Friday, April 30, 2010

Adaptation as Proof of Evolution

In 1831 Charles Darwin boarded the HMS Beagle to gather biological information from around the world. It was a wonderful opportunity for the young naturalist, and Darwin saw many fascinating wonders. The voyage is best known for its stop at the Galápagos Islands off the coast of Ecuador. There Darwin observed finches, mockingbirds and tortoises that varied distinctly from island to island. Some finches lived in coastal areas on the ground, others lived in forest trees, yet another lived in bushes. And the diet of these varieties varied considerably. One of the species ate buds and fruit, another prickly pear, others ate seeds and others were insectivores. And one of the insectivores even used a twig to fish out insects from crevices in the tree bark. Nicholas Lawson, the vice-governor who entertained Darwin over dinner claimed that so distinct were the tortoises from island to island that given the tortoise shell he could identify the island of origin.

Since then the Galápagos Finches in particular have become a celebrated icon of evolution. From academic dissertations and research papers to award-winning books and documentaries, they have been watched, dissected, analyzed, and praised. As science writer Jonathan Weiner put it, the changes in the beaks of the finches show us “Darwin’s process in action.” There’s only one problem: How did evolution create the process?

After Darwin, the twentieth century revealed the details of what should have been obvious. If Darwin’s evolutionary change brought about those different Galápagos Finches, it was driven by a profoundly complex process of chromosomes, genes and an army of molecular machines. We’re still learning about what Weiner calls “Darwin’s process” and it shows no sign of having evolved.

Consider the curious case of Carpodacus mexicanus (house finches) which began spreading throughout the United States in the 1940s from Mexico and the southwest. The beaks of these birds adapted to their new environments with great speed. Within a decade or so their beaks had adjusted to the new habitats. How could this occur to rapidly? Certainly not by evolution’s random mutations and natural selection. It was, as one science writer put it:

a complex interplay of processes … Interacting embryonic processes result in an initial level of phenotypic variation greater than what would be predicted from underlying genotypic variation alone.

In other words, complex embryonic machinery produce biological variation that responds to the environmental challenge far more efficiently and rapidly than evolution’s random mutation plus natural selection ever could. And that’s good because otherwise the birds would have failed in their new environments—evolution doesn’t work, but nature’s built-in adaptation machine does.

But in spite of this non evolutionary story of adaptation, evolutionists claim adaptation as proof of their idea. According to Ernst Mayr, “evolutionary change is also simply a fact owing to the changes in the content of gene pools from generation to generation.” Likewise, Isaac Asimov claimed that the peppered moth’s adaptation to industrial pollution proves evolution. And Steve Jones informed his readers that the changes observed in HIV (the human immunodeficiency virus) contain Darwin’s “entire argument.”

Such claims persist and even today evolutionists routinely claim examples of adaptation, from bacteria to birds, as evidence or even proof of evolution. It is another example of how vulnerable science is to simple and straightforward blunders in our thinking. This is not a complex scientific miscalculation or a clever logical fallacy. This is a blunder that is striking not for its subtly but for its transparency. Evolutionists cannot drop their theory though the science doesn’t support it, so they are driven to reprehensible reasoning. Religion drives science, and it matters.

48 comments:

  1. Typical Dr. Cornelius.

    Creationist: Species never change! That disproves evolution.

    Scientist: Here's a species changing very quickly.

    Creationist: Species change very quickly! That disproves evolution.

    (I would like to comment on technical details re: phenotypic variation mechanisms; but I don't have a subscription to The Scientist, so I can't read the paper on Carpodacus mexicanus.)

    Scientific failure drives creationism, and it matters.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So evolution has a specific speed or speed range does it?
    And adaption is not evolution because........?

    'evolution doesn’t work, but nature’s built-in adaptation machine does' - and what drives nature's built-in adaption machine then? Come on, what is your claim?

    On what grounds are you disclaiming that the changes in Asimov's moths and HIV are not evolution?

