tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post3212730839673803353..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Junk DNA: The Real StoryUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49104106761223703752010-12-13T08:23:33.371-08:002010-12-13T08:23:33.371-08:00Has anyone written a decent book on "Junk&quo...Has anyone written a decent book on "Junk" DNA?<br />I would definitely like to see that.<br /><br />M.Xibonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06916696543233664922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25136270054856641752010-03-30T14:23:45.082-07:002010-03-30T14:23:45.082-07:00Ritchie:
(cont.)
===========
What are we to make...Ritchie:<br /><br />(cont.)<br /><br />===========<br />What are we to make of this? The theory of evolution provides an explanation. <br />===========<br /><br />OK, so ...?<br /><br /><br />===========<br />And ID? Well, you have to admit that it does SEEM to go against the premise of ID - that life is so amazing complex and well put together that it just HAS to be the product of deliberate design.<br />===========<br /><br />Well I think you are conflating the quality of the design with the design inference:<br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/10/richard-dawkins-and-recurrent-laryngeal.html<br /><br /><br /><br />===========<br />Am I really interpreting the evidence metaphysically by saying the laryngeal nerve in giraffes SEEMS badly designed?<br />===========<br /><br />I think we certainly can evaluate the goodness of a design without delving into metaphysics. It is in the next step where the metaphysics comes in. That is, when we say that a designer never would have designed such inefficiency. We're making assumptions about the designer which do not come from science.<br /><br />Also, we always need to keep in mind the limitations of our knowledge. Please know that there is a long history of evolutionary assumptions that something is junk followed years later by findings that it works rather well after all. Evolution is influencing the interpretation of the evidence, which is then used as an apologetic for evolution. Your underlying belief that evolution is true makes you much more amenable to viewing the laryngeal nerve as inefficient. This is why philosophers point out the problem of theory-laden observations.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />===========<br />Perhaps you think so. And perhaps I am. I eagerly await your response. But if you do think so, where does that leave ID which so often tries to insist certain biological features or mechanisms SEEM designed? If it is metaphysical to say something seems badly designed, surely it is equally metaphysical to say something else seems well designed?<br />===========<br /><br />I agree with you that these are not simple issues. ID, for its part, is an attempt to isolate out the metaphysics, and take a theory-neutral analysis of the evidence. Dembski, Behe and others have developed methods by which one can look at data and decide objectively whether there is good evidence for design. Have they succeeded? That's another question, but we should at least understand the science they are attempting.<br /><br />Now historically and currently evolutionists have lacked such a tool. And why should they care, they are convinced strict evolution is a fact. But this mindset (and this lack of a design inference tool), means that every phenomena and every origins question is restricted to naturalistic explanations. That's great if every such question is indeed purely naturalistic. But what if that is not always the case? Just imagine that possibility. If there were such a case, evolutionists would never know it. They have a blind spot. They will always restrict themselves to naturalistic explanations, assuming they must be true. And they will tend to overstate the plausibility of their explanations, because they are from the start biased as to what the truth is.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69177126187419274362010-03-30T14:23:05.914-07:002010-03-30T14:23:05.914-07:00Ritchie:
===========
I am not just parroting the...Ritchie:<br /><br /><br />===========<br />I am not just parroting the evolutionary claim back. I am pointing out that Mendel's work in no way falsifies Darwin's. A point which you seem to disagree with for no reason that I can understand.<br /><br />"But there is a glaring problem with that story. The fact that evolutionists have, amidst their great triumph, ignored the problem, doesn't mean it is not there."<br /><br />What IS the problem?<br /><br />Again, I genuinely am trying to understand, but you seem to be tying yourself up in knots. Your logic is, at the very least, not easy to follow.<br />===========<br /><br />Not easy to follow? The argument for why Mendel presents a problem for neo Darwinism is extremely straightforward. You don't need to understand organism chemistry, physics, paleontology. molecular biology, or even genetics. Nor is the logic complicated. I explain it here:<br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/01/evolution-of-serendipity.html<br /><br />a post to which you responded. Again, the goal here is not concurrence but understanding. What is it about this argument that you don't understand? I'm perplexed that you find this circuitous.<br /><br /><br /><br />=======<br />Is that what I'm doing in the post?<br />=======<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br /><br />===========<br />I am not saying 'God WOULDN'T design the laryngeal nerve in giraffes like this'. THAT would be interpreting the evidence metaphysically.<br />===========<br /><br />OK, good.<br /><br /><br />===========<br />The laryngeal nerve in giraffes is an objective fact. The fact that it is far longer than it needs to be is also an objective fact. <br />===========<br /><br />False, that is an evolutionary interpretation. We don't know all the functions it serves, nor how long it should be.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5790222550963413642010-03-30T10:42:30.435-07:002010-03-30T10:42:30.435-07:00Thank you...
