tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post877060910032088909..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Evolution Professor Sets New Record With 1.5 Hits Per Minute in DebateUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger318125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26317586504727880212014-05-15T04:59:39.606-07:002014-05-15T04:59:39.606-07:00Jeff: how can someone as utterly clueless
We res...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>how can someone as utterly clueless </i><br /><br />We responded, but you continue to retreat to ad hominem, while continuing to ignore basic biological facts. <br /><br />It comes down to this. Shubin said he would go find a fishapod in a certain strata. He did. This type of prediction is very common in paleontology. You have be to be able to explain this other than by saying it was just luck. <br /><br />Gee whiz. Almost anyone can take a walk and study their local geology, find a few fossils, and compare to what evolution predicts. It's fun! Try it. <br /><br />That's what distinguishes all your philosophy from science. Scientists look and see. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58443238720372929642014-05-15T04:43:46.770-07:002014-05-15T04:43:46.770-07:00Jeff: There is no such explanation.
Sure there i...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>There is no such explanation. </i><br /><br />Sure there is. The basic model is diverging descent with modification. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>But a story is not an explanation. </i><br /><br />It fits the definition of explanation you provided elsewhere, which was hypothetico-deduction. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47197123193125194672014-05-14T18:12:29.443-07:002014-05-14T18:12:29.443-07:00Scott: Yes, Jeff. People talk as THOUGH there is k...Scott: Yes, Jeff. People talk as THOUGH there is knowledge. And one conception of knowledge is foundationailsm.<br /><br />J: What's your conception of knowledge? A class of configurations of 3-D-extended stuff "out there" in space somewhere? If so, what are the attributes of the configurations that render them members of the relevant class? And how did you determine they're "out there?" And why would I care what criteria you used for that since you will insist that even that criteria is subject to criticism by another criteria, and so on and so on ad infinitum into an infinite regress that I have no reason to believe you could have possibly performed? HUH?Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13047908630657924082014-05-14T18:05:58.674-07:002014-05-14T18:05:58.674-07:00Jeff: Again, that hierarchy exists independently o...Jeff: Again, that hierarchy exists independently of hypothetical transitional traits.<br /><br />Z: Yes, though IDers say otherwise.<br /><br />J: Quote please. And of course that's irrelevant. Changing the subject is of no avail.<br /><br />Jeff: Thus, the hierarchy per se doesn't need all the irrelevant positing you and yours do to merely BE a hierarchy.<br /><br />Z: It's consistent with common descent, but there might be other explanations.<br /><br />J: Wrong as usual. There are no explanations. There's a common descent STORY consistent with the hierarchy, just as there are SA and saltation stories consistent with it.<br /><br />Jeff: They haven't found anything like enough to indicate SA is less plausible.<br /><br />Z: Sure they did. A fishapod contradict separate creation of fish and land vertebrates.<br /><br />J: Your ignorance of basic deduction is astounding. The only thing that follows from the truth of a single proposition is the falsehood of its negation. And how quickly you forget your own admission that a morphological/phenotypic intermediate is not PER SE a genealogical intermediate. You need premises to make that logical link. You have none.<br /><br />Jeff: Their predictions aren't successful at all.<br /><br />Z: You'll never convince any reasonable person ...<br /><br />J: Z, how can someone as utterly clueless about the most basic nature of deductive logic as you are have a clue what a reasonable person is? That's a rhetorical question, of course. You're clearly too incompetent to answer it.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7187077627215812212014-05-14T17:55:44.547-07:002014-05-14T17:55:44.547-07:00Z: The point is that there is a strong pattern of ...Z: The point is that there is a strong pattern of a nested hierarchy when classifying by traits, a phenogram. Evolution offers an explanation of this pattern.<br /><br />J: Wrong. There is no such explanation. Rather, one can tell a story involving your view of biological history, a saltational view of biological history or a biological history of separate ancestries, EACH consistent with the nested hierarchy. But a story is not an explanation. You're utterly confused at a very fundamental level.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6914793930790109722014-05-14T17:51:27.060-07:002014-05-14T17:51:27.060-07:00Scott: I guess that, since we know from experience...Scott: I guess that, since we know from experience that designers have material brains, that if something was designed it's a pretty safe bet that a material brain was involved.<br /><br />Would you agree with the above, nat?<br /><br />J; Don't let him bluff you, Nat. Scott believes all beliefs are equally a-plausible--including the belief that events aren't caused or the belief that the law of non-contradiction is neither a law nor true. IOW, Scott thinks expects more of you than God does. He expects you to take him seriously when he doesn't even take himself seriously.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33062218797304446132014-05-14T15:46:30.907-07:002014-05-14T15:46:30.907-07:00natschuster: This is what I meant, from wikipedia....<b>natschuster</b>: <i>This is what I meant, from wikipedia. </i><br /><br />Which means it isn't a mix-and-match, but primitive. <br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>Anyway, the fact that things get kind of mixed up sometimes e.g. poison spikes on a platypus, birds with penises, lizards with placentas </i><br /><br />Except they usually look like independent invention by modifying what is already in the lineage rather than copying from other lineages. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43984572036789514862014-05-14T14:55:26.986-07:002014-05-14T14:55:26.986-07:00Joel Velasco here. Like others in the comments, I ...Joel Velasco here. Like others in the comments, I am curious how the count was done. I am willing to believe I said false things and I am sure I said misleading things. But I would like to know what they are. As for 'metaphysical things' I am not sure how you could count that, but I would think nearly every sentence qualifies. Of course this is not in any way bad - metaphysics is central to all inquiry of any kind including science (says the philosopher...)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14122534020804478423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55733229774045329932014-05-14T12:33:55.044-07:002014-05-14T12:33:55.044-07:00Zach:
This is what I meant, from wikipedia.
