A Smoke Screen
A common response from evolutionists, when presented with evidence such as this, is that we still don’t understand biology very well. This argument from ignorance goes all the way back to Darwin. He used it in Chapter 6 of Origins to discard the problem of evolving the electric organs in fish, such as the electric eel (which isn’t actually an eel). The Sage from Kent agreed that it is “impossible to conceive by what steps these wondrous organs” evolved, but that was OK, because “we do not even know of what use they are.”
Setting aside the fact that Darwin’s argument from ignorance was a non-scientific fallacy, it also was a set up for failure. For now, a century and half later, we do know “what use they are.” And it has just gotten worse for evolution.
Darwin’s argument has been demolished, once again demonstrating that arguments from ignorance, aside from being terrible arguments, are not good science.
The truth is, when evolutionists today claim that the many problems with their chance theory are due to a lack of knowledge, they are throwing up a smoke screen.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
"...once again demonstrating that arguments from ignorance, aside from being terrible arguments, are not good science."
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean you are now willing to develop and test ID hypotheses about the mechanism employed to realize the "design", and the nature of the designer?
Does this mean you are now willing to develop and test ID hypotheses about the mechanism employed to realize the "design", and the nature of the designer?
DeleteThat doesn't have anything to do with ID. ID is about the design. Everything else comes after.
According to Joke ID-Creationism has the same explanatory value as saying "MAGIC!". IDC is just as testable and falsifiable as magic too.
DeleteJoke: "That doesn't have anything to do with ID. ID is about the design. Everything else comes after."
DeleteGR: "IDC is just as testable and falsifiable as magic too. "
Actually, if they hypothesized about the nature of the designer and the mechanisms she uses to realize the design, it would be testable and falsifiable. But, if I developed a concept that I knew was just a lame attempt to introduce religion into the science class, I would avoid these questions as well.
Dr. Michael Ruse, from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Guelph in Ontario, is a philosopher of science, particularly of the evolutionary sciences. He is the author of several books on Darwinism and evolutionary theory and in an article in the National Post he wrote:
DeleteEvolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
The University of Guelph is not known for its research in evolution, and even less for its philosophy work.
DeleteThe Ruse quote is a well known dishonestly quote-mined one taken from a book review of Sagan's Demon Haunted World back in 2000. Ruse got so tired of creationists dishonestly quote mined him he wrote a Huffington Post article about it in 2011.
DeleteRuse: "So the answer to the question “Is Darwinism a religion?” is varied, interesting and insightful. But I bet a million dollars that for the next 10 years it will be the first paragraph and only the first paragraph of this piece that will be quoted and requoted by those who are more interested in using my words for their own ends rather than for understanding what I am really trying to say."
Ruse source
WS:
DeleteActually, if they hypothesized about the nature of the designer and the mechanisms she uses to realize the design, it would be testable and falsifiable.
We first have to determine design exists. We don't care about the nature of the designer until then.
ID makes testable hypotheses with respect to the DESIGN. And the way to falsify the design inference is to show natural, as opposed to artificial, processes can produce what we say is designed.
The process to arrive at the design inference is as described by Newton and followed by investigators everywhere. It includes eliminating necessity and chance explanations.
To falsify the design inference in biology all you have to do is step up and show t5hat natural selection and drift are all that is required. The problem is no one can do so.
William,
ReplyDelete"The University of Guelph is not known for its research in evolution, and even less for its philosophy work."
I am extremely disappointed, William. You know this is not a valid response as it in no way addresses the comments of Ruse. This is nothing more than a text book example of a Genetic Fallacy. Address the comment, not its source.
As an update, Dr. Ruse is now on the faculty of Florida State University where he teaches in the area of the Philosophy and History of Science.
Nic, actually I said this more as a dig at myself. I have two degrees from Guelph.
DeleteHowever, Ruse is full of shit. I have never met a scientist who wasn't passionate about their subject and felt that their subject is more important than others.
Well it rang true as far as being a religion in the sense that evolution depends on miracles (events that defy natural laws) from the very beginning. Or as Ghost says MAGIC!
DeleteWilliam,
ReplyDelete"I have never met a scientist who wasn't passionate about their subject and felt that their subject is more important than others."
This still does not address Ruse's comments. I don't believe Ruse's comments apply to all adherents of evolutionary thought but I do believe it applies to a large number of them, certainly the vast majority who profess atheism along with their adherence to evolution. If you're an atheist Darwinian evolution is the only game in town.
Nic: "If you're an atheist Darwinian evolution is the only game in town."
DeleteNot true. You can be a atheist and believe in creationism or intelligent design just there is no need for gods but aliens did it.
Take here as a example: Intelligent Design for Atheists - The Raelian Movement.
True the Raelians became a religion or a sect but nevertheless you can still believe in other theories of creation of life and still be a atheist for example those who believe that aliens did it.
Lukas,
Delete"Not true. You can be a atheist and believe in creationism or intelligent design just there is no need for gods but aliens did it."
So if aliens did it, where did the aliens come from. Did they evolve spontaneously or were they the result of special creation?
All you do with this line of reasoning is push the problem further down the line, you do not address it.
Nic: "All you do with this line of reasoning is push the problem further down the line, you do not address it."
DeleteNic, not if you are talking about the origin and evolution of life on earth. Which, after all, is anything we can talk about with some level of evidence. If Cornelius had allowed my last comment through, you would understand.
But if you are talking about pushing the problem further down the line, isn't that exactly what ID does? Proposes a designer but refuses to answer any question about the nature of the designer (God? Not God? Physical?...), or the mechanisms used to realize the design.
Nic
DeleteSo if aliens did it, where did the aliens come from. Did they evolve spontaneously or were they the result of special creation?
All you do with this line of reasoning is push the problem further down the line, you do not address it.
Thanks for agreeing with what science has been pointing out about the ID movement for the last 15 years. ID isn't science because logically it always leads back to supernatural creation.
Nic: "So if aliens did it, where did the aliens come from. Did they evolve spontaneously or were they the result of special creation?"
DeleteThe same can be told about god or gods who made them? The answer that god always was is nonsense the same can be said about aliens. The Raelians who claims that aliens made us claim that there are a endless number of aliens who created other aliens until it came to us. We will according to them create also life and this life will then create other life etc. in a cycle of life.
Other atheists who believe we were created believe then these aliens evolved that is another possibility.
I hope this answers your questions. Second I am NOT a Raelian I am just pointing out that the designer can be even aliens and that atheists can also believe in Intelligent Design or other theories or versions of creations besides evolution.
Lukas,
Delete"The same can be told about god or gods who made them?"
No, it cannot, as can be recognised by even the most basic understanding of philosophy and logic.
Everything which begins to exist has a cause. As the universe is known to have begun to exist, it follows it has a cause. Logic demonstrates the need for there to be a cause which did not begin to exist, otherwise you fall into the trap of infinite regression where nothing could ever begin to exist due to the fact all causes throughout the regression would require a previous cause. Therefore, logic demands there be a first cause which is itself uncaused, ie, God.
"atheists can also believe in Intelligent Design or other theories or versions of creations besides evolution."
Atheists are ultimately driven by their philosophy and their logic to believe life arose from non-life, there is no escaping that.
I fixed it for you Nic: "Theists are ultimately driven by their philosophy and their logic to believe life arose from God, there is no escaping that."
DeleteI believe that makes more logical sense than your original statement.
Evolutionary theory has changed over the years as new evidence has arisen. That is how science works. Theism only changes when the evidence is so overwhelmingly convincing that they have no choice. But even then, they never say that the scriptures were wrong. Rather, they twist themselves in knots to explain how the writings are still correct.
WS
Delete"Evolutionary theory has changed over the years as new evidence has arisen. That is how science works. Theism only changes when the evidence is so overwhelmingly convincing that they have no choice. But even then, they never say that the scriptures were wrong. Rather, they twist themselves in knots to explain how the writings are still correct."
I will believe this when the theory of universal common descent is officially shelved.
William,
Delete"Theism only changes when the evidence is so overwhelmingly convincing that they have no choice."
I hate to be the one to break the news to you but science has not yet discovered anything to contradict the theistic position. In fact, the more we learn the more the theistic position is supported :)
Granted, some scientists may interpret some evidence in a way they think refutes theism, but that is not the same as the science actually refuting theism. There is nothing in the field of science which can be used to prove the theist wrong, sorry.
As such, my statement does not require any correction, but thank you for your effort.:)
BC: "I will believe this when the theory of universal common descent is officially shelved."
DeletePropose a theory that better explains the evidence and it will be. Do you have one in mind?