But to risk opening a large can of wo...Thank you...<br />But to risk opening a large can of worms I have to disagree (with Stone and French) as to which interpretation of the facts was more parsimonious. Although parsimony obviously isn't the be all and end all.<br />I believe you and they find Whiting more parsimonious because there are in total less events throughout the natural history of all of the extant stick insects than in the other explanation. However, this ignores the fact that, using Stone and Frenchs model, there are less events involved in the natural history of any one of the extant species. Each extant species in S&Fs model has only had, at most, one event. Whereas Ws model means that some of the extant species have had up to three events, much less parsimonious I would say. Thoughts?<br /><br />By the way, there is nothing wrong with Whitings data and his cladogram(?)It is his interpretation of the data that is wide open. Interesting topic.MrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09000224780914610538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12924700557482352202010-03-30T09:17:24.680-07:002010-03-30T09:17:24.680-07:00Ian:
Of course the Whiting paper is more in line ...Ian:<br /><br />Of course the Whiting paper is more in line with evolutionary thinking because its reconstruction is according to established methods and practices. The Stone and French reconstruction is a less parsimonious reconstructino, made up to avoid the silliness.<br /><br />This is just another in a long line of modifications to the theory to accommodate the actual data. The theory doesn't work very well, and has to be patched, leading to an increasingly complex theory (see www.DarwinsPredictions.com).<br /><br />I agree with your point that evolutionists can change their methods, and come up with different results. What I wrote is simply a reflection of the results evolutionists obtain when they apply their theory. The results were according to established practice, peer-reviewed, and highly reported on.<br /><br />The Stone and French reconstruction is far less parsimonious according to established practice. But of course it is a possible reconstruction, and can make sense if regaining the wings is less likely than losing them.<br /><br />But what's the point. Either way you end up with a result that appears much more tautological than explanatory. Evolution isn't elucidating anything here, it is simply a tautology. Whatever patterns are found in the species, evolution creates them, no matter how crazy the reconstruction becomes. That's the point.<br /><br />But I do agree with your point the multiple reconstructions are possible (and have been suggested), so I did modify the text accordingly. Thanks for that helpful suggestion.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22475608024113198132010-03-30T02:09:58.899-07:002010-03-30T02:09:58.899-07:00Cornelius
'What they "conclusively"...Cornelius<br /><br />'What they "conclusively" showed is that rather than the solution which evolutionists would normally opt for, which has the appearance, disappearance, and reappearance of wings, one can contrive other, even less likely, solutions where you have massive disappearances all over the tree.'<br /><br />Ok that's tosh. Firstly, the whiting paper did not suggest what would be the 'evolutionary perspetive' as this involved evolving, losing and re-evolving. This is hard to reconcile for the obvious reason that you stated in the article. The second paper, the one you chose to ignore, showed that rather than having multiple events requiring loss and re-evolution it was possible to have only loss events and reach the same molecular and phylogenetic relationship. <br /><br />'They have no reason to prefer one over the other, except for arbitrary weightings.'<br /><br />Tosh<br />Parsimony maybe? Although the second does require more incidents of 'loss', this is easier to reconcile as it was the re-evolution idea that caused problems and was what you trumped up for the purposes of your article. I'm not saying either one is right, there will be more research to determine this Im sure, but I would suggest that you try to have a balanced approach to your researching and article writing as you currently appear to be a bit too selective and this makes you come across as less than honest.<br /><br />Also, you approached the subject, as you do on many things, giving the impression that this was the final answer, without any critical evaluation and without genuinely considering other work or explanations. Misinforming your students and any public who read this stuff would be a tragedy, I hope it is not deliberate.<br /><br />If you genuinely believe that the Whiting paper was more in line with evolutionary thinking than the Stone and French paper then I put it to you that your understanding is flawed. <br /><br />Please explain why you think Whiting is the evolutionary choice over Stone and French?<br /><br />No non answers please or links to previous articles. This is a simple question.MrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09000224780914610538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44520424439875951112010-03-29T18:09:30.941-07:002010-03-29T18:09:30.941-07:00(cont)
"...Would you laugh along with them, ...(cont)<br /><br />"...Would you laugh along with them, or could you represent the skeptic's view (even though you don't agree with it)?"<br /><br />It sounds like a trick question, but obviously I would like to think of myself as someone mature enough to respect an opinion even though I don't agree with it. I am not laughing at you. I just think you are wrong. There is no shame in that.<br /><br />"How are the evidences interpreted metaphysically? Be really specific? OK, how about this quote from you ... This is a typical example of how evolutionists interpret the evidence metaphysically."<br /><br />Is that what I'm doing in the post? I am not saying 'God WOULDN'T design the laryngeal nerve in giraffes like this'. THAT would be interpreting the evidence metaphysically.<br /><br />The laryngeal nerve in giraffes is an objective fact. The fact that it is far longer than it needs to be is also an objective fact. What are we to make of this? The theory of evolution provides an explanation. <br /><br />And ID? Well, you have to admit that it does SEEM to go against the premise of ID - that life is so amazing complex and well put together that it just HAS to be the product of deliberate design.<br /><br />Am I really interpreting the evidence metaphysically by saying the laryngeal nerve in giraffes SEEMS badly designed?<br /><br />Perhaps you think so. And perhaps I am. I eagerly await your response. But if you do think so, where does that leave ID which so often tries to insist certain biological features or mechanisms SEEM designed? If it is metaphysical to say something seems badly designed, surely it is equally metaphysical to say something else seems well designed?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82293080331012626782010-03-29T18:09:06.477-07:002010-03-29T18:09:06.477-07:00Cornelius -
