tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post1977359909727825561..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: ATPsynthase: A Case Study of Evolutionary BlowbackUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12421217095294939902013-05-13T10:04:10.623-07:002013-05-13T10:04:10.623-07:00"The only reason they've conceded that mu..."The only reason they've conceded that much is because the evidence is basically irresistible."<br /><br />Yes Sped they only "conceded it" when irresistible evidence was presented because of course when creation theories were originally formed no one noticed that Horses or dogs or cats had variations.<br /><br />Pure silliness.<br /><br />"You can call an automobile whatever you want but the only reason we know it's a machine is because we design and build them ourselves. "<br /><br />more nonsense. Are you telling me if we discover an alien race and see their craft we will not be able to identify them (even with study) as machines because we did not build them ourselves?<br /><br />"Calling some biological structures "machines" just because they bear a passing resemblance to things we design is misleading at the least."<br /><br />Sorry but you don't get to redefine machine to what you want in order to make your then circular argument. As long as a system has multiple parts that operate together toward an end goal it can be referred to as a machine. Its not misleading at all. Further if it appears based on observation that it has an intelligent function we have all the more reason to call it a machine. <br /><br /><br /><br /> <br />Elijah2012https://www.blogger.com/profile/02729894330690030276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59627218786185500182013-05-13T09:01:03.662-07:002013-05-13T09:01:03.662-07:00Well Zachriel I will never buy the car of a darwin...Well Zachriel I will never buy the car of a darwinist.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51473943066575256012013-05-13T08:55:24.757-07:002013-05-13T08:55:24.757-07:00Blas: Diveging and diversifying, change of heritab...<b>Blas</b>: <i>Diveging and diversifying, change of heritable composition it is not the same that common descent. </i><br /><br />If organisms diverge and diversify, that means the resultant organisms share a common ancestor. Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85885710699538279972013-05-13T08:49:14.828-07:002013-05-13T08:49:14.828-07:00You see. Always the same trick again and again. Do...You see. Always the same trick again and again. Don`t you realize that you lose credibility. <br />Diveging and diversifying, change of heritable composition it is not the same that common descent. Common descent means a pig became a whale.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79477675080878494532013-05-13T05:35:52.593-07:002013-05-13T05:35:52.593-07:00Blas: Common descent it is not required to explain...<b>Blas</b>: <i>Common descent it is not required to explain how and why eritable composition of populations change over time, you want to add it because is the way you can start the trick evolution is a fact and a theory. </i><br /><br />Of course it is. How do organisms change? By diverging and diversifying. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85910764423742770112013-05-13T05:24:15.397-07:002013-05-13T05:24:15.397-07:00Zachriel said
"This explanation included nat...Zachriel said<br /><br />"This explanation included natural selection and common descent," <br /><br />Common descent it is not required to explain how and why eritable composition of populations change over time, you want to add it because is the way you can start the trick evolution is a fact and a theory.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68179001924717149602013-05-13T05:17:49.003-07:002013-05-13T05:17:49.003-07:00Blas: Theory of gravity: Explains how and why bodi...<b>Blas</b>: <i>Theory of gravity: Explains how and why bodies fall on earth and planets orbits around the stars</i><br /><br />Newton's theory didn't explain why, only how. Einstein's theory explains both how and why. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>Theory of evolution: Should be how and why heritable composition of populations change over time. </i><br /><br />Darwin's theory explained how heritable composition of populations change over time. This explanation included natural selection and common descent, but lacked a mechanism of heredity and variation. Modern evolutionary theory more broadly explains the how and why. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84051639966632276222013-05-13T05:01:39.777-07:002013-05-13T05:01:39.777-07:00Zachriel said
"Yes, and evolution describes t...Zachriel said<br />"Yes, and evolution describes the fact that the heritable composition of populations change over time.<br /><br />The name of the theory is the same, but different theories of evolution postulate different hypotheses, explaining the same facts.<br /><br />Gravity is a fact and a theory.<br />http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html"<br /><br />Oh no again! The old darwinian trick to use the different meanings of the same word.<br /><br />Let me put corectly the similarities and differences:<br /><br />Gravity: Facts mass bodies falls on earth, planets orbits around the stars.<br /> Theory of gravity: Explains how and why bodies fall on earth and planets orbits around the stars<br /><br /><br />Evolution:Facts heritable composition of populations change over time.<br /><br /> Theory of evolution: Should be how and why heritable composition of populations change over time. But it isn`t.<br /><br />So your example of falsification keeping the theory do not fits. <br />Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19440228117652267272013-05-12T21:46:27.611-07:002013-05-12T21:46:27.611-07:00Elijah2012 May 11, 2013 at 1:02 PM
"Ian, sa...<i><b>Elijah2012</b> May 11, 2013 at 1:02 PM<br /><br />"Ian, save yourself some typing time. No one disagrees that biological variation over time does and has occurred."<br /><br />but they know this. Anyone involved in debating knows no one denies all variability. </i><br /><br />The only variability EID/creationists will allow is what they call "micro-evolution", meaning variation within a species. The only reason they've conceded <i>that</i> much is because the evidence is basically irresistible. That's pretty much as far as they're prepared to go, however. They fight tooth-and-nail against the idea of "macro-evolution" or new species evolving.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55687142664518427652013-05-12T21:34:13.016-07:002013-05-12T21:34:13.016-07:00Elijah20 12May 11, 2013 at 12:37 PM
[...]
