tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post6429301823671146779..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: The “H” in EvolutionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger488125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8487092001536462282010-07-17T07:45:45.846-07:002010-07-17T07:45:45.846-07:00Just because Fodor is wrong, does not imply that F...Just because Fodor is wrong, does not imply that Fodor will one day recognize that he is wrong. Even if he does ever realize his mistake (which he won't unless he further develops his background of understanding in genetics and evolution), there's no certainty that he will publicly retract (as Michael Denton notably did).<br /><br />If Fodor's ideas had merit, they would be spreading in the philosophical and biological community as they have been well publicized. They haven't caught fire so far, and I wouldn't be holding my breath. The core of natural selection is mathematics (R.A. Fisher and Russell Lande have done important work here). For natural selection to not work, you would have to imagine another universe in which our mathematics do not rule. Is such a universe possible? I don't know.<br /><br />Alright, interesting discussion indeed, see you on another thread.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70929475081711882212010-07-17T07:20:00.963-07:002010-07-17T07:20:00.963-07:00John,
This was an interesting discussion, thank y...John,<br /><br />This was an interesting discussion, thank you for your insights. Even as a lay person it was clear that Koonin's review constitute leading insight into the efficacy of NS. I hope that one day scientists will evaluate the implications of his work to its logical conclusion... (I'm not proposing any conclusion though)<br /><br />Since you sided with the negative critics of Fodor's work, there is nothing much I can do. His logic has not been proven flawed and arguments against his position are mostly founded in aspects of evolution that he does not argue against i.e. strawman arguments. To satisfy you I will be on the lookout for Fodor's retraction or admission of his alleged flawed argument.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90362162887834459812010-07-17T06:15:01.179-07:002010-07-17T06:15:01.179-07:00Michael: The fact that you also have your doubts i...<i>Michael: The fact that you also have your doubts in Neo-Darwinian mechanism being alone able to achieve biodiversity is actually an effort to overcome this logical and empirically observed deficiency of NS. </i><br /><br />There is no Fodorian logical deficiency of NS outside of his own brain and the brains of those who do not know enough to cast aside his arguments. However, yes, data described in the Koonin review article do show conclusively and convincingly that mutations and natural selection are working in a milieu that also includes HGT and genetic drift. Genetic drift is especially important, and we see its effects on the genome as well as inferring these effects from mathematical principles. Natural selection is a localized hill climbing algorithm. But some hills aren't worth climbing. To get to a nearby peak, you may have to cross a valley. Genetic drift can get you across the valley. This was the mathematical work of Sewall Wright and it has been confirmed by results summarized by Koonin.<br /><br />It's not a question of doubting natural selection. We know what it can do, and what it cannot do. It can yield novel genetic combinations that can optimize (in a local sense) survival and reproductive potential. It cannot produce new mutations. It can, due to the multiple gene effect I described above, actually produce some novel trait variability, however. But it can only work on the genetic variability it has on hand, and it cannot stop all (or even most, at the genome level) genetic drift.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47113319352429367962010-07-17T05:51:31.154-07:002010-07-17T05:51:31.154-07:00Michael: You (sic) polar bear example does not exc...<i> Michael: You (sic) polar bear example does not exclude intentionality because you can not simply take "white is a possible color of bears" for granted.</i><br /><br />An interesting counterexample: many mammal species live in the leafy canopy of trees, but none of them have naturally green hair. Mammals produce hair color through eumelanin and phaeomelanin pigmentation, yielding the possible colors: black, brown, tan, blond, red, gray, and white. Humans are mammals, so these are the same colors we see in natural human hair.<br /><br />Reptilians use porphyrins as well as melanins in producing color, so tropical forest canopies are home to green lizards and green snakes. If green were a possible mammalian hair color, we would see it in arboreal mammals because important predators (forest hawks and eagles) have superb, tetrachromatic vision.<br /><br />Sloths do have a greenish tint to their fur, but it's due to algae living symbiotically within it. This is an example of the quirkiness of evolutionary history. If a "designer" knew that one day mammals would take to the trees, why deny them the ability to match the leaves the way reptiles can?