“The problem with extrapolation is it comes equipped with blinders.
a) “both have them” and “share them” are two different concepts. Automobiles and playground equipment do not “share” nuts and bolts.

Your distinction is trivial. Human and chimp endogenous retroviral sequences have high homology – akin to an automobile and a piece of playground equipment using exactly the same type of a nut and bolt.

b) …suggests “derived from a common ancestor”. Why not “derived from a common designer”?”

It is formally possible that they are derived from a common designer. I do not rule that possibility out of hand. However, given our current state of knowledge about endogenous retroviruses, (i.e. that they integrate into genomes in a pseudo-random fashion and are inherited), the more parsimonious explanation is that the retroviral sequences in question inserted into the genome of a chimp/human ancestor.

““…suggests that humans and chimps are most closely related.” Which are more closely related: John Deer tractors and John Deer pickups or John Deer Pickups and Ford Pickups?
Answer: Neither.”

I don’t see the point you are making. You are setting up two categories, name (Ford, John Deere) and class (tractor and pickup) and are saying that all combinations of name and class are equally similar (or dissimiliar). How does this relate the situation I describe with primates, where one can construct a cladogram based on increasing conservation of ERV sequences (or other genetic features)?

“OK, this is bigoted:
“It is of course possible that a Designer decided to stick these bits of DNA in our genomes to fool us.” Since you are not privy to the Designer’s plans you have no way of knowing why the Designer made any of the choices He/She/It made. You have made yourself the judge of the Designer, an absurd “suggestion”.”

First, calling me bigoted is rude. Please desist. The point I was making is that if one invokes a Designer of unknown motives and power – as you have just done – then nothing is incompatible with design. Invoking such a designer is an epistemic dead end, as it can explain everything superficially, and nothing in detail.

-DaveWatt

As usual you demonstrate that you have not read my papers, some of which are a touch of your mouse away right here at Uncommon Descent. I am not going to respond to you until you can demonstrate that you have. I may not even then. My work is now preserved for all time on the shelves of the world’s libraries and until you can demonstrate that you have read it and the authors on which my own work is based I am not going to respond to you. I am certain that my position is transparently clear to anyone with the necessary background to understand what I have written. At my age I just don’t have the time. I hope you will understand, but if you don’t that is just too bad.

I am also sorry that Salvador is confident there is not enough room in the genome of any organism especially since, as nearly as I can determine, there is not an organism on the surface of this planet that is still capable of any further major change. The only thing that I see they are capable of is extinction which many of them are really good at as any one can see if he would only look objectively at what is happening.

Skoal

“You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him read it or, having read it, comprehend it.”
John A. Davison

You missed my earlier comment no 67, presumably. As you do not mince words, I thought you would prefer me to say clearly what opinion I have formed after making some considerable effort to understand it.
Apologies for being late but internet connection was brought down by snow.

Also. This front-loaded information then unfolds to give rise to a new species, yes? But there must be some co-ordination so that at least two organisms of opposite sex have saltations at the same time and place, otherwise how will the new species increase numbers. PEH seems pretty unconvincing as a hypothesis.

The point is, he thought that dumb/purposeless/blind causes alone were sufficient. They ain’t.

The episodic evolutionary development hypothesis
by j

Mankind is the product of a process of evolutionary development. The claims of the scientific community that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, that the first life appeared on earth about 4 billion years ago, and that it evolved from simple to highly complex forms, are all true. However, Darwin’s hypothesis that evolution occured exclusively by means of natural selection acting on random variation, is wrong.

Episodically, either the selection, the mutations, or both, have been non-random, i.e., they occurred in accordance with the intent of an intelligence. In these episodes, the intelligence has had a, literally, specific purpose in mind: to create various species. Species have been allowed to exist for a limited amount of time, and then they (or part of their populations) have been formed into something slightly different.

I consider myself warned. I’m sorry for the vulgarity, although I could swear I didn’t mention it first. Are you being even-handed?

As for Bozeman, I was out of line there too, but I meant it affectionately.

But I do not think I engage in gratuitous religion bashing. I have asked a few times why did Darwin say he couldn’t understand why anyone would want the Christian message to be true. I have not had one thoughtful answer yet. I think a good case can be made that this sort of reaction to CERTAIN ASPECTS of Christian theology has been a common and major underpinning of the world view Dembski is dedicated to overthrowing.

But what caused that reaction? Why have so many wanted to invest in this material world view? Why did Darwin have a ready audience? I think it is largely because they became tired of the very same things Darwin couldnt stomach.

I consider myself the friend of Christianity but somebody needs to goad them into taking a look at a couple of sacred cows because they don’t seem to see it.

Because they don’t see it the two sides are talking past each other.
That cannot lead to reconciliation.

Since I have obviously said many positive things about religion here (for example my post to Artist in training) and since many ID detractors engage in religion bashing all the time, I wonder if perhaps it is only acceptable to be all for or all against, but not to actually engage in critical analysis?

More probably you are annoyed at too much religion talk, and I can’t blame you for that.

Please stifle yourself when tempted to use inflammatory phrases like Bible Thumper and vulgarities like masturbatory. Gratuitous religion bashing can be taken elsewhere too. Let’s keep it clean & friendly. Consider yourself warned.

You’re not the evil twin of the prior Bozeman who was more of a Bible Thumper, are you?