"Since there is no such thing [...Cornelius - <br /><br />"Since there is no such thing [as the scientific method - me], in any sort of clean or tidy sense, such statements are usually signs of ignorance of the history and philosophy of science."<br /><br />Mightn't you be needlessly complicating things here? The scientific method is simply the technique of acquiring knowledge about the world by systematically recording data, formulating hypotheses to account for the data, and then performing experiments to test the hypotheses. Yes, there are details to fill in here, but it is hardly beyond the grasp of the average person. Exactly how much do you need to understand about the history and philosophy of science to grasp how this works?<br /><br />"What is disappointing here is that rather understanding the issue at hand, you merely parrot the evolutionary claim. IOW, when a skeptic is pointing out a failure in evolutionary theory, it is not sufficient to parrot back the evolutionary theory. That is circular reasoning."<br /><br />I am not just parroting the evolutionary claim back. I am pointing out that Mendel's work in no way falsifies Darwin's. A point which you seem to disagree with for no reason that I can understand.<br /><br />"But there is a glaring problem with that story. The fact that evolutionists have, amidst their great triumph, ignored the problem, doesn't mean it is not there."<br /><br />What IS the problem?<br /><br />Again, I genuinely am trying to understand, but you seem to be tying yourself up in knots. Your logic is, at the very least, not easy to follow.<br /><br />Also, I thought my point about competing theories was a valid and relevant one. Theories explain observations and facts. A bad one won't explain many. A better one explains more. If the theory of evolution is so bad and fails to account for so many facts and observations, then it should be easy to come up with a better one. The fact that no-one has even come close to doing so rather suggests that you are simply wrong in your assessment of the theory of evolution as highly flawed.<br /><br />"So now the fellow who said a theory must stand on its own has now turned it around."<br /><br />I am not undermining my point that every theory must stand on its own. I am calling for you or anyone to simply come up with a better theory. And by that, I don't mean one which attacks the theory of evolution - I mean one which accounts for more data and has a greater explanatory power. This is not the same as playing last-theroy-standing - THAT game works by trying to discredit other theories in the hope of 'winning' by default.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20580536563264214312010-03-29T15:55:45.949-07:002010-03-29T15:55:45.949-07:00Ian:
===========
I would, however, like to take y...Ian:<br /><br />===========<br />I would, however, like to take you to task on one issue that I have noticed. You are very keen on finding research and then using that to attack the probablity of evolution. My problem here is that you appear to 'cherry pick' articles, quote something out of them and then leave it there. You do not research that avenue past the point where it gives you a quote to use. I refer to the point you make about insect wings in the 'billion to one' post.You quote an article (Whiting et al, 2003) and give the impression that science had come to the astounding final conclusion that stick insects must have evolved, lost and re-evolved wings several times. However, and this is what gets me, you completely fail to acknowledge the existence of a paper (Stone and French, 2003)that responded to Whiting et al and showed conclusively that the same molecular and phylogenetic relationship could come about without there being any need for 're-evolution' at any point. <br />===========<br /><br />You seem to think that Stone and French showing this "conclusively" carries some weight. All they showed is that one unlikely scenario can be replaced by another. What they "conclusively" showed is that rather than the solution which evolutionists would normally opt for, which has the appearance, disappearance, and reappearance of wings, one can contrive other, even less likely, solutions where you have massive disappearances all over the tree. They have no reason to prefer one over the other, except for arbitrary weightings. In evolutionary theory, one is free to contrive all kinds of unlikely and silly solutions because they never are required to demonstrate plausibility. Nice work if you can get it.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29341200728094438332010-03-29T15:31:06.219-07:002010-03-29T15:31:06.219-07:00Ritchie:
(cont)
So what if someone asked you abo...Ritchie:<br /><br />(cont)<br /><br />So what if someone asked you about the Mendel-Darwin question. "Hey Ritchie, I heard evolution skeptics think that Mendel's work doesn't support evolution. What idiots! Can't they see through their religious biases? Do you know why they are so confused?" Would you laugh along with them, or could you represent the skeptic's view (even though you don't agree with it)?<br /><br /><br /><br />===========<br />"But these evidences are interpreted metaphysically, and you don't even see it."<br /><br />I'll definitely need you to explain this one to me. I would have assumed the metaphysics you are referring to would be methodological naturalism. ... how exactly are these evidences interpreted metaphysically? And how does it differ in how, for example, the theory of gravity interprets its evidence. Be really specific if you can - the more so the better.<br />===========<br /><br />How are the evidences interpreted metaphysically? Be really specific? OK, how about this quote from you:<br /><br />=========<br />Moreover, you also ignore the fact that ID does not provide any sort of reasonable explanation for these 'organic parts and geographic distributions that make the least sense'. Why on Earth would any sensible designer create the laryngeal nerve in the giraffe the way it is, or install our retinas backwards, or any of the many, many other examples of 'bad design'? It flies in the face of what we can see as sensible, efficient, and good design.<br />=========<br /><br />This is a typical example of how evolutionists interpret the evidence metaphysically. This doesn't come from science.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-222785003532961202010-03-29T14:21:03.258-07:002010-03-29T14:21:03.258-07:00Ritchie:
"Not an expert by any means, but I ...Ritchie:<br /><br />"Not an expert by any means, but I understand the scientific method."<br /><br />Since there is no such thing, in any sort of clean or tidy sense, such statements are usually signs of ignorance of the history and philosophy of science.<br /><br /><br />"And I am well versed in religious apologetics."<br /><br />That is equally worrisome since much of what passes for religious apologetics fuels rather than enlightens the origins debate mythology.<br /><br /><br />"It sounds as though you consider yourself to be something of an authority in these fields."<br /><br />I said that I have studied this debate in some detail. But there is a great deal more I'd like to learn.<br /><br /><br /><br />======<br />But even I can spot flaws in your knowledge/reasoning. For example, your apparent belief that the work of Gregor Mendel in any way contradicted that of Darwin (http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_5.1_Mechanisms_of). However knowledgable and well read you are on these matters, you are not infallible. In fact, an unkind person might suspect your self-confidence in your expertise in these fields might be unfounded.<br />======<br /><br />What is disappointing here is that rather understanding the issue at hand, you merely parrot the evolutionary claim. IOW, when a skeptic is pointing out a failure in evolutionary theory, it is not sufficient to parrot back the evolutionary theory. That is circular reasoning.<br /><br />Of course, we all are well familiar with the evolutionary narrative. We need not be reminded that the evolutionary synthesis found a way to integrate Mendelian genetics with Darwinism. We all know that story. But there is a glaring problem with that story. The fact that evolutionists have, amidst their great triumph, ignored the problem, doesn't mean it is not there.<br /><br />Again, I don't expect you to agree, but I do expect you to be able to delineate the arguments. You don't need to be a scientist to understand the basic issues at hand. The fact that you avoid doing so makes it appear you are rigidly holding to the template, rather than objectively allowing all the viewpoints in, for a fair evaluation, or at least fair representation.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />====<br />And I absolutely stand by my insistance that theories explain the evidence on their own without merely playing last-theory-standing. <br />====<br /><br />Good, except that we next have ...<br /><br /><br /><br />====<br />My point here was to illustrate that the theory of evolution is by far the best explanation of the evidence we have - because there is no other theory which even comes close in terms of explanatory power. <br />====<br /><br />So what?<br /><br /><br />====<br />Science does tend to cling to theories (eg, geocentrism) until they are replaced by better ones (eg, heliocentrism). No matter what you think of the theory of evolution, we are likely stuck with it until a better one comes along. And there is absolutely no sign of one yet.<br />====<br /><br />So what? How is that relevant?<br /><br /><br />====<br />And this point is more relevant than it might at first appear. For example, if there is so much anomalous data which the theory of evolution is at a loss to explain, WHY isn't there another hypothesis/theory in the pipeline which can do a better job? The more flawed the theory of evolution is, the easier it would be to come up with a better one. That's just logical. The fact that the theory of evolution is so well established that it is practically the basis of modern biology and there is absolutely no other theory within light years of matching it's explantory power is, if not definitive, at least rather suggestive of the fact that it is probably right.<br /><br />In short, without wanting to sound petulant, if you honestly think the theory of evolution is so flawed, come up with something better! Meanwhile, the total failure of anyone to do so is telling.<br />====<br /><br />So now the fellow who said a theory must stand on its own has now turned it around.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89209044419102205972010-03-29T11:38:21.368-07:002010-03-29T11:38:21.368-07:00(cont)
"But these evidences are interpreted ...(cont)<br /><br />"But these evidences are interpreted metaphysically, and you don't even see it."<br /><br />I'll definitely need you to explain this one to me. I would have assumed the metaphysics you are referring to would be methodological naturalism. But as you yourself state in finally answering my question, it is perfectly scientific and not at all theologically-driven to mandate methodological naturalism - as evidenced by the theory of gravity.<br /><br />So, bearing this in mind, how exactly are these evidences interpreted metaphysically? And how does it differ in how, for example, the theory of gravity interprets its evidence. Be really specific if you can - the more so the better.<br /><br />"OK, again, we can disagree, but at least please understand that my position: the problems are not mere minor points in the face of enormous positive evidence. It is exactly the opposite."<br /><br />I understand you think so. I do not agree, but I guess that was obvious...Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58505716215090578072010-03-29T11:37:58.229-07:002010-03-29T11:37:58.229-07:00Cornelius -
"There's something about th...Cornelius - <br /><br />"There's something about the origins debate that makes everyone feel they are an expert..."<br /><br />I won't quibble much here. It certainly is a very popularized debate which the media love to characature (more so in USA than in Britain, I believe, but even so...) and I will not even attempt to defend the lazy, sensationalist way the media often reports science.<br /><br />Then again, that's just the nature of journalism. Just because they manipulate you doesn't mean they have a vendetta against you or your position in particular - they do that to everyone!<br /><br />I like to think I may also be slightly better informed than you might imagine. Though I have no formal qualifications in these fields, I flatter myself that I'm more well-versed in theology and biology than your average person. Not an expert by any means, but I understand the scientific method. I understand how theories work. And I am well versed in religious apologetics.<br /><br />It sounds as though you consider yourself to be something of an authority in these fields. Who am I to argue here? But even I can spot flaws in your knowledge/reasoning. For example, your apparent belief that the work of Gregor Mendel in any way contradicted that of Darwin (http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_5.1_Mechanisms_of). However knowledgable and well read you are on these matters, you are not infallible. In fact, an unkind person might suspect your self-confidence in your expertise in these fields might be unfounded.<br /><br />Nevertheless, you accuse me of holding up strawmen so regularly on here that it is abundantly clear I have a way to go to properly understand you, despite my efforts.