    'Religion drives science...' - yes it does. It drives science to continue to accumulate evidence that evolution is real and your concept of an intervening designer is a fairy tale.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Darwin boarded he HMS Beagle in 1831.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The sentence following your quote (can be found as pdf):
    "Because the drivers of this baseline phenotypic variation acted during development in the egg, Badyaev says, selection was essentially blind to the creation of this initial pool of phenotypic variation. It was only later, when young birds began feeding on the foods available in their new habitat, that selection could determine which beaks were more or less suited to the environment.
    “Selection does not see the developmental process by which this beak was produced,” he notes. “But it’s exactly there that resides the opportunity for diversification.”"
    From the abstract of Badyaev's article (The beak of the other finch: coevolution of genetic covariance structure and developmental modularity during adaptive evolution):
    "These results emphasize three principal points. First, additive genetic covariance structure may represent a historical record of the most recurrent developmental and functional interactions. Second, adaptive equivalence of beak configurations shields genetic and developmental variation in individual components from depletion by natural selection. Third, compensatory developmental interactions among beak components can generate rapid reorganization of beak morphology under novel conditions and thus greatly facilitate both the evolution of precise adaptation and extensive diversification, thereby linking adaptation and adaptability in this classic example of Darwinian evolution."
    A summary of Badyaev's article from the same issue of Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B:
    "Among the most interesting interpretations of the data provided by Badyaev (2010) are that the adaptive equivalence of beak configurations shields genetic and developmental variation in individual components from depletion by natural selection and that compensatory developmental interactions among beak components can generate rapid and extensive reorganization of beak morphology under novel conditions, thereby facilitating evolution of precise local adaptation and contributing to overall diversification."

    Does any of this sound as if this is somehow a "non evolutionary story of adaptation"?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Creationists in the US used to believe that God created dinosaur fossils in place and Adam complete with a belly button. The greater public began to see these as ridiculous notions as science mounted more and more proof. ID is the next chapter in this story.

    People study for years on end with the tanacity of a Monk to add a small fraction of knowledge to our understanding of life. To paraphrase, they tell us "this is how it is." ID cherry picks that phrase and all the evolutionary insights that led to it and simply adds to it the pharse "because God."

    I hear again and again in the comments on this post by the evolution supporters, "show me a hypothesis." ID supposes that God is responsible for any new genitic information, but can't give any support for that claim. There is no way to test it. None.

    Thank you to the evolutionary supporters that regular this page. Theology should not masquarade as science. I'm not sure you have changed any minds, but it is at least enjoyable to see fools called on their foolishness. ID is the next chapter in the creationist story, with your help it will end the same way.

    ReplyDelete
  7. T. Cook,

    How about this:

    Evolutionists used to believe that humans evolved from apes, now they believe that chimpanzees evolved from humans. The greater public began to see these as ridiculous notions, and started to see that its just the way evolutionary science works .

    I hear again and again in the comments on this post by the ID supporters, "show me a hypothesis." Evolution is the idea that everything evolved from nothing, but they can't give any support for that claim. There is no way to test it. None.

    Thank you to the ID supporters that regular this page. Science should not masquarade as Theology. I'm not sure you have changed any minds, but it is at least enjoyable to see fools called on their foolishness.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Darren -

    "Evolutionists used to believe that humans evolved from apes, now they believe that chimpanzees evolved from humans."

    Wrong. Fail.

    "I hear again and again in the comments on this post by the ID supporters, "show me a hypothesis.""

    In science a theory is a hypothesis which has passed a certain standard of evidence. The THEORY of evolution is a hypothesis - one which has been tested extensively.

    ID is not.

    "Evolution is the idea that everything evolved from nothing,"

    Wrong again. Epic fail.

    "but they can't give any support for that claim. There is no way to test it. None."

    And again, wrong. The theory of evolution has been extensively tested and has mountains of supporting evidence. There are entire scientific journals dedicated specifically to the work going on understanding evolution. By contrast has there EVER been a SINGLE article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal which provides evidence for ID?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I failed huh?

    http://www.thestar.com/article/704293

    Evolution is the idea that everything evolved from nothing

    "Wrong again. Epic fail"

    Actually, I'm correct. Evolutionist know that this notion is absurd , so they try to say that it is not part of the TOE. Otherwise, how did evolution start Ritchie?

    "The theory of evolution has been extensively tested and has mountains of supporting evidence. There are entire scientific journals dedicated specifically to the work going on understanding evolution."

    Where is this evidence? Oh yeah, evolution explains everything...that is the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Darren -

    Humans and chimpanzees are MODERN SPECIES. You cannot say humans descended from chimpanzees or chimpanzees descended from humans any more than you can say I descended from my brother.