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88985183023678455102010-07-17T05:10:20.624-07:002010-07-17T05:10:20.624-07:00Michael: The error is in the mechanism of NS not b...<i> Michael: The error is in the mechanism of NS not being able to select "for" without intentionality somewhere in the causal chain. </i><br /><br />Again, this is logical error on Fodor's part. I'm not the only one to notice it; it's been picked up by the philosophers and scientists who have reviewed his work. Unintentional natural selection goes on all around us as bacteria become increasingly resistant to antibiotics.<br /><br />Whether we view this as "selecting for" resistance is immaterial semantic wordplay. If Fodor wants to imply that his wordplay somehow means natural selection has no efficacy in yielding change, he needs to provide data from the natural world.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7419269814963919492010-07-17T04:54:14.524-07:002010-07-17T04:54:14.524-07:00Michael: What I think you don't understand is ...<i> Michael: What I think you don't understand is that the logical error of Darwinism is not implying that genetic variation does not happen because of environmental pressure being one of the causal influences. </i><br /><br />Three negatives in this sentence, but reading it at face value, you are saying: <br />1. Genetic variation is NOT caused by the environment.<br />2. Darwinists think variation IS caused by the environment.<br />3. Darwinists are thus wrong.<br /><br />Well, you're partially correct. More precisely: <br /><br />1. New mutations are not directed toward the survival needs of the organism. However, stress can yield higher mutation rates (not surprising - I make more typos when I'm stressed too).<br /><br />2. Natural selection can only work on the variability provided, but it can do good work. If a new allele arises in the population, it has very little chance of becoming fixated (the ubiquitous form of the gene). Natural selection tilts the playing table; if the new allele aids survival and reproduction, it has a vastly improved chance of reaching fixation.<br /><br />3. As we go forward, the fixed alleles we have in our genome are thus indeed a reflection of our history, with the environment being a causal influence on that history. If the population that became polar bears stayed in forested environments, and never moved onto pack ice, they would still be brown.<br /><br /><br />When scientists speak of selection pressure, they are not implying that the environment is forcing new beneficial mutations to arise, but simply weeding out the alleles that are now significantly deleterious and fixating those that are beneficial under the current phase of selection. This can produce NEW genetically-based trait variation that wasn't seen prior to strong selection, because most traits are the result of multiple genes working together. As an example, prior to strong positive selection for increasing length of trait X, X was not maximized because the combinations of genes that would maximize X would not have been realized. Strong natural selection (differential death and reproduction) will get novel combinations together.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16424234312706658542010-07-17T04:03:00.254-07:002010-07-17T04:03:00.254-07:00Michael: You (sic) polar bear example does not exc...<i>Michael: You (sic) polar bear example does not exclude intentionality because you can not simply take "white is a possible color of bears" for granted.</i><br /><br />Not taking it for granted in this case, Michael. We know from the study of other bear species and other mammals generally, that white results from an absence of pigmentation. White hairs are colorless, but scatter all visible frequencies. So any mutation that knocks out melanocyte production yields white.<br /><br /><i>If you can not see that intentionality is required for any form of natural selection then there is not much more I can do for you.</i><br /><br />Do chemicals have intentions, Michael? Humans had intention to kill bacteria, but widespread use of antibiotics has yielded antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria through unintentional natural selection. Similarly, seal prey and cub predators did not intend to yield bear populations that were harder to see. Their "intention" was to eat or to avoid being eaten.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23788648873565119792010-07-16T14:10:59.409-07:002010-07-16T14:10:59.409-07:00John,
You polar bear example does not exclude int...John,<br /><br />You polar bear example does not exclude intentionality because you can not simply take "white is a possible color of bears" for granted. If you can not see that intentionality is required for any form of natural selection then there is not much more I can do for you.<br /><br />What I think you don't understand is that the logical error of Darwinism is not implying that genetic variation does not happen because of environmental pressure being one of the causal influences. The error is in the mechanism of NS not being able to select "for" without intentionality somewhere in the causal chain.<br /><br />The fact that you also have your doubts in Neo-Darwinian mechanism being alone able to achieve biodiversity is actually an effort to overcome this logical and empirically observed deficiency of NS.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56965792373735007542010-07-16T05:55:21.182-07:002010-07-16T05:55:21.182-07:00Michael,
