullenix's insistance that intelligence is required at the beginning, but then the system becomes perpetually self-replication and functional with no further interference imput from that original designer (which I agree with BTW), then if Bill was ONLY trying to mimic what actually occured in nature and as Dave again said, an intelligent designer WAS REQUIRED, then later it was hands off, then does Bill's intelligence and expertise represent the God of Genesis or some other religion's god who started things off ???

    ReplyDelete
  79. Eocene: Interesting, so all Bill was trying to do was simulate what he had been told by evolutionary biologists say happens in Nature. His model is a complete picture of the reality, right ???

    No. It's a model. We then check the results of the model against observation to determine whether the predictions of the model are accurate. We adjust the model as appropriate. This is exactly how computer simulations of other phenomena are made, such as weather or the orbits of space craft.

    Eocene: an intelligent designer WAS REQUIRED, then later it was hands off, then does Bill's intelligence and expertise represent the God of Genesis or some other religion's god who started things off ???

    No. It represents an assumption of the model, just as the existence of the Earth's atmosphere is an assumption of weather models. Even if Earth's atmosphere represented the breath of Æolus, a weather simulation can still be constructed to represented how that atmosphere changes over time as energy is absorbed and dissipated.

    ReplyDelete
  80. "Interesting, so all Bill was trying to do was simulate what he had been told by evolutionary biologists say happens in Nature. His model is a complete picture of the reality, right ???"

    Let me correct that for you:

    Interesting, so all Bill was trying to do was simulate what evolutionary biologists observe in Nature. His model incorporates observed elements of nature.

    Right!

    ReplyDelete
  81. Zachery:

    "No. It's a model. We then check the results of the model against observation to determine whether the predictions of the model are accurate. We adjust the model as appropriate."
    =========

    It's not just ANY obscure modeling going on in this instance. The subject at hand is about your religious dogma of Evolution and how it works. Both Bill and Dave said it requires a designer, then it was hands off. They said it simulated the reality of evolution just as NASA has insisted that what they were doing by attaching evolutionary signage to their model which they said replicated the reality of evo-world. If you have designer issues on this, take it up with your brothers in faith, Bill and Dave. I only agreed with them.
    -----

    Zachery:

    "This is exactly how computer simulations of other phenomena are made, such as weather or the orbits of space craft."
    =====

    Nice but no dice. This particular evolutionary model has no comparison with weather and orbiting space crafts. They insisted they were copying the reality of evolution. It was insisted that a designer was required and I'm not the one who said it. If can't logically find an answer for no designer required, then find a new faith. You've yet to provide a model of no designer required other than the usual philosophical deflection games. Your brothers spun it differently than you, so take this up with them.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Eocene said: "No, Genesis is correct, the Earth is old."

    Eocene, where does Genesis give an age (even a relative one) for the earth?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Eocene: It's not just ANY obscure modeling going on in this instance. The subject at hand is about your religious dogma of Evolution and how it works.

    We observe processes in nature, including evolutionary processes. We can model these processes. It's not that difficult a concept.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Bill Bigge:

    "Interesting, so all Bill was trying to do was simulate what evolutionary biologists observe in Nature. His model incorporates observed elements of nature."
    ======

    No unfortunately they have NOT observed evolution out in NATURE. What they have done is conduct experiments in a LAB usually with bacteria (E-coli) and speculated on what they were seeing done which was nothing more than an informational communications system directing with purpose, intent and goals complex molecular machines for which they have never once proved the origin of, accomplishing environmental adaptional program files for survival.

    Not one thing about those observations dealt with mistaken copying errors, undirectedness, lack of guidance or blind luck that are insisted upon by evolutionists. Every single one of those spun observation examples in a LAB was nothing more than reading/divining tea leaves (bacteria populations) to fit the demands of the religious dogma and appease the Orthodoxy(Panel of Peers).

    ReplyDelete
  85. Derick Childress:

    "Eocene said: "No, Genesis is correct, the Earth is old."

    Eocene, where does Genesis give an age (even a relative one) for the earth?"
    ========

    For get it. We went down this rediculous road before when I tried to show you that we at least had common ground in the understanding of an older Earth as opposed to YECs version and you systematically and figuratively spit and urinated on what I was trying to share with you.