    Humans and chimpanzees do, however, share an extremely recent (on an evolutionary scale) common ancestor. This ancestor was neither chimpanzee nor human, but gave rise to us both.

    What Ardi - and the link you postsed - suggests is that this common ancestor may have been more human-like than first assumed. That's all.

    As for the idea that evolution is that theory that everything arose from nothing, that is simply ridiculous. The theory of evolution simply deatils the diversity and adaptiveness of life through common ancestry.

    "Otherwise, how did evolution start Ritchie?"

    It started with the very first self-replicating living organism. From there evolution neatly explains how all the many diverse species of life arose.

    "Where is this evidence?"

    Take a look:

    http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/evolutionary+%26+developmental+biology?SGWID=0-10033-12-105549-0

    Pick a journal. Read it. Read about the real scientists doing real research. Or will you just ignore it, or make up a reason to dismiss it as 'not really science'?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ritch

    "It started with the very first self-replicating living organism."

    How do you know this? Is this a faith based statement?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Daren,

    First let me apologize for calling you a fool, that was rude of me. Calling you a fool is disrespectful to all the other parts of you that are not foolish. ID, however, is foolish.

    In response to public opinion, you are more right than I hoped. According to this gallop poll:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx

    39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. In this 2005 CBS poll:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml

    51% of americans believe in humans created in present form, 30% in guided evolution, and 15% in evolution.


    A bright spot for me is in the gallop poll that 49% of 18-34 year olds believe evolution, while 18% do not. Trending good for evolution in popular culture.

    Regardless of popular opinion, ID is still foolish. We, as humans, cannot test God. An assumption, sure, but would you disagree? Showing that there is no purely physical means of accounting for evolution would be proof of God. It's not going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "How do you know this? Is this a faith based statement?"

    No, it is one based on logical extrapolation.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Allow me to elaborate - it was shown in the 60s that the genetic code was universal - every living thing on Earth was made up of the same statistically improbable genetic code - DNA.

    The simplest explanation for this (not to mention the one which is in keeping with the way we know the world works, and the one which makes the most logical sense) and therefore the one to be preferred, is that a single organism was the common ancestor for all terrestrial life.

    See? Simple logical extrapolation. No religious faith required.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It was shown in the 60s that the genetic code was universal - every living thing on Earth was made up of the same statistically improbable genetic code - DNA.

    The simplest explanation for this (not to mention the one which is in keeping with the way we know the world works, and the one which makes the most logical sense) and therefore the one to be preferred, is that there is a common designer for all terrestrial life.

    See? Simple logical extrapolation. No religious dogmas of science required.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Darren -

    Cute. But once again, quite wrong.

    Common design is not the simplest explanation because it necessitates the existence of a designer - a being whose existence we have no evidence for and no reason to believe exists (which, by the way fails it on the 'in keeping with the way we know the world works' front too). An explanation for universal genetic code which requires only natural forces MUST logically be simpler than one that requires supernatural entities.

    Accepting a designer DOES require religious faith, as we have no empirical evidence for one.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Just a minor correction:

    "It was shown in the 60s that the genetic code was universal-"

    And later shown to be non-universal.

    Examples:
    Mitochondria use UGA to encode tryptophan (Trp) rather than as a stop.
    -Animal mitochondria use AUA for Met
    -vertebrate mitochondria use AGA and AGG as chain terminators.
    -Yeast mitochondria assign all codons beginning with CU to threonine instead of leucine

    Archaea encoded pyrolysine by UAG
    Selenocysteine is sometimes encoded by UGA

    Not every organism uses all codons, some show profound bias.

    So it is almost universal-suggesting common origins, but like all things evolutionary, shows contingent diversification based on history and need, that correlate with relatedness of organisms. Even more powerful proof of evolution than something universal and unchanging!

    Why would 'design" show different genetic codes that just happen to cluster with phylogeny?

    History and contingency...

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm puzzled by the original post

    What is heritable adaptation if not evolution?

    Are you saying these organisms show some design to evolve? In what way? Is this a new ID argument that accepts evolution.

    Or are you saying the diversity is non-hereditary?
    (Easily disproved-take 2 finches, mate in the presence of different food. Observe if trait is inherited. Or take HIV, see if drug resistance persists sans drug).

    Also, rate of evolution isn't dependent on the mutation happening right at the time of selection. Pre-accumulated genetic diversity can be acted on at the time of selection.