Nic: "I hate to be the one to break the news to you but science has not yet discovered anything to contradict the theistic position."
DeleteAt one time it was theistic "fact" that the sun moon and stars revolved around the earth. At one time it was theistic "fact" that Noah put two of every animal on a boat. At one time it was theistic "fact" that Adam and Eve were the first humans and that incest is a sin (how did that work?). At one time it was theistic "fact@ that homosexuality was a sin and was to be punished by death.
William,
Delete"At one time it was theistic "fact" that the sun moon and stars revolved around the earth."
No, this was a scientific belief which was countered by a Christian scientist named Copernicus.
"At one time it was theistic "fact" that Noah put two of every animal on a boat."
And nothing has come forth to disprove this belief other than credulity. It has been shown to be credible via such sciences as genetics and geology. In fact, geology up until the 17th century was based on the belief the Earth's features came about via catastrophic events such as would be produced by a world wide flood. Geology is again headed in that direction.
"At one time it was theistic "fact" that Adam and Eve were the first humans and that incest is a sin (how did that work?)."
That worked out fine and genetics is increasingly headed towards that conclusion. As for incest, it was not condemned by God until later.
"At one time it was theistic "fact@ that homosexuality was a sin and was to be punished by death."
It still is a sin but a sin covered by the forgiveness of Christ's atonement and no longer punishable by death.
Hope that clarifies things a little bit. :)
Nic wrote: "Everything which begins to exist has a cause. As the universe is known to have begun to exist, it follows it has a cause. Logic demonstrates the need for there to be a cause which did not begin to exist, otherwise you fall into the trap of infinite regression where nothing could ever begin to exist due to the fact all causes throughout the regression would require a previous cause. Therefore, logic demands there be a first cause which is itself uncaused, ie, God."
DeleteThe problem with this Nick is what is this God? It can be even Gods, ancient Greeks used the same argument as you did that everything has a cause. It can be aliens - we could be living in a Matrix world. Nic the problem here is that you believe that your God made it but that does not mean its true. Even if Intelligent Design was true or some intelligent/Deistic Evolution ala Catholic Christians was true we cannot tell who or what is the designer and here comes the faith in which is not science because every religion will claims its their god or gods.
That everything has a cause claim has some problems and I personally do not believe it: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_first_cause#Problems
This is all I have to say to this. Thanks for the replies Nic and I wish you a nice day.
Lukas,
Delete"ancient Greeks used the same argument as you did that everything has a cause."
Of course they did as that is what their observation and logic demonstrated.
"that you believe that your God made it but that does not mean its true."
Nope, but your belief he did not make 'it' does not make it untrue. As such, we are probably stalled at the point of agreeing to disagree. Hope you have a nice day as well. :)
It's been a while but funny to see the same arguments restated again and again.
DeleteI see a problem with how science recognizes evidence. This whole idea that only 'scientific' evidence exists or has real value is a mistake. There is historical evidence. The historical evidence of Jesus, including his crucifixion and resurrection, is hugely abundant. The evidence of miracles witnessed by people and documented by, in some cases, medical doctors. The evidence of design is so strongly implied by life itself that every claim of a spontaneous arrival of life rings hollow and silly to anyone willing to look at the 'evidence'. The existence of consciousness defies any scientific explanation. Even crude theories are difficult.
In short, the haughty appeals to logic from the evolutionist fall short of achieving any coherent logic. Total reliance on 'scientific' evidence has left science unqualified and incapable of answering the questions that are born of evolutionary theory. The reason I enjoy reading Dr. Hunter's blog is he is so very good at pointing out that deficiency.
ohandy1: "I see a problem with how science recognizes evidence. This whole idea that only 'scientific' evidence exists or has real value is a mistake. There is historical evidence."
DeleteAre you suggesting that historic evidence is not scientific? That might come as a surprise to many.
WS, I do think 'science' discounts historical evidence when it doesn't fit into the 'science box'. There are many very well documented accounts of miraculous events including healing. There are many thousands more with corroborating witness accounts. Yet, none are acknowledged by 'science'.
DeleteThe idea that evolutionary theory is true because no other theory of sufficient scientific quality can be produced is an example of hubris on the part of the scientific community. The idea that a heavily flawed theory should be universally accepted and preached due to lack of 'scientific' competition is.. well, silly on its face. it's an illogical argument.
Yet that's exactly the argument i read in these comments all the time. Creation isn't viable because there's no 'scientific evidence'. There's no math to it.
There is every reason to believe everything was designed. The inferences are near limitless and evolutionists use these very inferences to create ToE, that is, when something looks obviously designed, they pursue an alternate explanation. An argument used against creation is the inability to examine it. True, creation would be outside our current science. But the idea that such a creative force (God) cannot exist outside of 'science' is, again, hubris.
Before the argument goes to 'you can believe what you want', i'm talking about the unwillingness of the scientific community (namely academia) to acknowledge that evolutionary theory is deeply flawed in its explanatory power. 'Science' denies any validity to creationism without cause (beyond pride) and grants validity to evolution without ever acknowledging its flaws.
Evolution cannot be reproduced at sufficient levels to be proven any more than God can be examined under a microscope. What makes evolutionary theory superior to creationism? Why is one academically accepted and the other rejected? To quote the OP "we still don’t understand biology very well" is the typical excuse for evolution. Why wouldn't that also work for God? "We still don’t understand GOD very well" could easily accomplish the same thing for the creation argument.
So I restate that I perceive a problem in science in that it doesn't acknowledge evidence that exists outside itself. If it did, evolution would face stiff competition for believability.
ohandy1: "WS, I do think 'science' discounts historical evidence when it doesn't fit into the 'science box'."
DeleteThis is simply not true. It handles historic evidence the same way that we would handle contemporary evidence. 500 independently documented accounts of a "miracle" will be given more credence that a single documented account of 500 people witnessing a miracle (e.g., flying priest). Physical evidence will be given more weight than documented evidence.
"There are many very well documented accounts of miraculous events including healing."
And there have been many very well documented examples of mass hallucinations. And many examples of the placebo effect. But watching Peter Popoff heal people on TV is not convincing at all.
"The idea that evolutionary theory is true because no other theory of sufficient scientific quality can be produced is an example of hubris on the part of the scientific community."
Well, since nobody has said that evolutionary theory is true, I don't think that I have to respond to this.
"The idea that a heavily flawed theory should be universally accepted and preached due to lack of 'scientific' competition is.. well, silly on its face. it's an illogical argument."
I completely agree with you.
"Yet that's exactly the argument i read in these comments all the time. Creation isn't viable because there's no 'scientific evidence'. There's no math to it."
Would it make you feel better if I said that creation isn't viable because there is no evidence that stands up to scrutiny?
"True, creation would be outside our current science. But the idea that such a creative force (God) cannot exist outside of 'science' is, again, hubris."
Why would creation necessarily be outside our current science. Anything that has an affect on the natural world can be examined scientifically. That is where the importance of developing hypotheses about the mechanisms used to realize the design come into play.
And nobody has said tat God can't exist.
"What makes evolutionary theory superior to creationism? Why is one academically accepted and the other rejected?"
For the same reason that the big bang theory is far superior to the Genesis explanation. The BBT is supported by copious amounts of evidence and is testable. Genesis is not.
"To quote the OP "we still don’t understand biology very well" is the typical excuse for evolution.
It is an honest description, not an excuse. Yet, in spite of this, every new piece of research, every new piece of evidence has invariably led to refinements of the theory, but there has been no knock-out blow that would suggest that the theory is absolutely wrong.
Why wouldn't that also work for God?"
It would if you could provide an increasing body of research and evidence to support your theory. Identifying the weaknesses in evolutionary theory and having a wet dream every time two scientists disagrees does absolutely nothing for the advancement of ID. Doing actual science would.
"So I restate that I perceive a problem in science in that it doesn't acknowledge evidence that exists outside itself."
It certainly acknowledges all of the evidence provided. Whether or not the evidence for ID is considered valid or relevent is the fault of the evidence being used, not the science.
"If it did, evolution would face stiff competition for believability."
And if it gave equal credence to leprechauns, the Norse Gods, North American creation myths and Santa Clause, it would also face stiff competition, as would creationism. But, thankfully, we weigh each piece of evidence available for its credibility before we develop models to explain things.
William,
Delete"But if you are talking about pushing the problem further down the line, isn't that exactly what ID does?"
Not at all, ID proposes a logical source for the origin of life, not some vague event somewhere in the distant past which was itself the result of some unknown past event and on and on, ad nauseum.