    Go back and look it up. I'm not explaining it again.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Eocene: What they have done is conduct experiments in a LAB usually with bacteria (E-coli) and speculated on what they were seeing done which was nothing more than an informational communications system directing with purpose, intent and goals complex molecular machines for which they have never once proved the origin of, accomplishing environmental adaptional program files for survival.

    The Luria–Delbrück experiment is consistent with the hypothesis of a constant rate of mutations that are random with respect to fitness.

    Luria & Delbrück, Mutations of Bacteria from Virus Sensitivity to Virus Resistance, Genetics 1943.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Eocene said: "For get it. We went down this rediculous road before when I tried to show you that we at least had common ground in the understanding of an older Earth as opposed to YECs version and you systematically and figuratively spit and urinated on what I was trying to share with you.

    Go back and look it up. I'm not explaining it again.
    November 11, 2010 8:15 AM"


    What a spiteful response to a simple inquiry. I'd be glad to look it up, perhaps you could give me the chapter and verse where Genesis says the earth is old.

    I have a prediction: Instead of answering the simple, straightforward question, you'll find some way of deflecting again.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Derick childress:

    "What a spiteful response to a simple inquiry. I'd be glad to look it up, perhaps you could give me the chapter and verse where Genesis says the earth is old."
    =========

    You need to go back look and read your smartalecy (I'm really trying hard to keep it clean in describing your mouthy response back then) response to info I was ONLY trying to share with you and then sit back and think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Zachriel,

    You are continuing to be inconsistent in comparing the nested hierarchy of vehicles with living organisms.

    Your refuse to acknowledge that designed objects can be grouped into a best fitting nested hierarchy. You perform this mental maneuvering by giving vehicle options a lot of weight compared to differences among living organisms.

    When grouping vehicles we are looking at the entire vehicle, not just picking various options such as the size of the engine. The body plan and frame is the major consideration.

    Humans have different size hearts ("engines"), but this does not figure into determining if someone is human or not. You can't use size of the engine to conclude that a best fit classification can't be made.

    Usain Bolt's muscles and body are able to perform at a much different level than most people even when they are in peak condition. Does this give this Olympic runner an arbitrary biological classification?

    As I said in the previous post, organisms of the same species and family come in different colors, features, overall sizes, and sizes of their organs. "Options" on vehicles are akin to features on organisms of the same genus or family, like size of components, color, trim, etc. There are obvious physical differences between living organisms and vehicles, but there are enough similarities to illustrate my point.

    Vehicles can be classified very easily into a "best fit" nested hierarchy, especially when we limit the vehicle Maker to ONE manufacturer.

    Your skewing the selection criteria to make it say what you want it to say.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Eocone wote:

    which was nothing more than an informational communications system directing with purpose, intent and goals complex molecular machines for which they have never once proved the origin of, accomplishing environmental adaptional program files for survival.

    I'm calling you on this yet again.

    Even if, for the same of argument, we assume an abstract designer was involved, you simply cannot know a particular concrete outcome actually represents a designer's purpose, intent or goals.

    - You must assume the particular medium, DNA, is actually capable of expressing the designer's intent.

    - You must assume the designer knows exactly what parts of the medium to change and can actually make these changes while leaving other areas unaffected.

    - You must assume there were no unintended side effects to the process.

    - You must assume the abstract designer actually represents one entity whom's purpose, goals and intent remanned consistent across the duration of the design process. Otherwise, earlier designs may not accurately reflect the designer's intent Or, in the case of multiple designers, that they did not have opposing goals, which resulting in an outcome that neither intended.

    - Given that designers make choices, you must assume the designer actually had an option on the matter and actually decided to encode that option in the medium in questions, rather than intentionally leaving it to chance.

    So, again, it seems your'e smuggling assumptions or explanations regarding the designer that are not present in the theory that iD attempts to present as science.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Neal Tedford:

    "Vehicles can be classified very easily into a "best fit" nested hierarchy, especially when we limit the vehicle Maker to ONE manufacturer."

    Then do it. Put up or shut up. Show us a nested hierarchy of vehicles. Again, here are dozens of free programs to estimate phylogenetic trees.

    Here's a $100 saying you will not.

    ReplyDelete
  92. To be transferred to your favorite charity if you post a link to the data you used and the output of the program.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Neal Tedford: Your refuse to acknowledge that designed objects can be grouped into a best fitting nested hierarchy.