<br /><br />"Earlier you were adamant that a theory must hold up by itself. But that was when you were discussing ID... And that is relevant because ... why ?"<br /><br />And I absolutely stand by my insistance that theories explain the evidence on their own without merely playing last-theory-standing. My point here was to illustrate that the theory of evolution is by far the best explanation of the evidence we have - because there is no other theory which even comes close in terms of explanatory power. Science does tend to cling to theories (eg, geocentrism) until they are replaced by better ones (eg, heliocentrism). No matter what you think of the theory of evolution, we are likely stuck with it until a better one comes along. And there is absolutely no sign of one yet.<br /><br />And this point is more relevant than it might at first appear. For example, if there is so much anomalous data which the theory of evolution is at a loss to explain, WHY isn't there another hypothesis/theory in the pipeline which can do a better job? The more flawed the theory of evolution is, the easier it would be to come up with a better one. That's just logical. The fact that the theory of evolution is so well established that it is practically the basis of modern biology and there is absolutely no other theory within light years of matching it's explantory power is, if not definitive, at least rather suggestive of the fact that it is probably right.<br /><br />In short, without wanting to sound petulant, if you honestly think the theory of evolution is so flawed, come up with something better! Meanwhile, the total failure of anyone to do so is telling.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33541542859631859182010-03-29T10:12:45.619-07:002010-03-29T10:12:45.619-07:00Cornelius,
you wrote:
"Evolutionists such as ...Cornelius,<br />you wrote:<br />"Evolutionists such as Francis Collins argues that similar junk in cousin species, such as pseudogenes, is powerful evidence for evolution. This is what Sober calls "Darwin's Principle." And indeed it is a compelling argument, but not because it supports evolution directly, but rather because it rebukes creation and design. God wouldn't create such shared errors."<br /><br />That may be how you or Francis Collins interprets it, but that is gratuitous. what the presence of shared pseudogenes really argues against is convergence. functional genes shared by different species may have arisen through convergence, but this is less likely to be true of non-functional genes sharing the same mistakes. after all, as Behe points out, there are a million ways to break a gene but less to create a functional one. so it is more parsimonious that organisms share the same pseudogenes created by the same mistakes due to common descent. no god needed, or implied.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52385463414968840262010-03-29T09:39:02.732-07:002010-03-29T09:39:02.732-07:00Louis and folks:
=========
Speaking of religious ...Louis and folks:<br /><br />=========<br />Speaking of religious argument, consider that Isaac Newton could not explain to himself why a body in inertial motion remains in motion. He eventually attributed the cause to God. He wrote that God could cause things to move in the same way that human beings can cause their limbs to move. Newton believed in causality as much as Aristotle but, since he could not identify the cause of motion, he attributed it to God. Bad physics, in my opinion. I find this to be a purely religious argument and I disagree with Newton in this regard.<br /><br />The result is that, even to this day, physicists (most of them are atheists who reject both Newton's religious argument and Aristotelian logic) believe that a body in inertial motion remains in motion for no reason at all, as if by magic. It's embarrassing, to say the least.<br />==========<br /><br />Would you agree that Newton laws of motion were empirically compelling and no metaphsical premises were required to think those laws were a good model? Most would agree with this. What you are pointing out here is the interpretation of the law. Given the law, how do we understand it? Why is it there? Sure, such musings are bound to be metaphysical. But this is completely different from Darwin's Principle, and evolutionary thinking in general, which interprets the evidence according to metaphysical assumptions.<br /><br />TP argued that gravity is more metaphysical than common descent. Perhaps so, but that is not relevant. The metaphysics in evolutionary thought are in the interpretations of the evidences, and arguments, *for* the theory, not in the proposed action of nature. The metaphysics you are pointing out here deal not with why we should accept the law of motion, but in trying to go further and to understand why the law exists. Simply put, evolution's metaphysics are epistemological, whereas physic's metaphysics are ontological.<br /><br />Example: Evolutionists such as Francis Collins argues that similar junk in cousin species, such as pseudogenes, is powerful evidence for evolution. This is what Sober calls "Darwin's Principle." And indeed it is a compelling argument, but not because it supports evolution directly, but rather because it rebukes creation and design. God wouldn't create such shared errors. This is how the powerful arguments for evolution go. They are deeply metaphysical at the epistemological stage. We should believe evolution is true because of premises which do not come from science, and cannot be argued from on an empirical basis. But once you buy the fact of evolution, then the metaphysics is water under the bridge. The action of this supposed process of evolution is purely mechanistic, with no undue metaphysics in sight. At the ontological stage it is just normal-looking science.<br /><br />The claim that evolution is a fact is where the metaphysics lies, not the explanation of how evolution is supposed to work. It is the reverse in physics.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3118140694193257492010-03-29T04:23:31.769-07:002010-03-29T04:23:31.769-07:00I apologise. It would 'appear' that you fo...I apologise. It would 'appear' that you found the one paper then stopped.MrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09000224780914610538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84603618045094021212010-03-29T04:05:42.850-07:002010-03-29T04:05:42.850-07:00Cornelius,