As for the nature of the designer that is clearly laid out in the Bible, at least from a Christian perspective. However, not all those who adhere to ID look at the designer from that perspective.
A detailed understanding of a mechanism is not necessary to demonstrate the logic of the ID perspective. Evolution has proposed RM/NS which has been shown to be totally ineffective but that does not seem to dampen the belief of evolutionists. They still cling to a failed mechanism believing somehow that simply proposing a mechanism justifies their position.
Nic: "Evolution has proposed RM/NS which has been shown to be totally ineffective but that does not seem to dampen the belief of evolutionists."
DeleteHi Nic. I hope you are enjoying the Christmas season.
But, with respect, we both know that evolution is far more than just RM/NS (HGT, transposition, gene duplication, sexual reproduction, polyploidy, drift, to name just a few). They all contribute to the variation that selection can act on.
"Not at all, ID proposes a logical source for the origin of life,..."
It would be hard to argue that 'God-did-it' is a logical argument. That approach is the ultimate pushing the problem down the line (or up the line).
At least you are honest in your belief that God is the designer. We both know that many other ID proponents (if not all) also believe this but would never state it publically. And we both know the reason for this.
William,
Delete"Hi Nic. I hope you are enjoying the Christmas season."
You as well. I'm starting to get in the mood. My wife is always ahead of me on this one, and many others, to be honest. It appears it will be a hectic time this year with family getting more spread out. Our son graduated from the RCMP academy in Regina in August and was posted a couple of hours to the west. Trying to arrange a time when everyone is available is tricky. Also starting to plan the annual ski trip to Jasper. :)
"They all contribute to the variation that selection can act on."
And with equal respect we both know variation does not and cannot explain descent from a common ancestor as is required for Darwinian evolution. Variation is simply that, variation. It cannot begin to explain common descent without massive doses of imagination, 'just so' stories and unsupported extrapolation.
"It would be hard to argue that 'God-did-it' is a logical argument."
Sure it would, if that was the argument. However, you know as well as I do that it is not the argument. The argument clearly is based on the fact that all our experience and observation tells us complex structures do not and cannot arise independent of forethought and design. Therefore it is completely logical to start from the premise that the origin and design of life originates with intelligence as well.
"At least you are honest in your belief that God is the designer. We both know that many other ID proponents (if not all) also believe this but would never state it publically. And we both know the reason for this."
Honesty is always the best policy. I have no problem stating where I stand as I wholeheartedly believe the science and the logic support that position.
As for others not being willing to state their beliefs publicly I suppose there are many reasons including the hostility which can arise from those who oppose their views with whom they must work in the everyday course of their careers.
Hi Nic,
DeleteJust started my shopping. Congrats about your son. Put in a good word with him for me, just in case he pulls me over sometime in the future.
"And with equal respect we both know variation does not and cannot explain descent from a common ancestor as is required for Darwinian evolution."
That is where we would disagree. Just look at the changes we have made in domestic dogs over a few hundred years. If all we had were fossil records for our domestic dogs, it is highly unlikely that taxonomists would classify them all as the same breed.
"The argument clearly is based on the fact that all our experience and observation tells us complex structures do not and cannot arise independent of forethought and design."
That is true with respect to man-made artifacts. But artifacts are not living beings that reproduce with error.
"Therefore it is completely logical to start from the premise that the origin and design of life originates with intelligence as well."
I agree, that it would be logical. But that can only be the start. To maintain its logical credibility, it is necessary to delve deeper into the mechanisms used by the designer.
"As for others not being willing to state their beliefs publicly I suppose there are many reasons including the hostility which can arise from those who oppose their views with whom they must work in the everyday course of their careers."
I think that argument is overplayed. There are certainly differences of opinion but I wouldn't say hostility. Where hostility does arise is when ID proponents equivocate and misrepresent their beliefs and motivations. When ID proponents refuse to address the issue of the nature of the designer and the mechanisms used, arguing that ID is about the identification of design and nothing else, it doesn't fool anybody.
I am one who believes that the concept of ID can be examined scientifically. But only if it extends beyond the tactic that if evolution can't explain it, it must be designed. Evolution science didn't stop with Darwin's theory, it began there. ID science can't stop with the purported identification of design, that can only be the starting point if it wants to be taken seriously.
Shortly after Darwin published his theory, scientists started work trying to identify and explain the mechanisms that would allow it to work. If any evidence had been found that was incompatible with the foundation of his theory, then it would have been discarded. Even though he had many things wrong, the foundation still stands. I am not aware of anyone conducting any real research into ID and how it works.
William,
Delete"Just look at the changes we have made in domestic dogs over a few hundred years. If all we had were fossil records for our domestic dogs, it is highly unlikely that taxonomists would classify them all as the same breed."
Think this through, it does not help your argument. Yes, a great many changes have been made to domesticated dogs over the years but they remain dogs and are capable of breeding with one another. The fact that taxonomists would classify them differently only emphasizes the range of variety available within the canine kind while it remains wholly the canine kind.
"That is true with respect to man-made artifacts. But artifacts are not living beings that reproduce with error."
So your argument is mistakes can build complex, functional organisms with no need of intelligence or design. Does that sound reasonable to you?
"ID science can't stop with the purported identification of design, that can only be the starting point if it wants to be taken seriously."
No one is saying that is all that is necessary or that ID is intending to stop at this point. But ID is never going to be able to put God in a test tube either. Science is always about exploring the unknown and it might just be that some things will remain unknown. However, unknown factors cannot be used as an excuse to not accept the validity of an argument. Darwinian evolution has not come even remotely close to explaining how life could arise from non-life yet we are told that evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt.
"Shortly after Darwin published his theory, scientists started work trying to identify and explain the mechanisms that would allow it to work."
And they have yet to accomplish that. RM/NS has been shown not to be adequate and all other factors are, as I said earlier, nothing more than agents of variation which, as also stated earlier, is not evolution from a common ancestor. So, it's almost 160 since Darwin put forth his ideas and there is still no explanation as to how his ideas could work. The fact is, Darwin's ideas are in worse shape now than they were at the beginning.
As for putting in a good word with my son, I'm afraid he wouldn't even give me a break. His Mom, maybe.
"Yes, a great many changes have been made to domesticated dogs over the years but they remain dogs and are capable of breeding with one another."
DeleteActually, that is not true. Yes, their sperm and ova are compatible, as are a tiger's and a lion's, but there is no way that you will get a chihuahua and a bull mastiff to naturally mate and produce offspring. In short, they are reproductively isolated, one of the requirements of evolution.
"So your argument is mistakes can build complex, functional organisms with no need of intelligence or design. Does that sound reasonable to you?"
Of course not. But that, along with selection pressures, can.
"No one is saying that is all that is necessary or that ID is intending to stop at this point."
This may be so, but we have seen no evidence of this.
"However, unknown factors cannot be used as an excuse to not accept the validity of an argument."
Agreed. There are many things still unknown about evolution.
"Darwinian evolution has not come even remotely close to explaining how life could arise from non-life yet we are told that evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt."
Apples and oranges. Darwinian evolution has never claimed that it can explain how life originated, just how life changed over time once it was here. It is true that most evolution biologists also believe that life arose through natural processes, but not all.
"And they have yet to accomplish that. [identifying the mechanisms of evolution]"
They have identified DNA, RNA, ribosomes, meiosis, mutations, HGT, transpositions, antibiotic resistance, drift, etc. etc.. They may not have discovered all of the mechanisms, but they have certainly taken a good chunk out of it. ID has all of the tools available to it that the evolutionary scientists do, yet they have not made any headway in the last couple decades in identifying likely candidates for the mechanisms used.
"RM/NS has been shown not to be adequate..."
I keep hearing this claim but I have never seen anybody demonstrate this. Yet, you are correct, it is probably not adequate, but there are many other mechanisms involved.
"So, it's almost 160 since Darwin put forth his ideas and there is still no explanation as to how his ideas could work."
Another assertion that does not support the facts. There are plenty of explanations of the workings of evolution, with experimental and observational evidence to support them. Is it complete? Of course not. But it is amazing that there has yet to be a discovery that is not consistent with the foundational elements of evolutionary theory.
"The fact is, Darwin's ideas are in worse shape now than they were at the beginning."
No, that is an opinion that is not shared by the majority of people in the biological sciences.
"As for putting in a good word with my son, I'm afraid he wouldn't even give me a break. His Mom, maybe."
Then maybe we should both plan to stay away from Saskatchewan. Go Red Blacks.
William,
Delete"Actually, that is not true."
Actually it is true. All dog breeds can breed with each other as long as the female is the larger dog and their offspring will be fertile.