    They can typically be grouped into many equally consistent nested hierarchies; e.g. with books, we have Dewey Decimal Classification and Library of Congress Classification.

    Neal Tedford: You perform this mental maneuvering by giving vehicle options a lot of weight compared to differences among living organisms.

    The more vehicle traits you consider, the more apparent it is that they don't nest. It's a simple fact that human designers mix-and-match. That's what they do. It's not a mystery.

    Neal Tedford: When grouping vehicles we are looking at the entire vehicle, not just picking various options such as the size of the engine.

    The engine is certainly a trait, just like a four-chambered heart is a trait.

    Neal Tedford: The body plan and frame is the major consideration.

    And people may put a 350 in one body plan or another. This violates the nesting principle. It's called mix-and-match.

    Neal Tedford: Humans have different size hearts ("engines"), but this does not figure into determining if someone is human or not.

    All mammalian hearts share certain characteristics. That's what we mean by nesting. Furthermore, we can predict that if an organism has mammary glands, then it has a four-chambered heart. That's what we mean by nesting.

    Neal Tedford: Vehicles can be classified very easily into a "best fit" nested hierarchy, especially when we limit the vehicle Maker to ONE manufacturer.

    You keep repeating that, but it is clearly untrue. An F-250 may have the same leaf springs as an F-350, the same body panels as the F-150, and the same engine as an economy van or a sports car. It's mix-and-match.

    ReplyDelete
  94. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Zachriel, said "It's as if someone put the head of a man onto the body of a lion, maybe throw a pair of feathered wings in there too. "


    Me: Or throw a duck bill on a "mammal" and have it lay eggs instead of giving live birth. Guess who?

    If vehicles are arbitrary in their classifications as you say, then model names would be meaningless descriptions.

    Your not being consistent.

    Perhaps a simplier example than vehicles will help you to understand.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Neal Tedford: Or throw a duck bill on a "mammal" and have it lay eggs instead of giving live birth. Guess who?

    Let's actually look at a platypus. The "bill" is not a hard bill like a bird, but an elongated muzzle covered with leathery skin. And the egg-laying platypus nests just fine within amniotes and its subset mammals, but not within eutheria, which is a separate subset of mammals.

    Neal Tedford: If vehicles are arbitrary in their classifications as you say, then model names would be meaningless descriptions.

    Not at all. A model name provides significant information about a vehicle. Indeed, vehicles can be classified into many useful nested hierarchies, but there is more than one consistent and useful hierarchy.

    Earlier you said to classify first by "body plan and frame." Now you say to classify first by model. But if someone comes out with a knockoff of a particular model, then it will be nested together by "body plan and frame," but not by model. It rips the nested hierarchy apart. And that's what human designers do. They take what they see and apply it elsewhere, or mix-and-match features. They will see a design, copy the look, but put a cheap engine inside. Or put a truck engine in a car.

    But in biology, we just don't see human heads on lions, or bat wings on lizards, or bird wings on horses. Are sphinxes naturally occurring creatures that are extinct? How do we know there might not be fossils of sphinxes found one day? What strata would we look in? When you consider this, then you realize they don't belong in the strata. They have no plausible ancestors. They don't belong.

    ReplyDelete
  97. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Eocene said: "You need to go back look and read your smartalecy (I'm really trying hard to keep it clean in describing your mouthy response back then) response to info I was ONLY trying to share with you and then sit back and think about it."

    Eocene you haven't clarified what you mean by 'back then'. Is it: http://bit.ly/dDxNCU ? If so, I'm not asking why you believe the earth is old, (I know you're not a YEC) I'm asking you why you think Genesis says the world is old. Just an honest, straightforward question. I've never heard anyone make a claim like that, and I'm just interested to see what in the text suggests that to you.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Zachriel said, "Let's actually look at a platypus. The "bill" is not a hard bill like a bird, but an elongated muzzle covered with leathery skin. And the egg-laying platypus nests just fine within amniotes and its subset mammals, but not within eutheria, which is a separate subset of mammals. "

    Me: Sure, "nests just fine" when you say it does. The classifications are a product of human effort. If a newly found organism doesn't fit they create a new one. Your still being inconsistent and skewed in your selection.

