when it comes to the truth of evolution, many Christians feel compelled to look the other way … While Genesis contains wonderful insights into the relationship between God and the creation, it simply does not contain scientific ideas about the origin of the universe, the age of the earth or the development of life.
So religious beliefs should not inform our views on origins, got it.
And all life forms are related to each other though evolution. These are important truths that science has discovered through careful research.
Scientific research has revealed on such thing. Not even close.
Anyone who values truth must take these ideas seriously, for they have been established as true beyond any reasonable doubt.
This is the universal claim of evolutionists, but it has never been even remotely demonstrated scientifically.
There is much evidence for evolution.
There is much evidence for geocentrism.
The most compelling comes from the study of genes, especially now that the Human Genome Project has been completed and the genomes of many other species being constantly mapped.
In particular, humans share an unfortunate “broken gene” with many other primates, including chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques. This gene, which works fine in most mammals, enables the production of Vitamin C. Species with broken versions of the gene can’t make Vitamin C and must get it from foods like oranges and lemons.
These similar broken genes (the so-called pseudogenes) are found with broken parts that do not fit the expected evolutionary pattern. In these cases even evolutionists admit that the breaks are not due to common descent. It is therefore the fallacy of special pleading to claim that when such breaks fit the expected evolutionary pattern they serve as proof texts for evolution.
Of course none of this matters because the argument was never scientific to begin with.
Thousands of hapless sailors died painful deaths scurvy during the age of exploration because their “Vitamin C” gene was broken.
How can different species have identical broken genes? The only reasonable explanation is that they inherited it from a common ancestor.
The only reasonable explanation is common descent? It is the umpteenth time evolutionists have proclaimed their metaphysics in the guise of science. And it is the umpteenth time they have done this right after insisting religion must have nothing to do with origins science. You can read more about this here, here, here, here and here. Simply put, this claim that the only reasonable explanation for pseudogenes is common descent does not come from science—it can’t.
Such evidence proves common ancestry with a level of certainty comparable to the evidence that the earth goes around the sun.
True, given the evolutionist’s religious mandates, evolution is highly certain. But from a scientific perspective the idea has substantial problems.
This is but one of many, many evidences that support the truth of evolution
True, evolution’s religious view converts a great many unlikely evidences into proof texts. Religion drives science, and it matters.
Joe, if you're so concerned about stuff coming back to your father, why'd you (according to your account) use his name in your own post? If that is your father's name, and not yours, the only reason anybody used it was because you claimed it as your own? That was a pretty cowardly thing to do.
ReplyDeleteJoe said:
ReplyDelete"Is it a theory if it is untestable?"
What about ID 'theory' Joe? Is it 'testable'?
If so, let's see you test it on a worm, a frog, a rock, a dandelion, a spider, a bowling ball, an atom, a galaxy, and a human. Provide all the details and calculations of all the tests.
I hate exam time. It causes such a long drought here at Darwin's God.
ReplyDelete:-(
.
Why can't an exercise like the one here be used to rigidly quantify SC?
ReplyDeletehttp://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteWhy can't an exercise like the one here be used to rigidly quantify SC?
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1
If it's so easy to rigidly quantify SC, why hasn't any IDiot done it yet, or even attempted it?
BTW, Axe's self-published gobbledygook doesn't mention the term 'specified complexity' anywhere.
Scott said "The designer could have used foreknowledge to know which mutations would become detrimental under future conditions, then took action up-front to design in features that were unnecessary at the time, but would eventually counteract the detrimental effects of mutations that would occur in the future. "
ReplyDelete---
Can you give an example of a mutation that has become set in the human population that would become detrimental and cause the human race to go extinct if the environment changed (name the specific environment)?
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteI wasn't suggesting that the example was an example of an attempt to quantify specified comlexity. But that same sort of exercise could be used to quantify SC.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteThorton:
I wasn't suggesting that the example was an example of an attempt to quantify specified comlexity. But that same sort of exercise could be used to quantify SC.
How? Be specific.
Tedford the Idiot said...
ReplyDeleteCan you give an example of a mutation that has become set in the human population that would become detrimental and cause the human race to go extinct if the environment changed (name the specific environment)?
The broken L-gulonolactone oxidase (GULO) gene in humans that requires us to have an external supply of the essential nutrient L-ascorbic acid, also known as vitamin C.
If the environment somehow changed so there was no longer a readily available external source of vitamin C - no plants that contain it, no animal sources, no ability to synthesize it - we'd all die a painful death from scurvy.
oleg:
ReplyDeleteJoe, you've been using "someone else's email" quite a bit.
Is was set up that way. That is what it is for.
Scott:
ReplyDeleteSurely your'e not suggesting no such theory has been presented, are you?
I am aware that ideas exist. I am also aware that those ideas are untestable.
Scott:
As such, there must be something specific about the formation of the earth that renders our theory untestable.
And all you need to do is tell us how it is testable. Yet you won't because you can't.
Scott:
You must assume there is something unique about that planetary formation, or the formation of the earth in particular, that prevents these predictions and observations from being testable.
Still waiting on you.
Scott:
Just because not all solar systems exhibit the conditions necessary to form planets, this doesn't mean we cannot determine what conditions do form planets. Nor does our current theory claim that every solar system should contain planets.
The untestable "theory"- is it a theory if it is untestable?
Scott:
Yet you claim "science has no idea how old the earth is." and that and that "Science does not have a testable hypothesis for the formation of the earth."
Yup and the way you are blathering on tells me I am right.
Scott:
Apparently, the earth's age and formation represents a boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass.
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true?
I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents.
It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.--CS Lewis
the whole tard:
ReplyDeleteWhat about ID 'theory' Joe? Is it 'testable'?
Yes it is. It is testable just as all historical sciences are- by our present day knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
tardtard:
ReplyDeleteAccording to your story, you didn't want anyone to know you were Joseph Gallien so you put the name Joseph A. Gallien on there to hide the fact. Good thinkin' there pardner!
Except my name isn't "Joseph Gallien".
My MIDDLE name is Joseph.
Not that I would expect you to understand that...
Herm:
ReplyDeleteJoe, if you're so concerned about stuff coming back to your father, why'd you (according to your account) use his name in your own post?
I am not concerned. If something happens to him I know exactly what will happen next and who it will happen to.
Herm:
If that is your father's name, and not yours, the only reason anybody used it was because you claimed it as your own?
And you're an English professor?
tardtard:
ReplyDeleteThe broken L-gulonolactone oxidase (GULO) gene in humans that requires us to have an external supply of the essential nutrient L-ascorbic acid, also known as vitamin C.
We need quite a bit of external nutrition. Duh.
tardtard:
If the environment somehow changed so there was no longer a readily available external source of vitamin C - no plants that contain it, no animal sources, no ability to synthesize it - we'd all die a painful death from scurvy.
Why can't evolution just mutate it back in working order? Can it only break stuff?
Joe said:
ReplyDelete"Except my name isn't "Joseph Gallien".
My MIDDLE name is Joseph.
Not that I would expect you to understand that..."
Hmmm - Amazon seems to think it is your "REAL NAME"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1E5NN126DUWJC
So presumably the bank also thinks that's your name because:
"This customer created a Real Name and used a name from their credit card to help other customers identify them. This is a permanent badge"
With regard to your email address (which is someone else's)
"Is was set up that way. That is what it is for."
Why would any rational person do that? Its not like a street address and you have to have it sent to your friend's house. You can have any number of arbitrarily named email accounts. You are terrible liar, John / John / Jim the Muslim creationist who can be found in a parking lot.
RichTard/ bathroom stall boy:
ReplyDeleteHmmm - Amazon seems to think it is your "REAL NAME"
It ain't hard to fool them. It ain't hard to get a credit card with any name you want on it either.
"Is was set up that way. That is what it is for."
Why would any rational person do that?
Because we can.
That makes no sense, at all. Far more likely that your multiple identities have been caught in (another) lie, Joseph A Gallien / John / Jim the Muslim creationist who can be found in a parking lot.
ReplyDeleteNeal: Can you give an example of a mutation that has become set in the human population that would become detrimental and cause the human race to go extinct if the environment changed (name the specific environment)?
ReplyDeleteWhile Thorton has provided a concrete example, your response suggests you do not have fully understand my question.
Again, to use the usual creationist misrepresentation, are human beings just lucky that neutral mutations did not occur, which became set the population, which then eventually caused us to go extinct when they became fatal due to changes in the environment? Or is our non-extinction an intentional designed?
It seems that we've already established that this could have occurred, or may yet occur.
For example, another greater than 5 kilometer meteor impact could bring about our extinction due to environmental impact. Or it might signficantly reduce our number and set us back several thousand years. Depending on who and what survives, we might find ourselves unable to out-compete other species using our intelligence or technology.
Furthermore, out of every species we know has existed, over 98% have gone extinct. Again, to use the typical creationist misrepresentation, if the species that survived were picked merely at "random", then we might end up a broken eco-system which was not sustainable. There might not be enough green plants to convert CO in oxygen. The food chain would be disrupted, which could cause us to starve to death. The delicate balance the designer supposedly planned would break down.
As such, it would seem that if our eco-system really is designed, then the designer must have planned which species should go extinct. In doing so, he would be manipulating our environment.
Joe: Because we can.
ReplyDeleteNote how this exemplifies the sort of response we see from ID supporters.
Why would the designer design exactly what we observe? Because he can.
Even when Joe knows perfectly well "why" he did it, he retreats to mere ability and possibility when the answer doesn't bode well for his position.
Joe,
Since we've already seen through this technique when used in the case of ID, do you really think you could use it to fool us in regards to your own actions?
Really?
Joe: I am aware that ideas exist. I am also aware that those ideas are untestable.
ReplyDeleteIf you're "aware", then you should't have any problem pointing out why they're untestable, right?
Joe: And all you need to do is tell us how it is testable. Yet you won't because you can't.
No, you supposedly already know the theory and the reasons why it's untestable. Otherwise, what did you mean when you said…
Science has no idea how old the earth is. Science does not have a testable hypothesis for the formation of the earth.
Joe: Still waiting on you.
You're the one who made the claim.
Joe: The untestable "theory"- is it a theory if it is untestable?
Again, what prevents us from testing our theory?
Joe: Yup and the way you are blathering on tells me I am right.
I'm merely pointing out an inconvenient implication of your claim. Whether you're actually right or not is a different question.
CS Louis: If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident…
If the formation of our planet was caused by the intelligent designer presented by the current theory of biological ID, then the "why" would be beyond human reasoning and problem solving. This is because ID claims that we cannot know anything about the designer. It represents a form of solipsism in that new observations cannot reveal new pieces of the puzzle regarding the means, method, etc. We must throw up our hands. We must remain forever undecided.
As such, it represents a boundary where human resigning and problem solving cannot pass.
This boundary is clearly evident when you said…
Science has no idea how old the earth is. Science does not have a testable hypothesis for the formation of the earth.
If you subscribe to realism, It's unclear how science could have no idea how old the earth is. Again, this is because, at a minimum, realism indicates new observations always give us new pieces to the puzzle. So, apparently, realism does not apply in the case of the earth's formation, the biological complexity we observe, etc.
Solipsists draw the boundary at their mind as they claim we cannot know if an external reality exists. You've just chosen to draw this boundary elsewhere.
Joe G said...
ReplyDeletetardtard:
According to your story, you didn't want anyone to know you were Joseph Gallien so you put the name Joseph A. Gallien on there to hide the fact. Good thinkin' there pardner!
Except my name isn't "Joseph Gallien".
My MIDDLE name is Joseph.
Not that I would expect you to understand that...
LOL! The funniest thing is watching you tell one lie then another lie to cover the first, then yet another lie to cover the second.
BTW Joe A., there are any number of people who have figured out who you are and where you live. It's all in the public record. That's what makes watching you lie about it so funny.
The thing is, we're decent enough not to publish them.
ReplyDeleteScott said "... provided a concrete example, your response suggests you do not have fully understand my question."
ReplyDelete-----
ME: It was an poor example because of the extent of such a hypothetical disaster. Animals or plants which are sources of vitamin C exist in great variety all over the world and in extreme enivironments. So, a disaster that eliminated all of them would have eliminated humans also.
---
Scott: "to use the usual creationist misrepresentation, are human beings just lucky that neutral mutations did not occur, which became set the population, which then eventually caused us to go extinct when they became fatal due to changes in the environment?
---
ME: I don't think luck had anything to do with the survival of mankind. We were designed for adaption to a variety of environments. Our survival speaks of a good original design. From Eskimos to the peoples of the Atacama Desert (who have sources of vitamin C, by the way) people manage to live in a great variety of environments.
--
Scott: "Or is our non-extinction an intentional designed?"
--
Since your question of extinction is directly connected with intentional design, then see the answer above.
---
Scott said, "Furthermore, out of every species we know has existed, over 98% have gone extinct. Again, to use the typical creationist misrepresentation, if the species that survived were picked merely at "random", then we might end up a broken eco-system which was not sustainable. There might not be enough green plants to convert CO in oxygen. The food chain would be disrupted, which could cause us to starve to death. The delicate balance the designer supposedly planned would break down.
As such, it would seem that if our eco-system really is designed, then the designer must have planned which species should go extinct. In doing so, he would be manipulating our environment. "
---
ME: God created a great variety of life, often with profound abilities to adapt... various species that thrive in every environment on earth. As environments change over time, species that thrive in that eco-system move in. Those that don't adapt either move out or go extinct (at least in that area). We see that happening in recent history and today. Many species have gone extinct in recent history and some environments have been hit hard, but even in those areas we see new species move in and thrive. Even in places where humans created an environmental disaster, over time life will once again move in and thrive.
As far as God planning and/or manipulating the environment, I don't have an issue with God having done either.
---
I've also had evolutionists say, 'if God designed life, why did he make it look like evolved?'
The answer to that is simple. He didn't. It's merely the evolutionists who have a problem of confirmation bias and ignoring the contradictions and issues.
"It's merely the evolutionists who have a problem of confirmation bias and ignoring the contradictions and issues."