"they are reproductively isolated, one of the requirements of evolution."
As for lions and tigers, they too can breed, however, their offspring in most cases is sterile and would actually be an evolutionary dead-end. Ligers are actually an argument against evolution, not for it. The same is true for mules.
"Of course not. But that, along with selection pressures, can."
RM/NS has been shown not to be efficient to propel evolution from a common ancestor.
"Darwinian evolution has never claimed that it can explain how life originated, just how life changed over time once it was here."
This is not exactly true. There has been considerable research into how life could have arisen from non-life. The abject failure of ALL research in this area has lead to evolutionists dodging the subject by saying it is unrelated to evolutionary theory. We both know that is nonsense. Evolution MUST address this question if not now somewhere down the line.
"They have identified DNA, RNA, ribosomes, meiosis, mutations, HGT, transpositions, antibiotic resistance, drift, etc. etc.."
None of which are contrary to a design scenario, so hardly a strong case for evolutionary mechanisms.
"There are plenty of explanations of the workings of evolution, with experimental and observational evidence to support them."
What would these be?
Nic: "The fact is, Darwin's ideas are in worse shape now than they were at the beginning."
WS: "No, that is an opinion that is not shared by the majority of people in the biological sciences."
I agree, the majority of those working in the biological sciences would argue great strides have been made. However, majority opinion does not make it true. The simple fact is Darwinian Evolution is on life support, though I understand evolutionists do not believe this and do not want to believe it. They have convinced themselves all is fine.
"Go Red Blacks."
Watching Ottawa beat Calgary was almost as good as the Roughriders winning the cup, almost. It completely made my day. :) :) :)
"All dog breeds can breed with each other as long as the female is the larger dog and their offspring will be fertile."
DeleteGood luck getting a male chihuahua to breed with a Great Dane without some serious intervention.
"Ligers are actually an argument against evolution, not for it. The same is true for mules."
Actually, they are good arguments for evolution. They are great examples of the gradual aspects of many speciation events.
"RM/NS has been shown not to be efficient to propel evolution from a common ancestor."
Are you identical to your great great great grandfather?
"This is not exactly true. There has been considerable research into how life could have arisen from non-life."
True. And it is very exciting research. But it has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. The only thing the two have in common is that they do not attempt to insert a deity or a designer into the process. But neither do cosmology, physics, chemistry or geology.
"Evolution MUST address this question if not now somewhere down the line."
Why? Even if it is shown that a designer was responsible for the origin of life, does that mean that it did not use unguided evolution for subsequent change? Because there are some ID proponents who argue for this. Besides, can you point me to the part in Origin of Species that claims that the origin of life was a purely natural process? It doesn't exist because, from its inception, the theory of evolution was only about descent with modification.
"None of which are contrary to a design scenario, so hardly a strong case for evolutionary mechanisms."
True. But i find it amazing that the designer would develop a system that is indistinguishable from unguided evolution. What would be the purpose?
"What would these be?"
For a start, I would look at introductory level evolution text books in university.
"However, majority opinion does not make it true. The simple fact is Darwinian Evolution is on life support, though I understand evolutionists do not believe this and do not want to believe it. They have convinced themselves all is fine."
And, more amazingly, they have also convinced school boards, governments, parents and other people who make social and financial decisions in our society. They have done pretty well for a theory that is on life support. Alchemy and astrology could have benefited from evolutions marketing team.
I was going to go to the Grey Cup parade but I was giving a presentation at CFIA.
William,
Delete"Good luck getting a male chihuahua to breed with a Great Dane without some serious intervention."
That would be a point of interest but nonetheless irrelevant to the fact they can breed and produce fertile offspring.
"Actually, they are good arguments for evolution. They are great examples of the gradual aspects of many speciation events."
Seriously, William, you're going to argue creatures which are sterile and unable to reproduce are a good example of an evolutionary process, which the very existence of depends on the reproduction process in order to produce the RMs necessary for NS to function? Ligers are going nowhere, neither a mules, they are dead-ends. Hardly an example of progressive evolutionary processes.
"Are you identical to your great great great grandfather?"
Appearance wise, I would not be, nor would I be in terms of my DNA. However, you're argument holds no water due to the fact my great, great, great grandfather was fully human as was his great, great, great grandfather and as I am and as will be my great, great, great grandchildren. This is an argument based on nothing but conjecture and completely unsupported extrapolation. There is absolutely zero evidence to support the claim. It is all imaginings and wishful thinking.
"But it has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution."
Only to a Darwinian, to everyone else it has everything to do with evolution. If you are going to do away with a creator/designer you are forced by logic and the process of elimination to explain the origin of the universe and life via wholly natural causes. The rub there is that you can't explain the origin of natural causes without invoking nature the origin for which you also have no explanation.
"Even if it is shown that a designer was responsible for the origin of life, does that mean that it did not use unguided evolution for subsequent change? Because there are some ID proponents who argue for this."
Really, what designer would use an unguided process to achieve its goals? As for the ID proponents who follow this line of reasoning I can only say that in that aspect they are peddling palpable nonsense.
"But i find it amazing that the designer would develop a system that is indistinguishable from unguided evolution."
This is presuming unguided evolution is an actual functioning process and can therefore be compared to a design process. The design argument is based on the fact that an unguided process does not exist as a functioning process because it simply would not work.
"For a start, I would look at introductory level evolution text books in university."
I have, There is nothing there which convinces me that evolution is a fact. They are full of just-so stories based on conjecture, wishful thinking, unfounded extrapolation, etc. There is no solid scientific evidence supporting the claims of all life having originated from a single common ancestor.
"they have also convinced school boards, governments, parents and other people who make social and financial decisions in our society."
This is still nothing more than an argument from majority. That is the frustrating thing with using this argument, it doesn't get better because you make the majority bigger.
"They have done pretty well for a theory that is on life support."
You are absolutely right on this one, they have done an amazing job selling the public a load of palpable nonsense. PT Barnum would be very proud.
"I was going to go to the Grey Cup parade,..."
I was at the Grey Cup in 2013 when the Riders beat Hamilton. It was great, 50,000 crazy Rider fans in a confined space is something to experience. Tom Hanks and Martin Short are Tiger Cat fans and were at the game. They both thought it was great even though their team got thumped.
"That would be a point of interest but nonetheless irrelevant to the fact they can breed and produce fertile offspring."
DeleteIn point of fact, it is not. One of the fundamental aspects of evolution is the idea of reproductive isolation. This isolation can be the result of biological incompatibility (e.g., sperm incompatible with ova), geographical (e.g., a new river separating a population into two) or physical (my example with the chihuahua and Great Dane). If chihuahuas and Great Danes were the only two breeds left in existence, it is extremely unlikely that there would be any gene flow between them. They would be reproductively isolated. At present, there is some gene flow because they can still easily reproduce with other breeds close to their own size, along the entire gradient from smallest to largest.
"Seriously, William, you're going to argue creatures which are sterile and unable to reproduce are a good example of an evolutionary process, which the very existence of depends on the reproduction process in order to produce the RMs necessary for NS to function?"
Absolutely. As one species diverges into two, we would not expect the reproductive incompatibility to be a sudden event, although I can envision some circumstances where this might be possible (e.g., chromosome splitting or merging). Grey wolves, red wolves and coyotes are all classified as separate species but can and do produce fertile offspring with each other. Tigers and lions can interbreed. The female offspring are fertile and the males are sterile. As such, the flow of genes between the two species is possible, although unlikely because of their different habitats.
"If you are going to do away with a creator/designer you are forced by logic and the process of elimination to explain the origin of the universe and life via wholly natural causes."
But I repeat what I said earlier, there is no necessity to do away with a creator to believe that unguided evolution is the best explanation of what we see. There are some ID proponents who believe that the creator was only involved in the creation of the universe and the first life, but that unguided evolution does the rest. Personally, I don't see the necessity to invoke a creator at any level, but that could easily change if I was presented with credible evidence supporting it.
"Really, what designer would use an unguided process to achieve its goals?"
How do you know what its goals are? Maybe its goals are to produce heavy metals, in which case a universe that has suns that go nova is all that is needed. Maybe the whole life thing is just a side amusement of the creator.
"The design argument is based on the fact that an unguided process does not exist as a functioning process because it simply would not work. "
This is assertion, not fact. If life is unguided, this assertion is incorrect. That is what the debate is about. If life is guided, this assertion may still be incorrect, but correct for life.
"There is no solid scientific evidence supporting the claims of all life having originated from a single common ancestor."