    In biology we see great variety and cross over, you just picked examples that do not exist. You can do that with anything.

    We just don't see outboard motors on minivans either, so your example is meaningless.


    Vehicle model is grouped under category (body plan).

    As I said before, vehicle options often the result of competition and customer wants. Eliminate both of those and limit the selection of the hierarchy to one Maker and the number of options goes way down anyways. What would that look like? Remember how many options there were for the Ford Model A?

    While competition and customers drive the multiplication of options available, technically it would be possible to design a product line of vehicles that only came with standard components. Your whole argument about designed products is not based on reality.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Neal said: "We just don't see outboard motors on minivans either, so your example is meaningless.

    Oh Really?

    Neal, you really have made Zachriel's point several times already. It's getting embarrassing to read your posts.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Derick Childress: Oh Really?

    Heh. Those crazy humans. Next thing you know they'll be putting maps in phones and computers in ovens.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Derick Childress said...

    Neal, you really have made Zachriel's point several times already. It's getting embarrassing to read your posts.


    Derick is right Tedford. Watching you stick both feet into your mouth up to the kneecaps on this topic is downright embarrassing.

    Here's a nice easy Powerpoint tutorial from the U. of Wisconsin Biology Dept. on the hierarchical structuring of trait data. Read the darn thing and quite being such an ignorant bumpkin.

    Hierarchical Structuring of Trait Data

    Don't say I never did you a favor.

    ReplyDelete
  103. BA77: "Zach a code is not 'defined' as a result of a mental process. A code is "ALWAYS OBSERVED" to be the result of a mental, and intelligent, process."

    Really? This is a great breakthrough! Who OBSERVED the development of the genetic code? Name him please.

    Or, if you can't name him, then realize that the only codes that have been OBSERVED to be the result of mental processes are codes developed by humans - and nobody denies this.

    The fact is that ID has NO OBSERVATIONS WHATSOEVER on the development of the genetic code and all claims to the contrary are signs of ignorance, confusion or just plain lies. I vote for the first two.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Eocene: "The subject at hand is about your religious dogma of Evolution and how it works. Both Bill and Dave said it requires a designer, then it was hands off."

    I'm going to continue to be charitable and attribute that statement to poor reading comprehension compounded by selective hyperskepticism towards evolution and science in general and selective hypercredulity towards a literal interpretation of Genesis.

    So, I'll tell you again that the intelligence goes towards making the MODEL of evolution, not evolution itself.

    Let me give you an example: Galileo made a MODEL of gravitational attraction by rolling balls down inclines. This INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED MODEL slowed things down enough so he could make useful measurements of gravitational attraction.

    NO INTELLIGENCE WENT INTO GRAVITY, JUST THE MODEL OF IT. NO INTELIGENCE GOES INTO EVOLUTION, JUST THE MODELS OF IT.

    Many people have remarked on the inability of ID theorists to understand even the simplest things about models and modeling. You don't have to rub our noses in it.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Eocene: "No, Genesis is correct, the Earth is old. You must have thought you were feeding off some Fundy ??? BTW, I'm not a YEC, get over it."

    Ah, the cafeteria approach. "Let's see, it's too silly to claim the earth is 6000 years old, so I just won't think about the implications of this verse in Genesis and then there's obviously a large time gap between these two verses - oh, wait, if I just re-interpret this word to mean that I can skip the gap, but then ...."

    At least YECs are honest about what they believe.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Derick,

    I enjoyed your link, but that's not a minivan with an outboard motor.

    See evolutionists stretch the data to support their worldview, but minimize contradictory evidence... your link just proves the point.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Dave Mullenix said, "Ah, the cafeteria approach"

    Old earth and Young earth interpretations of Genesis 1 both existed hundreds of years before Darwin.

    Evolutionists certainly have had their share of embarrassing interpretations for the last 150 yeasrs. Honesty would not characterize a lot of what happens in this field.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Neal Tedford: "We just don't see outboard motors on minivans either, so your example is meaningless."

    "I enjoyed your link, but that's not a minivan with an outboard motor.

    See evolutionists stretch the data to support their worldview, but minimize contradictory evidence... your link just proves the point."


    Neal, does it hurt to be that stupid?