OK, I shall try to not get involved on...Cornelius,<br /><br />OK, I shall try to not get involved on the topic as I cannot fathom exactly your point. I thought I'd got there and obviously hadn't, lol.<br /><br />I would, however, like to take you to task on one issue that I have noticed. You are very keen on finding research and then using that to attack the probablity of evolution. My problem here is that you appear to 'cherry pick' articles, quote something out of them and then leave it there. You do not research that avenue past the point where it gives you a quote to use. I refer to the point you make about insect wings in the 'billion to one' post.You quote an article (Whiting et al, 2003) and give the impression that science had come to the astounding final conclusion that stick insects must have evolved, lost and re-evolved wings several times. However, and this is what gets me, you completely fail to acknowledge the existence of a paper (Stone and French, 2003)that responded to Whiting et al and showed conclusively that the same molecular and phylogenetic relationship could come about without there being any need for 're-evolution' at any point. I didn't need to go hunting for this paper either, it was cited on the same page and linked through citation managers so I don't see that it should be unknown to you. Did you never see the paper? Or did you? Please do have a look and see what you think.<br /><br />Evolution: Have Wings Come, Gone and Come Again?<br />Current Biology. Volume 13, Issue 11, 27 May 2003, Pages R436-R438<br /><br />Also, I believe you have an understanding of DNA methylation and some of its affects? <br /><br />The genome of the stick insect Medauroidea extradentata is strongly methylated within genes and repetitive DNA. PLoS One. 2009 Sep 29;4(9)<br /><br />This paper concerns one of the wingless stick insects. It would be very interesting, would it not, if the same analysis could be done on some winged varieties of stick insect. <br /><br />It took me little time to find the Whiting paper, the Stone and French paper and further contemporary research that could lead to a basic but workable hypothesis and therefore be tested under experimental conditions and add to the sum of mankinds knowledge. This is researching and research. You found one paper, and stopped...MrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09000224780914610538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43711665077634057712010-03-29T03:26:16.827-07:002010-03-29T03:26:16.827-07:00Speaking of religious argument, consider that Isaa...Speaking of religious argument, consider that Isaac Newton could not explain to himself why a body in inertial motion remains in motion. He eventually attributed the cause to God. He wrote that God could cause things to move in the same way that human beings can cause their limbs to move. Newton believed in causality as much as Aristotle but, since he could not identify the cause of motion, he attributed it to God. Bad physics, in my opinion. I find this to be a purely religious argument and I disagree with Newton in this regard.<br /><br />The result is that, even to this day, physicists (most of them are atheists who reject both Newton's religious argument and Aristotelian logic) believe that a body in inertial motion remains in motion for no reason at all, as if by magic. It's embarrassing, to say the least.<br /><br />Google "Physics: The Problem with Motion" if you're interested in this subject.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88138261909774142472010-03-28T19:26:51.750-07:002010-03-28T19:26:51.750-07:00Ritchie:
==============
But here's the thing...Ritchie:<br /><br /><br />==============<br />But here's the thing - the theory of evolution is not based on, or driven by, such assumptions. <br />==============<br /><br />OK, so here we can disagree, but at least understand that someone with far more knowledge than you on this particular topic holds that it is driven by such assumptions. <br /><br />==============<br />It is driven by the correlations we find in the fossil record, genetic record, anatomy and geographic distribution of living things on Earth, etc.<br />==============<br /><br />But these evidences are interpreted metaphysically, and you don't even see it.<br /><br /><br />==============<br />"The scientific evidence presents enormous problems for evolution."<br /><br />Here is another sticking point you have. Forgive me, but I have an image of you as someone who immerses himself in all the problems, potential problems, possible problems and percieved problems for evolution you can find, while ignoring the truly enormous mountain of counter-evidence. <br />==============<br /><br />OK, again, we can disagree, but at least please understand that my position: the problems are not mere minor points in the face of enormous positive evidence. It is exactly the opposite.<br /><br /><br />==============<br />If you were to lift up your eyes you would see that the 'problems' you obsess over (which often turn out to be simple misunderstandings of the facts, judging by the replies your posts seem to generate) are VASTLY outweighed by the positive evidence FOR the theory of evolution.<br />==============<br /><br />This is the template. Nothing could be farther from the objective, scientific, truth (sans metaphysics, of course).<br /><br />==============<br />The balance of evidence really IS on the side of evolution being true.<br />==============<br /><br />That would be very difficult to explain.<br /><br /><br />==============<br />Finally, though it seems to be increasingly tangental to the content of my posts, I really, really would like you to answer my question regarding methodological naturalism. The theory of gravity mandates it. Does this make the theory of gravity a religiously driven theory? <br />==============<br /><br />I did answer this: No, gravity is not religiously driven. The question reveals a profound lack of understanding of the evolution genre.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33946013577775167942010-03-28T19:26:21.343-07:002010-03-28T19:26:21.343-07:00Ritchie:
==============
Cutting right to the chas...Ritchie:<br /><br />==============<br />Cutting right to the chase, here's where I'm at - Biologists today are fighting a desperate battle to encourage the understanding of the theory of evolution against people who, for religious reasons, choose to believe it simply cannot be true because it contradicts the literal word of their holy book.<br />==============<br /><br />I could not have characterized the mythology any better.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />=============<br />Now I think you are getting far too swept up on two certain points. Firstly, that 'evoltuion is a fact'. Now, from where I stand, when people say 'evolution is a fact', they mean that it is so well-evidenced and so thoroughly well supported that denying it is true is perverse. At the end of the day, the theory of evolution has withstood a century and a half of critical analysis. It is, basically, a damn good theory. And when people say 'Evolution is a fact', what they more literally mean is that 'To the best of our knowledge, evolution really does happen'.<br />==============<br /><br />Yes, that is a good explanation of what is meant by "evolution is a fact."