you wrote:"Darwinism = origin of bi...Michael,<br /><br />you wrote:"Darwinism = origin of biological diversity through mutation and natural selection."<br /><br />Here I can agree with you that Darwinism, and the "hard" version of the Neodarwinian synthesis are insufficient for explaining life's diversity; genetic drift, endosymbiosis, and HGT are all indispensable complements if our goal is to understand and explain biodiversity.<br /><br />You wrote: "Logical fallacy in Darwinism is the fact that it relies on the concept of natural selection to have an ability to select "for", which is logically impossible without intentionality. Nature has no ability of intentionality."<br /><br />Natural selection does not need intention on the part of mother nature. It just needs variabity in genetically based traits and nonrandom differential survivorship and reproduction with respect to these variable genes, regulatory sequences, and resultant traits.<br /><br />Back to the polar bears, if white is a possible color for bears (which of course it is) and they are surrounded by a white landscape of pack ice (which they are) then the effects of predators on cubs and of flighty seal prey on adults would be of the same nature as if we purposefully chose breeding stock. Not as rapid, as a few tan-colored bears would likely squeeze through for a while, but just as certain given the huge survival advantage of the white coat. If you don't understand that, there's not much more I can do for you.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17595082245701227672010-07-14T13:00:39.540-07:002010-07-14T13:00:39.540-07:00John,
Darwinism = origin of biological diversity ...John,<br /><br />Darwinism = origin of biological diversity through mutation and natural selection.<br /><br />Logical fallacy in Darwinism is the fact that it relies on the concept of natural selection to have an ability to select "for", which is logically impossible without intentionality. Nature has no ability of intentionality.<br /><br />There is no relationship between a)any of a number of traits that accompany a beneficial trait (like the noise and movement made by your longs that comes with successful breathing) and b)nature's "blind" ability to select.<br /><br />That is just my own rendition of Fodor's argument against natural selection. Rather let Fodor speak as the trained professional in this area... i.e. read his book.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52837293357083891872010-07-12T04:45:28.198-07:002010-07-12T04:45:28.198-07:00Michael,
If you are still reading, why don't ...Michael,<br /><br />If you are still reading, why don't you tell me what "Darwinism" means to you, and where you think there is logical fallacy in it.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82027296215239857592010-07-11T06:06:34.865-07:002010-07-11T06:06:34.865-07:00Michael: I have to say that your apologetic of Dar...<b>Michael: I have to say that your apologetic of Darwinian theory sounds very much like a theological defense of a belief system instead of a logically rigorous scientific evaluation of what is presented.</b><br /><br />My arguments don't have to go on for pages to dismantle Fodor, they just have to be correct. Please point out to me where you think I was factually wrong.<br /><br />That scientific facts in opposition to Fodor sound like religious apologetics to you is not surprising. We hear the same thing out of Cornelius Hunter all the time. I think I am beginning to understand now why ID views evolutionary biology as a religious belief system. It may not just be a ruse they hope to use in a courtroom someday, it may be something that latter-day Paleyists sincerely hold true, just like the stoner who is convinced that everyone else in the world must be stoned too.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70792383922664272472010-07-11T06:04:52.786-07:002010-07-11T06:04:52.786-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18126181649977922232010-07-11T05:17:53.380-07:002010-07-11T05:17:53.380-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64215534181493452102010-07-11T05:02:55.250-07:002010-07-11T05:02:55.250-07:00Michael,
I personally find natural selection, co...Michael, <br /><br />I personally find natural selection, constrained by chance, variability, materials, and very importantly, phylogenetic history, to be a compelling explanation of the diversity of life on Earth.<br /><br />It explains what we do see: white bears hunting white seal pups, as white wolves and foxes look on, and also so many things that we do not see:<br /><br />gills on whale sharks, but not on whales. What is the ID explanation for why whales lack gills? They could certainly use them. Was it the designer's purpose to disallow them gills so that one day his/her/its favorite species could harpoon them in large numbers for use in oil lamps?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78691702144054127622010-07-11T04:47:40.257-07:002010-07-11T04:47:40.257-07:00Michael,