    I posted the first picture I found of an amphibious automobile to show what a ridiculous point you were making. As soon as I posted it, the thought flashed through my mind: "Hmm. I wonder if Neal is going to say something about it 'not being a minivan.'" But then I thought "Nah, no one could be dumb enough to miss the point to that degree."

    Apparently, I was wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Neal Tedford "Old earth and Young earth interpretations of Genesis 1 both existed hundreds of years before Darwin."

    Yes, but only because the science of geology existed before Darwin.

    Neal, can you name a theologian or early church father who held an old-earth view before the advent of modern geology?

    ReplyDelete
  110. Derick Childress: As soon as I posted it, the thought flashed through my mind: ...

    You weren't alone!

    "Roofliss" the Toyota Townace Interisland Van: We've just crossed Cook Strait in this van and we're onto the next mean ass project. You won't get much cooler than this sweet deal. Two litre, big turbo, 85 raging horsepower from factory and the ability to cruise round the Viaduct pickin up skanks. This van is so rad, it once got a girl pregnant just from looking at it.

    Apparently, comes with a decent sound system too.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Zachriel, nice find on the Toyota Townace MPV with the motor. Human creativity never stops.
    The point is that you pointed to obvious creatures that we know don't exist and evolution will certainly not be creating any new ones.

    How about a Ford minivan with airplane wings and front propeller? Google search that.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Neal Tedford: nice find on the Toyota Townace MPV with the motor.

    That would be Derick Childress' priority. We were just elaborating on his point.

    Neal Tedford: The point is that you pointed to obvious creatures that we know don't exist

    How do we know they didn't once exist, but are now just memories? What makes you say their remains won't be found buried in the rocks? There is a simple answer. They don't belong there. They have no plausible evolutionary ancestors. They are the product of human imagination (design). Like putting wings on a minivan.

    Neal Tedford: How about a Ford minivan with airplane wings and front propeller?

    Go for it! There is no doubt that it is something you can do. And it doesn't even have to be viable. You can make it even if it doesn't work.

    That's the difference between a human designer and evolution. While you can put an outboard on a minivan, evolution has to slowly modify an foreleg into a flipper over many generations, with each organism being reasonably fit in its own environment, but with enough adaptive pressure to change.

    The key to this discussion is to understand that there is a fundamental difference in patterns of human design and what we see in biology.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Zachriel:

    "How do we know they didn't once exist, but are now just memories? What makes you say their remains won't be found buried in the rocks? There is a simple answer. They don't belong there. They have no plausible evolutionary ancestors. They are the product of human imagination (design). Like putting wings on a minivan."

    Well said! Game, set & match. You'd think that should end the discussion with pastor Tedford, but something tells me he will be back to feed his martyr complex some more...

    ReplyDelete
  114. Neal Tedford:"How about a Ford minivan with airplane wings and front propeller? Google search that."

    Neal, does your ignorance know no bounds?

    (please, oh please, say something stupid like "I can't tell if they're 'Fords' or not.")

    With almost every word you type, you make Zachriel's point for him. Intelligent Designers are not constrained to nested hierarchies in any way. A designer can mix and match features to their whim. We do not find any such mixing and matching in nature. Even your beloved platypus falls neatly into the pattern: All mammals are descendants of creatures who laid eggs, so it is not surprising to find a group of mammals that retain this feature. You yourself seem to have the sense that things like sphynxes and flying unicorns shouldn't exist, that we shouldn't find remains like that in the fossil record. Why is that? Because they would violate the clear patterns we objectively observe in nature, that's why. This is such a simple point, it's kind of amazing to watch you struggle to grasp it.

    Now, being a pastor, I'm sure you're used to being able to make assertions and not have them questioned. That won't fly here. I'll ask again: Name one theologian who promoted an ancient earth before this was discovered independently by geologists. (Hint: The list is about the same length as the list of theologians who promoted heliocentricity before Copernicus)

    ReplyDelete
  115. Zachriel said, "They have no plausible evolutionary ancestors. "

    Me: Neither do the 20-30 phyla in the Cambrian era, but that doesn't slow you down.


    Zachriel "How do we know they didn't once exist, but are now just memories? What makes you say their remains won't be found buried in the rocks? There is a simple answer. They don't belong there. They have no plausible evolutionary ancestors."