The fact that all life that we know of is DNA or RNA based is pretty solid evidence. Again, the idea of common descent is not unique to evolution. Many ID proponents (Behe included) also believe in common descent.
As a kid in Toronto, I used to go to Argo games and then over to Ontario Place afterwards for a beer or two. So far I have only been to one Red Blacks game in Ottawa. But it was a great time, even though I am not a big sports person. Next year ought to be fun, especially if Ottawa can get to the finals again. Canada's 150th anniversary, Grey Cup in Ottawa. 100th anniversary of the Stanley Cup. And 50th anniversary of Leafs winning the cup. All the stars will be alligned.
William,
Delete"In point of fact, it is not. One of the fundamental aspects of evolution is the idea of reproductive isolation."
Reproductive isolation is not equivalent with sterility. Ligers and mules are sterile, not reproductively isolated.
"If chihuahuas and Great Danes were the only two breeds left in existence, it is extremely unlikely that there would be any gene flow between them. They would be reproductively isolated."
But Chihuahuas and Great Danes are not isolated.
"Grey wolves, red wolves and coyotes are all classified as separate species but can and do produce fertile offspring with each other."
Because they are all canines. No surprise here, or any evidence for evolution.
"How do you know what its goals are?"
I didn't claim to know what a designers goals would be, I simply raised a logical point, why would a designer use random processes? By the way, it is evolutionists who tend to claim to know the mindset of the designer by their fond use of the 'poor design' argument.
"The fact that all life that we know of is DNA or RNA based is pretty solid evidence."
Solid evidence for what, evolution? Why would that be so? Would not DNA/RNA be solid evidence for common design?
"Many ID proponents (Behe included) also believe in common descent."
That is their prerogative. It does not mean I have to agree with them.
"And 50th anniversary of Leafs winning the cup. All the stars will be alligned."
As a long suffering Leaf fan this season gives me reason to hope but I am realistic enough to realise I will have to wait a bit longer.
Nic: "Reproductive isolation is not equivalent with sterility. Ligers and mules are sterile, not reproductively isolated."
DeleteSterilty is just one type of reproductive isolation. Near one end of the gradient. Geographic separation is another.
"But chihuahuas and Great Danes are not isolated."
Not geographically, but when you can produce a naturally born pup between a chihuahua and Great Dane, we can continue this discussion about reproductive isolation.
"Because they are all canines."
And tigers and lions are both Panthera. Why is it no surprise that canines can produce fertile offspring and cats can't? Is it just possible that cats are further along the reproductive isolation gradient than dogs are?
"...why would a designer use random processes?"
There is a fairly recent sector of human designers that are using exactly that. Quite successfully.
"By the way, it is evolutionists who tend to claim to know the mindset of the designer by their fond use of the 'poor design' argument."
How can we know the mindset of the designer when there is no designer. All we are saying is that some of the "claimed" designs are poor "designs", even by human standards, which presumably be lower than those of the designer who designed us.
"Solid evidence for what, evolution?"
Didn't I say that it was not unique to evolution? All you have to do is provide strong evidence that common descent is better explained by design. Which should be easy enough if ID were to propose theories, including mechanisms, on how this would work under a design concept.
"That is their prerogative. It does not mean I have to agree with them."
And I am not asking you to.
On the same subject, I just want to say that I enjoy arguing with you on this. You are able to do it without taking it personally as the denizens at UD do.
"As a long suffering Leaf fan..."
Are there any other types?
William,
Delete"but when you can produce a naturally born pup between a chihuahua and Great Dane, we can continue this discussion about reproductive isolation."
The bottom line here is the physical barriers between Great Danes and Chihuahuas is not evidence in defence of common descent. It is, however, simply evidence of variation within canines. All attempts to use it as evidence for common descent are based wholly on conjecture.
"Is it just possible that cats are further along the reproductive isolation gradient than dogs are?"
That is exactly the problem facing evolutionists; demonstrating there is a 'gradient'. Ligers and mules are perfect examples of not only the variation possible within a particular kind of animal but also of the fact there is a limit to this variation which hits at the very heart of the concept of common descent.
"There is a fairly recent sector of human designers that are using exactly that. Quite successfully."
You mean the ones who write randomness into their computer programs?
"How can we know the mindset of the designer when there is no designer."
The argument usually is based on the claim 'there can be no designer because this design is so bad.' That is a tacit claim to understand what an omnipotent God would and would not do with its design. As for there being bad designs, what would those be?
"All you have to do is provide strong evidence that common descent is better explained by design."
I don't believe in common descent so why would I try to explain it via ID? If you want an answer as to how design better explains common descent you had better ask someone like Behe.
"On the same subject, I just want to say that I enjoy arguing with you on this. You are able to do it without taking it personally as the denizens at UD do."
Thank you, I appreciate that. I too enjoy our exchanges of opinion. I feel there are far too many people on both sides of the question who take it far too personally. I don't understand why they feel the need to make an enemy of someone they do not even know. I often chuckle at the possibility of two people on a blog calling each other every name under the sun as they argue over a particular topic who are in fact neighbours or co-workers who get along fine in real life and if they were having the same discussion face-to-face would never say the things they say on a blog.
"Are there any other types?"
Now that I may take personally. :) Yes, there are those Leafs fans who are not long-suffering, teenagers.
"The bottom line here is the physical barriers between Great Danes and Chihuahuas is not evidence in defence of common descent."
DeleteCertainly it is. For common descent to be a viable explanation, there must be mechanisms by which sub-popelations can become reproductively isolated. Without these, common descent is dead in the water as a viable explanation. Evidence for for these mechanisms include plate tectonics, re-routing of rivers, the inability for great danes and chihuahuas to mate, etc.
"That is exactly the problem facing evolutionists; demonstrating there is a 'gradient'."
Thankfully there are plenty of examples extant today that demonstrates this gradient.
"You mean the ones who write randomness into their computer programs?"
Yup.
"As for there being bad designs, what would those be?"
I have never said bad design. But I have said that things could have been better designed. Hanging testicles on the outside of the body is a prime example. Whoever did this must have been a fan of slapstick.
"Now that I may take personally. :) Yes, there are those Leafs fans who are not long-suffering, teenagers."
Anyone who lived through the Ballard years suffered.
William,
Delete"For common descent to be a viable explanation, there must be mechanisms by which sub-popelations can become reproductively isolated."
Becoming reproductively isolated does not lead to common descent. Because two types of canines, for example, may come to a point where they cannot reproduce does not lead to one or the other becoming a non-canine. Such an event would be necessary and would have to be very common if reproductive isolation was a mechanism by which common descent would be driven.
"Thankfully there are plenty of examples extant today that demonstrates this gradient."
Can you provide examples?
Nic: "You mean the ones who write randomness into their computer programs?"
William: "Yup."
Think about it, William, you cannot program randomness. Programmed randomness is the very definition of a dichotomy.
"Hanging testicles on the outside of the body is a prime example."
Now tell me how you would redesign this factor while taking into account all possible implications of such a redesign and how you would overcome them.
"Anyone who lived through the Ballard years suffered."
That is an understatement. During the 70s they had a phenomenal team with Sittler, McDonald, Salming, etc. etc. But that idiot Ballard kept getting in the way.
Nic: "Becoming reproductively isolated does not lead to common descent."
DeleteTrue. But common descent can't exist without it.
"Because two types of canines, for example, may come to a point where they cannot reproduce does not lead to one or the other becoming a non-canine."
Again true. But extend both lineages out from there, with reproductive isolation occurring repeatedly, along with mutations and selection pressures with every generation, and it is not hard to see that one lineage of canine differs so much from the original stock that we would classify it as a different "kind" (notice that I put "kind" in scare quotes?:)).
"Can you provide examples?"
i already have. Red wolves, grey wolves and coyotes can interbreed and produce fertile off spring. Chihuahuas and Great Danes can't unless humans intervene. Tigers and lions can produce offspring, with partial fertility. Chimps and gorillas can't produce offspring at all (I don't think).
"Think about it, William, you cannot program randomness. Programmed randomness is the very definition of a dichotomy."
It is done all of the time. It is used by slot machine manufacturers. I use it in my job on a daily basis. Even EXCEL has a random number generator function.
You asked about testicles? Keep them inside the body. As is the case with cetaceans. The designer has obviously dealt with all the implications with some animals but decided to let ours hang on the outside where they are prone to damage.
And speaking of design and testicles, why do women's bicycles not have that horizontal bar from the seat post to the handlebars but men's bicycles do?
I was at Sittlers five goal game.
Wiiliam,
Delete"But extend both lineages out from there,..."