    For example, there are a variety of heights in humans. Genetic diversity. Drifting without (too much) selection. If our individual survival suddenly depended on the ability to harvest food above 6'9, without tools, alleles dictating height would soon dominate, and eventually become fixed.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thanks Ritchie, that'll teach me to write from memory ...

    ReplyDelete
  20. T. Cook:

    ===========
    God is outside physical law and so He cannot be studied through science. ...

    It seems clear to me that God does not want to be discovered in this manner, and since God is perfect, He won't be. Instead, God only requires faith to be discovered. ...

    I also see no reason why a perfect God would require constant corrections to his creations

    Did He fail to plan ahead? If He wanted us to evolve then we're going to evolve,


    Theology should not masquarade as science.
    ===========

    Classic evolutionary hypocrisy. Theology so deeply influences evolutionists they don't even realize it. They make religious claim after religious claim, and then blame critics of evolution's bad science as religiously motivated.

    ReplyDelete
  21. What exactly is: "but nature’s built-in adaptation machine does"?

    Cornelius - how do you know for sure this is designed? How/when/who is responsible for the "built-in"? Where is evidence of IC or CSI?

    Or is it just a hand-waving ssertion because you don't like the other alternatives? Just declaring it as a built-in adaption machine doesn't make it so...unless you believe in magic...which I guess you kind of do...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Timcol62:

    =====
    What exactly is: "but nature’s built-in adaptation machine does"? ...

    Just declaring it as a built-in adaption machine doesn't make it so...unless you believe in magic...which I guess you kind of do...
    =====

    No, remember it is you, not I, who makes religious arguments. That adaptation machines are "built-in" is not controversial. Of course you and evolutionists will not allow that evidence to question evolution, but at least acknowledge the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Cornelius -
    "Classic evolutionary hypocrisy. Theology so deeply influences evolutionists they don't even realize it. They make religious claim after religious claim, and then blame critics of evolution's bad science as religiously motivated."

    The only religious claim I have heard form anyone in support of evolution is that God doesn't exist. That is their belief and that's all it can ever be, a belief.

    Evolution does not negate Gods existence. If you believe like I do in Godel's incompleteness theorm, you would accept that to prove or disprove His existance would be to put Him within the bounds our physical universe. This contradicts the definition of God; it can't be done.

    I get your point though, we are talking about beliefs here. Evolutionary scientists ignore God. They assume life arises without him and work from there. Thats a big unverifyable assumption, but they have a lot to show for it. By in large, it connects the dots.

    ID assumes He does exist and works from there. But why assume the constant miracles? Why not just one to start it all? He knows how it will turn out, He's God.

    Moreover, no one can ever say if He created the dinosaurs already as fossils, whether he inserts information into genes as needed, or if he planned it all at the moment of the universes conception. He could have done it in any way He pleased. These theories are fundamentally unverifiyble though. So ID has no more credibility than Hinduism or FSM.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  24. T. Cook:

    ===
    The only religious claim I have heard form anyone in support of evolution is that God doesn't exist.
    ===

    Doesn't ring a bell. Can you give even a *single* example of this?


    ===
    I get your point though, we are talking about beliefs here. Evolutionary scientists ignore God.
    ===

    You obviously have not read "evolutionary scientists."



    ===
    but they have a lot to show for it. By in large, it connects the dots.
    ===

    I didn't know that.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Diogenes:

    ======
    Typical Dr. Cornelius.

    Creationist: Species never change! That disproves evolution.

    Scientist: Here's a species changing very quickly.

    Creationist: Species change very quickly! That disproves evolution.
    ======

    So evolution really did somehow create those adapation machines.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "So evolution really did somehow create those adapation machines."

    What are these 'adaptation machines' you speak of?
    How have they been identified?
    What proteins/RNAs are they composed of?

    A Google search of "adaptation machine" turns up internet/message protocols, and this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  27. First, Dr. Cornelius, you are wrong to say of TimCol:
    =================
    No, remember it is you, not I, who makes religious arguments.
    ===================
    In this thread, TimCol has made no religious arguments. You are contradicting yourself, when you accuse TimCol of believing in "magic", while at the same time saying evolutionists are driven by "naturalism." They're opposites. Pick one slander and stick with it.