ReplyDeleteYou've not read Genesis then?
Matthew 7:3
Tedford the Idiot said...
ReplyDeleteME: It was an poor example because of the extent of such a hypothetical disaster. Animals or plants which are sources of vitamin C exist in great variety all over the world and in extreme enivironments. So, a disaster that eliminated all of them would have eliminated humans also.
Tedford the Idiot asked for a hypothetical scenario in which a human mutation could be very deleterious to the point of causing our extinction.
He was given exactly such a scenario.
Now Tedford the Idiot decides that answer doesn't count because Tedford the Idiot can't personally imagine it actually happening. So he waves his hands and flaps his jowls and pretend he was never answered.
How about a fast reproducing super-virus that kills its host within 10 minutes unless the host is continually producing its own L-ascorbic acid? You couldn't take in external vitamin C and process it fast enough Tedford, which means Humans (and guinea pigs) would be toast.
Rich, there's no problem with Genesis. The text is inspired by God, however, interpretations of it are not.
ReplyDeleteJoe the tard boi said:
ReplyDelete"Yes it is. It is testable just as all historical sciences are- by our present day knowledge of cause and effect relationships."
Then test it Joe, instead of just blustering and lying. Test it on the things I suggested. You won't though, because you can't. No one can.
You're all mouth and bullshit Joe-boi. Every word you spew just makes you look dumber and more a coward.
Scott:
ReplyDeleteIf you're "aware", then you should't have any problem pointing out why they're untestable, right?
And you shouldn't have any problems pointing out how they are testable, right?
Scott:
No, you supposedly already know the theory and the reasons why it's untestable.
OK if you don't hae anything then what are you bitching about?
Again, what prevents us from testing our theory?
What allows you to test it?
Scott:
If the formation of our planet was caused by the intelligent designer presented by the current theory of biological ID, then the "why" would be beyond human reasoning and problem solving.
Except some scientists have already inferred the "why".
Scott:
This is because ID claims that we cannot know anything about the designer.
No, it doesn't.
Scott:
It represents a form of solipsism in that new observations cannot reveal new pieces of the puzzle regarding the means, method, etc.
Now you are just lying- or you are very ignorant of ID.
Scott:
If you subscribe to realism, It's unclear how science could have no idea how old the earth is.
Right now science isn't operating under "realism".
Yes it is. It is testable just as all historical sciences are- by our present day knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
ReplyDeletethe whole tard:
Then test it Joe,
Been there, done that. And all you can do is choke on it.
RichTar:
ReplyDeleteThat makes no sense, at all.
Is that all you have? Well that makes no sense, at all.
Scott: It represents a form of solipsism in that new observations cannot reveal new pieces of the puzzle regarding the means, method, etc.
ReplyDeleteJoe: Now you are just lying- or you are very ignorant of ID
Really?
So, Joe. Why don't you tell us why 98% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct?
Joe: Hey
ReplyDelete“Friend”: Wassup?
Joe: Can I borrow your email?
“Friend”: What?
Joe: Can I borrow your email? I’ll need to use it for about 5 years
“Friend”: – Can’t you just make your own – a throw away one?
Joe: No – I need a specific one, so that I can pretend to be Joseph ‘A’ Gallien which is my father’s name, although I NEVER WANT ANYONE TO KNOW my fathers name. I’ve picked a name that is almost identical to my name, a name I go by and the name on my Amazon account so that no-one will know that it’s me.
“Friend”: Never call here again…
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNeal: It was an poor example because of the extent of such a hypothetical disaster. Animals or plants which are sources of vitamin C exist in great variety all over the world and in extreme enivironments. So, a disaster that eliminated all of them would have eliminated humans also.
ReplyDeleteFirst, your response again indicates you do not understand my point.
Second, as Thorton pointed out, you seem to be ruling out scenarios merely because you can't imagine them taking place. Again, I'm referring to possibilities occurring, such as meteor impacts, biological threats that are both natural and man made, etc. Apparently, you think the designer set things up so these scenarios would not occur or would prevent them should they occur in opposition to his will. This would be manipulating our environment.
Neal wrote: God created a great variety of life, often with profound abilities to adapt...
But then wrote: Those [species] that don't adapt either move out or go extinct (at least in that area).
Neal, over 98% of all species that have ever existed did not adapt. As such, there seems to be a significant disconnect between these two sentences.
Why would the majority of all species not adapt if God "often" created life with "profound abilities to adapt"? It would seem more accurate to say...
God created a great variety of life, the great majority of which was just good enough to survive in their current environment.
or
God created a great variety of life, rarely with profound abilities necessary to adapt.
Right? Otherwise, it's as if you think these species could have adapted, since God created them with profound abilities to adapt , but these species merely decided not to. IOW, how do you explain this disconnect?
Neal: As far as God planning and/or manipulating the environment, I don't have an issue with God having done either.
Exactly what do mean when you say you "don't have an issue" with God compensating for or manipulating the environment? Is this based on what we've already established and agreed upon as facts or are you simply agreeing with this idea because you do not find it objectionable?
Hey Joe, I'm still waiting for you to test ID 'theory' on the things I suggested and provide all the details of the tests.
ReplyDeleteYou keep saying that ID has been tested. Can you post a link to a peer reviewed article that includes the tests and all their details? Can you post a link to a peer reviewed article that defines ID, CSI, specified complexity, irreducible complexity, FSCI, and all other particulars of ID 'theory' and exactly how those particulars were used in doing the tests you claim have been done?
Can you actually test some things in nature Joe, or are you just blustering?
Hey Joe, I see that you're still too gutless to post all my comments on your blustering blog.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to your delusional claims, you can't just say it Joe. You have to show it. You can't though, can you? You're all bluster, with no tests, evidence, or proof. Everything you say is just blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.....
Repeating the same old fairy tale crap over and over and over without definitions, tests, evidence, details, or proof isn't going to cut it Joe-boi.
Scott: If you're "aware", then you should't have any problem pointing out why they're untestable, right?
ReplyDeleteJoe: And you shouldn't have any problems pointing out how they are testable, right?
Again, you're the one who said…
Science has no idea how old the earth is. Science does not have a testable hypothesis for the formation of the earth.
As such, it's up to you to either back up your claim or retract it.
Joe: OK if you don't hae anything then what are you bitching about?
I'm merely pointing out the implications of your claim, which you're apparently trying to distance yourself from. Unless there is something unique about the earth and it's formation, it's unclear why our current theories cannot be tested.
Apparently, this is nothing more that the typical hand waving we see here on a regular basis.
Scott: If the formation of our planet was caused by the intelligent designer presented by the current theory of biological ID, then the "why" would be beyond human reasoning and problem solving.
Joe: Except some scientists have already inferred the "why".
Let me guess. "Is was set up that way. That is what it is for." That's just what the designer must have wanted?
Scott:
If you subscribe to realism, It's unclear how science could have no idea how old the earth is.
Joe: Right now science isn't operating under "realism".
Because? Are you going to actually explain WHY science isn't operating under realism or just assert it in your typical blustering fashion?
I wonder if Joe A. Gallien is going to bring his latest sockpuppet, "IntelligentAnimation", over here to prop up Joe's weak IDiot nonsense?
ReplyDeleteWe'll see.
Scott
ReplyDelete"Neal, over 98% of all species that have ever existed did not adapt. As such, there seems to be a significant disconnect between these two sentences. "
---
May I butt in.
This thread is getting long, maybe Cornelius is on vacation.
I'm tired of arguing. Just want to see what you think.
Maybe species come with what Kaufman calls pre adaptation gene set which helps species adapt quite well in the beginning. The set is being used to keep species adapting to cycles of new environment pressures for average 1 - 10 mil. years. Problem is the set is being filtered out by natural selection after each cycle. At the end of any cycle there is less of pre adaptation set left so species environmental flexibility becomes reduced,too. These cycles keeps repeating until species eventually go extinct. Number of species extinct is absolutely shocking- estimated 99.9% according to some web sites.
How much longer do we have?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEugene,
ReplyDeleteI too am tired of arguing.
My point here is that when we attempt to take seriously Neal's claim of design, along with what we've already established, in that they are true in reality and that all observations should conform to them, Neal presents an implicit theory about the biological complexity we observe.
However, Neal seems evasive and appears to have distanced himself from this implied theory.
Should this be the case, it would indicate that Neal doesn't take his own claims seriously. Instead, he's just throwing objections at a theory he personally finds objectionable. This includes conclusions he has apparently accepted by using them in arguments against evolutionary theory.
If Neal fails to accept some implied theory based on what we've already established, along with his own claims, he implicitly concedes that his objections are indefensible.
In other words, Despite the fact that he may claim otherwise, it would be be clear that Neal only accepts observations when he thinks they support his religious beliefs.
As such, we can stop arguing....
Eugene: Problem is the set is being filtered out by natural selection after each cycle. At the end of any cycle there is less of pre adaptation set left so species environmental flexibility becomes reduced,too.
ReplyDeleteWhich would also indicate evolutionary processes played a significant role in the biological complexity we observe.
This, at a minimum, is all I'm trying to suggest here. Yet Neal seems reluctant to agree with even this.
Scott said, "you seem to be ruling out scenarios merely because you can't imagine them taking place. "
ReplyDeleteNo, I just don't buy into the Darwinian philosophy that equates imagination with evidence. The church of Darwin continues to be deceived by the idea that if they can imagine a scenario that leds to a result, then the burden of proof is shifted to those who disagree with them.
Tedford the Idiot said...
ReplyDeleteScott said, "you seem to be ruling out scenarios merely because you can't imagine them taking place. "
No, I just don't buy into the Darwinian philosophy that equates imagination with evidence. The church of Darwin continues to be deceived by the idea that if they can imagine a scenario that leds to a result, then the burden of proof is shifted to those who disagree with them.
Sorry Tedford, but your almost total ignorance of the huge amounts of evidence for ToE still doesn't make the evidence imaginary. The evidence is right there for all to see - the genetic evidence, the geologic evidence, the fossil evidence.
If you don't like science's conclusions then the burden of proof is on you to show where science is wrong, and to come up with a better, more consilient explanation.
But you won't, because you can't.
Scott: "you seem to be ruling out scenarios merely because you can't imagine them taking place. "
ReplyDeleteNeal: No, I just don't buy into the Darwinian philosophy that equates imagination with evidence. The church of Darwin continues to be deceived by the idea that if they can imagine a scenario that leds to a result, then the burden of proof is shifted to those who disagree with them.
Neal, again, I'm referring to possibilities, not specific instances.
Are you claiming these scenarios cannot occur? If not, why? Did the designer "design" things so they could not occur against his wishes? Would he prevent them from occurring against his wishes?
To use the biological weapon scenario as an example, what prevents this from occurring? Would the designer step in to prevent human extinction should a suicidal group decide to design and unleash such a weapon on the entire population agains his will?
Scott, what I'm claiming is that evolutionists equate imagination with evidence.
ReplyDeleteYou ask many either/or religious questions as if a simple answer would apply at all times and circumstances. For example, you said, "Did the designer 'design' things so they could not occur against his wishes? Would he prevent them from occurring against his wishes?"
I can say with certainty that as a general principle, people have free will and can exercise their will against God's will and laws. But there are limits. We do reap what we sow and there are consequences to our choices... both good and bad. There is an ultimate destiny for mankind and for those that follow Jesus. Choose wisely.
Neal: Scott, what I'm claiming is that evolutionists equate imagination with evidence.
ReplyDeleteNeal,
I realize that is YOUR claim, which you've made here repeatedly. TYou're answering a question I didn't ask and telling us something we already know.
Why are you being so evasive?
Neal: You ask many either/or religious questions as if a simple answer would apply at all times and circumstances.
Neal, you've claimed that our non-extinction was the intentional result of a designer. Does this claim not apply regardless of time and circumstance? If not, it's unclear how our non-extinction is actually intentional outcome, rather than the result of chance.
And yes, it really is that simple. If not, then your claim appears to be empty.
Neal: I can say with certainty that as a general principle, people have free will and can exercise their will against God's will and laws. But there are limits
You're being incredibly vague, Neal.
Are you saying designer would manipulate the environment to ensure human beings would not go extinct before a time of the designer's choosing? Or are you simply repeating the party line?
Scott said...
ReplyDeleteNeal, you've claimed that our non-extinction was the intentional result of a designer. Does this claim not apply regardless of time and circumstance? If not, it's unclear how our non-extinction is actually intentional outcome, rather than the result of chance.
It's worse than that for Tedford. The fossil and geologic records show there were at least five major extinction events in Earth's history, and many more minor ones.
Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction 65.5 MYA
Triassic–Jurassic extinction 205 MYA
Permian–Triassic extinction 251 MYA
Late Devonian extinction 360 MYA
Ordovician–Silurian extinction 440 MYA
Major Extinction Events
In each case a majority of all species on the planet went extinct suddenly.
Anyone from the ID camp want to explain how the Designer handled these events? Were they planned? How did the Designer decide which species lived and which died? How did the Designer implement which species lived and which died?
Evolution explains the extinctions and subsequent re-population of the vacant ecological niches quite nicely. What is the ID explanation?
Anyone?
Thorton
ReplyDeleteSince Cambrian explosion we have steady background extinction . Mass extinctions are just bonus.
Causes are explained online: asteroid impacts, volcanoes , ice ages... we are overdue for a nice blazing asteroid impact anytime soon. Make popcorn and enjoy.
Explanation of Creator's plan? No idea. Not my job.
Neal: Scott, what I'm claiming is that evolutionists equate imagination with evidence.
ReplyDeleteNeal,
We realize claim your objections are supposedly due equating "equate imagination with evidence."
However, the implications I'm referring to here are based to observations you yourself appear to have accepted by explicitly appealed to them in arguments against evolutionary theory, in combination with your claim of design.
As such, it's unclear how you can complain about a lack of observations in the limited conclusions I'm drawing here.
To do so, you'd need to deny conclusions and observations you've already accepted as fact. However, this would undermine your claim that your arguments against evolution are supposedly based on science, rather than your personal religious beliefs.