My last point on types of wings is certa...Michael,<br /><br />My last point on types of wings is certainly the least important point I made, but it remains valid. That's the wrong type of wing to use in this discussion when there are perfectly good mammal wings out there. That's a really minor quibble, but it goes back to relevant biological knowledge.<br /><br /><i>Michael: "One basic mistake you are making is to convolute Darwinian thought with modern concepts that does not fit."</i><br /><br />No, it's a mistake that Fodor is making to not recognize that natural selection is now a well-established part of modern evolutionary theory and is based in genetics. Digging up the corpse of Darwinian pre-genetic selection is like writing a book excoriating Newton for failure to include gamma in his equations of motion. We accept common descent and natural selection as an important mechanism (among multiple); we reject pangenesis, blended inheritance, direct effect of use and disuse.<br /><br /><i>Michael: Jerry Fodor is a trained philosopher and putting arguments together is clearly his strength. If I were you I would take him far more seriously and evaluate your arguments.</i><br /><br />His earlier work may be well respected, but this line of inquiry has logical holes you could drive a truck through, as I showed above. Other trained philosophers have found his work to be seriously flawed:<br />http://bostonreview.net/BR35.2/block_kitcher.php<br />http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n13/peter-godfrey-smith/it-got-eaten<br />http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/Fodor%20%20and%20Piatelli-Palermini%20march%2012.pdfUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48080659030937916932010-07-10T14:30:11.889-07:002010-07-10T14:30:11.889-07:00I admire your effort and hold it in high regard. ...I admire your effort and hold it in high regard. Even though my objective was to challenge you to do a <b>personal evaluation</b> of the logical consistency of Darwinian explanations. I am unfortunately not qualified to argue on behalf of Fodor, so I will only give you my observation of what you presented.<br /><br />I have to say that your apologetic of Darwinian theory sounds very much like a theological defense of a belief system instead of a logically rigorous scientific evaluation of what is presented.<br /><br />One basic mistake you are making is to convolute Darwinian thought with modern concepts that does not fit.<br /><br />Jerry Fodor is a trained philosopher and putting arguments together is clearly his strength. If I were you I would take him far more seriously and evaluate your arguments.<br /><br />For example, your last argument about the wings is clearly a red herring because he used a specific type of wing in his argument to proof a specific point. Hope this will help you to start.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32602582705606204052010-07-10T10:38:48.627-07:002010-07-10T10:38:48.627-07:00(ctd)
Fodor: "Evolution by natural selection ...(ctd)<br />Fodor: "Evolution by natural selection is inherently a conservative process"<br /><br />And earlier he referred to it as "culling". Most selection is indeed purifying, but positive selection is well established too. Where is the citation of the Grant's finch beak studies? Lactase persistence? ASPM? FOXP2? TTX resistance in garter snakes? Fodor also brings up the hitchhiker ("free rider") objection, but this is old news, and in any event, even if they do not improve fitness, the widespread nature of these traits is due to natural selection in this case. He cites "evo devo" as an opposing mechanism to selection, when in fact it is an extension of our understanding of the genetic contribution to form. Growth and development yield the forms, selection and drift (selection's only true opponent) determine which forms we see retained in future populations.<br /><br />As a return to his title motif, he describes feathers as necessities in order to have wings. Has he heard of insects, bats, or pterosaurs?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42193839119557073292010-07-10T10:37:32.070-07:002010-07-10T10:37:32.070-07:00Fodor: "The present worry is that the explica...Fodor: "The present worry is that the explication of natural selection by appeal to selective breeding is seriously misleading, and that it thoroughly misled Darwin. Because breeders have minds, there’s a fact of the matter about what traits they breed for; if you want to know, just ask them. Natural selection, by contrast, is mindless; it acts without malice aforethought. That strains the analogy between natural selection and breeding, perhaps to the breaking point."<br /><br /><br />Here Fodor joins the list of those who fail to grasp how changes accrued during animal breeding has relevance to evolution via natural selection. In natural selection, some traits increase survivorship and fecundity; if these traits are genetically influenced, then genes that promote them are more likely to become widespread in the future population, just as if someone had purposefully selected for them. In breeding, not everything is in the breeder's hands either. Livestock succumb to disease, predators, accidents, and drownings. Natural selection and drift are at play here to, especially in the earlier history of domestication.