    At any rate, Dr. Cornelius tells us:
    =============================
    Classic evolutionary hypocrisy. Theology so deeply influences evolutionists they don't even realize it. They make religious claim after religious claim, and then blame critics of evolution's bad science as religiously motivated.
    ===========================

    If we don't treat "Intelligent Design" as a scientific theory, then Dembski calls us a "a Stalinist regime...a tyranny that I despise!"

    If we do treat Intelligent Design as a scientific theory, and reject the Intelligent Designer for scientific reasons (too many unmeasurable free parameters to describe its alleged interaction with matter), then Dr. Cornelius says we're making "religious claims", and "Religion drives science!"

    Saying that biological complexity originated by known natural processes, when that is supported by the evidence, is no more nor less religious than saying that saying lightning bolts are not hammers thrown by Thor but originate from electromagnetism, when that is supported by the evidence.

    If Dr. Cornelius had evidence against evolution, and a simpler theory that fit the evidence, it would not be necessary for him to change the subject to unproven and unprovable accusations about other peoples' alleged atheism. Changing the subject again, because on the scientific debate, he's got nothing.

    If a natural phenomenon is explained by known natural processes, that does not require Cornelius' alleged "religious belief" that God does not exist.

    Pot calling the kettle black. The YECs admit they're religiously motivated, and the Discovery Institute denied it, but we've got their Wedge Document. Jonathan Wells says Jesus incarnated as an elderly Korean man in the flesh ordered him to destroy Darwinism. Phillip Johnson said his goal was to stick it to "liberal rationalism"; evolution was just a useful tool for a corporate-materialist agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Cornelius:
    ===
    Doesn't ring a bell. Can you give even a *single* example of this?
    ===
    Are you being glib? Dawkins.

    ===
    I didn't know that.
    ===
    Glad I could straighten you out.

    ReplyDelete
  29. T. Cook:

    "Are you being glib? Dawkins."

    Glib? No, I do not know of a *single* argument for evolution that uses as a premise the non existence of god. And I have studied most all of them. I have not read all of Dawkins, but I have never heard/seen him make such an argument, and doubt you could supply one.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Diogenes:

    ===
    In this thread, TimCol has made no religious arguments. You are contradicting yourself, when you accuse TimCol of believing in "magic",
    ===

    I made no such accusation.


    ===
    while at the same time saying evolutionists are driven by "naturalism."
    ===

    Nor did I ever say that either.


    ===
    They're opposites. Pick one slander and stick with it.
    ===

    No, remember, you are the one who slanders, not me. Read your own writing.


    ===
    If we don't treat "Intelligent Design" as a scientific theory, then Dembski calls us a "a Stalinist regime...a tyranny that I despise!"
    ===

    How is that relevant?


    ===
    If we do treat Intelligent Design as a scientific theory, and reject the Intelligent Designer for scientific reasons (too many unmeasurable free parameters to describe its alleged interaction with matter), then Dr. Cornelius says we're making "religious claims", and "Religion drives science!"
    ===

    False again.


    ===
    Saying that biological complexity originated by known natural processes, when that is supported by the evidence,
    ===

    "Known natural processes"? There are no such known processes, unless "and then a bunch of mutations happened in just the right place" is what you mean.




    ===
    If Dr. Cornelius had evidence against evolution, and a simpler theory that fit the evidence, it would not be necessary for him to change the subject to unproven and unprovable accusations about other peoples' alleged atheism.
    ====

    More slander. I made no such statement.


    ===
    If a natural phenomenon is explained by known natural processes, that does not require Cornelius' alleged "religious belief" that God does not exist.
    ===

    And yet more slander.


    ===
    Pot calling the kettle black. The YECs admit they're religiously motivated, and the Discovery Institute denied it, but we've got their Wedge Document. Jonathan Wells says Jesus incarnated as an elderly Korean man in the flesh ordered him to destroy Darwinism. Phillip Johnson said his goal was to stick it to "liberal rationalism"; evolution was just a useful tool for a corporate-materialist agenda.
    ===

    And finally, more irrelevance. This is where many evolutionists are coming from. Slander, lies, misrepresentations, and hypocrisy. You can't make this stuff up.

    ReplyDelete
  31. T Cook: "Regardless of popular opinion, ID is still foolish. We, as humans, cannot test God.

    Too bad you don't have a clue on what ID is.

    Nothing is more foolish, indeed fool hardy, than claiming that all the estimated 13 million life forms on earth arose by some unknowable first "simple" form that itself arose by accident.