Scott said, "However, the implications I'm referring to here are based to observations you yourself appear to have accepted by explicitly appealed to them in arguments against evolutionary theory,"
ReplyDeleteCan you clarify what you think I accepted? Thanks
Neal: Can you clarify what you think I accepted?
ReplyDeleteNeal, I've already made this quite clear in previous comments here and in other threads. Do I need to repeat them again?
However, I'm not just referring to what you've accepted in isolation. I'm referring to what you've accepted in conduction with your claims of design. Specifically, your claims do not exist in a vacuum.
For example, you seem to accept that the fossil record shows over 98% of all species have gone extinct. But you also claim that human non-extinction was intentional and was not left to chance. These two claims in conjunction would have implications. Yet you seem to be attempting to distance yourself from any sort of implications in particular.
To repeat…
It's clear we have yet to go extinct as of May 4th at 9:22 PM EST. Was it, at any time in the past, possible that human beings could have gone extinct, but did not since it was not the designers will? Or, to use the typical creationist misrepresentation, was it just an "accident" that we're still here?
This is a simple yes or no question which would be either true or false regardless of time or circumstance.
Eugene: Causes are explained online: asteroid impacts, volcanoes , ice ages... we are overdue for a nice blazing asteroid impact anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteWere we just "lucky" that one of the astroids that impacted the earth wasn't large enough to cause all life on the entire planet go extinct? Or was the exact details of the size, speed, angle, impact location and composition specifically chosen to ensure some species would survive wile others would go extinct? Or, perhaps the designer intentionally designed specific species so they would survive the coming impact based on some sort of detailed foreknowledge of the impact? Or did the designer somehow suspend the laws of physics to protect some species, but not others?
In other words, the designer must have compensated for or manipulated evolutionary processes to ensure we'd survive. In the absence of at least one scenario, it's unclear how you can say the current biological complexity we observe is designed.
Hi Scott
ReplyDeleteMay The Fourth be with you!
You and Thorton raise lots of very tough questions. My scope is limited but I'll pick few and come back tomorrow.
About the oncoming asteroid : you should be worried ,you are going to hell. :)
Eugen said...
ReplyDeleteYou and Thorton raise lots of very tough questions.
Hi Eugen, and thanks. Think of it a form of critical peer review. :) So far looks like the ID side is failing miserably.
I'll echo what Scott said about the KT asteroid hit at Chicxulub. Consider that if the asteroid had arrived just a few hours later, after the earth had rotated a bit, it would have hit central Africa. It could have very easily wiped out all the early African mammals that went on to later evolve into hominids. Then maybe lizard Joe G would be here banging on about how his Designer created the planet just for intelligent lizards to make discoveries.
Did the Designer plan to have the rock hit Central America and therefore lead to humans? If so, how?
Eugene: You and Thorton raise lots of very tough questions. My scope is limited but I'll pick few and come back tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteEugene,
In case you've arrived late to the party, all I'm attempting to achieve here is some sort of common ground based on what we've already established, at a minimum, in conjunction with the claim of design.
To use an analogy, road conditions, such as bumps, banks, graduations, snow, gravel, traffic, etc. cause your vehicle to deviate from your original intended path and schedule, even if ever so slightly. As such, these conditions played a role in reaching your destination, even only if to be compensated for by you as the driver. Had you not compensated for these conditions, you would't have ended up at the destination you supposedly intended at a time you supposedly intended.
In the same way, Neal is claiming the biological complexity we observe represents the intentional goal of a designer. This includes the specific species that did and did not go extinct, along with the time they appeared and disappeared.
Note that these two things must be connected to support Neal's claim. If the right plant species when extinct at the wrong time, or the wrong plant species went extinct at the right time, the ecosystem could have been compromised. Additional corrections would have been required.
As such, we can say that evolutionary processes, at a minimum, played a substantial role in the biological complexity we observe. Even if you ultimately claim they were manipulated, compensated for or even exploited by a designer to end up with a supposedly intended set of biological complexity we observe today.
Can we, at a minimum, agree on this?
I'd also note… just as it's not necessary to point to any specific bump, bank or gradation to know your vehicle's path would be diverted to at least some degree by road conditions and traffic, we need not we need not provide precise measurements, exact times or direct observations to know these process would have effected the biological complexity we observe in a way which would have required compensation or manipulation, should the claim of design be true, in reality.
Of course, you're free to disagree with this. However, in doing so, you're essentially conceding that you do not take your own argument seriously. As such, I'm under no obligation to take it seriously either.
Thorton
ReplyDeleteIt's not that IDists are failing, it's just hard to answer some questions,period.
For ex. regarding asteroid hitting South America instead of Africa I cannot tell you Saint John came down and redirected it.
Maybe it was just a lucky accident like winning state lottery. If you want to go there looks like many, many lucky accidents happened in the past ...I'm reading book by physicist Paul Davies named Cosmic Jackpot where he is talking about how many lucky accidents are involved in fine tuning of the Universe.
How many lucky accidents had to be lined up for for appearance of the first chemical nano plant we call cell?
How many lucky accidents for formation and fine tuning of self sustaining space ship Earth?
This is not about religion but reasonable person should say: our existence is a highly suspicious event!
Scott
" As such, we can say that evolutionary processes, at a minimum, played a substantial role in the biological complexity we observe. "
I checked basic definition of evolution but there are few. There has to be adaptation process at work, otherwise any species would not survive one half decent climate change.
Eugen said...
ReplyDeleteThorton
It's not that IDists are failing, it's just hard to answer some questions,period
Maybe you're right. IDist aren't failing because they aren't even trying. After Kitzmiller they're not even pretending to have scientific evidence for ID anymore.
This is not about religion but reasonable person should say: our existence is a highly suspicious event!
If someone had predicted our exact existence 3 billion years ago then having it match the prediction would be a highly suspicious event. But coming along after the fact and declaring whatever we find to be 'highly suspicious' only shows a woeful lack of understanding of probability theory.
It's known as the sharpshooter fallacy - drawing a target circle around an existing bullet hole in the wall and declaring how miraculously accurate the shooter must have been.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEugene: I checked basic definition of evolution but there are few. There has to be adaptation process at work, otherwise any species would not survive one half decent climate change.
ReplyDeleteAnd one of the major factors that determine IF a species has the ability to adapt is it's genome.
If some species appears with a genome that allows it to better adapt in a particular environment, this is the equlivent mutating the genome. Essentially the designer is exploiting aspects of existing evolutionary processes by choosing a design that ensures natural selection will select that species to survive in a particular environment.
The key difference is that ID claims the specific changes / mutations which ended up occurring in specific species were intentional, rather than random.
If the designer didn't compensate for evolutionary processes which caused temporary "undesigned" changes some point in the past, then every aspect of evolutionary change must be explicitly planned and orchestrated down to the smallest detail.
To return to my analogy, this is like saying that all of the road conditions you, and everyone else, encountered in the past all ended up altering everyone's path in just the right way so everyone ended up at the right destination.
An explanation as to how the designer managed to know exactly how to distribute, maintain and vary over time every bump, gradation, traffic interaction, etc. so that everyone who traveled the same roads encountered them did so in just the right way, at just the right time and had just the right effect on each individual vehicle would indeed be quite difficult indeed.
However, at this juncture, I'm not asking for those details in the case of the biological complexity we observe. Instead, I'm asking if we can at least agree that, at a minimum, some sort of concrete compensation, manipulation or even exploitation of evolutionary processes must have occurred if the claim of design is true, in reality.
Can we at least agree on this, at a minimum? Otherwise, it's unclear why this discussion should go any further.
If you don't take your own argument seriously, by assuming it actually occurred in reality and that all observations should conform it, then why should we?
Thorton
ReplyDelete" But coming along after the fact and declaring whatever we find to be 'highly suspicious' only shows a woeful lack of understanding of probability theory. "
I recommend you read some books by these physicists: Barrow ,Tipler,Penrose, Dyson,Feynman,Gribbin,Wheeler,Wilczek, Vedral,Lederman to gain more understanding of seriousness of the fine tuning and nature of reality issue.
Your trivializing it and reducing the issue to statistics is irrelevant. Studying it - relevant.
Scott
ReplyDelete" I'm asking if we can at least agree that, at a minimum, some sort of concrete compensation, manipulation or even exploitation of evolutionary processes must have occurred if the claim of design is true, in reality. '
This is another hard question. Lets keep an open mind because we still don't have complete knowledge of cell capabilities.
I said earlier - my scope is limited. I look at cell processes mechanistically and try to combine my limited knowledge of biology with practices in my field of automation programming.
I see similarity, relation and sometimes resemblance by function. I think my scope should stay limited to that and related issues.
Eugen said...
ReplyDeleteT: "But coming along after the fact and declaring whatever we find to be 'highly suspicious' only shows a woeful lack of understanding of probability theory. "
I recommend you read some books by these physicists: Barrow ,Tipler,Penrose, Dyson,Feynman,Gribbin,Wheeler,Wilczek, Vedral,Lederman to gain more understanding of seriousness of the fine tuning and nature of reality issue.
Your trivializing it and reducing the issue to statistics is irrelevant. Studying it - relevant
I understand the 'fine tuning' arguments for ID very well, thank you. Unless you can show that the set of parameters we find in this universe are the only ones that will sustain life (not "life as we know it", but any sort of life) then the argument is nothing more than irrelevant philosophical fluff.
I suggest you read some Douglas Adams:
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"
Neal said:
ReplyDelete"No, I just don't buy into the Darwinian philosophy that equates imagination with evidence."
What "evidence" do you have that there is or was a designer, and exactly how can that alleged evidence be tested and verified?
Is your "philosophy" a figment of your "imagination" or is it based on testable, verifiable evidence?
You also said:
"The church of Darwin continues to be deceived by the idea that if they can imagine a scenario that leds to a result, then the burden of proof is shifted to those who disagree with them."
That is exactly what ID proponents do. They imagine a scenario (God, creation, and design) and then erroneously shift the burden of proof to science to prove otherwise.
And by the way, science isn't in the business of disproving Gods, creation, or design.
Joe G. says:
"Attacking ID won't provide positive evidence for your position."
Well, attacking the ToE or Darwin won't provide positive evidence of any ID claims. Positive evidence of ID is required. What is that alleged evidence and exactly how can it be tested and verified?
Eugene: This is another hard question. Lets keep an open mind because we still don't have complete knowledge of cell capabilities.
ReplyDeleteEugene,
Are you suggesting the cells of all species on the planet have the capacity to determine an astroid impact is going to occur, determine the implications of that specific impact and take the necessary steps to ensure that just the right species would survive? Or perhaps you're suggesting cells have the capability to speed up the earth's rotation or alter an astroid's arrival, angle, speed or density so it would impact at just the right location?
Otherwise, it's unclear how you can avoid the implications I've outlined.
Scott
ReplyDelete" I'm asking if we can at least agree that, at a minimum, some sort of concrete compensation, manipulation or even exploitation of evolutionary processes must have occurred if the claim of design is true, in reality."
I think you are asking if Creator showed up and manipulated DNA ,right?
I'm not sure what to tell about that... alien Pedantski came down and rearranged DNA with nano tweezers? (take me to your leader) Who said that? Thorton?
You see that's a hot potato I wish to pass to another ID sympathizer, hopefully the blog owner. Looks like I'm last man standing - where is the leader?
Thorton
it's good you are familiar with the problem of fine tuning. You don't seem convinced it's hard to explain ,eh?
It's recognized as a difficult issue by almost every cosmologist, astronomer,physicist, philosopher...You wouldn't selectively reject part of main stream science, would you?
Douglas Adams is great. I know video from Youtube with his talk on puddle.
Eugen said...
ReplyDeleteit's good you are familiar with the problem of fine tuning.
I am aware of various philosophical discussions on fine tuning. I am not aware of any scientific problem with fine tuning.
You don't seem convinced it's hard to explain ,eh?
It's as hard to explain as the shape of the hole that held the puddle.
It's recognized as a difficult issue by almost every cosmologist, astronomer,physicist, philosopher..
It may be though a difficult philosophical issue, but it is not recognized as a scientific issue by anyone except those with a religious agenda to push. It makes for interesting naval gazing but has zero impact on the veracity of ToE or the complete lack of positive evidence for ID.
Douglas Adams is great. I know video from Youtube with his talk on puddle.
I was lucky enough to hear him speak at a book signing a number of years ago. Hilariously funny and sometimes poignant writer, real pity he's gone.
This is interesting:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/3498/RA%20in%20Mathematics_FPs.pdf.download
it seems that there have been mathematical problems with evolution for some time now.
The whole truth:
ReplyDeleteThe evidence for ID is the fact that organism have characteristics that are characteristics of designed things only. There's the functional integration of parts, irreducible complexity, highly specified complexity, etc. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the appearance of design without actually coming on to design. Design is the default position.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteThe evidence for ID is the fact that organism have characteristics that are characteristics of designed things only.
Sorry nat, but that's simply not true no matter how many times you regurgitate the IDiot party line..
There's the functional integration of parts, irreducible complexity, highly specified complexity, etc.
And purely natural processes that produce those results have already been empirically demonstrated.
The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the appearance of design without actually coming on to design. Design is the default position
Wrong again nat. There is no 'default' position. You should recuse yourself from ever teaching science if that is your warped understanding of how science works. If you want science to accept your claims, you must provide positive evidence. ID hasn't one iota, ToE has positive evidence in spades.
Thorton
ReplyDelete" I was lucky enough to hear him speak at a book signing a number of years ago."
That was lucky accident, I'm envious. He was a good writer, pity he died young.
Now imagine next day you meet Dawkins, next day Dennet, next day Harris and on the last day Hitchens on the same street. Would you get suspicious?
BTW I described atheist heaven. Hey that could be the solution, you should have your own heaven.
Re. Fine tuning - I'm not getting into another round of arguing. Puzzling bit: Paul Davies has an interesting view on ID. He goes on with obligatory bashing of standard ID ( like you) and than invents his own ID version. Go figure.
"Design is the default position."
ReplyDeleteIn your dreams.