Sped ...<i><b>Elijah20</b> 12May 11, 2013 at 12:37 PM<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />Sped this is silly. If I could go to a planet where automobiles reproduce and adhere to evolution I would still call an automobile a machine.</i><br /><br />You can call an automobile whatever you want but the only reason we know it's a machine is because we design and build them ourselves. The reason why we would recognize Paley's watch as a machine, even if we'd never seen one before, is because it looks like machines we design. We recognize design only insofar as it resembles what we design.<br /><br />Calling some biological structures "machines" just because they bear a passing resemblance to things we design is misleading at the least. It implies they were designed because all the things we classify as machines are designed. Yet the only designers we know of are ourselves and we're pretty sure we didn't design them.<br /><br /><i>You made up that using the word machine excludes evolution just to suit your argument against it.</i><br /><br />I didn't say using the word "machine" excludes evolution. I said that calling some biological structure a "machine" is an inappropriate use of the word because it implies a designer other than ourselves where we have no evidence for one.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32089345976454879392013-05-12T10:34:57.822-07:002013-05-12T10:34:57.822-07:00Scott: Furthermore, we wouldn't think no progr...Scott: Furthermore, we wouldn't think no progress could be made about these aliens. <br /><br />What do I mean by this?<br /><br />For example, It's possible that, even staring out with 10 years of incremental improvements from our current level of technology, we could do the same thing if we made it our top priority, pooled all of our resources and the journey took millions of years. As such, there would be good explanations behind what organisms we took, rather than others. It could be explained, in principle. Staring with our current technology sightly scaled up, we would be limited to the number of organisms we could bring due to size and weight constraints, food supplies, etc.<br /><br />However, if we were able to make enough continuous progress in transit to actually allow the journey to continue for millions of years, this would have necessitated making enough progress in biology that we could eventually design new organisms ourselves. And after millions of years, our preferences of what organisms should be actually deposited would have progressed as well given the adoption of new ideas. As such, this knowledge created in transit would have a significant effect on the organisms that were eventually placed on the target planet. <br /><br />However, If some highly advanced alien culture could travel near the speed of light or faster, they would have created significantly less knowledge in transit. And this knowledge would have significantly less effect on the organisms they originally decided to bring vs what was eventually deposited. <br /><br />If these organisms originally evolved on some other planet, journeys with very short travel times would result in organisms that could be explained by darwinism, with the exception of appearing simultaneously. However, In the case of much longer journeys, organisms couldn't be explained by Darwinism alone. <br /><br />So, despite the fact that we cannot go back in time, we could create many different hypothesis about both organisms and aliens that would have necessary consequences for the current state of the system (the organism supposedly eventually deposited). And we could test them using observations. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43260584756243981012013-05-12T10:10:00.218-07:002013-05-12T10:10:00.218-07:00Jeff, I'm pointing out how biological Darwinis...Jeff, I'm pointing out how biological Darwinism fits into our current, best explanation for the universal growth of knowledge and that a dichotomy of design or randomness reflects a narrow view of how knowledge is created. <br /><br />For example, imagine I claimed you clearly must like *coconut flavored* ice-cream since, at some point in the past, you hypothetically said you "enjoyed enjoy eating ice-cream with your family on Sundays". This is a parochial argument in that it assumes there is only one flavor of ice-cream that you could have ate: coconut. My argument hinges on this assumption, yet one can go to any ice-cream shop and note that there is more than one flavor of ice-cream, including vanilla, strawberry, chocolate, etc. So, either I was presenting a disingenuous argument, in that I knew full well there was more than one flavor of ice-cream, but chose to make the argument anyway, or that in making that argument, I would have illustrated gross ignorance about the field of ice-cream as a whole. <br /><br />I'm simply pointing out the same thing in regards to the field of epistemology, which is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge.<br /><br />While "consensus-thinking biologist[s]" may not actually refer to the information in DNA as "knowledge", this doesn't mean their position must represent either either complete randomness or design. Nor does necessitate their position is incompatible with our current, best explanation for the universal growth of knowledge.