    Claiming that said unknown, unknowable and entirely "presumed" 1st self-replicator somehow evolved by unguided processes into millions of unimaginably complex and vastly different forms amounts to ludicrous credulity.

    Darwinists always fail the test in 2 vital areas:
    1) providing anything remotely close to proof
    2) utterly failing at understanding the nature and role of information in the whole.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Diogenes: "Typical Dr. Cornelius.
    Creationist: Species never change! That disproves evolution.
    Scientist: Here's a species changing very quickly.
    Creationist: Species change very quickly! That disproves evolution."


    It would be worth noting that the above drivel is bogus from the start.

    It was creationists that first described "natural selection". Why? Because they noted change within species.

    As usual dio, you are so far off even the simplest "correct" understanding of either creationism or ID its sad and idiotic of you of you to continue posting your diatribe.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Blah blah blah, you totally contradict yourself.

    === Diogenes wrote: ===
    If we do treat Intelligent Design as a scientific theory, and reject the Intelligent Designer for scientific reasons (too many unmeasurable free parameters to describe its alleged interaction with matter), then Dr. Cornelius says we're making "religious claims", and "Religion drives science!"

    === Cornelius replied:===
    False again.
    ======

    Back to me: What are you talking about, denying that? That's your whole stock in trade! Here you wrote:

    == Cornelius, in current thread: ==
    Theology so deeply influences evolutionists they don't even realize it. They make religious claim after religious claim, and then blame critics of evolution's bad science as religiously motivated.

    == Cornelius, in recent thread "It's Not Just Science":==
    Every proof for evolution hinges on deep metaphysics that are independent of any scientific experiment ever conducted... The strong arguments for evolution... incorporate assumptions about nature, design and god.

    === Cornelius, in every thread: ====
    Religion drives science, and it matters.
    =====

    Back to Me: So, Cornelius says evolutionists make religious claims, but if I point that out accurately, Cornelius denies it. Go figure.

    === Diogenes wrote: ===
    If we don't treat "Intelligent Design" as a scientific theory, then Dembski calls us a "a Stalinist regime...a tyranny that I despise!"

    === Cornelius replied: ===
    How is that relevant?
    ====

    Back to me: Because IDologues assert that God must be incorporated into scientific theories. They want make God's interaction with matter as a hypothesis. Fair enough. If you want it, that means arguments can be both scientific and religious at the same time.

    OK, you want God's interaction with matter to be a hypothesis, OK. So when scientists respond by pointing out the many problems with that hypothesis (God's interaction with matter is described by many free parameters, and can accomodate any data set, thus predicting nothing), then Cornelius, rather than addressing those problems, accuses scientists of making religious claims. (See above.)

    You can't have it both ways. If you IDologues want God out of science, he's out, let's stick to naturalism.

    But if you want God as a scientific hypothesis, then let's count up how many unknown free parameters there are in that hypothesis. Let's do it. You want God as a scientific hypothesis? OK, let's go boy, let's have at it.

    But if that's what you want, you can't complain when scientists do what you call "making religious claims" or "incorporating assumptions about nature, design and god."

    I say scientists have to count up the free parameters in your hypothesis. That is a process that would be both scientific AND religious, IF we use the definition of science that ID and the DI insist on, ID's definition of science which includes God's interaction with matter as a potential hypothesis for all phenomena, explained and unexplained.

    So stop being in denial, and give me a straight answer. A or B.

    A: God's interaction with matter is a scientific hypothesis. If so, let's treat it like any other hypothesis. Arguments can be both religious and scientific at once.

    B: God's interaction with matter is not a scientific hypothesis. Stick to naturalism.

    What's it gonna be boy, yes or no? A or B? Just give me a straight answer, A or B. A or B. A or B. Don't evade, A or B. A or B. A or B. A or B. A or B. A or B. A or B. A or B. What will it take to get a straight answer out of you?

    ReplyDelete
  34. But ID doesn't require God. The designer could have been an alien.

    ReplyDelete
  35. And many of the cases the case of rapid evoluion sited in thsi blog and others are actually presented as examples of some epigenetic process, not evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  36. natschuster -


    But ID doesn't require God. The designer could have been an alien.


    That won't do, I'm afraid. You are either referring to Panspermia - the idea that life on Earth arose from a tiny bacteria/organism from space which arrived, perhaps on a meteor, say, or you are suggesting that intellegent, sentient aliens consciously ENGINEERED life on Earth.