<br /><br /><br /><br />==============<br />But you seem to take such statements to proclaim that biology is driven by the fanatical belief that evolution IS TRUE and MUST NOT BE QUESTIONED with a fanatical, religious zeal. <br />==============<br /><br />False.<br /><br /><br /><br />==============<br />And in doing so, you are mistaken. If anyone could come up with a testable, scientific alternative to the theory of evoltuion, the scientific community would, I am sure, be more than willing to at least listen. <br />==============<br /><br />Now you have switched gears. The topic suddenly, out of nowhere, switches to the philosophy of science. This is a typical move by evolutionists. Claim evolution is a fact, and when questioned about it, quickly change the topic to creationism, or ID. Earlier you were adamant that a theory must hold up by itself. But that was when you were discussing ID. <br /><br /><br />==============<br />But no-one yet has. ID, for example, fails miserably to pass as a scientific theory by even the lowest of standards.<br />==============<br /><br />And that is relevant because ... why ?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />==============<br />The second point you seem to be hooked on is that many prominent biologists have said certain biological features could not, or would not have been made by a designer. You insist this is a statement based on religious assumptions - assumptions on what a designer would or would not design.<br />==============<br /><br />Insist? Must one "insist" that statements about what god or a designer would do are not scientific?<br /><br /><br />==============<br />And you are right - such statements are. <br />==============<br /><br />Oh, OK, good. We're making progress ...<br /><br /><br />(cont.)Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48182515010223122072010-03-28T19:25:36.008-07:002010-03-28T19:25:36.008-07:00Ritchie:
The problem is you are imputing views an...Ritchie:<br /><br />The problem is you are imputing views and motives to me which I do not hold. You have the superficial template of the story in mind. You see everything through this template. So you literally are casting me into a fictional role that has been programmed into your thinking. <br /><br />Now I am by no means expecting you to agree with my views. But I would hope you can at least understand my views. You might even realize there is more to this story than you think.<br /><br />Also, please realize that I have studied this debate in some detail. Most people, I suspect you included, have a passing familiarity at best with the material. You've probably had the high school biology class. And you've probably read some of Darwin and Milton. Perhaps you've also read Paley and Hume. Maybe some Kant. You've probably read some Plato, and may be familiar with greek thought, from the pre socratics to say the Epicureans. This would all be a good start, but in itself only a start.<br /><br />You probably have studied the scientific evidences and arguments for evolution, as presented by evolutionists. But you probably read them with a sympathetic attitude. You have probably not studied the critiques of these. You've probably not thought too hard about possible problems. And you probably did not think too much about the role of metaphysics in the reasoning, and its role in the interpretation of the empirical evidence.<br /><br />You've probably not traced the history of the evolutionary arguments. You've probably not read read a great deal of the early-mid 20th c. evolutionists, and you've probably not studied the 19th c., post Darwin, evoltionists.<br /><br />You're probably not too familiar with the metaphysics in Darwin's book, and even less aware of their connections to pre Darwin thought. You're probably not too familiar with the massive debate over miracles in early 18th c. England, or the various claims of natural theology at about that same time.<br /><br />You've probably never read John Ray, Ralph Cudworth, or Thomas Burnet. You're probably not familiar with Malebranche or Wolfe, and you probably don't understand the underlying metaphysics of Leibniz' thought.<br /><br />Your knowledge of church history is, like most people's, probably not very detailed. You probably have no idea what the theological motivations of the deists were and may not know the contributions of David Friedrich Strass. You would probably be hard pressed to name theological positions supportive or mandating evolutionary thought. You're probably unfamiliar with early church or medieval origins thought and debates.<br /><br />You are also probably not up on the relevant philosophy of science issues, and you're likely unaware of its various intricacies and nuances.<br /><br />These is some of the background knowledge one needs to intelligently engage the origins debate. Yet people routinely bluster into the debate with little more than the latest newspaper hit piece, reinforcing their pre existing caricatures.<br /><br />There is a story here, but it is not what most people think it is. But until and unless you are ready to put your journalist hat on, and actually try to understand the skepticism, rather than type cast it, you'll never understand.<br /><br />(cont.)Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49297281890259745502010-03-28T19:25:03.680-07:002010-03-28T19:25:03.680-07:00Ritchie:
There's something about the origins ...Ritchie:<br /><br />There's something about the origins debate that makes everyone feel they are an expert. I have seen many a pundit (on all sides of the issue) bluster into the debate with close to no actual knowledge. They've seen *Inherit the Wind*, had a high school biology class, and they've heard all they need to know in the newspapers and TV coverage.<br /><br />Imagine blustering into a health care debate, environmental debate, economic debate, foreign policy debate, military spending debate, etc., with essentially no knowledge. Imagine reporting on any of these with little knowledge of the nuances. But this happens on a regular basis in the origins debate. We all know this is all about religion versus science. This is the template into which all the facts must fit. I can't tell you all the examples of misreporting on this.<br /><br />Example: For a major TV story done awhile back about a particular incident, a scientist friend of mine (who was local to the incident) was interviewed. The interviewers were interested in his religious angle, but he didn't have a religious angle. He explained the scientific problems with evolution. It was a lengthy interview, but he appeared nowhere in the final piece, and was not even mentioned. Guess what the viewers learned in that piece? It was all about those religious fanatics in opposition to good science at work.<br /><br />The rule of thumb is that you are either misquoted / misrepresented, or you are omitted from the story.<br /><br />Ritchie, your comments unfortunately reflect this sort of superficial understanding, and stereotyping that characterizes the origins debate. Of course, as in any contentious debate, there are outlier views and uninformed participants. But you wouldn't report on a political story by using only the extremists to represent one side. Are there people with a religious belief against evolution, sure, of course. Just as there are atheists who must have evolution. But neither represent the totality, or even the underlying important elements, of the debate.<br /><br />(cont.)Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28091143000639475692010-03-28T16:58:45.391-07:002010-03-28T16:58:45.391-07:00Cornelius -