You assume design. You have no evidence or proof of it, and no way to test or verify it. Design is the "default" only of people with a religious agenda. It's actually all about cramming religious beliefs into every aspect of everyone's life, whether they like it or not. It isn't about science or knowledge.
Why do you ID-ists want to force religion into science and schools? Would you like to have science forced into religion? Would you like to have science classes forced into churches?
Why do you ID-ists feel so threatened by the ToE? The ToE doesn't say anything about gods or other religious beliefs and is only concerned with understanding and explaining evolution throughout the history of life.
Science, and the ToE, are separate from religions, and for good reason. Religious beliefs are irrelevant to the ToE. When something is discovered that pertains to evolution that happens to contradict a religious belief, well, that's just too bad for the erroneous religious belief. Actual knowledge is always better than unfounded beliefs.
The ToE doesn't function on the basis of proving religious beliefs to be wrong, but sometimes it has shown that some religious beliefs are wrong. The ToE doesn't have all the answers, but ID-ists don't have any answers. All you have are beliefs and baseless assertions.
I'm sure this will come as a shock to you but religion doesn't need to be involved in every thought or action every person ever has or takes. You can believe whatever you want but keep religion out of science, schools, and the ToE. You've got churches and your mind for religion. Keep it there, and only there.
Eugen said...
ReplyDeleteNow imagine next day you meet Dawkins, next day Dennet, next day Harris and on the last day Hitchens on the same street. Would you get suspicious?
Possibly, but only because I have prior knowledge of them and their work.
Imagine you went into town and met ten people you never knew before walking on the street too. Would you get suspicious? I mean, what are the odds those exact 10 people would just happen to meet you in that exact order? Must be design! ;)
Scott, I don't believe the 98% extinction rate that you refer to repeatedly is well established at all. Go here for an article regarding the difficulties with validating living and fossil species names:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pnas.org/content/99/6/3706.full.pdf
Estimates of living species vary between 2 million and 100 million according to several sources, including this article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030526103731.htm
So, just getting an accurate number of living species is a huge challenge with the estimated range in the millions. Getting an accurate number of extinct species is a far greater challenge still. So, no I don't go along with the 98% extinction, as it is a guess based heavily on evolutionary assumptions.
Scott said, "Was it, at any time in the past, possible that human beings could have gone extinct, but did not since it was not the designers will? "
ReplyDeleteYes, the great flood where only Noah and his family survived through the intervention of God.
Eugen: I think you are asking if Creator showed up and manipulated DNA ,right?
ReplyDeleteAgain, if we assume what we've already established, along with the claim of design, is true in reality, the designer must have taken some action to compensate for, manipulate or even exploit evolutionary process. Showing up and manipulating DNA in response to some environmental change or to revert / compensate for some other negative mutation, fits under that umbrella.
Or perhaps the designer manipulated the environment to compensate for random mutations that would have been detrimental otherwise, or exhibited some sort of foreknowledge of random mutations or environmental changes and created new species who's DNA was improved upon from previous species to compensate for these future changes.
Again, at this juncture, I'm not asking for details. Instead, I'm merely asking if we can agree that some concrete action would be necessary based on what we've already established in parallel with claims that our non-extinction was by design.
Eugen: You see that's a hot potato I wish to pass to another ID sympathizer, hopefully the blog owner. Looks like I'm last man standing - where is the leader?
Which is precisely my point. Apparently no one takes their own claims seriously enough to actually consider the implications, should they true in reality. When we point out the implications, everyone becomes evasive and attempts to distance themselves from what the've previously accepted or even used in arguments against evolutionary theory.
The whole truth,
ReplyDeleteKey provisions of evolution theory lie outside the realm of science. Darwin spoke more about God in connection to creation than what is heard over most pulpits on a Sunday morning.
Evolution is a philosophy of interpreting nature. It is a philosophy that is protected from falsification. It is an elaborate set of rhetorical devices that illustrate perfectly nearly ever type of faulty reasoning known.
If someone wanted to learn how to sell ice to Eskimos or something equally challenging, then Darwinism provides the template. Even so, most people don't buy it, even in Darwins home country of England.
It is a travesty of the scientific method.
Nature lacks the mechanism and ability to do what evolutionists claim. Ascribing unrealistic abilities to nature is akin to superstition. In claiming to be the wise ones, evolutionists are close neighbors to those who bang drums to scare away lunar eclipses.
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteI think there is some cofusion over the terms evidence and proof. I was responding to the assertion made that there is no evidence for design. If something looks like it was designed, then it may very well have been designed.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteThorton:
I think there is some cofusion over the terms evidence and proof. I was responding to the assertion made that there is no evidence for design. If something looks like it was designed, then it may very well have been designed.
Things that 'look' designed to you may not 'look' designed to others who have studied the objects in detail. That's why science requires objective positive evidence before declaring 'design', not your subjective 'looks like it to me' opinion.
There is no objective empirical positive evidence that any biological life forms were originally purposely intelligently designed. NONE. There is however gobs of objective empirical positive evidence that natural processes with no guiding intelligence produced the biological variation we see.
I know you desperately want your religious creation version of reality to be true, but the scientific evidence still says no. Learn to deal with reality nat, it's a much healthier place to be.
Tedford the Idiot said...
ReplyDeleteScott said, "Was it, at any time in the past, possible that human beings could have gone extinct, but did not since it was not the designers will? "
Yes, the great flood where only Noah and his family survived through the intervention of God.
BWAHAHAHAHA!! Oh my, da FLUD!
Do go on Tedford, tell us about the great Noah's FLUD. Tell us how all the species on Earth survived a world destroying event for a year on a 450' wooden boat.
Then tell us why we don't see a severe genetic bottleneck in every extant species if they all arose from 1 (or 7) breeding pairs just 4500 years ago.
Tell us how the FLUD waters managed to sort all the fossils by smooth morphological transitions so it looks just like they evolved over time.
Tell us how the deciduous trees outran the velociraptors to higher ground.
Tell us how the FLUD waters managed to sort all the 'laid in one year' sediment by radiometric isotope ratio, with oldest on the bottom smoothly transitioning to youngest on the top.
Go on Tedford, enlighten us.
Thorton
ReplyDelete" BWAHAHAHAHA!! "
Did you have a good laugh?
Scott
(Eugen looking at hot potato from one meter away)
Nah, I'm not touching hot potato. Please ask blog owner when he shows up. I'll be all ears.
Quick question, did you ever design anything ?
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteSaying that if somenthing has characteristics that are characteristics of designed things only, then that is evidence for design is not a religious claim. It is basedon the evidence, so it is scientific.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteThorton:
Saying that if somenthing has characteristics that are characteristics of designed things only, then that is evidence for design is not a religious claim. It is basedon the evidence, so it is scientific.
Where is your objective criteria for determining if a biological characteristic can appear by intelligent design only?
It still your subjective 'looks designed to me', which isn't scientific.
Eugen said...
ReplyDeleteThorton
" BWAHAHAHAHA!! "
Did you have a good laugh?
Why yes, I did!
In never fails with these IDiots. We get "ID is scientific, it's not about religion, it's not about the Designer" immediately followed by "but it's my Christian GAWD who used GENESIS and DA FLUD to create life we see today!!"
They just can't help themselves.
Scott said, "Or perhaps the designer manipulated the environment to compensate for random mutations that would have been detrimental otherwise."
ReplyDelete---
You have some underlying assumptions concerning detrimental mutations that need to be clarified. Perhaps an actual example of a random mutation that was detrimental to humans in the past but the specific environment changed in the past to avoid extinction. After all, you are pretty determined on following your line of questioning. Given this determination you must have specific examples, otherwise why even bother talking about things that didn't happen? If you have nothing more than hypothetical scenarios without real life examples then I don't see any validity in your point. Perhaps you have some, so please present them. Thanks.
---
As an aside, the design of the human body and its cells have built in error correction functions that do an excellent job maintaining the integrity of the body.
What it takes to keep life viable is in itself remarkable given that even the things that are necessary for life like water and oxygen are also letal to life if the mechanisms aren't in place to regulate these elements precisely.
It is even more difficult for detrimental mutations to get set in the entire population.
natschuster, right on. Noting that a living cell is designed is no more religious than noting that a car is designed.
ReplyDeleteTedford the Idiot said...
ReplyDeletenatschuster, right on. Noting that a living cell is designed is no more religious than noting that a car is designed.
And has as much scientific validity as saying "that big fluffy cloud looks like a bunny to me so it must be designed!".
Preach to us about the FLUD Tedford. You know you want to.
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteWe know from designing machines that they don't just happen, that things that have the characteristics of designed things need to be designed. We learned about first and second thermodynamics the same way.
Neal said:
ReplyDelete"Key provisions of evolution theory lie outside the realm of science."
Any "provisions" that are outside the realm of science are not part of the ToE. The ToE is not and cannot be concerned with supernatural or superstitious beliefs/assumptions.
If you don't like the ToE, there's nothing stopping you from coming up with another theory. Instead of trying to CHANGE science and the ToE, why don't you or the other god pushers formulate an alternate theory that is based on testable, verifiable evidence that proves the ToE to be wrong?
You can't expect science to take you seriously if all you have are religious beliefs/assumptions and no actual evidence.
"Ascribing unrealistic abilities to nature is akin to superstition."
Ascribing unrealistic religious beliefs/assumptions to ANYTHING is superstition. The entire premise of religious beliefs is blind faith in unrealistic beings and events.
"Noting that a living cell is designed is no more religious than noting that a car is designed."
ReplyDeleteUnless someone says that some god designed the car or a cell.
You ID-ists can't include your god in ID and then say that ID isn't religious. At least you can't if you expect sane people to take you honestly and seriously.
Do any of you ID-ists really think that no one notices all the religious nonsense that is constantly injected into ID claims and discussions?
Neal, did you ever track down those theologians who held an old-earth view centuries before Darwin?
ReplyDeleteNeal: Yes, the great flood where only Noah and his family survived through the intervention of God.
ReplyDeleteNeal,
Just so I understand you correctly, are you claiming that, beyond this, there was never a chance that human beings could have gone extinct?
Eugene: Quick question, did you ever design anything ?
ReplyDeleteShort answer: Yes.
Longer answer: I've designed specific aspects of things. So, I'd assume that qualifies as a Yes.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteThorton:
We know from designing machines that they don't just happen, that things that have the characteristics of designed things need to be designed. We learned about first and second thermodynamics the same way.
What are the characteristics of designed things that can only be designed? How did you determine what characteristics go on the list?
Where is your objective criteria for deciding if biological structures qualify?
Sorry nat, you keep trying to weasel word you way out of it but it's still your subjective opinion: "this looks designed to me". It's still not even close to being scientific.
The whole truth,
ReplyDeleteYour comments are like something from 30 years ago. The debate is beyond what you suggest. Darwinism is a theory in crisis. Advances in cell research no longer allow darwinists to hide behind ignorance for they must account for the complex information in the cell. They offer little more than empty air bag rhetoric. Patterns of design are not difficult to detect unless one is so prejudiced as to not see the obvious.
Tedford the Idiot said...
ReplyDeleteThe whole truth,
Your comments are like something from 30 years ago. The debate is beyond what you suggest. Darwinism is a theory in crisis. Advances in cell research no longer allow darwinists to hide behind ignorance for they must account for the complex information in the cell. They offer little more than empty air bag rhetoric. Patterns of design are not difficult to detect unless one is so prejudiced as to not see the obvious.
Tedford, when you make these blustering fact-free brain damaged speeches, are you trying to convince yourself? Because you're sure not convincing anyone else with the gasbag rhetoric.
Neal, how do you account for the complex information in the cell, and what tests and evidence do you have for your account?
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking about Joe G., whose user name is Joseph on UD, and about what he says on his blog, on UD, and here.
ReplyDeleteIt really says a lot about the ID "movement" or "community" when a waste of oxygen like Joe is never challenged, questioned, or told to shut the hell up by other ID-ists.
None of you ID-ists appear to care about who speaks for you and promotes your agenda, as long as someone speaks for you and promotes your agenda. Religious zealots like bornagain77, Gordon Mullings (kairosfocus), Barry Arrington, Gil Dodgen, Dense O'leary, Steno, and others just like them are doing ID a lot more harm than good. The hypocritical, dishonest behavior of those people is so obvious that a child could see it.
Steno complained on UD about people being stifled by keeping creation stories out of education, and he says that everyone has value and should be heard, even if they have different beliefs. Well, Steno and his cohorts on UD regularly block and ban people who have different beliefs than Steno and his UD buddies have. Steno is a lying, two-faced douchebag with no morals or conscience whatsoever, and so is anyone else who goes along with him.
You ID-ists should be a lot more concerned about who speaks for ID and what is said on sites like UD. UD says it serves the ID community, and if they speak for the ID community the ID community is made up of a bunch of worthless scumbags who wouldn't recognize an honest thought or action if it slapped them in the face.
ID appears to attract loonies, religious zealots, and crazy people who are just rebels without a cause. If it weren't ID, they'd just be arguing and promoting some other baseless, intrusive agenda. Some people simply must fight about something, even if that fighting accomplishes absolutely nothing positive.
The most vocal ID proponents are the worst thing that has happened to the so-called ID movement. ID will never be taken seriously by science or by anyone sane until and unless sane, reasonable, competent, intelligent, non-religious, scientifically minded people come up with some actual tests and evidence AND speak for ID in a way that is completely contrary to the way the kind of people I mentioned above speak for it.
And since none of you ID-ists condemn people like Joe G., and the wackos on UD, for being so dishonest, hypocritical, stifling, and deceitful, and for injecting religious beliefs into the alleged scientific theory of ID (ha ha), then you're all guilty of the same behavior as them. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Scott
ReplyDelete" Longer answer: I've designed specific aspects of things. So, I'd assume that qualifies as a Yes. "
Since you designed something you very well know how difficult the process can be. And here we are looking at not design from ground up, but rather smaller part of a bigger system.
You understand process: it starts with a plan, goes through evaluation of constrains (which may modify plan), next is physical realization, test and optimization phase and at the end implementation. There are problems at every stage which are solved through careful examination and intervention.