<br /><br />To clarify, the term "knowledge", as I'm using it here, is significant in that it represents information that tends to remain in a medium once put there, and is created by a form of conjecture and refutation. In this sense the genome contains the knowledge of how to adapt raw materials into concrete biological adaptations. Furthermore, there are two kinds of knowledge: non-explanatory knowledge and explanatory knowledge. <br /><br />Biological Darwinism is an error correcting process that creates what are essentially useful rules of thumb in the form of non-explanatory knowledge. While genes and even chimpanzees have problems from our perspective, such as getting copied into the next generation or requiring food to survive, they do not conceive of them as problems as people do. <br /><br />People, in the sense that I'm using the term here, are unique in the universe in that not only can they create non-explanatory knowledge, which are useful rules of thumb, but they can create explanatory knowledge, which is based on explanatory theories about how the world works, in reality. As such, this could include alien forms of life on other planets. People are are unique in that they have made the jump to universal explainers. <br /><br />Biological Darwinism is the theory that knowledge in the genome is genuinely created though a process of conjecture, in the form of mutations <b>that are random to any problem to be solved</b>, and refutation, in the form of natural selection. A process that cannot conceive of problems cannot intentionally conjecture explanations for how to solve them. Nor can a process that cannot conceive of explanations conjecture explanations of how the world works, in reality, that might solve them. <br /><br />However, this does not necessitate that an error correcting process that is random to any particular problem to solve must be a completely random process that does not result in the genuine creation of non-explanatory knowledge. This is a false dichotomy. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13725244911474977172013-05-12T07:19:57.984-07:002013-05-12T07:19:57.984-07:00Jeff: Those cases are irrelevant, because we obser...Jeff: Those cases are irrelevant, because we observed neither.<br /><br />Except you haven explained why not observing neither makes them irrelevant. Perhaps you're assuming that science is about positively observed predictions positively proving theories true? If so, how would that work, in practice?<br /><br />From the NCSE article: <a href="http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution" rel="nofollow">What Did Karl Popper Really Say About Evolution?</a> ...<br /><br />"What Popper calls the historical sciences do not make predictions about long past unique events (postdictions), which obviously would not be testable. (Several recent authors—including Stephen Jay Gould in Discover, July 1982—make this mistake.) These sciences make hypotheses involving past events which must predict (that is, have logical consequences) for the present state of the system in question. Here the testing procedure takes for granted the general laws and theories and is testing the specific conditions (or initial conditions, as Popper usually calls them) that held for the system."<br /><br />Having observed neither in the current state of the system is relevant as the absence of these cases would be necessary consequences of Darwinism.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8870426397420681352013-05-12T07:14:11.303-07:002013-05-12T07:14:11.303-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40406735685042421272013-05-12T06:54:30.113-07:002013-05-12T06:54:30.113-07:00Jeff,
Is that a "Yes" or a "No&qu...Jeff, <br /><br />Is that a "Yes" or a "No"? For example, leaving aside the problem of induction, ID's designer is abstract and has no defined limitations. As such, it's unclear how it would be included in a set of ever increasing data beyond "that's just what the designer must have wanted." <br /><br />Furthermore, if mere parsimony is the criteria, then why isn't "Some abstract designer with no defined limitations must have wanted it that way" the most simple in all fields?<br /><br />For example, why not simply state that objects move they way they do because some abstract designer with no defined limitations must want them to move that way? The weather changes the way it does because some abstract designer with no defined limitations must want it to change in that way, etc?<br /><br />Note: human designers are good explanations for human designed things because human beings are constrained in specific ways. And we have individual preferences that reflect the acceptance of ideas that are available to us. Specifically, when we change our preferences, we are choosing to accept ideas about how the world works. <br /><br />The evolution of human designs reflect trade-offs based on the knowledge we had yet to create in the past, the current set knowledge we have in the present and the knowledge that we will eventually create in the future. And the particular trade-offs we chose to implement at any time are based on our preferences, which are based on the available ideas that have been adopted. Natural laws are also constrained in specific ways.<br /><br />However, ID's designer has no such constraints. Why is this exception made for ID, but not all other fields?<br /><br />Jeff: We're so far from explaining the data set we have now it's mind-boggling.<br /><br />This sort of denial that we have made progress is precisely my point. <br /><br />Given that we have and continue to make exponential progress regarding what would have supposedly been designed, what else does your claim that "We're so far from explaining the data set we have now it's mind-boggling" refer to other than the aspects of Darwinism that intersect with ID's designer?<br /><br />IOW, I'm suggesting that many ID proponents object to progress in this area because it assumes no progress can be made about the designer in principle, rather than practice. But, by all means, feel free to provide an alternate explanation. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83728542036031621922013-05-12T06:05:42.813-07:002013-05-12T06:05:42.813-07:00Blas: But gravity describe the fact that masses mo...<b>Blas</b>: <i>But gravity describe the fact that masses move as attracters by other masses. </i><br /><br />Yes, and evolution describes the fact that the heritable composition of populations change over time. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>The name of the theory is the same but both theories of gravity postulate different hypothesis explainig the same facts. </i><br /><br />The name of the theory is the same, but different theories of evolution postulate different hypotheses, explaining the same facts. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>Evolution is the name of the hypothesis not the facts. </i><br /><br />Gravity is a fact and a theory. <br />http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html<br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>You've never made a point that refutes my points. </i><br /><br />He says as he admits to ignoring our argument. Don't worry. Blas picked up the baton. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Yo, genius, even if there was no fossil succession, naturalists would infer SA's from separate instances of abiogenesis, which, again, is a species of evolutionary explanation. </i><br /><br />You had claimed that universal common ancestry was unfalsifiable. Here you admit otherwise. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12546548498491332382013-05-12T05:27:31.378-07:002013-05-12T05:27:31.378-07:00Right. So a theory incorporating SA would still s...Right. So a theory incorporating SA would still somehow incorporate UCA. Um, yeah, no. That's not how ancestry works. SA by definition excludes UCA. Sheesh.didymoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17208286214429823761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76573048185783938322013-05-12T05:25:28.018-07:002013-05-12T05:25:28.018-07:00Oh, BTW, we've actually falsified at least two...Oh, BTW, we've actually falsified at least two theories of gravity. The second (or rather first) would be the Aristotelian notion that elements naturally seek their proper place. I.e stuff made of the Earth element "wants" to be on Earth, so it falls. Air-stuff wants to be in the Sphere of Air, so it goes there. Etc.didymoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17208286214429823761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57671857257530436042013-05-12T04:53:30.787-07:002013-05-12T04:53:30.787-07:00You see, genius, you're so clueless you think ...You see, genius, you're so clueless you think there's some calculable non-zero probability for abiogenesis and subsequent putative evolution. But there's not. And there is nothing we know that indicates or implies there is a non-zero probability for what you believe. With such an ability to blindly believe with utter dogmatism, ANY fossil succession will do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74654941113033884412013-05-12T04:43:53.223-07:002013-05-12T04:43:53.223-07:00Yo, genius, even if there was no fossil succession...Yo, genius, even if there was no fossil succession, naturalists would infer SA's from separate instances of abiogenesis, which, again, is a species of evolutionary explanation. But from what we know about all the contingencies involved in taphonomic, geological, and ecological factors, it's almost inconceivable that a history of SA's wouldn't result in SOME kind of fossil succession, anyway. This in turn would allow for a UCA interpretation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54772657156505551792013-05-12T00:52:52.320-07:002013-05-12T00:52:52.320-07:00No, genius, they're not irrelevant. They are ...No, genius, they're not irrelevant. They are ways the theory could be falsified. Another would be no consistent pattern in the fossil record. I.e., organisms just show up randomly. Rabbits and T-Rex's in the Precambrian. A handful of bats and some conifer trees in the Cambrian. And so on.didymoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17208286214429823761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50817138777361223572013-05-11T20:27:33.891-07:002013-05-11T20:27:33.891-07:00Liar for Jesus Jeff
Those cases are irrelevant, b...<i>Liar for Jesus Jeff<br /><br />Those cases are irrelevant, because we observed neither.</i><br /><br />Another Creationist too ignorant to understand the difference between <b>not falsifiable</b> and <b>not falsified.</b>Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37046319678574837002013-05-11T20:25:14.608-07:002013-05-11T20:25:14.608-07:00Liar for Jesus Jeff
We're so far from explain...<i>Liar for Jesus Jeff<br /><br />We're so far from explaining the data set we have now it's mind-boggling.</i><br /><br />You mean you, personally, are so far from understanding the data set it's mind boggling. But we understand.<br /><br />If there's one thing the internet has taught us it's never underestimate the ignorance of your average Creationist.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87406067374214442632013-05-11T20:24:07.429-07:002013-05-11T20:24:07.429-07:00Scott: Are you suggesting that if we had observed ...Scott: Are you suggesting that if we had observed organisms appearing in the order of most to least complex, Darwinism wouldn't have been falsified?<br /><br />What if we had observed appearing simultaneously? Wouldn't Darwinism wouldn't have been falsified then either?<br /><br />J: Those cases are irrelevant, because we observed neither.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6135130524445027592013-05-11T20:12:44.642-07:002013-05-11T20:12:44.642-07:00Scott: In the current crop of ID, is progress abou...Scott: In the current crop of ID, is progress about the designer even possible, in principle?<br /><br />J: Per induction, all inductive inference is, in principle, subject to a greater approximation to truth by applying parsimony, etc to ever increasing sets of data. We're so far from explaining the data set we have now it's mind-boggling.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com