"but don't you want to unde...Cornelius - <br /><br />"but don't you want to understand the skepticism for what it is, rather than rebuke a strawman?"<br /><br />I know it sounds like we're just butting heads and each probably assumes the other is just being incredibly stubborn, but yes I sincerely do at least want to understand you properly, because apparently I do not. If you think I am failing in this endeavour, please take my attempts as, at the very least, sincere.<br /><br />"Put on your journalist hat..."<br /><br />Amusing considering I am actually a journalist, btw...<br /><br />Cutting right to the chase, here's where I'm at - Biologists today are fighting a desperate battle to encourage the understanding of the theory of evolution against people who, for religious reasons, choose to believe it simply cannot be true because it contradicts the literal word of their holy book.<br /><br />Thus the theory of evolution is unusual among scientific theories in that it constantly has to justify itself.<br /><br />Now I think you are getting far too swept up on two certain points. Firstly, that 'evoltuion is a fact'. Now, from where I stand, when people say 'evolution is a fact', they mean that it is so well-evidenced and so thoroughly well supported that denying it is true is perverse. At the end of the day, the theory of evolution has withstood a century and a half of critical analysis. It is, basically, a damn good theory. And when people say 'Evolution is a fact', what they more literally mean is that 'To the best of our knowledge, evolution really does happen'.<br /><br />But you seem to take such statements to proclaim that biology is driven by the fanatical belief that evolution IS TRUE and MUST NOT BE QUESTIONED with a fanatical, religious zeal. And in doing so, you are mistaken. If anyone could come up with a testable, scientific alternative to the theory of evoltuion, the scientific community would, I am sure, be more than willing to at least listen. But no-one yet has. ID, for example, fails miserably to pass as a scientific theory by even the lowest of standards.<br /><br />The second point you seem to be hooked on is that many prominent biologists have said certain biological features could not, or would not have been made by a designer. You insist this is a statement based on religious assumptions - assumptions on what a designer would or would not design.<br /><br />And you are right - such statements are. But here's the thing - the theory of evolution is not based on, or driven by, such assumptions. It is driven by the correlations we find in the fossil record, genetic record, anatomy and geographic distribution of living things on Earth, etc.<br /><br />"The scientific evidence presents enormous problems for evolution."<br /><br />Here is another sticking point you have. Forgive me, but I have an image of you as someone who immerses himself in all the problems, potential problems, possible problems and percieved problems for evolution you can find, while ignoring the truly enormous mountain of counter-evidence. If you were to lift up your eyes you would see that the 'problems' you obsess over (which often turn out to be simple misunderstandings of the facts, judging by the replies your posts seem to generate) are VASTLY outweighed by the positive evidence FOR the theory of evolution.<br /><br />The balance of evidence really IS on the side of evolution being true.<br /><br />Finally, though it seems to be increasingly tangental to the content of my posts, I really, really would like you to answer my question regarding methodological naturalism. The theory of gravity mandates it. Does this make the theory of gravity a religiously driven theory?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2936426601531043782010-03-28T15:03:50.825-07:002010-03-28T15:03:50.825-07:00Ian:
===
I think this is what bugs me and has pro...Ian:<br /><br />===<br />I think this is what bugs me and has prompted me to post here lately. You assume that the theory of evolution and those people who understand what it means are using it as a reason to deny your monotheism that you insist must still be involved and that their research, investigations and conclusions/inferences are therefore prompted by religion in order to deny it. <br />===<br /><br />But I never said or assumed that. Indeed, quite the opposite. You have attributed a position to me which I do not hold, and in fact is the opposite of my position, and then you criticize me for assuming that, though it is you who are assuming. Evolutionists typically cannot genuinely engage skepticism of their theory.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75213986813688735932010-03-28T10:30:05.676-07:002010-03-28T10:30:05.676-07:00Ritchie:
====
You are not advancing any reasons w...Ritchie:<br /><br />====<br />You are not advancing any reasons why an almighty designer WOULD design creatures with so many 'flaws'. <br />====<br /><br />OK, that's fair. I don't have a divine hot line.<br /><br /><br />====<br />And the fact that there are so many examples of what we would consider 'bad design' is in fact rather suggestive (though not conclusive) evidence against a designer. At least, a designer who was sensible, rational and halfway intelligent.<br />====<br /><br />So evolution is compelling--a metaphysical argument that is robust to scientific problems, of which there are many. This comes right out of 17th c. rationalism, transmitted through Darwin.<br /><br /><br /><br />====<br />All you are doing is clinging to the fact that such a designer has nevertheless not been shown to be impossible. Which, for what it is worth, is true. But we have no reason to think such a designer does exist, and active reasons to think one does not!"<br />====<br /><br />Clinging? Another strawman. In fact, not only am I not "clinging," I have never made any argument of the sort.<br /><br /><br />=======<br />You also said in the OP "Darwin's reasoning, such as in the passage above, is metaphysical." Are here we return to my question. Was Newton's reasoning also metaphysical?<br />=======<br /><br />No, Newton was not driven by, and so did not use, religious premises. He didn't say, "God would never do X, so therefore ...".Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.com