    But both beg the question 'Where did the aliens come from?' While the first scenario is the more plausible of the two, it does not solve the problem. If life came from another planet, where did life on THAT planet come from? Remember we only have 13.75 billion years to play with.

    ReplyDelete
  37. One version of Panspermia is that life was created by intelligent aliens. I understand Dawkins suggested this possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Maybe the aliens from another universe in the multiverse. Its a theory some people have suggested.

    ReplyDelete
  39. natschuster -


    One version of Panspermia is that life was created by intelligent aliens.


    But where did those aliens come from?


    I understand Dawkins suggested this possibility.


    ??? Really? Where?


    Maybe the aliens from another universe in the multiverse. Its a theory some people have suggested.


    You are simply pushing the question back step at a time rather than answering it. It's like you conclude that seeing as everything rests on something, the Earth too must rest on something, and are happy to entertain the idea that it MIGHT be a tortoise. And whenever I ask what that tortoise is resting on, you just say 'Another tortoise.' and so on.

    Yes, maybe life on Earth was started by aliens. But where did the aliens come from? Another planet? Okay, but how did life strt on that planet? More aliens? Okay, but where did THOSE aliens come from? Another universe? Okay, but how did life start on that universe?

    Basically you are just invoking an infinite chain of aliens. Which is no better than invoking an infinitie chain of gods (okay, it is a BIT better, since aliens are more plausible than gods), or just invoking an infinite chain of causes and claiming that the universe is infinite.

    When faced with these intinite chains - of aliens, gods, tortoises or whatever, we should start with what we know. Well we know there is a life on this planet. From here, all aliens, gods or giant space-tortoises are purely hypothetical and should not be assumed without evidence.

    However, I feel we have drifted from the point you wanted to make, which is that ID does not need to invoke supernatural beings. But I still think you are wrong. Even if alien life began NATURALLY and then spread to Earth, it would still not be ID.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Maybe the aliens came from a different universe in the multiverse.

    ReplyDelete
  41. natschuster -

    It is pretty much agreed among ID proponents that the Intelligent Designer is God. At the Uncommon Descent website, which was started by the Discovery Institute, and which links to every one of Cornelius' posts, this theological argument states explicitly it is a logic error to believe the Intelligent Designer is an alien, or anyone except God. It must be God only.

    And William Dembski, their main theorist/theologian, writes: "ID is part of God's general revelation... Dismantling materialism is a good thing. Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ."

    Also, Michael Behe said under oath at Dover that the Intelligent Designer is God.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Some people say the designer is God. But the quesion is what is the motive? Anthony Flew certainly did ntointend to bring people to religion.

    ReplyDelete
  43. natschuster -

    "Maybe the aliens come from a different universe in the multiverse."

    And how did life begin in THAT universe?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Maybe that universe is old enough for the life to form, even though it is very unlikely.

    If there are an infinite number of universes, all are different, then in some universe, this just has to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  46. natschuster -

    "Maybe that universe is old enough for the life to form, even though it is very unlikely."

    So if we are to accept a natural beginning to life which then merely travelled to other planets - and other universes - then is that hypothesis compatible with ID?

    Surely such an arrangement would still build life by natural methods rather than by the deliberate design of conscious beings? So we are missing the 'designed' component.

    Also, the sentence I quoted from you here makes it sound like you doubt our own universe is old enough to allow for enough time for life to evolve naturally. Is that correct? Not wanting to sound patronising but are you sure you really appreciate just how long 13.75 billion years is?

    ReplyDelete
  47. You all sound like a bunch of kids arguing over chewing gum. You want to be 100% right all the time. As a scientist I admit to being superstitious. It doesn't stop me from working hard every day at removing delusions. Fortunately, I never had to contend with the delusion of God. But I have other delusions, some which I am not even aware of. I'm a work in progress. Science and art both contribute to my intellectual and emotional intelligence. But I never get mentally lazy and let fantasy confuse reality when I can help it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. How would you explain the claim that food cooked with high temperature caused cancer as roasting, grilling is one of the oldest form of cooking? There's an evidence of 300,000 years old hearth, assume one of the purpose is cooking by roasting, that's about 3,000 generations. Should we suppose to fully adapt to grilling food?

    ReplyDelete