If something appears designed I don't understand why are people afraid to admit it. If you were hired as independent consultant would you be able to examine a system without bias, religion, ideology etc ?
Could the same be applied in examination of the cell or other bio systems or this is where ideology, religion, prejudice becomes more important than facts?
Eugen said...
ReplyDeleteIf something appears designed I don't understand why are people afraid to admit it.
No one is afraid to admit when something may superficially appear to be designed. But appears to be designed and IS designed are two very different situations.
The history of science is full of things that people used to believe were designed by Gods until science corrected them - lightning bolts came from Zeus, volcanoes from Pelee, etc. That's why the default scientific position is not 'designed by Gods' The default position is 'we don't know' until there is some positive evidence to indicate what really happened.
If ID wants to be scientific it must play by science's rules. That means provide your own positive evidence, and no 'God of the gaps' allowed. Without that ID will remain nothing but politically motivated poor theology.
"The default position is 'we don't know'"
ReplyDeleteOK, that's fair while research is going on.
What are you going to do if 10 years from now( if you last that long) researchers find there is a direct evidence for design?
And here are some serious questions for you ID-ists:
ReplyDeleteWhat if researchers eventually find verifiable, credible evidence for design and that evidence points to our universe being designed and constructed in a test tube in a lab by scientists in another, and much larger, universe? Or, it points to the designer of our universe and the life within it as being a giant purple fish with a degree from the Andromedian College Of Universal Design on the planet Nebularia in the X-431 universe? Or, it points to Zeus as the designer? Or, it points to a designer who drinks bad whiskey and farts a lot, who designed/created us and our universe just so that it could have some entertainment watching us destroy each other and our planet?
What if there is a designer and that designer is absolutely nothing like any of the gods humans have ever imagined, conjured up, worshiped, believed in, and promoted?
Neal: You have some underlying assumptions concerning detrimental mutations that need to be clarified.
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting you lack assumptions about mutations being detrimental?
Should I go back and look at comments you've made here the past, what will I find Neal?
Neal: After all, you are pretty determined on following your line of questioning. Given this determination you must have specific examples, otherwise why even bother talking about things that didn't happen?
Yes. I have specific example. But probably not the sort of example you're expecting. From July 12, 2010 7:28 AM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Neal: A mutation rate of 10-9 per base pair per year yields only a 1% change in the sequence of a given section of DNA per 10 million years. So mutational divergence of preexisting genes cannot explain the origin of the Cambrian forms in that amount of time.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Here you're claiming to know the mutation rate of species in the Cambrian period.
How you know this is unclear. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume your mutation rate claim is correct. I'll also assume you think such a rate is factual. You wouldn't appeal to "facts" that you yourself didn't accept, would you?
You're also claiming to know that a 1% change in DNA would be insufficient explain forms that appeared in the Cambrian period. Again, I'll assume you conceder this factual. Otherwise, why appeal to it in your augment?
However, to exclude this rate as an explanation for forms in the Cambrian period you'd have to know what the result of a 1% mutational divergence WOULD BE, right? Otherwise, its' unclear how you can EXCLUDE it as an explanation for forms in that period.
So, exactly what is the result of this divergence? If you know a mutation rate of 10-9 per base pair per year is insufficient, then how DOES the divergence you're referring to fit into your claim of design?
Clearly, you're not claiming it has NO effect, because you're appealing to a particular rate of divergence in your augment against evolution. Right?
In other words, when we attempt to take your claims above seriously, along with your claim of design, in that they are true in reality and that all observations should conform to it, it would seem that the designer would need to compensate, manipulate or even exploit the divergence you're appealing to here in your claim. Othewise, it's unclear how your claim of design can be true, in reality.
Again, objections made here, along with claims of design, do not exist in a vacuum.
More appeals made by Neal while arguing against evolution..
ReplyDelete- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The problem has never been about whether natural selection or mutation are real. The problem is that these mechanisms are insufficient.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The funny thing is, is that mutations happen all the time, but no one has ever seen a new organ develop. It doesn't take long for a mutation to occur, so why haven't we seen new organs develop via evolution? The fact that we don't is evidence that the fundamental basis of believing it could happen is nonsense.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Natural selection is real but far limited in its ability than the fanciful musings of evolutionists would dogmatically assert. Evolutionists are staking their science on an "unnatural" naturalism. Nature doesn't do what you say it can do.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You guys take a little non-controversial observed modification and add a lot of time and huge amounts of assumptions and you say that common descent is a fact.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Correction noted for the E-coli isolation, but what the citrate digestion mutation shows is a far cry from common descent and macroevolution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So, again Neal. Exactly how does the effects you KNOW are insufficient, fit in with your claim of design?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEugen said...
ReplyDelete"The default position is 'we don't know'"
OK, that's fair while research is going on.
What are you going to do if 10 years from now( if you last that long) researchers find there is a direct evidence for design?
If sufficient empirical positive evidence is found, evidence that withstands objective scientific scrutiny and that unambiguously indicates the action of an external Intelligent Designer, then I will accept the results.
Find that evidence first, then come back and crow.
HINT: saying "it looks designed to me!!" or inventing a meaningless word salad of sciency-sounding buzz-terms like "this is choc-full-o SDHICSS (sooper dooper highly intelligent complexified specificty stuff), therefore Design!!" won't cut it.
" What if there is a designer and that designer is absolutely nothing like any of the gods humans have ever imagined, conjured up, worshiped, believed in, and promoted? "
ReplyDeleteI knew it, it's alien Pedantski!
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteHas anyone ever seen something with a functional integration of parts form without design? How about irreducible complexity? What about specified complexity? How about an information processing machine? Has anyone ever seen even a simple machine like a lever ever form by itself?
Eugene,
ReplyDeleteThe observed design difficulties we experience have observed causes which are well understood.
Specifically, how many designer's are there? Are they working on different parts of the system? Are they working independently or even at odds with each other? Or perhaps they're just not communicating with each other very well?
In other words, these problems reflect our limitations as finite beings. It's unclear why an abstract designer would be limited to designing a small part of a bigger system at a time, would be at odds with itself, poorly communicate with itself, etc.
As such, note that you'll need to appeal to the fact that we cannot rule out with 100% certainly the existence of some mysterious state of affairs that require these steps regardless.
Furthermore, these steps are only required because I'm attempting to obtain a specific concrete outcome from part of a larger process.
Eugen: If something appears designed I don't understand why are people afraid to admit it. If you were hired as independent consultant would you be able to examine a system without bias, religion, ideology etc ?
Eugen,
Again, You're appealing to the possibility of a particular state of affairs, not an explanation.
Should one objectively suspend their presupposition that concrete biological complexity we observe represents the designer's expressed wishes, the appearance of design become superficial.
Furthermore, ID fails to provide an explanation as to why the designer would choose one particular concrete outcome over another. That's just what the designer must have wanted.
As such, It's a convoluted elaboration of evolutionary theory.
We see the same problem with solipsism, which claims that we cannot know that anything exists outside of one's self. Solipsism doesn't explain why object-like facets of my internal self would obey laws of physics-like facets of my internal self. Again, this is an appeal to a particular state of affairs, not an explanation.
As such, solipsism is a convoluted elaboration of realism.
BTW, I make a living as an independent consultant, which requires me to keep abreast of developments in my field, continually evaluate claims regarding potential solutions and take note any variance from their actual effectiveness. As such, I'm familiar with how bias and superficial conclusions can influence the problem solving process, including my own.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteThorton:
Has anyone ever seen something with a functional integration of parts form without design?
Yes
How about irreducible complexity?
Yes
What about specified complexity?
By the definition you gave earlier, yes.
How about an information processing machine?
Yes
Has anyone ever seen even a simple machine like a lever ever form by itself?
Yes
Any more stupid questions you could answer yourself with a 30 second Google search?
Maybe my google skills aren't all that good, but the only example I could find was bacteria evolving one more enzyme so they could eat chlorate. That isn't very impressive. Maybe you could provide me with some examples.
ReplyDeletenatschuster said...
ReplyDeleteHas anyone ever seen something with a functional integration of parts form without design?
A volcano is composed of many functional integrated parts:
Vent- An opening allowing the passage of air.
Ash Cloud- The powdery residue left after burning.
Dike- The barrier or obstacle of a volcano.
Sill- Slab of stone at the foot of the volcano.
Flank- The side of a volcano.
Lava- Matter flowing from a volcano that solidifies as it cools.
Crater- Mouth of a volcano.
Conduit- Channel or pipe conveying liquids such as lava.
Summit- Highest point; apex
Throat- Entrance of a volcano.
Who designed the volcano nat?
How about irreducible complexity?
A natural stone arch is IC. Remove any piece and the arch falls.
Who designed the natural arch nat?
What about specified complexity?
You defined "specified comlexity" to be a property of DNA, remember?
How about an information processing machine?
The puddle in my back yard is a simple info processing machine. When the temperature is below 32F it processes that info and changes state to a solid.
Who designed the puddle to process temperature information nat?
Has anyone ever seen even a simple machine like a lever ever form by itself?
A ramp is a simple machine. Ramps form naturally from land rises due to plate tectonics. A wedge is a simple machine. In geology dykes are wedge shaped intrusions that cuts discordantly across planar wall rock structures.
Who designed those natural machines nat?
Give it up nat. You keep trying to use your personal incredulity and ignorance to argue for ID but it just isn't going to work.
Does a volcano have a purpose? Does it reproduce?
ReplyDeleteThe parts of a vocano don't all work together, anyway. Some of them are just there as a result of the eruption. the ash for example, doesn't do anything. All you really need for a volcano, and the only part that really does anything, is the vent. It lets the magma out, where its name cahnges to lava.
It could be argued that a stone arch only has one piece. What about a three piece arch? Do any exist anywhere that formed naturally?
The whole point we are discussing is whether the specified complexity of DNA can be explained without design. IF we never saw specified complexity coming into existance without design, then we have, at least, to consider the possibility if the specified complexity in DNA is the result of design.
The puddle is an interesting example. But it is rather simple. Has an information processing machine as a complex as an abacus ever appeared without design? DNA is a lot more complex than an abacus.
The wedge is kinda simple, too. The lever is more complex. Has a lever ever happened without design?
It looks like you can't get a whole lot of complexity without design. But organism are really, really complex.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteDoes a volcano have a purpose? Does it reproduce?
ZOOM! Look at those rocket powered goalposts move!
The whole point we are discussing is whether the specified complexity of DNA can be explained without design. IF we never saw specified complexity coming into existance without design, then we have, at least, to consider the possibility if the specified complexity in DNA is the result of design.
Go ahead and consider it all you want. Come back when you have some positive evidence for it being purposely designed.
It looks like you can't get a whole lot of complexity without design. But organism are really, really complex.
Totally wrong as you have been shown numerous times before. Simple feedback processes with heritable trait filtered by selection can and do produce incredibly complex things. Remember the Genetic Algorithms we covered in detail nat? Why do you keep trotting out the same tired old PRATTs over and over? Are you really that slow?
The only part of a volcano that does anything is the vent. That kinda different than an organism. thousands of proteins, nucleic acids, all functioning together.
ReplyDeleteIf it is impossible to make an information processing machine more complicated than a puddle without design, and DNA is an information processing machine more complex than a puddle, then DNA must have been designed. Is it possible to build an abacus without design? DNA is more comlex than an abacus.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteIf it is impossible to make an information processing machine more complicated than a puddle without design,
Define 'information'.
Define 'processing'
Define 'design'.
Then demonstrate the validity of your premise.
Come back when you decide to quit playing childish semantic games.
Information could be something that represents simething else. Or it can be numbers. Processing means to create information, or change information, or apply the information so that it is changed into the thing it represents. Or it can mean to use numbers to calculate. Design means to use intelligence to find the combination of parts that will work using a process other than pure random trial and error. It involves having some knowledge of the combination that will work, and using that in the process. Next step is to define intelligence. For our purposes it can be defined as having knowledge of the goal, the combination that will work.
ReplyDeletenatschuster said...
ReplyDeleteInformation could be something that represents simething else. Or it can be numbers. Processing means to create information, or change information, or apply the information so that it is changed into the thing it represents. Or it can mean to use numbers to calculate. Design means to use intelligence to find the combination of parts that will work using a process other than pure random trial and error. It involves having some knowledge of the combination that will work, and using that in the process. Next step is to define intelligence. For our purposes it can be defined as having knowledge of the goal, the combination that will work.
You have absolutely no idea what you're blithering about, do you? By your definition above, DNA does not contain information. A nucleotide sequence doesn't 'represent' a protein, it's part of a chemical reaction that produces a protein.
Why does 'design' have to involve intelligence and foresight into what will work?
Why doesn't the result of an iterative process that uses variations filtered by selection count as design?
Thorton,
ReplyDeleteDĂ©jĂ vu: http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/04/sean-carroll-does-universe-need-god.html?showComment=1301850093998#c7407503256345730203
natschuster:
it seems that there have been mathematical problems with evolution for some time now.
That's an odd comment, what do you mean exactly?
It could be argued that a stone arch only has one piece. What about a three piece arch? Do any exist anywhere that formed naturally?
That's actually a very good point. Same applies for biology. From the IC viewpoint: What is the criterion for delimiting the parts of a biological system? What is the criterion for delimiting the system itself? How do you determine the intrinsic function of biological systems?
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteYou can determine the sequence of a protein by looking at the DNA the codes for it. And, it seems that the morphology of the organism is also determined by the DNA. In that sense, it is information.
And, to the best of my knowledge, iterative processes have some idea of the goal in mind or memory or storage. So they check each result against that goal, and keep the ones that are closest, then repeat the process. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Goexus:
I posted a link above to an article about how the biology department of Cambridge, ( or was it Oxford) is hiring mathematicians to stengthen evolution mathematically.
And you can see each part of a multipart system. Moreover, each part forms separately, then they come together. A single arch bridge just formed as a single arch. And I guess to determine the intrinsic function of a biological system you would look to see what it does. A mitochondria turns ADP into ATP. A flagellum spins.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteAnd, it seems that the morphology of the organism is also determined by the DNA. In that sense, it is information.