And this is exactly where you wander from science into the area of conjecture and story telling. RM/NS has been demonstrated not to be able to do what you expect it will do to use this scenario as the mechanism driving the road of common descent.
"Red wolves, grey wolves and coyotes can interbreed and produce fertile off spring. Chihuahuas and Great Danes can't unless humans intervene."
But again, all you have is canines producing canines. That is still not evidence of common descent.
As for Chihuahuas and Great Danes the only human intervention needed would be a tall chair for the Chihuahua.
"It is done all of the time. It is used by slot machine manufacturers. I use it in my job on a daily basis. Even EXCEL has a random number generator function."
That is programmed randomness, not genuine randomness. All such programs are required to insert some response at the appropriate time and can only choose from the options within the program. That is not true randomness.
"You asked about testicles? Keep them inside the body. As is the case with cetaceans. The designer has obviously dealt with all the implications with some animals but decided to let ours hang on the outside where they are prone to damage.'
you have not even begun to broach the problem. Are we cetaceans? Do we live in the same environment? Obviously not so your appeal to cetaceans is void from the start. You must deal with humans and our requirements not just say do it the same way as cetaceans. You will need to try again.
"why do women's bicycles not have that horizontal bar from the seat post to the handlebars but men's bicycles do?"
Skirts.
"I was at Sittlers five goal game."
It was six, plus 4 assists. I am very jealous.
"And this is exactly where you wander from science into the area of conjecture and story telling."
DeleteExtrapolation, when supported by corroborating evidence (eg, fossil record, DNA and proteome comparisons) is a very valuable and accepted scientific tool.
"But again, all you have is canines producing canines. That is still not evidence of common descent."
Yes it is. As is the fact that you have parents and grandparents. As is the fossil record, etc. One piece of evidence alone is obviously insufficient. But when all of it is taken into account, common descent becomes a very compelling theory.
"As for Chihuahuas and Great Danes the only human intervention needed would be a tall chair for the Chihuahua."
And a very willing Great Dane.
"That is programmed randomness, not genuine randomness."
It is certainly more random than we see with point mutations. It is well known that certain areas of DNA are more prone to mutation than others. But the "random" in evolution is not referring to the randomness of the site of the mutation, it is referring to it being random with respect to fitness. Which all evidence says it is.
"The designer has obviously dealt with all the implications with some animals but decided to let ours hang on the outside where they are prone to damage.'"
Surely if the designer is your all powerful God, these implications and limitations would be easily overcome. Mammal body temperatures range from 967 to 103. Birds are 105, and have internal testes. Yes, whales live in water, but elephants don't, and they also have internal testes.
One of the fundamental aspects of evolution is that any change is contingent on what happened previously. You can only work with what you have. Surely a designer )especially a god) does not have as serious a constraint in this respect.
William,
Delete"Yes it is. As is the fact that you have parents and grandparents. As is the fossil record, etc. One piece of evidence alone is obviously insufficient. But when all of it is taken into account, common descent becomes a very compelling theory."
Yes, I have parents and grandparents to which I am not identical, but neither am I fundamentally different as would be ultimately required for common descent. You don't have evidence showing one creature becoming a fundamentally different creature and therein lies your problem.
"Surely if the designer is your all powerful God, these implications and limitations would be easily overcome. Mammal body temperatures range from 967 to 103. Birds are 105, and have internal testes. Yes, whales live in water, but elephants don't, and they also have internal testes."
You're still not addressing the situation. Claiming that if God was indeed omnipotent the design would be better is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I spoke of evolutionists claiming to know the mind of God when criticising his design. The onus is still on you to demonstrate how the design is poor and how you would make it better while addressing the implications of changing the design. Simply saying an omnipotent God would have done better is not a legitimate criticism.
"You don't have evidence showing one creature becoming a fundamentally different creature and therein lies your problem."
DeleteYou are invoking your own opinion as to what constitutes evidence. If you are going to restrict evidence to direct observation, then you are going to exclude many aspects of reality that we consider as being well accepted. We have never seen a mountain formed by plate tectonics. We have never seen an electron.
I never said the design was poor. It is obviously adequate to sustain the species. But having testicles hanging outside obviously places them at greater risk of damage. And since sperm can be adequately produced by internal testes, a better "design" would be to keep them within the body. Or are you suggesting that the designer was not free to opt for either?
William
Delete"You are invoking your own opinion as to what constitutes evidence."
To some degree yes. However, that is the ultimate nature of evidence, it is open to interpretation.
"We have never seen a mountain formed by plate tectonics."
It can be seen in real time, though extremely slowly at this point in time.
"a better "design" would be to keep them within the body."
That is for you to demonstrate, as I have stated before.
"Or are you suggesting that the designer was not free to opt for either?"
I'm not suggesting anything. Obviously an omnipotent God can do things as he wishes, and we are in no position to dispute his decision as we do not have access to omnipotent knowledge. We can, however, ask questions in an attempt to understand his design, which is why we were given a brain to use.
"It can be seen in real time, though extremely slowly at this point in time."
DeleteNo. we can see plate tectonics in real time. The idea that it can result in the formation of mountains is the result of extrapolation from this and the examination of existing mountains. No different than the extrapolations we make to infer common descent.
"That is for you to demonstrate, as I have stated before."
It has been demonstrated with whales and elephants. They have never suffered sterility due to damage to an internal organ that extends outside the body.
"Obviously an omnipotent God can do things as he wishes, and we are in no position to dispute his decision..."
Of course we can dispute his decisions. As an omnipotent being, we have no assurance that he is acting in our benefit.
William,
Delete"No different than the extrapolations we make to infer common descent."
It is completely different. You can see and measure the process in real time and connect it directly to the results. You cannot do that with common descent, not even remotely close.
"It has been demonstrated with whales and elephants."
But we are not elephants or whales so that is hardly a demonstration, is it?
"Of course we can dispute his decisions. As an omnipotent being, we have no assurance that he is acting in our benefit."
That is obviously done daily by a large portion of humanity. What I meant was we are in no position, ie., we do not possess the knowledge or the power to dispute his decisions.
This is the final nail in materialism coffin.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, truth always win!
WS
ReplyDelete"Propose a theory that better explains the evidence and it will be. Do you have one in mind?"
Yes, this is what were down to, the best of the worst. Because were looking at history and complex biological change that appears to be beyond the scope of chemical and physical forces we don't have a theory only a 150 year old fairy tale. We are telling kids in schools this is a theory knowing it has no theoretical basis. We are sharing the supporting data and not the opposing data.
I will trust the scientific community when they come clean about the evidence that has surfaced from DNA that makes this inference almost certainly wrong.
Short of that they are bullshitting the public for political and ideological reasons. This lumps the scientific community in the same camp as the main stream media.
"Yes, this is what were down to, the best of the worst. Because were looking at history and complex biological change that appears to be beyond the scope of chemical and physical forces we don't have a theory only a 150 year old fairy tale...."
DeleteDoes this mean that you can't propose an alternative theory that better explains the data? You could have just said that rather than complain about data that you don't understand.
Does this mean that you can't propose an alternative theory that better explains the data?
DeleteID better explains the data than evolutionism does. There, it's a done deal.
Leprechauns, Santa and magic can also be used to explain the data. I'll stick with the explanation that is supported by evidence, predictions and experiments. I'm funny that way.
DeleteExcept your position doesn't have any supporting evidence, predictions nor experiments. You don't even know how to test the claim that natural selection and drift produced ATP synthase. And Lenski has demonstrated evolution is very, very limited.
DeleteSo yes, you are funny, gullible and ignorant.
Bill Cole
ReplyDeleteYes, this is what were down to, the best of the worst. Because were looking at history and complex biological change that appears to be beyond the scope of chemical and physical forces we don't have a theory only a 150 year old fairy tale.
OK, you can't offer any plausible alternative, just whine because the ID-Creation bullshit you've been pushing fails so badly.
Thorton: "OK, you can't offer any plausible alternative, just whine because the ID-Creation bullshit you've been pushing fails so badly."
DeleteThis troll avatar appears suspiciously like Larry Moran. You can always tell when they run out of argumentation when the vulgar language surfaces. But in their worldview, it's nothing more than hallowed terminology. This has never been about science, but rather resentment of accountability.
Right on cue, Kevin Franck whines because the ID-Creation BS he's been pushing fails so badly. :)
DeleteKF, it is really hard to argue against a theory that relies on unsubstantiated and untested assertions rather than hypothesis testing, evidence, observation and experimentation.
DeleteWilliam,
Delete"hypothesis testing, evidence, observation and experimentation."
Not one of which can be applied to the claim of descent from a common ancestor.