<br /><br />Fodor: "were polar bears selected for being white or for matching their environment?"<br /><br />Not sure if he's trying to pull someone's leg here, or if he really is this ignorant. The shorthand answer is "matching their environment." They are not West Highland White terriers. Sister populations of brown bears living in environments that are not white during periods of active foraging and cub-raising, are, not surprisingly, not generally white. But white is an easy hair color to pull off for mammals since it results from a lack of pigmentation. It's part of the variability present in bears (including the more distantly related black bears), and it's widespread among mammals as a rare (and usually deleterious) trait. But polar bears are active during the Arctic winter and on pack ice. Not only are they better hunters if they have white hair, but their cubs are also better camouflaged, which is important considering that males will sometimes kill cubs.<br /><br />Fodor: "The biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky said that nothing in biology makes sense without Darwinism, and he is widely paraphrased."<br /><br />And widely misquoted, he of course actually said nothing in biology makes sense except "in light of evolution." Evolution does not equal Darwinism, and his error is not surprisingly in the direction of his argument.<br /><br />Fodor: "So, in principle at least, there’s an alternative to Darwin’s idea that phenotypes ‘carry implicit information about’ the environments in which they evolve: namely, that they carry implicit information about the endogenous structure of the creatures whose phenotypes they are."<br /><br />Darwin know that organism morphology resulted from historical ancestry as well as recent adaptation. He noted, for example, that characters most closely related to mode of life were the least useful in taxonomy, which Darwin recognized had been largely using traits associated with shared ancestry.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46874589931175542882010-07-10T10:13:43.469-07:002010-07-10T10:13:43.469-07:00Fodor: "Darwinists have been known to say tha...Fodor: "Darwinists have been known to say that adaptationism is the best idea that anybody has ever had. It would be a good joke if the best idea that anybody has ever had turned out not to be true."<br /><br />Dennet's quote was concerning "evolution by natural selection;" that does not imply "adaptationism" in the sense that everything we see in biology must be an adaptation.<br /><br />Fodor: "Here’s the (conceptual) problem: you can read adaptationism as saying that environments select creatures for their fitness; or you can read it as saying that environments select traits for their fitness...Perhaps the consensus view among Darwinists is that phenotypes evolve because fit individuals are selected for the traits that make them fit. This way of putting it avoids the ambiguity, but whether it’s viable depends on whether adaptationism is able to provide the required notion of ‘selection for’; and it seems, on reflection, that maybe it can’t. Hence the current perplexity."<br /><br />Perplexity is only applicable to Fodor here. Natural selection acts proximally with whole organisms. Some individuals survive to leave many offspring. Some leave only a few. Most, in most natural populations, will die before the age of reproduction, and some will survive to adulthood but will not reproduce (yielding the same result in the long run). This differential birth and death is not randomly distributed across genotypes. Over time in populations, genes and regulatory sequences that significantly contribute to successful reproduction have a tendency to become frequent or universal, those that significantly hinder success tend to become less frequent or disappear. Among the successful genes will be those that yield phenotypic traits that have clearly adaptive value (like white hair on polar bears).<br /><br />A major part of the problem is that Fodor is trying to discuss evolution, selection, adaptation and traits without mentioning genes, as though the calendar said 1885. As critics have noted, Fodor doesn't appear to know much at all about genetics. That would severely limit any meaningful contribution he could make to evolutionary understanding.<br /> <br />(ctd.)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15332199703199480312010-07-10T10:13:10.669-07:002010-07-10T10:13:10.669-07:00Michael: If you manage to apply scientific method ...<b> Michael: If you manage to apply scientific method properly and you are willing to weed out logical mistakes then I have no problem with that. Please take Jerry Fodor as a good example of doing just that. </b><br /><br />I haven't read "WDGR" but I have seen some scientific commentary on it and I have read his earlier essay in the London Review of Books, "Why Pigs Don't Have Wings". Based on that essay, I can't take Jerry Fodor's work to be a good example of weeding out logical mistakes because he spends his words either restating the well-established or introducing misconceptions of his own. Well trod ground includes: 1. not all evolution is adaptation, 2. natural selection works within constraints, 3. evolutionary psychologists often behave more like other branches of psychology than natural science, having a tenuous relationship with the scientific method.