    Me: Zachriel, Life has been explored and discovered during centuries of human effort. All, or nearly all of life has been cataloged expect for a few extremely remote areas where some smaller organisms haven't been discovered yet. There is an immense variety and novety to the incredible mosaic of life.

    Your argument is like saying you searched your whole house for an elephant and didn't find one and then predicted that the next person who goes into your house won't find an elephant. That's about as bold a most evolutionist predictions get nowadays anyway.


    There are no possible evolutionary ancestors to the Cambrian phyla, yet that hasn't stopped evolutionists.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Neal Tedford: All, or nearly all of life has been cataloged expect for a few extremely remote areas where some smaller organisms haven't been discovered yet.

    We're not sure where you get your information, but it is highly flawed. We haven't even discovered all the extant species. We know this because they keep discovering new ones! There's so many, they even have a Top-10 list.

    As for fossil species, they discover new ones all the time. Within recent years these discoveries have included a dinosaur with fifteen horns, primitive bats, Precambrian sponges, even new hominid species.

    No sphinxes, though.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Tedford:

    "There are no possible evolutionary ancestors to the Cambrian phyla, yet that hasn't stopped evolutionists."

    Bwahaha. No possible ancestors, huh? And you know this how? Show us your calculations please.

    Give it up Tedford. Much better to change your religion to square with reality rather than deny reality and stick to your outdated beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Neal Tedford: "Your argument is like saying you searched your whole house for an elephant and didn't find one and then predicted that the next person who goes into your house won't find an elephant. That's about as bold a most evolutionist predictions get nowadays anyway."

    Zach, I think he got you. See, we just haven't found any unicorns, sphinxes, or centaurs yet.

    Any day now. Then evolution will crumble. Especially since...

    Neal Tedford: "There are no possible evolutionary ancestors to the Cambrian phyla..."

    I mean, do you really want to go toe to toe with someone who has a complete knowledge of what we will or will not ever find in the fossil record?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Neal Tedford "There are no possible evolutionary ancestors to the Cambrian phyla, yet that hasn't stopped evolutionists."

    Neal, is that for the same reason that there is no possible intermediate between an animal with regular hearing and one with echolocation?

    Or that there is no possible intermediate between land dwelling and aquatic mammals?

    ReplyDelete
  120. Lt. 'Doc' Ostrow M.D.: << No. This thing runs counter to every known law of adaptive evolution. >>

    Commander John J. Adams: << What do you mean? >>

    Lt. 'Doc' Ostrow M.D.: << Notice this structure here. Characteristic of a four-footed animal. Yet our visitor last night left the tracks of a biped. Primarily a ground animal too. Yet this claw could only belong to an arboreal creature... like some impossible tree sloth. Just doesn't fit into normal nature anywhere in the galaxy. This is a nightmare. >>

    [“Forbidden Planet”, 1956]


    Please no replay that it is proof that evolution is science fiction!

    ReplyDelete
  121. Tedford the idiot said...

    There are no possible evolutionary ancestors to the Cambrian phyla, yet that hasn't stopped evolutionists.


    Gee Tedford, no the surprise of absolutely no one you refused to even look at the U. Wisconsin tutorial on nested hierarchies and instead kept right on spouting your nonsense about human built machines.

    I see you're also too lazy to do a simple Google search om Precambrian fauna, which will give you over 300,000 hits with lots of information like the animals in the Ediacaran biota

    Your parishioners must be thrilled to have such an ignorant dolt for a pastor.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Neal and Eocene,

    All snarky comments aside, I really am genuinely interested in why you both think that Genesis portrays an old earth. I'm quite familiar with the text, so I'm just wondering if you two have read something I've missed.

    Eocene said: "No, Genesis is correct, the Earth is old."

    Eocene, Imagine if I said: "No, 2nd Chronicles is correct, E=MC²."
    What makes your claim interesting is that you're not just claiming that Genesis allows for an old earth, but that Genesis advocates an old earth. Your claim is not ambiguous; I'm asking nothing more than that you tell us why you make the claim that Genesis portrays an old Earth.

    Neal Tedford "Old earth and Young earth interpretations of Genesis 1 both existed hundreds of years before Darwin." Your claim is even less ambiguous than Eocene's: Old earth interpretations existed hundreds of years before Darwin. I'm assuming you're probably referring to the publishing of Origin, and not of Darwin's birth, meaning that there were old earth interpretations in 1659 or so. So, who interpreted Genesis this way? Can you name the theologian(s), or do you wish to retract your claim?