Bill: "KF, it is really hard to argue against a theory that relies on unsubstantiated and untested assertions"
DeleteYou're mistaken, I'm not the evolutionist here. It's up to you to illustrate and prove how blind unguided forces accomplished any type of sophisticated mechanisms for change. Thus far all we have us yet another church based on blind faith. I have no problem with faith, but I've always hated blind faith. It's your responsibility to prove your faith is the truth. Viewing the degraded health of our planet, it's clear science has been greatly held back.
"rather than hypothesis testing, evidence, observation and experimentation"
And of course all of these components would encompass everything to do with Intelligent Design as even you admitted previous, remember ?
"I don't think it's impossible to design life"
Exactly, so we agree. My problem is with an infinity of chances or dumb luck millions of times over. Again, proving this is upon your side. Thus far the world has been treated to myths and fables.
KF
DeleteMy problem is with an infinity of chances or dumb luck millions of times over.
Another scientifically illiterate Creationists too stupid to include the feedback from selection in his "understanding" of evolutionary processes. They'll never learn.
Nic: "Not one of which [hypothesis testing, evidence, etc.] can be applied to the claim of descent from a common ancestor."
DeleteNic, I hope that you are not serious about this claim. If humans and the great apes have a more recent common anscestor than humans and lemurs, or humans and dogs, we predict that human DNA is more similar to the great apes than to lemurs and dogs. Guess what was found when these comparisons were made?
Based solely on morphological similarity, we would predict that humans are more closely related to the apes than to lemurs and dogs. This alone is not definitive of common descent, for obvious reasons. But if common descent is true, we would expect these similarities to become even more pronounced as we go back in time through the fossil record. Again, do you want to guess what is observed?
Hmm, so far I have demonstrated hypothesis testing, experimentation and observation applied to the theory of common descent. And I have barely scratched the surface.
Based solely on morphological similarity, we would predict that humans are more closely related to the apes than to lemurs and dogs
DeleteRelated how- by a common design or common descent? How can you tell the difference?
William,
Delete"Nic, I hope that you are not serious about this claim."
Completely serious.
"Based solely on morphological similarity, we would predict that humans are more closely related to the apes,..."
Personally, I believe the morphological similarities between man and apes is overstated. It is there but I do not believe it is there to the extent most think it to be. For instance, man has two feet and two hands, and two arms and two legs. Apes, in effect, really have four hands and four arms. Granted they can walk upright on two of them for short distances, but what we call their feet often function more like hands. All their limbs are more like arms than either pair are like legs.
"as we go back in time through the fossil record. Again, do you want to guess what is observed?"
No need to guess, I know what is observed, stasis. Apes have always been apes and humans have always been humans, just as reptiles remained reptiles and mammals remained mammals, and so on, ad infinitum.
"Hmm, so far I have demonstrated hypothesis testing, experimentation and observation applied to the theory of common descent."
Not really. You've started with an assumption and interpreted the evidence to support that assumption. I could start with the assumption the morphological similarities between apes and man is due to common design and as such support that hypothesis using the same evidence. So, no, you have not demonstrated hypothesis testing in favour of common descent. The same can be done with observational factors.
As for experimentation, in what way have you applied that to the theory of common descent. What form of experiment could you carry out?
Hi Nic
Delete"Personally, I believe the morphological similarities between man and apes is overstated. "
Really? Are there other animals (or plants) that are more morphological similar?
"Apes have always been apes and humans have always been humans,..."
Are Australopithecus apes or humans or apes?
"What form of experiment could you carry out?"
When we predict that ape DNA will be most similar to humans, and then test the prediction, is this not an experiment? I have made my life as a scientist and I have always thought that it is.
By the way, I hope you and your family have a great Christmas.
William,
Delete"Are there other animals (or plants) that are more morphological similar?"
Caucasian Shepherd Dog and bears are more similar in morphology to one another than are apes and man to one another.
"Are Australopithecus apes or humans or apes?"
Apes. And no, they did not walk upright.
"When we predict that ape DNA will be most similar to humans, and then test the prediction, is this not an experiment?"
Yes, in one sense of the term, that I will admit. But not in the sense of an experiment which is repeatable for the purpose of showing that humans and apes share a common ancestor. Again, the DNA similarity can be explained through common design and as such not really helpful as evidence for evolution.
William,
Delete"By the way, I hope you and your family have a great Christmas."
Thank you, and I hope you and your family have a very blessed Christmas as well.
When we predict that ape DNA will be most similar to humans, and then test the prediction, is this not an experiment?
DeleteCommon design predicts genetic similarities
Be quite Joe. Adults are talking.
DeleteYes Wee Willie, adults are talking so that leaves you out.
DeleteGR
ReplyDelete"OK, you can't offer any plausible alternative, just whine because the ID-Creation bullshit you've been pushing fails so badly."
So a theory that has no alternative is by definition ok despite significant contrary evidence?
What purpose does a theory that lacks a testable hypothesis do?
Spin the public into supporting atheist philosophy? Is this what your agenda is?
BC: "What purpose does a theory that lacks a testable hypothesis do?"
DeleteWhich theory are you talking about? The theory that has numerous hypotheses that have passed equally numerous tests, or ID that actively avoids developing testable hypotheses?
But, if you think that I am misrepresenting ID, feel free to present a hypothesis for ID that addresses the nature of the designer or the mechanisms that are used by this hypothesized designer to realize his design.
After all, the ID proponents expect nothing less from the "Darwinists". Or do you have a lower burden of proof? Or a burden of proof at all?
WS
Delete"But, if you think that I am misrepresenting ID, feel free to present a hypothesis for ID that addresses the nature of the designer or the mechanisms that are used by this hypothesized designer to realize his design. "
You are creating a straw man here. If you can only argue against the science by creating a straw man that shows you don't really understand the competing hypothesis. This is not science.
Bill Cole
DeleteIf you can only argue against the science by creating a straw man that shows you don't really understand the competing hypothesis.
You IDiots don't have a competing hypothesis. It's been more than ten years since Kitzmiller v. Dover and your ID clowns haven't come up with a single testable idea.
BC: "You are creating a straw man here. If you can only argue against the science by creating a straw man that shows you don't really understand the competing hypothesis. This is not science."
DeleteAhh, the ID tactic of declaring that a straw man is being built when they want to avoid an inconvenient question. Please explain what the straw man here is. All I have stated is that ID twists itself in knots to avoid the question about the nature of the designer and the mechanisms used to realize the design. Without addressing these, all you have is, 'it looks designed...'. That is not science, it is faith.
WS
Delete"All I have stated is that ID twists itself in knots to avoid the question about the nature of the designer and the mechanisms used to realize the design. Without addressing these, all you have is, 'it looks designed...'. That is not science, it is faith."
ID is not about the nature of the designer its about observing design in nature. When you try to invoke the designer you are no longer discussing ID and are debating a non existent subject.
ID is an inference argument and so is common descent. When I look at a bacterial flagellum motor I think the argument that it appears designed is a hell of a lot better then it had an ancestral bacteria without one, yet no one can identify the ancestor.
GR
Delete"You IDiots don't have a competing hypothesis. It's been more than ten years since Kitzmiller v. Dover and your ID clowns haven't come up with a single testable idea."
And your test for universal common descent is? wait for it.....a peppered moth :-)
"ID is not about the nature of the designer its about observing design in nature."
DeleteCan you provide me a clear example of design for which we have no understanding of the designer or the mechanisms available to it?
WS
Delete"Can you provide me a clear example of design for which we have no understanding of the designer or the mechanisms available to it?"
Stonehenge
bacterial flagellum
spliceosome
ribosome
ATP synthase
respiratory system
WS
I suggest a better use of your time is to try to argue without trying to invoke a straw man. It's a lot harder but in the end you will understand the science better.
Let me help.
Intelligent design does not explain a mechanism the helps understand how life unfolds.
WS: "Can you provide me a clear example of design for which we have no understanding of the designer or the mechanisms available to it?"
DeleteBC: "Stonehenge"
Are you seriously suggesting that we don't have a good understanding of the nature of the designer (human) and the mechanisms available to them at the time? Please try harder.
"bacterial flagellum
spliceosome
ribosome
ATP synthase
respiratory system"
When you have solid evidence that these are designed, then we can talk. Until then, I suggest that you work on hypothesizing about the nature of the designer and the mechanisms available to it so that the validity of your ID claim can be tested.
"Intelligent design does not explain a mechanism the helps understand how life unfolds."
Agreed. But to be able to conclude that design even occurred, you need a reasonable understanding of these mechanisms.