That's not the definition of information you gave above. ZOOM go the goalposts!
And, to the best of my knowledge, iterative processes have some idea of the goal in mind or memory or storage.
You ignored my question. Why doesn't RN+NS count as design?
Where does biological natural selection keep its goal in mind nat?
And you can see each part of a multipart system. Moreover, each part forms separately, then they come together.
That's not how embryos develop into viable animals nat. Your ability to toss out whatever nonsense sound good without doing the least bit of fact checking is truly amazing. Sad but amazing.
I recall saying that information is when something represents something else. DNA can be said to represent the proteins it codes for, and morphologies.
ReplyDeleteI meant to say that, to the best of my knowledge, computer generated genetic algorithms have some idea of the goal they are working towards. This is how they check the fitness of each iteration. Please correct me if I am wrong. This can't be the case with RN+NS.
And the proteins in, for example, a flagellum, are made separately then come together.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteI meant to say that, to the best of my knowledge, computer generated genetic algorithms have some idea of the goal they are working towards. This is how they check the fitness of each iteration. Please correct me if I am wrong. This can't be the case with RN+NS.
You still haven't answered the question nat.
Why doesn't RM+NS count as design?
Natural RM+NS works the same way as GAs do nat. The local environment supplies the 'filter' that determines which individuals survive to reproduce. That's the stored 'goal.'
If GAs count as design, why doesn't RM+NS count as design?
Depressing that a dim bulb like Nat is allowed to teach children.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it about time for a new post, Cornelius? You know we love you.
But RN+NS can only test what provides an immediate benefit. It can't evaluate what might be beneficial in the long term becuase there is no memory. GA, to the best of my knowledge GA work by testing results that approach the long term goal that is stored in memory.
ReplyDeleteAnd Troy, must I repeat the fact that my students had a pass rate on the NYS RCT's that was one standard deviation higher than the rest of the department. And I even had students pass Regents exams they couldn't read due to deep dyslexia. So I'm doing something right.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteBut RN+NS can only test what provides an immediate benefit. It can't evaluate what might be beneficial in the long term becuase there is no memory. GA, to the best of my knowledge GA work by testing results that approach the long term goal that is stored in memory.
Wrong. Each step in a GA also only tests what provides an immediate benefit. A GA has no long term plan. Like natural evolution a GA only knows about the existing generation. The only difference is that with a GA what qualifies as an 'immediate benefit' is more tightly constrained in the local environment than in natural evolution.
It's exactly same mechanisms at work in both processes.
You can't claim one as 'design' and not the other. So which is it nat? Both 'design' or both 'not design'?
natschuster
ReplyDeleteI posted a link above to an article about how the biology department of Cambridge, ( or was it Oxford) is hiring mathematicians to stengthen evolution[ary theory] mathematically.
So, what's your point? Is it a sign of bad thing going on? Do you think the same thing is not being done in every single field of biology?
And you can see each part of a multipart system. Moreover, each part forms separately, then they come together.
So you have a separate formation criterion. That's good, though it can lead to a regression from monomers to atoms and so forth (the lipid bilayer is not a "part"!), so its applicability is questionable. Also, note that Behe disagrees with you:
one must be careful not to identify one protein with one “part” of a biochemical machine. For example, genes coding for two proteins in one organism may be joined into a single gene in another. A single protein in one organism may be doing the jobs of several polypeptides in another. Or two proteins may combine to do one job (an example is the α- and β-subunits of tubulin, which together make microtubules, a “part” of the eukaryotic cilium).
(But he doesn't provide any clear criterion for recognising parts either, as his "job" is equally fuzzy)
And I guess to determine the intrinsic function of a biological system you would look to see what it does. A mitochondria turns ADP into ATP. A flagellum spins.
Biological systems do lots and lots of things. A mithochondrion also moves hydrogen protons and reduces oxygen, a flagellum turns ATP into ADP. Which are their "correct" functions?
And you left out the delimitation of biological systems!
Troy
ReplyDelete"Depressing that a dim bulb like Nat is allowed to teach children."
Why people have to do this?
Want me to mock you? I'm bad Christian, I have no problem.
Geoxus:
ReplyDeleteI was asked to explain why an stone arch is different than a bilogical system, even though they are irreducibly complex. A stone arch is one piece.
I guess we could say that we can define a function of a biological system by looking at the primary contribution it makes to an organism.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteI was asked to explain why an stone arch is different than a bilogical system, even though they are irreducibly complex. A stone arch is one piece.
More stupid semantic games from natschuster. What a surprise.
Many natural arches are formed from sandstone which is composed of billions of individual sand particles of varying sizes. Sandstone wasn't formed as 'one piece' like igneous rock but was deposited in multiple and usually distinct sedimentary layers. Take enough of the particles/layers away and the arch collapses.
If you try to define your problem away by claiming a sandstone arch is 'one piece' then by the same logic a flagellum is also 'one piece' and therefore not IC.
When will you learn your stupid little word games don't get you anywhere nat? Ever?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEugen:
ReplyDeleteWant me to mock you? I'm bad Christian, I have no problem.
I don't care. I'm guessing you're a Polish catholic (lack of articles). Fan of Giertych by any chance?
natschuster,
ReplyDeleteThorton asked that. I didn't ask you about stone archs, I asked you about biological systems. But if you want to make comparisons, it's obviously desirable to have criteria that are applicable for both kinds of systems.
I guess we could say that we can define a function of a biological system by looking at the primary contribution it makes to an organism.
That's not very helpful. It's not obvious what a "primary contribution" is.
For the record, I do not have a definition of iological function. Some biologists say that the function of a feature is what the feature was selected for (is that Engrish? sorry). I don't like that very much, but at least they do provide a provisional, workable definition. Though I'm afraid that definition is not available for you, as you're building an argument that is supposedly neutral to origins hypotheses.
Natschuster: I guess we could say that we can define a function of a biological system by looking at the primary contribution it makes to an organism.
ReplyDeleteNat,
Why is the primary contribution of anything necessary the indented contribution?
If I create something with a particular goal in mind, it may end up contributing much more in some other scenario or role than I had intended. As such, the primary contribution of anything need not necessarily equate with a designer's plan, should one actually be the cause.
Take Viagra, for example. The drug was originally studied for use in hypertension and angina (a specific symptom of heard disease). However, phase 1 clinical trials showed it had little effect on angina. Instead, it induced marked penile erections. As such, the drug's developer, Pfizer, decided to market it for erectile disfunction, rather than angina. The rest, as they say, is history.
This represents a clear example where the primarily contribution wasn't an intentionally designed outcome.
As such, it's unclear how you can use the primary contribution any biological system makes as the definition of design.
troy
ReplyDelete"I don't care. I'm guessing you're a Polish catholic (lack of articles)."
Very close...Croatian catholic. I guess my accent comes even through keyboard. :)
About mocking you or anybody else - never,just kidding.
"Isn't it about time for a new post, Cornelius? You know we love you."
Now this is a big question, where is the boss?
If you guys are going to argue about parts (or particles) of things, and the contribution of each part, you might want to consider that everything is made of parts. Even tiny things like atoms are made of parts, and if a part is removed the atom isn't the same thing and doesn't function the same way.
ReplyDeleteAnd when it comes to igneous rocks compared to sedimentary (or aeolian) rocks (like sandstone), they're both made up of parts. The main difference is how they're formed.
When an arch forms it forms from one piece of one block of stone that erodes. A flagellum forms from separate pieces that come together. And an arch functions as a arch whether it is many little particles cemented together, or one mass. A flagellum's function as a flagellum depends on the fact that it has different parts. They are different.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure at this point why I mentioned primary function. I thought sbout it, and it seems it isn't necessary. Biological systems function due to the integration of different parts. We don't see that too often outside of designed things.
nat,
ReplyDeleteThe whole point is that system reducibility depends on the way you divide the system into parts. You may think I'm fooling you, but this is actually not a straightforward issue. Remember what Behe said about confusing parts and proteins. Well, if you actually look at a single protein, an enzyme for example, you can find that discrete domains within it that do different "job" or have different "functions". So, what is the correct level of organisation for recognising parts, if there's a single one? Elliott Sober calls this the "wine bottle problem", if you ever bother reading one of his books.
We routinely break organisms apart into parts (pardon the redundancy) and systems, but we do so in order to describe and understand them. There is no warranty that we are doing a "natural" division in any sense. Organisms, ecosystems, and geochemical cycles are actually wholly integrated networks of parts (at every level) and interactions. Sorry, we need more than an appeal to gut feeling.
By the way, I'm still puzzled by your comment on math and evolution.
ReplyDeletenatschuster said...
ReplyDeleteWhen an arch forms it forms from one piece of one block of stone that erodes. A flagellum forms from separate pieces that come together. And an arch functions as a arch whether it is many little particles cemented together, or one mass. A flagellum's function as a flagellum depends on the fact that it has different parts. They are different.
But they are both irreducibly complex by Behe's own definition.
Simple fact is, IC structures can and do form through purely natural mechanisms with no guiding intelligence involved. This has been demonstrated in numerous real word example, like this one
Evolution Of Irreducible Complexity Explained
Using new techniques for resurrecting ancient genes, scientists have for the first time reconstructed the Darwinian evolution of an apparently "irreducibly complex" molecular system.
Nat, IC was trashed as an argument for ID years ago. Why are you still clinging to its smelly corpse?
This is from the category of "This can't be good for Darwinism":
ReplyDeleteAn essay by Steve Dilley from the Cambridge Journals (British journal of the History of Science) "examines Darwin's positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin's theological language about God's accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin's mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin's positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin's overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin's science."
Sounds like even Cambridge is now pegging Darwin's Origin of Species more accurately nowadays.
So what do you think guys? The countless rhetoric against CH by evolutionists on this blog were saying no, no, no to the connection between Darwin and theology.
So ladies and gentlemen of the church of Darwin, do you disagree with the British Journal of Historical Science also?
Tedford the Idiot said...
ReplyDeleteSo what do you think guys? The countless rhetoric against CH by evolutionists on this blog were saying no, no, no to the connection between Darwin and theology.
We think you're an idiot who can't read for comprehension and is still desperately grasping at any slim straw your pudgy little fingers can reach.
No one here ever said Darwin the man had no connection to theology. We keep pointing out CH's big canard that the theory of evolution is somehow not scientific but is really a religion. But you're too much of an idiot to comprehend the difference.
When will you be answering those questions about your Noah's Flood claims?
Eugen: Now this is a big question, where is the boss?
ReplyDeleteStill distancing yourself from that hot potato, it seems. Too hot for you?
An irreducibly thing that consists of one piece, like an arch is easier to make than a flagellum, which is irrecibly complex with 20 or so pieces.
ReplyDeletenatschuster: I'm not sure at this point why I mentioned primary function. I thought sbout it, and it seems it isn't necessary.
ReplyDeleteJust so I'm clear, you're retracting this part of your argument because *you* thought about it, after the fact?
natschuster: Biological systems function due to the integration of different parts. We don't see that too often outside of designed things.
But how do you know which of the things you see are actually designed?
We can simplify the above sentence as…
All designed systems function due to the integration of different parts.
However, this doesn't mean that all systems that function due to the integration of different parts are designed. This is a fallacious reasoning.
As such, it's unclear how you can say, "We don't see that too often outside of designed things." as the frequency depends on you knowing which things are actually designed in the first place.
Neal: This is from the category of "This can't be good for Darwinism":
ReplyDeleteDon't you mean the the category of "Neal thinks can't be good for Darwinism, so he conditionally accepts it as factual?"
Geoxus:
ReplyDeleteHere's the article:
http://www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/3498/RA%20in%20Mathematics_FPs.pdf.download
It says that population geneticists have doubts based on math that NS can optimize things.
Scott:
I don't think that all designed things function due to integration of parts, or even function at all. An arch can function with just one piece. But, IMHO all our experience with things designed or not indicates that to get functional integration of parts you need design. So the ruel would ne all things that function due to an integration of parts are designed.
Scott, do you disagree with this article from the British Journal of Historical Science? The article specifically examines the Origin of Species. The theology under discussion is not from personal letters of Darwin and such, but specifically about the book itself.
ReplyDeleteDo you disagree with the statement "The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin's science." ?
Do you feel like Origin of Species should be allowed in public classrooms because of it's theological content?
It's not that evolutionists aren't smart people, it's just that evolution isn't so.
ReplyDeleteThe attempts to disprove IC, such as co-option of pre-existing parts, or intermidiate forms with some function, are attempts to explain the appearance of design without actually coming onto design. That being the case, it still remains evidence (not proof) of design.
ReplyDeleteHow do genetic algorithms test fitness? I couldn't get a clear answeer from my research? Do they test how close each interation comes to the goal? Or how much closer one result is than the others?
ReplyDeleteThis is from the paper cited above:
ReplyDelete"The rest of this section gives some background as a shorter alternative to reading the four
papers given above. The concept of fitness optimization is routinely used by field biologists,
and first-year biology undergraduates are frequently taught that natural selection leads to
organisms that maximize their fitness. Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene (1976) promoted a
conceptual integration of modern evolutionary theory in which genes are viewed as
optimising agents, which is extremely influential and widespread today and encompasses
inclusive fitness theory and evolutionarily stable strategies as well as general optimality
ideas. However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads
to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in
itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. One underlying
cause is that the link between natural selection and fitness optimization is much more
sophisticated than the usual optimization principles associated with dynamical systems,
namely Lyapunov functions and gradient functions."
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteThe attempts to disprove IC, such as co-option of pre-existing parts, or intermidiate forms with some function, are attempts to explain the appearance of design without actually coming onto design. That being the case, it still remains evidence (not proof) of design.
No nat. It has been demonstrated beyond all doubt that natural processes with no intelligent guidance can produce biological IC structures. So merely finding an IC structure is NOT evidence of external conscious design.
Is there any area of science or reasoning that you aren't incompetent at?
Tedford the Idiot said...
ReplyDeleteIt's not that evolutionists aren't smart people, it's just that evolution isn't so.