&qu...Zach:<br /> <br />This is what I meant, from wikipedia.<br /><br />"The female platypus has a pair of ovaries, but only the left one is functional.[44] The platypus' genes are a possible evolutionary link between the mammalian XY and bird/reptile ZW sex-determination systems because one of the platypus' five X chromosomes contains the DMRT1 gene, which birds possess on their Z chromosome"<br /><br />Anyway, the fact that things get kind of mixed up sometimes e.g. poison spikes on a platypus, birds with penises, lizards with placentas is what I would epect to see if life was designed is what I, for one,<br />would expect if life were designed by something/somethings (someone?) like a human, (An Angel?)natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60615969662692190762014-05-14T11:03:51.371-07:002014-05-14T11:03:51.371-07:00Scott: "So, we do not need fossil fuels in th...Scott: "So, we do not need fossil fuels in the sense you're implying. God could simply give us the knowledge of how to covert the sun's energy efficiently. No miracles required."<br /><br />God may have chosen to give that knowledge to one of the million babies that have been aborted this year. Unhealthy mothers making a free choice to kill their unborn baby, and God allowing those females to make that choice as part of His free-will design. Marcushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05905104887549850614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7903940043300224612014-05-14T07:01:24.479-07:002014-05-14T07:01:24.479-07:00Jeff: Don't let him fool you, Nat. He doesn...Jeff: Don't let him fool you, Nat. He doesn't believe that he can know anything from experience. <br /><br />Don't let Jeff fool you, Nat. This doesn't mean I think we can know nothing. That's Jeff's false dilemma. <br /><br />Jeff: To Scott, no belief can be known to be more probably true than another. This of course means, if the law of non-contradiction and even the basic comparatives "more" and "less" correspond to reality in some way, that if even ONE belief is considered by him to have a zero or very low probability of being true, then ALL his beliefs are considered by him to have a zero or very low probability of being true.<br /><br />I've made a distinction, which Jeff has ignored. His decision to focus on a purely verbal problem, despite pointing out the problem with defining words to this extent, is a red herring. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53275252246194373792014-05-14T04:25:28.243-07:002014-05-14T04:25:28.243-07:00Jeff: Add up all these problems and the probabilit...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>Add up all these problems and the probability that UCA'ists know anything they posit is for all practical puposes zero. </i><br /><br />As we said, any reasonable reader knows that is simply not the case. Biologists make predictions and confirm them all the time. Tiktaalik is just one such example. The mere existence of fishapods renders all your words moot. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22040306066944224742014-05-14T04:22:31.438-07:002014-05-14T04:22:31.438-07:00Scott: I guess that, since we know from experience...Scott: I guess that, since we know from experience that designers have material brains, that if something was designed it's a pretty safe bet that a material brain was involved. <br /><br />Nat: The designer of life might have had a material brain.<br /><br />A "pretty safe bet" isn't the same as "might have". The latter is a logical possibility, while the former is much stronger.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23398429497116137232014-05-14T04:21:49.367-07:002014-05-14T04:21:49.367-07:00Jeff: Again, that hierarchy exists independently o...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>Again, that hierarchy exists independently of hypothetical transitional traits. </i><br /><br />Yes, though IDers say otherwise. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Thus, the hierarchy per se doesn't need all the irrelevant positing you and yours do to merely BE a hierarchy. </i><br /><br />It's consistent with common descent, but there might be other explanations. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>They haven't found anything like enough to indicate SA is less plausible.</i><br /><br />Sure they did. A fishapod contradict separate creation of fish and land vertebrates. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Their predictions aren't successful at all. </i><br /><br />You'll never convince any reasonable person that scientists who predict and find transitionals are not successful at confirming their predictions. The evidence doesn't go away because it doesn't fit your philosophical predilections. <br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>I read that the Platypus has bird genes in its X chromosomes. </i><br /><br />If you find substantiation, then we can discuss it. <br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>Anyway it has poison spikes, That's a reptile thing. </i><br /><br />Mammals and reptiles share a common reptilian ancestor. <br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>Hey, there might have been more than one designer, ust like there have been lots of human designers. </i><br /><br />Sure, but humans communicate with one another, they copy each other's designs. You just don't see feathers on a flying mammals. Furthermore, the designer can only make modifications of the existing lineage, and can't make any leaps. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61972008626307652312014-05-14T04:20:38.815-07:002014-05-14T04:20:38.815-07:00Also, Z, not only is there no prediction of the ar...Also, Z, not only is there no prediction of the arbitrary ghost ranges (which are extremely few relative to the total number), and not only are the vast majority of hypothetical species UNOBSERVED to this day, but since you have no idea what the evolutionary effects of asteroid impacts, historical mutations, etc would have been, the very fact that you ASSUME that earth's extinct and extinct species that we actually observe correspond to actual data points on an actual hierarchical, conceptual tree has, per your own knowledge, a probability of virtually zero. Add up all these problems and the probability that UCA'ists know anything they posit is for all practical puposes zero.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42237728940486243812014-05-14T04:03:40.553-07:002014-05-14T04:03:40.553-07:00Scott: I guess that, since we know from experience...Scott: I guess that, since we know from experience that designers have material brains, that if something was designed it's a pretty safe bet that a material brain was involved. <br /><br />J: Don't let him fool you, Nat. He doesn't believe that he can know anything from experience. To Scott, no belief can be known to be more probably true than another. This of course means, if the law of non-contradiction and even the basic comparatives "more" and "less" correspond to reality in some way, that if even ONE belief is considered by him to have a zero or very low probability of being true, then ALL his beliefs are considered by him to have a zero or very low probability of being true.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28907973035087799902014-05-13T20:39:24.337-07:002014-05-13T20:39:24.337-07:00natschuster It all depends who the designer was.
...<i><b>natschuster</b> It all depends who the designer was.</i><br /><br />Precisely. <br /><br />What we can say however, with reasonable certainty, is that it wasn't us. And if it wasn't us why should we expect to see structures in nature that resemble what we design today?<br /><br /><i><b>natschuster</b> If it was the God of Abraham, then I don't know what we should expect.</i><br /><br />Again, precisely. An omnipotent being is unconstrained. It could do literally anything it wanted. There is no reason to think it would confine itself to our limited and parochial notions of what constitutes good design.<br /><br />An all-powerful designer might work like a great artist. If you have limitless powers and resources why bother with boring repetition? A Rubens or a Titian didn't assemble pictures out of parts or 'modules' picked out of previous works. Each painting was a unique and original creation. In fact, the repetition and modularity you see in nature is arguably evidence against the designer, if there was one, being the Christian God.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40311261109709067372014-05-13T19:59:44.031-07:002014-05-13T19:59:44.031-07:00Zachriel:
Hey, there might have been more than on...Zachriel:<br /><br />Hey, there might have been more than one designer, ust like there have been lots of human designers.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78659169954024559482014-05-13T19:54:32.585-07:002014-05-13T19:54:32.585-07:00Zach:
I read that the Platypus has bird genes in ...Zach:<br /><br />I read that the Platypus has bird genes in its X chromosomes. Anyway it has poison spikes, That's a reptile thing. <br /><br />Scott:<br /><br />The designer of life might have had a material brain. natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29936090758433894152014-05-13T18:30:27.247-07:002014-05-13T18:30:27.247-07:00Scott: What does Theism have to do with Foundation...Scott: What does Theism have to do with Foundationalism?<br /><br />Jeff: It need have nothing to do with foundationalism if your foundationalism has no role for induction.<br /><br />Which is a complete non-answer. <br /><br />Why don't you start out by identifying which particular version of foundationalism you're advocating. Start here if you like... <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism<br /><br />Scott: You do realize there are non-theists that are foundationalists, right? <br /><br />Jeff: I suspect there are seeings how all people talk as THOUGH they're foundationalists. <br /><br />Yes, Jeff. People talk as THOUGH there is knowledge. And one conception of knowledge is foundationailsm. But that's just one conception; just as there is more than one interpretation of fossils. <br /><br />Jeff: No one goes around saying (well, except maybe Popper and a handful of other skeptics) "I NEVER know what I'm talking about!!!"