WS
Delete"When you have solid evidence that these are designed, then we can talk. Until then, I suggest that you work on hypothesizing about the nature of the designer and the mechanisms available to it so that the validity of your ID claim can be tested."
Why are you trying to invoke a straw man again?
WS
Delete"Agreed. But to be able to conclude that design even occurred, you need a reasonable understanding of these mechanisms."
So do you apply the same standard to universal common descent?
BC: "Why are you trying to invoke a straw man again?"
DeleteAs I said earlier, there is no straw man. You are claiming that biological structures are designed with no valid evidence to support your claim. My suggestion to start researching the mechanisms used to realize the design is just advice of an approach that may help ID obtain this evidence.
"So do you apply the same standard to universal common descent?"
Yes.
Bill Cole
DeleteWS
"Agreed. But to be able to conclude that design even occurred, you need a reasonable understanding of these mechanisms."
So do you apply the same standard to universal common descent?
We know and understnd the mechanisms for universal common descent.
WS
Delete"As I said earlier, there is no straw man. You are claiming that biological structures are designed with no valid evidence to support your claim."
"With no valid evidence".
What is your standard for valid evidence?
Observing something and comparing it to something that is known is not a valid way to analyze evidence?
You are trying to disqualify the argument up front which is circular reasoning.
There is plenty of evidence for design yet you make the statement from authority that it is not valid.
What you fail to do is make an argument that it is not valid.
Strawman. Circular reasoning. Statement from authority. You have really got the ID talking points down pat.
Delete"What is your standard for valid evidence?"
The same as that for everyone who understands science. Anything that can stand up to scrutiny. "It looks designed" does not stand up to scrutiny. If it did, we would claim that snowflakes, crystals and many rock formations were designed.
WS
Delete" "It looks designed" does not stand up to scrutiny. If it did, we would claim that snowflakes, crystals and many rock formations were designed."
Non of these examples turns solar or chemical energy into work. They are not the standard of comparison.
What about tornados, hurricanes and volcanoes? Are they designed? They turn solar and chemical energy into work.
DeleteBill Cole
DeleteNon of these examples turns solar or chemical energy into work. They are not the standard of comparison.
How do you think endothermic chemical reactions work? Do the invisible ID pixies push the molecules around?
We know and understnd the mechanisms for universal common descent.
DeleteExcept we don't know and understand the mechanisms for universal common descent.
We don't even know what makes an organism what it is- what makes a human a human? To evos we are the sum of our genome and how it reacts/ interacts with the environment. Yet no one has ever shown that to be so.
Genes influence development but they do not determine what we develop. No one knows what determines what type of organism will develop. And without that knowledge your statement is pure propaganda based on your ignorance.
"It looks designed" does not stand up to scrutiny.
DeleteThat is why that is only a starting point. When someone says "this looks designed" then we should check it out to see if a designer was required.
You are claiming that biological structures are designed with no valid evidence to support your claim.
DeleteThat is incorrect as we have provided the evidence that supports our claim. OTOH you and yours have never provided any evidence that natural selection and drift are up to the task. You don't even know how to test the claim that they are.
Joke: "That is why that is only a starting point. When someone says "this looks designed" then we should check it out to see if a designer was required."
DeleteWhen are the plethora of ID researchers going to start this? I can hardly wait.
LoL! William no one uses evolutionism for anything. No one is looking into natural selection's ability to produce novel adaptations or biological systems.
DeleteYou really need to get your house in order before attacking ID with your ignorance.
WusS:
DeleteWhen are the plethora of ID researchers going to start this?
Already have. We have determined that life and its systems and subsystems were intelligently designed. We have also determined our solar system and planet were intelligently designed.
And guess what? You don't have anything to refute those inferences.
"And guess what? You don't have anything to refute those inferences."
DeleteI also can't refute that the universe is actually the defecation of an interdimensional troll. But if evolution is disproven beyond reasonable doubt, my money is on the troll.
LoL! Thank you for proving that you are ignorant as to how science works. If you could support the claims of your position t6at would refute any and all design inferences.
DeleteScience 101. And BTW ID is not anti-evolution. Your willful ignorance is showing, again.
LOL! It's nice to see Joke still lives in his little fantasy IDiot world where there is no ToE and the ID-Creationists have made valuable contributions to humanity's collective scientific knowledge. :D
DeleteJoke: "And BTW ID is not anti-evolution."
DeleteWhat ID theory are you talking about?
Wow so ghostrider and WS are proud to be ignorant trolls.
DeleteAs for my claim that there isn't a scientific ToE, well that is supported by the fact no one on Earth can reference it.
DeleteIt takes a lowlife loser to claim that something exists and yet cannot produce it when asked.
Joke you couldn't find your own fat ass if you used both hands. It's no wonder you're too stupid to find out about the ToE.
DeleteLoL!@ghostpuker- YOU can't find the ToE, so what does that make YOU?
DeleteBill Cole
ReplyDeleteSo a theory that has no alternative is by definition ok despite significant contrary evidence?
You whining about the science you don't understand doesn't qualify as "significant contrary evidence".
What purpose does a theory that lacks a testable hypothesis do?
Yes, what good is ID-Creation "theory"?
GS
ReplyDelete"Spin the public into supporting atheist philosophy? Is this what your agenda is?
I guess a lack of any real answers confirms your agenda.
Yes, what good is ID Creation "theory"?
DeleteI guess a lack of any real answers confirms your religious agenda.
Thorton: "Yes, what good is ID Creation "theory"? I guess a lack of any real answers confirms your religious agenda."
DeleteYes, what would Crick & Watson, Gerald Joyce, etc have done without ID mechanisms and their origin of life experiments. ID people do not need to provide a plan of action, Simply point out all the individuals using their intelligence to manipulate physics and chemicals and you have a plan for ID irrespective of the intelligently designed storytelling smokescreening the outcome of their experiments.
Thanks Kevin for confirming ID-Creation "theory" is worthless empty rhetoric.
DeleteKF, I don't think that it is impossible to design life. What is being disputed, but not by anyone with a good understanding of biology and genetics, is whether life on earth was designed. Since evolutionary theory has described and tested many mechanisms by which life can evolve, and ID has not. Without these mechanisms, nobody with two brain cells to rub together will take ID's assertions seriously.
Delete"Since evolutionary theory has described and tested many mechanisms by which life can evolve, and ID has not."
DeleteLet me see if I can translate this: "KF, The science has been settled, we have the consensus in our favour and no further debate is allowed. Now let us get on with running the world so we can satisfy our authoritarian desites."
Yeah, that sounds like unbiased science to me.
KF: "Let me see if I can translate this: "KF, The science has been settled, we have the consensus in our favour and no further debate is allowed. Now let us get on with running the world so we can satisfy our authoritarian desites.""
DeleteNow, who said anything about the science being settled? Or about consensus always being right? Certainly not me.
But when two opposing positions engage in debate, the debate is more enjoyable and constructive when both sides have compelling evidence, experiments, observations, etc. to support their respective positions. However, when an IDist tries to use these tools to support his position, he is shooting blanks. Don't get mad at me because of the truth of this statement. Simply prove me wrong by presenting all of the research that has been done by the ID scientists. Or, if that is too big a task, start small by simply hypothesizing about the mechanisms that are used to realize the design.
LoL! William your position doesn't have any evidence let alone compelling evidence.
DeleteID has the experiments as many experiments have elucidated irreducibly complex biological structures. OTOH your position has nothing- nothing that shows natural selection can do what Darwin claimed and you don't have any other mechanisms capable of doing it.
So perhaps you should stop your bluffing and get an education
I guess a lack of any real answers confirms your religious agenda.
DeleteNice projection ghostrider. Your position has the majority of the resources and yet still can't answer anything.
Joe: "So perhaps you should stop your bluffing and get an education."
DeleteWhat are the education requirements these days for toaster repair boy?
You know you have hit a nerve when all the evos can do is spew nonsense
DeletePlease turn your irony meter off. This statement could cause it serious damage.
DeleteJoe: "You know you have hit a nerve when all the evos can do is spew nonsense."
No Willie, reading your posts can cause serious damage.
DeleteJoe using the time honoured I know you are but what am I debating style.
DeleteWee Willie getting upset when his tactics are used against him. Life is good...
DeleteJoke, when my sphincter itches, I get the urge to scratch, but I know that it will only result in shit under the finger nails. Much like attempting any discussion with you.
DeleteWee Willie, every time you get into a discussion with me I always expose your ignorance and tendency for bluffing. So yes attempting a discussion with you is virtually useless. But I will continue to expose you as the ignorant and cowardly troll that you are
ReplyDelete