    ReplyDelete
  123. Corny wrote:
    "If the species were independently created then, so the reasoning goes, they would have no pattern of similarities."

    You're forgetting the differences. Are you doing so because you are incompetent, you are dishonest, or both, Dr. Hunter?

    "After all, independently created species must have independent designs. And since we find similar designs, the species must not be created."

    How do you explain the differences?

    "Instead, they must be derived one from the other."

    Creationist fail. Evolution is not like a ladder.

    "For there can only be two possibilities: created with independent designs or evolved with design similarities."

    How do you explain the differences?

    "It is not that the species obviously morph into other species,…"

    Yet creationists, including you, constantly use this lie to misrepresent evolutionary theory. Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  124. Zachriel,

    Let's look at a simpler example of a nested hierarchy rather than continue to look at vehicles.

    Let's limit our selection criteria to the products of ONE designer/manufacturer that you may be familar with. The APPLE IPOD product line easily fits into a "singular", "best", nested hierachy. It is a very successful product line.

    ReplyDelete
  125. tedford the idiot said...

    Let's limit our selection criteria to the products of ONE designer/manufacturer that you may be familar with. The APPLE IPOD product line easily fits into a "singular", "best", nested hierachy. It is a very successful product line.


    iPod nano
    iPod touch
    iPod shuffle
    iPod classic

    So what's the objectively determined best fit nested hierarchy Tedford? Do we group them by touch screen/no touch screen, or memory, or features like video capability (none, play only, record), or battery life, or physical size, or color?

    Justify your answer. Your subjective personal opinion won't cut it.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Ah, Thorton you beat me to it!

    Neal, are you done yet? If I didn't know better, I'd say Zachriel way paying you to make his point.

    With iPods, do we sort by operating system? Or perhaps we can sort by storage space? Or storage type- flash or hard disk? Can we sort by the presence of a screen? Or Camera? or bluetooth? Or wifi? Or screen resolution? Or whether the screen is color or not? Or the presence of buttons? How about the presence of a clip on the back? If that's the case, do the new iPod nanos, which do have a clip, group with the old nanos, which don't, or the new shuffles, which do? The new nanos are drastically similar in both size and shape to the old shuffles, yet they have screens, which the old shuffles lack. Where does the iPod Touch fit into this hierarchy? One would think it belongs in a completely different order altogether, with the iPhones. Does the last-gen iPod nano, which has a camera, belong with the new iPod touch which also has a camera, or does it belong with it's current nano brethren which lack cameras? Does the original clickwheel iPod without a dock connection group with the current shuffles, which also don't, or does it group with the otherwise nearly identical iPod classic...

    ...You were saying: The APPLE IPOD product line
    EASILY
    fits into a "singular", "best", nested hierachy. It is a very successful product line.


    So what is that "singluar," "best" fit again?

    ReplyDelete
  127. Neal, I wanted to help you out, so here is a complete listing of every iPod model ever made, with complete specs. If only scientists were so fortunate to have such a comprehensive set of features to build their phylogenetic trees with.

    Seeing as how there are only a few dozen iPod models, versus the possibly millions upon millions of species of life, and you have a complete account of every feature of each, versus a patchy fossil record, making that best fit nested hierarchy should be a cinch.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Neal Tedford: "Old earth and Young earth interpretations of Genesis 1 both existed hundreds of years before Darwin."

    People have been making the Bible tell lies at least since Paul proclaimed that Christian leaders could only have one wife. In a Greco-Roman world, polygamy was for hicks, so the Bible had to be "re-interpreted" to get at it's "real meaning", which invariably turns out not to be the plain meaning of the words.

    I forget which Church father completely allegorized Genesis. Augustine? Whoever it was, he set the path which millions have since followed.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Neal, there may very well have been Christians in the early 19th century who claimed that Genesis supported an old earth. If I remember right, the last significant intellectual holdout for a young earth threw in the towel around 1830 and admitted that the evidence for an ancient earth was just too great to disbelieve. I think it was Buckland who did this.

    Given that Buckland and others were devout Christians, it's a reasonable assumption that somebody re-interpreted Genesis to call for an old earth decades before Darwin published.

    ReplyDelete