“Why don’t you save them all that time and effort and prove them wrong by the end of next week? All you need is some scientific evidence for your alternative/replacement hypothesis.” (Origin of life)

Just because we don’t know what the moon is made of is no reason to insist it is made of green cheese, and mock those who are honest to admit that they are in the presence of a very huge problem. You may as well mock the accomplishment of the guy who invented the wheel or shaped the first spear because he hasn’t invented nuclear physics. It is far wiser to say “we haven’t even enough of a clue to get started” than to insist that just because someone has come up with a cockamamy theory it has to stand because there isn’t a replacement.

Yah, yah, we’ve got the green cheese theory. What’s your side got?

“Nice job you’re doing promoting the EAC there, btw.”

Thanks but what is EAC?

“Are you saying that people need to understand/accept that there is a God before they can expect to study the natural world and how it works (pp)? Sounds an awful lot like religious doctrine to me.”

I don’t think I said that, and keeping the internet masturbatory talking-past-each-other tendency firmly in…mind–
what I did say is you can’t rule God out as a policy because there is ONLY ONE reality and we’re in it. If it includes God it would be silly to have ruled it out because it would hinder your ability to come to conclusions in as objective a manner as possible. Don’t narrow your search parameters when you’re not out of the starting gate.

“I understand that your ‘reality’ is your religion, and that you don’t understand why everyone else doesn’t believe the same.”

Well that is probably accurate enough, after reality is all there is. I do understand why everyone doesn’t believe the same, however. It has to do with consciousness, perception, individuality, ego, and so forth. We’re all just here for the ride, but I try to help other people have a good time, throw them a vomit bag if they need it.

“My understanding of reality is pretty solid to me.”

Well, now that’s your problem right there. Come back when you realize you know nothing.

Me:“Dogmatic prejudices and limitations have no place in science.”
You: “–This is why religious beliefs are excluded from science.”

The dogmatic prejudice goes both ways. That was the whole point.

(I predict science will prove God and disprove RM)
“I don’t see how your prediction would prove God (I assume that you want this to prove the Christian God) though it might be considered compatible with certain Biblical interpretations of God, and probably a few other deities as well.”

Nobody owns God. The Christian (interpretation of) God is a schizophrenic and a sociopath who has been the major cause of today’s atheism. Jesus knew better, but Jehovah has infected Christianity. I consider Jehovah an imposter.

Anyway, I meant that God would be proved in some other way, such as consciousness research. But biology and and chemistry and cosmology are already coming up with rudiments of what may be indirect proofs of God.

“AiG has a list of old world Christian scientists, some with statements about how they set out to investigate/prove God in nature. Of course they don’t really cover how didn’t really find what they were looking for and/or lost their faith, so some further investigation is required.”

Well, it was a noble endeavor, but they expected too much, too soon. It just wouldn’t be fun if it was that easy.

That’s why I think faith in God is highly overrated. Even the pious folks have a faith that is about a millimeter thick. A little scratch and its gone.

Now if science could prove God it would be a great boon to mankind.

“Historically speaking, religion has only hampered scientific enquiry, but good luck with your endeavours anyway.”

Greatly exaggerated. Well, somewhat exaggerated.

“His mind was more profound because he disproved a previously held religious belief? OK, I think you’re trying to say that older/more primitive religious beliefs are less valid as science, but that your more sophisticated religious beliefs are correct as science? Some clarifications of the differences might help your case.”

His mind was more profound because he had a deeper handle on how to think cosmic thoughts, so he was not thrown off his horse at the first unexpected rock in his path. Of course, if religous or other beliefs don’t jive with solid scientific findings, one must take one’s mind back to the drawing board. Rather than see science as in opposition to spirituality, which it cannot possibly be because (if spirit exists) there is only one seamless reality — instead see that it is a compass, a north star that can let us know when we are drifting off course. Which, for us hapless human saps means we are fantasizing again.

-I’m just a layperson hillbilly who tries to keep up a bit with quantum mechanics and string theory.

Noble pursuits! If only more people were interested….

-So, are there miracles? Many people say not, but I think that while they are disconcertingly rare, there are too many reports for me to dismiss, and I believe that I have witnessed ESP occur (which would be nonlocal consciousness)that cannot be attributed to chance.

Well, I suppose this is the key question. I would suggest that the evidence is not great—at least, it is difficult to differentiate someone’s *experience* of a miracle, or ESP, from whether it actually happens in any objective sense. Of course, objectivity is somewhat tricky to pin down, but this is why we try to repeat experiments, and have them repeated by other people.

-My understanding of atomic or subatomic reality, including strings, is that everything is made up of smaller and simpler components until we get down to a nondifferentiated level.

Well, this is how things seem to some extent, but there is a lot more to understand.

-So it follows from chemistry that rearranging these elements changes the atoms from one element to another. If I were God and had access to these inner realms, I would rearrange the atoms from water into wine. Simple, no?

What you are describing is nuclear physics—nuclear fusion and fission describe happens when one element changes to another. There is no need to go down to a stringy description to see this. However, just because nuclear fusion can happen, doesn’t mean that anything goes! In particular, it doesn’t mean that water can be changed into wine on a tabletop via known physical processes. Of course, I’m not saying it couldn’t happen—but I think you’d usually require much more evidence before abandoning the standard picture.

Again, I would warn against interpreting physical processes which have a very well defined meaning in a particular context, and applying them to prove something you *want* to be true. If you want to do physics, it’s best not to come in with any preconceptions about what you want to show is possible….

Since you think the PEH is nonsense, please be so kind as to elaborate on just exactly which portions of it you find unacceptable. Be specific. Until you do I will regard your comment as a cheap shot and will treat it with with disdain and a certain amount of disgust. Got that? Write that down.