You Tedford on the other hand are merely an idiot, which explains why you desperately cling to an idiotic idea like Intelligent Design Creationism.
Tell us about Noah's Flood again.
More from Dilley in the Cambridge article that examines the specific work of Darwin, Origin of Species:
ReplyDeleteIn the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):
1. Human begins are not justfied in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures.
4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function.
5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life.
8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
I love this quote in particular, "theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin's science."
Tedford the Idiot said...
ReplyDeleteMore from Dilley in the Cambridge article that examines the specific work of Darwin, Origin of Species:
Intelligent Design Creationism:
All Science So Far!
Scott: We can simplify the above sentence as: All designed systems function due to the integration of different parts.
ReplyDeletenatschuster: I don't think that all designed things function due to integration of parts, or even function at all.
Nat, I was referring to designed systems which exhibit function, not claiming that all designed things function.
natschuster: But, IMHO all our experience with things designed or not indicates that to get functional integration of parts you need design.
When you say "all our experience", you're still making the same fallacious argument. Including things not designed doesn't change this.
Neal: Scott, do you disagree with this article from the British Journal of Historical Science?
ReplyDeleteNeal, you've merely quoted a summary, which isn't sufficient to evaluate. Why are you providing commentary, rather than providing a link?
Neal: In the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):
Even if Darwin had been a Satan worshiper, this still wouldn't change the fact that his theory has been strongly collaborated by an overwhelming amount of evidence over the last 150 years.
Nor does this somehow vindicate CH's claims. What you need to show is Darwin's theological beliefs not only corrupted his ability to interpret evidence, but every other scientist since then, across multiple fields and disciplines.
Scott said...
ReplyDeleteEven if Darwin had been a Satan worshiper, this still wouldn't change the fact that his theory has been strongly collaborated by an overwhelming amount of evidence over the last 150 years.
Tedford the Idiot's latest lame attempt reminds me of the floundering of the DI's attack gerbil Casey Luskin. Over at UuncommonlyDense Luskin made a big stink about Darwin's admission that when he was a young boy Darwin was once mean to a puppy. To Casey and the rest of the IDiots that means 150 years' worth of scientific positive evidence for ToE must be wrong.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteHere's the link:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8269309&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S000708741100032X
---
The evidence for evolution is interpreted through the paradigm of Darwins theology. It only appears as evidence if one thinks within the same box. Any so-called evidence for evolution can be explained as good or better as the result of a Creator. If any specific evidence for evolution is looked at, one notices a couple things. First, if any specific evidence is falsified, evolution itself is not falsified. Evolution is not allowed to fail because exceptions are accommodated. Second, the interpretation of the evidence is subjective within the paradigm of Darwins theology.
It is interesting how Darwin in Origins promotes the concept that God started life... something that the new atheists and official academia will not tolerate today. Yet Origins proudly sits on their shelves. Apparently evolutionists today read Origins as well as they interpret evidence.
Neal said:
ReplyDelete"Yes, the great flood where only Noah and his family survived through the intervention of God."
I'm really wondering how any sane person past the age of about 12 can believe the story about Noah and the ark. I'm also wondering how anyone can think it's okay to believe in a god that not only condones incestuous behavior but creates the situation where incest is the only way to procreate (Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Noah and his family, etc.).
WHY do you religious people believe the garbage in the bible, and WHY do you push so hard for ID 'theory' to be accepted? What exactly is in it for you, or anyone else?
I'd still like an answer to this question too:
What if there is a designer and that designer is absolutely nothing like any of the gods humans have ever imagined, conjured up, worshiped, believed in, and promoted?
Neal, if or when any specific thing in christianity (or any other religion) is falsified, should the entire religion be considered falsified? Don't religions ever accommodate falsification of specific things? Can you honestly say that neither christianity nor any other religion has ever changed, adapted, evolved, or accommmodated? Can you honestly say that every christian agrees on the specifics of christianity? Can you honestly say that every adherent to every religion agrees on the specifics of their religion?
ReplyDeleteTedford the Idiot said...
ReplyDeleteFirst, if any specific evidence is falsified, evolution itself is not falsified.
That's because evolution doesn't depend on any one piece of evidence. Its strength comes from the consilience of millions of pieces of evidence.
Evolution is not allowed to fail because exceptions are accommodated.
How about that - science changes its understanding as new evidence becomes available. Tedford the Idiot stumbles upon the central theme of all science.
It is interesting how Darwin in Origins promotes the concept that God started life...
As always, the theory of evolution does not concern the origin of life. Will Tedford the Idiot ever grasp that distinction?
Apparently evolutionists today read Origins as well as they interpret evidence.
And Idiot pastors read only their Bible and think it is a scientific textbook.
The whole truth, do you take your blog name seriously?
ReplyDeleteIf you do, you may find the following link interesting as it makes a good case for Noah's flood to have not been a global flood...
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html
Tedford the Idiot said...
ReplyDeleteThe whole truth, do you take your blog name seriously?
If you do, you may find the following link interesting as it makes a good case for Noah's flood to have not been a global flood...
That's funny Tedford. Just a few days ago you were telling us about the GREAT FLOOD where everyone dies except Noah and kin, remember?
Tedfore the Idiot: Yes, the great flood where only Noah and his family survived through the intervention of God.
So which is it Tedford? A great flood that killed all life except for what was on the Ark, or a local flood that was incorporated into Xian mythology?
You can't have it both ways.
Part one:
ReplyDeleteNeal, should I not take it seriously? Are you suggesting that I haven't been honest?
Regarding the flood, Noah, etc.:
You suggested that Noah and his family were the only humans who survived the alleged flood. If it wasn't global, then why did only Noah and his family survive it? How do you know that anything that has ever been said or written about the alleged flood is correct, real, and true? Is there any evidence, besides passed down fairy tales?
It appears that you disagree with most christians in thinking that the alleged flood was local, not global. Why do you interpret the bible differently than most christians? Do you have evidence that will falsify their global interpretation? Do you have evidence that supports your particular interpretation? Actual evidence? Is your interpretation based solely on the definition of a few Hebrew words? Wasn't the bible written in Aramaic, or at least languages other than Hebrew, originally? Whichever the language, what verifies your interpretation?
Why do you care what some old book of fairy tales says? Why would you or anyone else waste a second of their life believing what some ancient goatherders believed and said? Or should I say allegedly said?
Ya know, even if the ToE is totally wrong, that doesn't make any of the ID claims right, and it also doesn't make any religious claims right. And why is it that you religious ID-ists avoid questions that pertain to your statements, claims, and beliefs? What is it that causes you to be so narrow minded?
One thing that's funny is when religious people claim that free will could only have come from their god, but they rarely, if ever, exercise that allegedly god-given free will. Instead, they act like mindless zombies who obediently follow orders and programmed doctrine (unless of course they want to get away with something that is contrary to that doctrine).
Are you going to waste your whole life believing in fairy tales? Wouldn't you like to be free of the BS some ancient goatherder thought up, and that delusional, controlling, greedy people have promoted ever since?
There is SO much to learn about nature. Why not get out there and see what you can find and learn? Why spend another second reading and swallowing what it says in some ridiculous bible or any other religious book? You'll never learn anything about nature by reading that junk, except that people can spin a good yarn.
Part two:
ReplyDeleteYou ID-ists apparently think that you're going to find testable, verifiable evidence of design in the bible or some other religious mumbo-jumbo. It ain't gonna happen. No amount of bible study is going to prove a damn thing.
IF there is or was a designer, you're not going to find it in a fairy tale. If you want your ID claims to be taken seriously, you're going to have to show a definitive, positive, specific way to find, test, and verify design. And if you want to convince science (and anyone sane) that your god is the designer, you're going to have to show actual evidence, not just fairy tale beliefs.
The ToE doesn't have all the answers, and there certainly are debatable claims made by some evolutionists, but at least the scientific endeavor to figure out evolution and the processes of life and origins is a serious attempt to understand and explain how everything came about and how it works. Religions just say their god-did-it, and that settles it!
Religious people are often afraid of research and discovery, because they apparently fear that anything new will falsify their beliefs. That fear says a lot about the way religious people think. When they're afraid of research and new discoveries, it must be because they don't feel confident about their beliefs and they realize that science is likely to find things that falsify those beliefs.
If it were up to many religious people, all scientific research would be stopped immediately so that their beliefs are protected from falsification. And even if that falsification is only possible, and not necessarily certain, it still scares the crap out of many religious people.
I can't imagine living my life based on fairy tales or the fear of them being falsified at any moment. I can't imagine living my life facing the overwhelming reality that my religious beliefs are just old fairy tales that are no more valid or verifiable than the flying spaghetti monster. I can't imagine wasting any of my life believing or believing IN a doctrine that is as hypocritical, monstrous, contradictory, inconsistent, confused, unrealistic, and just downright asinine and fake as christianity, and most or all of the other religions. I can't imagine living in fear of some imaginary god.
"It is interesting how Darwin in Origins promotes the concept that God started life... something that the new atheists and official academia will not tolerate today. Yet Origins proudly sits on their shelves."
ReplyDeleteIt's even more interesting that the bible says that god destroyed, slaughtered, plagued, and/or tortured people, plants, and animals on a massive scale, and that 'he' ordered or condoned the murder, destruction, stoning, burning, sacrifice, enslavement, and/or other abominable treatment of people and animals. And that he condones or orders people to wage 'war' on others, have incestuous sex and produce children, lay waste to the land and environment, erect temples or churches or whatever other monuments and idols, fear and worship him and his alleged son or suffer the horrible consequences in hell for eternity, and that it's just fine for 'him' to be a cruel, violent monster of gargantuan proportions, yet the bible sits proudly on the shelves, desk, tables, or laps of millions of so-called 'good' people. That's hardly something to be proud of.
How could any 'good' person worship such a despicable monster?
Oh, and whatever happened to ID having nothing to do with religion?
"Oh, and whatever happened to ID having nothing to do with religion?"
ReplyDeleteI think they've pretty much given up on all but the most cursory lip service to that idea. Note the sheer number of religion centric posts over at UD of late.
I suspect it's in part the result of their self imposed echo chamber. Anyone who suggests that ID is religious in nature is immediately banned. So they start to discuss the obvious logical connections between ID and religion, and there's no one left to remind them that they're not supposed to make those connections because ID is not supposed to be religious in nature.
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteA painting is found. It has characteristics of a Michelangelo. So some experts cite this as evidence that it is a Michelangelo. There are other explanations for the characteristics, such as a skilled forgery, but it still remains evidence of a Michelangelo.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteThorton:
A painting is found. It has characteristics of a Michelangelo. So some experts cite this as evidence that it is a Michelangelo. There are other explanations for the characteristics, such as a skilled forgery, but it still remains evidence of a Michelangelo.
natschuster sees a fluffy white cloud and thinks in looks like a sailboat. "See!!" nat tries to explain. "That puffy part looks like a sail to me, and that puffy part looks like a hull with a rudder to me. Since those parts are only found on designed sailboats, that cloud must be designed too!"
natschuster then wonders why no one takes his "logic" seriously.
Hey Scott
ReplyDelete" Now this is a big question, where is the boss?
Still distancing yourself from that hot potato, it seems. Too hot for you? "
Yes. I have no bollocks for that. We'll leave some questions for da experts.
Neal: Any so-called evidence for evolution can be explained as good or better as the result of a Creator.
ReplyDeleteIt could be that the earth is surrounded by a giant planetarium that merely generates an elaborate simulation of a heliocentric solar system. This includes bouncing back radar and photons, capturing space craft and returning them with just the right fuel missing, simulated telemetry and even fake memories of collecting fake moon rocks.
This could be occurring right now. Nor would be beyond God to do so should he choose. We cannot know with 100% certainty such a being that would generate a giant simulation of a heliocentric solar system does not exist. Who's to say what God would or would not do?
However, this is a convoluted elaboration of the theory that we actually live in a heliocentric solar system. As such, we discard it.
Why are these fields "scientific" while evolution is not?
Neal: First, if any specific evidence is falsified, evolution itself is not falsified.
We've gone over this before.
If the empirical claims of prophecy fail to be observed, the prophecy is false. However, evolutionary theory is not prophecy. It's not an empirical mandate.
The failure of a particular prediction does not necessitate that the underlying explanation is false. This is because scientific theories do not take into account a near infinite number of parallel but unrelated effects that could interfere with the prediction.
Apparently, you can't tell the difference.
If an alien species predicted our use of digital music players would be wide spread because we had reached a level of technology similar to their own, this theory would fail should they visit North Korea. This is not because our technical ability is not advanced enough to cheaply make digital music players, but because North Korea is under sanctions from the rest of the world and it's citizens are very poor due to it's depressed economy.
The theory of technical advancement does not take into account parallel, yet unrelated factors, such as fanatical dictators, world sanctions, etc. This exception has a cause, which explains the discrepancy. As such, it would no falsify the underline explanation for the appearance of digital music players elsewhere.
Neal: Second, the interpretation of the evidence is subjective within the paradigm of Darwins' theology.
See above. This is merely hand waving over a theory you personally find objectionable.
Neal: Apparently evolutionists today read Origins as well as they interpret evidence.
Again, even if Darwin had been a Satan worshiper, this still wouldn't change the fact that his theory has been strongly collaborated by an overwhelming amount of evidence over the last 150 years.
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between having something that looks like a characteristic, and actually having the characteristic.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteThorton:
There is a difference between having something that looks like a characteristic, and actually having the characteristic.
BINGO! We've only been trying to get that through your neutronium-dense skull for months now.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteAgain, the religion of Darwin the man is not being examined in the article in the Cambridge journal, it was the Origin of Species. Origin of Species is accepted as a science book even though it employs theology.
It is ironic that ID theory doesn't front-end load itself with theology, but the theory of evolution does. ID theory has a narrow scope to detect characteristics of intelligent design, such as functional information.
Meanwhile evolutionists go on and on about "if God designed nature then why... is there inefficiency in such and such, waste, evil, suffering, parasites".
Furthermore the evolutionist employs a narrow view of what a designer is allowed to do, finds evidence outside this narrow view and concludes that it is positive evidence for evolution.