<br /><br />Misconceptions include:<br /><br />Fodor: "natural selection, which purports to characterise the mechanism not just of the formation of species, but of all evolutionary changes in the innate properties of organisms."<br /><br />Even Darwin acknowledged that natural selection was not the only mechanism of change, and certainly no knowledgeable evolutionary biologist would do so today.<br /><br />Fodor on evopsych: "It’s the adaptationism rather than the phylogeny that the Darwinist account of what ails us depends on."<br /><br />Not entirely. No matter the mechanism, having a brain that is a modified ape's, that is in turn a modified primitive mammal's, would have repercussions for our minds today.<br /><br /><br />Fodor on selection: "In fact, an appreciable number of perfectly reasonable biologists are coming to think that the theory of natural selection can no longer be taken for granted."<br /><br />Natural selection leaves a telltale sign in the genome. Exons of protein-coding genes are far too conserved across taxa to have been drifting, indicative of purifying selection. Non-coding regions around a gene that has undergone recent positive selection show extraordinarily low diversity within the adapting population ("selective sweep"). Biologists who study selection don't take it for granted; they analyze it. No knowledgeable biologist would tell you that natural selection does not occur in nature or that it is not the primary explanation for adaptation. Again, not all of evolution is adaptation. <br /><br />(ctd.)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2488741440398600392010-07-09T06:07:45.157-07:002010-07-09T06:07:45.157-07:00Michael said...
You can use fundamentally the sam...<i>Michael said...<br /><br />You can use fundamentally the same design detection techniques used in archeology to assess the origin of life. An argument against this is not based in science it is purely based in metaphysics. </i><br /><br /><b>No, you can't.</b> Design detection in archaeology is based solely on matching patterns in unknown objects (materials, workmanship, etc.) to patterns previously known to be designed.<br /><br />What previously known designed life can you use to pattern match the life we find on Earth?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74467054585185237412010-07-09T03:07:46.400-07:002010-07-09T03:07:46.400-07:00John,
If you manage to apply scientific method pr...John,<br /><br />If you manage to apply scientific method properly and you are willing to weed out logical mistakes then I have no problem with that. Please take Jerry Fodor as a good example of doing just that.<br /><br />My argument was purely directed at Darwinian claims about natural selection. If you also like to propose other mechanisms for evolution and/or the origin of life then you are doing the same thing as ID is doing... propose another mechanism that fit the data better.<br /><br />I stay skeptical of biologist's ability to apply scientific method in the face of the mythical narrative of Darwinism.<br /><br />The ID movement propose a purely scientific method to detect design and at this stage the Darwinian objection to the application of design detection to biology is not based in science but pure metaphysical dogma.<br /><br />You can use fundamentally the same design detection techniques used in archeology to assess the origin of life. An argument against this is not based in science it is purely based in metaphysics.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23892152134677345502010-07-07T14:51:23.087-07:002010-07-07T14:51:23.087-07:00Father Tedford:
"Are you aware of the fact t...Father Tedford:<br /><br />"Are you aware of the fact that genetic testing validates the premise for Noah and his family?"<br /><br />Is that a fact? Then present the studies that confirm this fact.<br /><br />BTW, if you are right, who on the ark were carrying the many parasites that can cause sexually transmitted diseases (such as syphilis), and how did the passengers acquire those parasites?troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21434491692921804982010-07-07T14:39:48.684-07:002010-07-07T14:39:48.684-07:00So, the flood happened and Noah's 3 son's ...So, the flood happened and Noah's 3 son's began re-populating the Earth 4,500 years ago roughly, if we are to use Bishop ushers biblical chronolgy. Could you then please explain the genetic diversity and geological spread we see in mankind today, bearing in mind how improbable you normally consider it for mutations, and therefore SNPs, to accumulate over time. Oh and could you please CITE the scientific evidence that shows 3 boys could sire enough kids to reach a population of nearly 7 billion in 4.5k years without massive inbreeding?MrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09000224780914610538noreply@blogger.com