<br /><br />You're disingenuously conflating disagreement of what knowledge is with claiming there is no knowledge.<br /><br /><i>Fallibilism, correctly understood, implies the possibility, not the impossibility, of knowledge, because the very concept of error, if taken seriously, implies that truth exists and can be found. The inherent limitation on human reason, that it can never find solid foundations for ideas, does not constitute any sort of limit on the creation of objective knowledge nor, therefore, on progress. The absence of foundation, whether infallible or probable, is no loss to anyone except tyrants and charlatans, because what the rest of us want from ideas is their content, not their provenance: If your disease has been cured by medical science, and you then become aware that science never proves anything but only disproves theories (and then only tentatively), you do not respond “oh dear, I’ll just have to die, then.”</i><br /><br />But, by all means, please provide a quote of Popper stating "he never knows what he's talking about". Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40506858492264747612014-05-13T17:12:38.331-07:002014-05-13T17:12:38.331-07:00Scott: What does Theism have to do with Foundation...Scott: What does Theism have to do with Foundationalism?<br /><br />J: It need have nothing to do with foundationalism if your foundationalism has no role for induction.<br /><br />Scott: You do realize there are non-theists that are foundationalists, right? <br /><br />J: I suspect there are seeings how all people talk as THOUGH they're foundationalists. No one goes around saying (well, except maybe Popper and a handful of other skeptics) "I NEVER know what I'm talking about!!!"Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46391288558065946452014-05-13T17:12:31.314-07:002014-05-13T17:12:31.314-07:00Nat: I guess that, since we know from experience....Nat: I guess that, since we know from experience...<br /><br />I guess that, since we know from experience that designers have material brains, that if something was designed it's a pretty safe bet that a material brain was involved. <br /><br />Would you agree with the above, nat?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91787378350805593922014-05-13T17:08:40.755-07:002014-05-13T17:08:40.755-07:00Z: Cladograms are tested all the time.
J: Only if...Z: Cladograms are tested all the time.<br /><br />J: Only if they're committed to using geological/taphonomic/ecological/etc criteria to PLAUSIBLY account for ghost ranges and out-of-order fossils. Otherwise, they're testing nothing.<br /><br />Z: The overall nested hierarchy is strongly supported. <br /><br />J: Again, that hierarchy exists independently of hypothetical transitional traits. Thus, the hierarchy per se doesn't need all the irrelevant positing you and yours do to merely BE a hierarchy.<br /><br />Z: Shubin (and a multitude of other examples) predict the characteristics of fossil organisms, then find those organisms. <br /><br />J: They haven't found anything like enough to indicate SA is less plausible. Thus, the only relevant test would be the fit of relative temporal origin order I've described. But cladograms fail that that one and only useful test. Because they have to posit tons of ghost ranges just like SA'ists.<br /><br />Z: You can't provide an alternative explanation as to why these predictions are so successful, other than to say it's a matter of luck.<br /><br />J: Their predictions aren't successful at all. The number of additional hypothetico-deductive axioms one would have to posit to render a cladogram for a UCA tree consistent with observation is literally in the millions. You just have no clue how deduction works.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72513165638340418942014-05-13T17:04:43.354-07:002014-05-13T17:04:43.354-07:00natschuster: There's all that mixing and match...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>There's all that mixing and matching of genes. That's why we need horizontal gene transfer and such. </i><br /><br />No, it's not due to horizontal gene transfer. A close look reveals the structures, such as the duckbill on the platypus, are independently derived. It's as if each lineage has its own designer that doesn't communicate with any other designer. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90240313726000903542014-05-13T16:38:29.085-07:002014-05-13T16:38:29.085-07:00There's all that mixing and matching of genes....There's all that mixing and matching of genes. That's why we need horizontal gene transfer and such. Lizards have a double penis, kinda like marsupials. Then there is lizard with a placenta. Then you got egg laying mammals. Y'know all that convergent evolution stuff. That's mixing and matching. <br /><br />I don't think I'm assuming my conclusion. We know from experience hard it is to make things that are irreducibly complex without intelligence. Even a paper clip is designed. We haven;t actually scene evolution produce something really complex have we? So the only way we know that works to make complex things is intelligence.<br />natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05312526400131321079noreply@blogger.com