For example from the Cambridge article examining Origin of Species:
- A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
- A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures.
- God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function.
This kind of theology still forms the basis of evolutionists today and we see it in writings of Dawkins, Coyne, and many others. When evolutionists on this blog get emotional they often end up talking about parasites and laryngeal nerves.
ID theory employs none of this.
Tedford the Idiot said...
ReplyDeleteID theory employs none of this.
What ID "theory" would that be Tedford? Last time I checked there wasn't any ID theory. There is only wild religiously-based and totally unsupported ID speculation.
Was the Noah's Flood global or local Tedford? Why are you running away from that direct contradiction you made?
Neal Tedford:
ReplyDelete"It is ironic that ID theory doesn't front-end load itself with theology, but the theory of evolution does. ID theory has a narrow scope to detect characteristics of intelligent design, such as functional information."
===
Well to be fair, the ID movement does have the same burden of proof problem that the Evos have in the where and how of origins forward game. Of course Evolutionists will never provide a proper and reasonable dirt watching experiment and the IDists or Creationists can never use their intelligence to create life in a lab either. It's at this point in time impossible. No one(an IDist) can ABSOLUTELY tell us for any certainty just what a creator did in a step by step procedure to bring about life from non-life. Job chapters 38 thru 41 bare this out. Just as the Evolutionist can NEVER give a proper scientific method example of sterile dirt and other chemcials and physics turning dirt from non-life to life, even tho they use massive amounts of Intelligent Designing in trying to accomplishing this task.
IDism's other problem if it wants to be neutral still cannot avoid the question of just what or who the creator is. Which god from among mankind will they identify ??? As we all know, the proponants of IDism are for the most part claiming to be Christian and it is impossible to separate various denomenational takes on just how it all happened way back when.
Ultimately these wasted debates here are nothing more than usual tired old resentful individuals who've got issues with accountability and irritations with definitions of morality and it will no doubt continue this way until Kingdom come. In the mean time you're wasting your time with people who continue to equivocate and burden shift on you even though they're the one's with the original beef and burden of proof which has yet to be satisfactorily proven beyond faith statements and insults.
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteOrganisms have the characetristics of designed things. Clouds that resemble ships only look like they have the characteristics of designed things.
Don't evoltutionists say, for example, if two proteins look similar, then they must have evolved from a common ancestor? Maybe they just look alike.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteThorton:
Organisms have the characetristics of designed things
Only superficially based on your ignorance based opinion, not in the view of scientists who actually study living organisms.
You still haven't demonstrated that the characteristics you attribute to designed things are in fact only found in designed things BTW.
No matter how many times you repeat "gee, it looks designed to me!", your subjective opinions will never be positive evidence.
natschuster,
ReplyDeleteIt says that population geneticists have doubts based on math that NS can optimize things.
The issue seems to be very nuanced. I'll check some references and answer you back tomorrow.
Don't evoltutionists say, for example, if two proteins look similar, then they must have evolved from a common ancestor? Maybe they just look alike.
ReplyDeleteMaybe. But the likelihood of the independent formation of higly similar protiens is orders of magnitude lower than the likelihood of getting those similarities from common origin. Sadly, there is simply no way to test common design under the vage terms of ID. Not even qualitatively.
Neal: It is ironic that ID theory doesn't front-end load itself with theology, but the theory of evolution does. ID theory has a narrow scope to detect characteristics of intelligent design, such as functional information.
ReplyDeleteNeal,
Which leads me back to the implications I mentioned earlier.
If we take your clams seriously, in that they are true in reality and that all observations should conform to them, this presents an implied theory. However, we do not see observations that collaborates this implied theory. That's just what the designer must have wanted.
For example….
- A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
If the claim of design is true, in reality, the implied claim is that God WOULD create new limbs from a common pattern, because that's exactly what we observe. But ID fails to provide a good explanation as to why this would be the case. That's just what the designer must have wanted.
- A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures.
- God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function.
If the claim of design is true, in reality, the implied claim is that God WOULD create biological structure that are inefficient, overly complex etc, because this is what we observe. But ID fails to provide a good explanation as to why this would be the case. That's just what the designer must have wanted.
In the absence of such explanations, ID represents a convoluted elaboration of evolutionary theory. As such we discard it.
Eocene said, "Well to be fair, the ID movement does have the same burden of proof problem that the Evos have in the where and how of origins forward game.... No one(an IDist) can ABSOLUTELY tell us for any certainty just what a creator did in a step by step procedure to bring about life from non-life."
ReplyDelete--
I don't see in ID or Creationist literature an attempt to determine the step by step procedure. To my knowledge that is out of scope. At most, Creationists say that God created by His Logos (words, plans). ID theorists look to identify properties of design, like functional information and the probabilities and limits of mutations causing functional changes to enzymes.
I really don't follow you as far as why ID theorists can't avoid who the specific designer is in their research. For sure ID theorists as well as all of mankind have a personal decision as to what they believe about God. Even choosing not to make a decision is a decision too. Identifying intelligent design definitely has implications, but detecting design is not fundamentally a religous endeavor any more than determining that an arrow head found in a field was designed.
Evolutionists say it looks designed, but don't be deceived by appearances. Yet they are unable to provide a scientific explanation... just trust us. ID theorists and creationists say it looks designed because it was designed. ID theorists say that the best explanation for the origin of functional information is an intelligent being. That is certainly a reasonable inference... one that carries no front-end assumtions of theology. If not, then please correct me as to what the assumption is.
Neal: I don't see in ID or Creationist literature an attempt to determine the step by step procedure.
ReplyDeleteWhich is precisely the problem. ID's goal isn't to explain how God did it, as this would be impossible by definition. Instead, ID's goal is to drive a wedge into science that represents a boundary where human reassigning an problem solving cannot pass.
To quote the Discovery Institute's Wedge document, one the governing goals of ID is to…
- To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and [human] beings are created by God.
It doesn't get any clearer than this. Materialistic explanations are to be defeated and replaced with theistic understanding. The boundary which human reassigning and problem solving cannot pass is to be drawn here.
Its been over a month since Dr. Hunter's last post. There's only one reasonable explanation; he has fought monsters and gazed into the abyss for too long. The abyss gazed back, and now Dr. Cornelius Hunter is Darwinist.
ReplyDeleteScott said, "Which is precisely the problem. ID's goal isn't to explain how God did it, as this would be impossible by definition. Instead, ID's goal is to drive a wedge into science that represents a boundary where human reassigning an problem solving cannot pass."
ReplyDelete--
The Wedge document was from the Center for the renewal of science and culture which is part of Discovery Institute, a policy think tank founded in 1990. From what I know of the Disovery Institute, its fellows think that the evidence for intelligent design is consistent with creation by God. So we have scientists who have made the implication from intelligent design that there is a God.
Sounds good to me! I arrived at the same conclusion back in the 1970's! As have people for thousands of years. I was an evolutionist who simply trusted the evolutionists until I looked at things for myself. Once a person can see and accept the obvious design in nature, the implications of there being a God are not far.
Look at it this way... for ID, the horse is the evidence, the cart is the wedge document or theology. For Darwin and the Origin of Species, the horse is theology, the cart is the theory of evolution. That's the difference.
Neal: The Wedge document was from the Center for the renewal of science and culture which is part of Discovery Institute, a policy think tank founded in 1990.
ReplyDeleteNeal,
I'm quite aware of the Wedge document's origin. Did you know it took three years before they acknowledge their role in authoring it? Why would it take that long?
However, I'm specifically referring to a specific goal listed in it's contents, which I quoted above. Care to address this issue?
Neal: From what I know of the Disovery Institute, its fellows think that the evidence for intelligent design is consistent with creation by God. So we have scientists who have made the implication from intelligent design that there is a God.
I'm also quite aware of the cast of characters at the DI and their involvement in ID.
Did you know that these same fellows were scheduled to testify under oath retarding ID at the the Dover 2005 trial? Did you know that three of the five backed out a few days before the trial and had already sumbitted expert witness reports? In fact, the DI had hoped for years of a chance to get "darwinists" on the stand and had prepared legal arguments for just such an occasion. Only the two DI witness which had already been deposed, remained.
So, why did they bail at the last minute?
ID had been recently handed a significant blows in Ohio, Kansas and elsewhere and the school board's presentation of ID was interpreted as a liability by the Discovery Institute.
Furthermore, they had seen previous of evidence and testimony that would have clearly put their position at risk. For example, ID fellow William A. Dembski serves as the Academic Editor for the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, which published the book, Of Panda's and People, which was central to the case. The DI discovered which documents had been subpoenaed and realized this connection would be a significant liability.
You can find more about the Discovery Institute's “Vise Strategy” and how it came undone, here and here.
Neal: Look at it this way... for ID, the horse is the evidence, the cart is the wedge document or theology. For Darwin and the Origin of Species, the horse is theology, the cart is the theory of evolution. That's the difference.
Neal,
Repeating this over and over won't make it any more true. In fact, you've clearly illustrated your acceptance of scientific conclusions hinges on your perception that it supports your religious beliefs. You'll appeal to them in an argument, yet deny they have any impact or present an implicit theory should they actually be true, in reality.
Natschuster: Organisms have the characetristics of designed things. Clouds that resemble ships only look like they have the characteristics of designed things.
ReplyDeleteNat,
You've merely made an assertion.
How do you differentiate between actually having the characteristics of designed things and merely having the appearance of the characteristics designed things?
Natschuster: Don't evoltutionists say, for example, if two proteins look similar, then they must have evolved from a common ancestor? Maybe they just look alike.
Nat,
It's much more than two individual proteins merely looking alike. It's the specific characteristics these proteins share and they specific ways they differ. It's how these characteristics also relate with other related proteins, which are related to even more proteins, etc, which fit that into a complex pattern.
So, no, it's not merely cosmetic.
Blogger is back! Hooray! Funny this happened the very same week Google introduced the product that's supposed to kick off the real cloud computing revolution. Let's hope the updates actually improved things like the comment system.
ReplyDeleteI posted a comment promising natschuster an answer for yesterday. It seems like it was obliterated. Here it is at last.
It says that population geneticists have doubts based on math that NS can optimize things.
I am not capable of evaluating the complex math around this issue, but there has certainly been a debate on whether NS can be generally modelled as an optimisation process. This is part of the larger adaptationism debate. Another aspect of it questions the approach of assuming trait optimisation in the first place. So, perhaps NS cannot optimise biological traits (but perhaps it can, look up for Grafen and Gardner's work on this), but it's not clear that most features are optimised, aside from the effects of constraints!
More on the adaptationism debate:
http://www.illc.uva.nl/~seop/entries/adaptationism/
http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/~bill/teaching/philbio/readings/godfrey-smith.adaptationandpowerofselection.1999.pdf
Geoxus:
ReplyDeleteA cloud that looks like a ship might have something that looks like a sail, but it doesn't function lke a sail. It might have something that looks like a rudder, but it doesn't function as a rudder. A flagellum functios like an outboard motor. A mitchondria functions liek a nanotech nattery factory. DNA function like a neat little information processing machine. I guess we can differentiate by looking at function.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteA cloud that looks like a ship might have something that looks like a sail, but it doesn't function lke a sail. It might have something that looks like a rudder, but it doesn't function as a rudder. A flagellum functios like an outboard motor.
No nat, a flagellum doesn't function anything like a human produced outboard motor at all except in the most superficial 'produced propulsion'. Your woeful ignorance and reliance on ID propaganda is showing again.
A mitchondria functions liek a nanotech nattery factory. DNA function like a neat little information processing machine.
Only in the most incredibly superficial of manners. Sadly for the IDiots, science goes way beyond the shallow non-scientific "looks designed to me".
I guess we can differentiate by looking at function.
A lawn sprinkler and a rain shower both function to water my backyard grass nat. Does that mean rain clouds are designed?
A flagellum has lots of parts like an outboard motor. So does a mitochondria. A cloud doesn't need parts to water you lawn.
ReplyDeletenatschuster said...
ReplyDeleteA flagellum has lots of parts like an outboard motor. So does a mitochondria. A cloud doesn't need parts to water you lawn.
LOL! So now you've changed your story from "we tell design by function" to "we tell design by number of parts".
Tell us nat since you're making this nonsense as you go, how many 'parts' must an object possess before you declare it 'designed'?
Is a boomerang designed nat? How many parts does a boomerang have?
natschuster,
ReplyDeleteYou're talking about differentiation of parts? Well, you're just repeating what Behe said, different parts do different "job" (have different functions). But that still doesn't work because the functions you see in the system will depend in how do you break the system apart. As I said, an enzyme serves a function at the macromolecular level, working as a single part, but that function can be described as the output of many functions executed by different domains within the enzyme.
And, let's not forget, you have not provided an applicable criterion for identifying biological function yet!
This is just the tip of the iceberg of problems for the irreducible complexity argument.
*different "jobs"
ReplyDeleteBy the way nat, I'd like to know your conclusions on the points you raised previously here.
-Do you understand now the mechanisms for eukaryote LGT?
-Do you understand what Grafen meant about mathematical population genetics and optimisation? Do you think it is a problem for the factuality of evolution?
Geoxus
ReplyDelete"As I said, an enzyme serves a function at the macromolecular level, working as a single part, but that function can be described as the output of many functions executed by different domains within the enzyme"
Correct.
You have been nice to us so I'll show you one of my little projects.( but not to Thorton :))
I have to visualize process to understand it.
Poly III
Now I understand it.
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteI guess I wasn't clear. We tell design by function and the presense of different parts. IC, SC, stuff like that.
A boomerang is designed. So not all designed things have different parts. But all our experience shows us that all things that function due to different parts are designed.
Geoxus:
I understand you to be saying that things like the flagellum may cease to function as a flagellum when even a part of a protein is removed. So it is still irreducbly complex. It just has more parts.
And I guess we could say that a biological function is something that contributes to the continued existance of an organism as an individual or a species.
And I'm still not clear on the mechanisms for LGT in eukaryotes. One mechanism I found was endosymbiosis. But that wouldn't help getting fungus gene into an aphid.
ReplyDelete